Slashdot Mirror


Wayback Machine Purged of Scientology Criticism

muldrake writes "The Wayback Machine, an archive of websites as they appeared in their past incarnations, is reported by CNET in this story as having censored the Scientology-critical Xenu.net, in a repeat of the heavy-handed tactics used against Google as reported in this previous Slashdot thread."

391 comments

  1. Sharks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why can't we all just get a few sharks with some freaking lasers on their heads?

    1. Re:Sharks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      FRICKIN' lasers! Frickin'!

      That is all.

    2. Re:Sharks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Wayback Machine won't archive the truth about Scientology, at least individuals can.

      Visit this site to see the "confidential" secrets of OT III in Hubbard's own scrawl:

      http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html

      (NOTE: Despite Hubbard's claims, no one has gotten pneumonia yet or died by viewing the above).

      For all about the "upper levels" of Scientology, visit:

      http://www.b-org.demon.nl

    3. Re:Sharks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freakin'

  2. Bigger news by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Lifelong Scientology foe, Nicholas Cage, was married to Scientology fan Priscilla Presley last month. Which one changed religions?

    1. Re:Bigger news by sirinek · · Score: 2

      Thats a very interesting observation. Do you have any sources that refer to Nicholas Cage and his anti-scientology views? This isnt meant to dispute your claim, I'm just curious. :)

      siri

    2. Re:Bigger news by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A Google search results in a ton of links regarding Cage's and Jim Carrey's shenanigans. It seems that Carrey is more vehement in his opposition to CoS, but Cage seems to be right there with him.

    3. Re:Bigger news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For now it's just all rumors. But we ARE dealign with an evil mind-controling cult here... http://www.xenu.net/archive/WIR/wir7-20.html

    4. Re:Bigger news by queequeg1 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it Lisa Marie Presley (former Jacko spouse)?

    5. Re:Bigger news by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

      What'd I say? Whoops!

    6. Re:Bigger news by keytoe · · Score: 2


      And for the non-Japanese speaking folk, that link is here

    7. Re:Bigger news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for some reason, it's become the ultimate sign of cool to bash religion on slashdot, kind of like saying you were voting for nader back in 2000 and you were running linux in 1995

    8. Re:Bigger news by alister.b · · Score: 1

      Interesting where all the Google sponsored links go to - all 8 links, to apparently (from the names) pro-scientology websites (that link again: http://www.google.com/search?q=nicholas+cage+scien tology)

      I wonder if Google are aware that the CoS is 'spamming' the adwords?

      --
      --
    9. Re:Bigger news by sirinek · · Score: 2

      IIRC, those links to the right are paid ads, so if someone searches for "scientology", its quite appropriate they show up, so I'm not sure where "spamming" comes in.

      Now, if pro-scientology links were always listed first in the results section of any scientology-related google search. then you can claim shenanigans. :)

      siri

    10. Re:Bigger news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cage was on Howard stern about 2 months ago if memory serves me. When the Question of Scientology came up, he said they did good things for people. Howard the Coward didnt go any further.

    11. Re:Bigger news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I did and I was, but that's not the point. Real religions have plenty of detractors, but they tend to let them express their views. A cult like the Church of Clams can only survive if the truth is suppressed from its would-be victims. Of course, they like to get all passive-aggressive too, and compare criticism of themselves to the slaughter of twelve million people (not all of them were Jews, you know). See below for an example.

    12. Re:Bigger news by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      I noticed this a while back. This is apparently Scientology's way of preventing free speech advocates from purchasing ads pointing to www.xenu.net, which many did during the Google fiasco.

    13. Re:Bigger news by DEBEDb · · Score: 2

      This makes the Travolta/Cage juxtaposition
      in Face/Off all the more interesting if
      you view it in terms of CoS and its foes :)

      --

      Considered harmful.
    14. Re:Bigger news by Darby · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I am still waiting to hear one good reason to run Netscape 7 instead of Mozilla! :-)

      Well there's .... no... that's not it.
      You could... no, I guess you couldn't really.
      You know about the.... hmmm...not that either.

      Well, I hope you enjoy waiting. I think this will be a long one ;-)

  3. I, for one am glad. by Torinaga-Sama · · Score: 1

    I am already tragically covered in Thetans. :-)

    --
    (/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
  4. Just another in a series. by rpresser · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's very typical of the Church's actions; it's very typical of reactions to the Church's actions; and the next obvious step is public pressure from those who have an opinion, resulting in a very typical denoument: reversal of the removal. Ah, this was probably a very typical comment, adding nothing of interest. Go ahead and mod it down.

    1. Re:Just another in a series. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You gotta be kidding...it's not a "church"..especially not one worthy of capitalizing the word "church".....nothing more than a Cult after your $$$. Isn't it interesting how the members almost always seem to be very rich folks.

    2. Re:Just another in a series. by teeth · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Church == Cult

      --
      >>>>truth; beauty; unix.<<<<
    3. Re:Just another in a series. by n9hmg · · Score: 2

      It shouldn't be dignified by calling it a cult, either. It's more like the guys who dress up as Star Trek characters and decide to go full-time.

  5. What the hay? by Apreche · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is it about these scientologists that they can get away with this? The same bill of rights that allows their crazy cult to exist is the same one that allows me to make fun of them. If I had the money I would make the mother of all anti-scientologist websites. If you are a scientologist and are reading this, I invite you to my house.
    It's one thign to believe in an all powerful deity that created the universe.
    It's another thing to believe in a book that some guy wrote, because some other guy bet that he couldn't create a religeon.

    Doesn't anyone have balls anymore?

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:What the hay? by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is it about these scientologists that they can get away with this?

      They have a deep understanding of the power and reach of the legal system. They also have deep pockets to finance squelching operations.

    2. Re:What the hay? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Sorry, I sold my balls for $55,000 a year and a good benefits package.

    3. Re:What the hay? by bogie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If I had the money "

      But you don't and they do. If someone will make it their life's mission to fuck you in ever possible way without relent for all of their existence, would you bother messing with them.

      In others its the American way personified, money buys justice, and he with the most money wins.

      I used to sneer at blanket statements like that, but anyone who disagrees at this point is living in LaLa-Land.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    4. Re:What the hay? by freaq · · Score: 1
      and they have copyrighted their urrrrgg ggllrrrrr {cough}
      religious
      {gasp} (gllargh, that hurt)
      (i think that washing my hands and keyboard would be smart right now)
      teachings so you can't expose them without being in violation of international conventions.

      the good news is, if you're being sued, you know you've got it right.

      --
      united states nuclear device terrorist bioweapon encryption cocaine korea syria iran iraq columbia cuba
    5. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The next thing you know, politicians are going to be suing newspapers for keeping archives of articles critical to them....

      Actually, does this mean that slashdot is now going to be targetted since many of us are bashing the scientologists (sp?)

    6. Re:What the hay? by REDNOROCK · · Score: 2, Informative

      The scientologist have some weird fucking veiws. If i'm not mistaken, they have all this crap about how it's ok to kill/assault/lie/cheat/defam and destroy people if they are against the religion. Anything you can do to silence the 'blasphemeres' is OK! In other words, they think it'd be ok to, say they see you driving along, 'accidently' swerve into you and make your car go head long into a light pole, or use any kind of leverage they have to spread lies that you molest children, have sex with your sister, and kill puppies. All of a sudden, you can't get a job anywhere, and you start getting ticekts for no reason. Of course, it depends who wants your ass. Not ever scientologist really knows what they're about. But, you get what i'm saying.

      --
      Even if I say something insightfull or inteligent, it doens't matter cause I'm an ass.
    7. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's to say the same thing didn't happen with the Old Testament or the New for that matter?

    8. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...not to slam Islam or any other religion, but you have sects/shisms/demagogic wackjobs who advocate flying airplanes into skyscrapers to bring down America, wackjobs driving around Jewish neighborhoods taking potshots at people who "look Jewish" on non-Friday nights, "lone wolf" wackjobs taking potshots at ObGyn doctors, and the occaisional presidential assassin-wannabe "acting under God's Orders".

      There are too many people who will listen/be convinced when someone (external or internal of their head) says, "God says to do it!", will actually go ahead and try to do it.

      While they are the scary ones, at least the ones outside of the heads of the doers saying the words need to be dealt with in some way.

    9. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that it isn't a single book nor written by a single person, but still lives as One.

    10. Re:What the hay? by MrResistor · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. Criticism is legitimate fair use, and is specifically allowed by US copyright law.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    11. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can make fun of them all you want. But if you publish copywrited materials they will nail your ass to the wall. If you slander them, they will nail your ass to the wall. And the court will decide whether or not you have slandered them. That means you will pay a lawyer. Can you afford that?

    12. Re:What the hay? by rgmoore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The idea that he with the most money wins is partially true, but it doesn't cover everything. Yes, it's true that if one side has deep pockets and the other doesn't, the side with deep pockets can frequently bury the other in piles of procedural crap until they run out of cash. And it's also true that having a good (i.e. expensive) lawyer can help a lot. But there are limits to what money can get you. If the facts are clearly in the favor of the little guy, all of the lawyering in the world may not be enough to save the big guy. You see this from time to time when somebody wins a big punative damage award from a large company. Think Erin Brockovich, the lady who scalded herself on McDonalds coffee, the people who sued GM over pickup truck safety, etc.

      The other thing to understand is that having lots of money seems to help more if you're the plaintiff than if you're the defendant. That's largely because the plaintiff stands to get damages if he wins, while the defendant only avoids them. That makes it a lot easier for a little guy to get a good lawyer as the plaintiff, since there are plenty of lawyers out there willing to work on contingency. IOW, if you want to tangle with Scientology, you're better off attacking them with a lawsuit (provided you actually have a case) rather than waiting for them to attack you with one.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    13. Re:What the hay? by gentlewizard · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slashdot HAS been targeted. One of the very few times that content has been deleted from Slashdot instead of just being modded into oblivion was in response to a Scientology lawsuit.

    14. Re:What the hay? by lugonn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't see the Apostles suing Gutenburg for copyright infringment. That's the difference. So no, it didn't happen to the Old or New testament.

    15. Re:What the hay? by http · · Score: 1
      well, yeah, you know that, s/he probably knows that, but the law doesn't 'know' anything except precedent.
      if i recall correctly from my edumacashun, it's considered fair use to quote 'short excerpts', and therein lies the problem. anything over one word _could_ be construed as not short.

      i can't believe i prompted swearing. on slashdot, no less.

      --
      If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
      3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
    16. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are a scientologist and are reading this, I invite you to my house.

      You know they can't enter unless invited, right?

    17. Re:What the hay? by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 5, Interesting
      They also have deep pockets to finance squelching operations.

      And where do they get these deep pockets? Not just their members.

      Are you on Earthlink? Fact: that ISP was started (and is still operated) by Scientologists.

      They have a deep understanding of the power and reach of the legal system.

      Not only that, their members are encouraged to lie and deceive. They have used slander and libel against their critics and have blackmailed third parties into making false accusations on record.

      --
      Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
    18. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not only that, their members are encouraged to lie and deceive. They have used slander and libel against their critics and have blackmailed third parties into making false accusations on record.

      The same could be said about the FBI.

      Knowing the bounds of the law and how to exploit them is all part of knowing the law inside and out.

    19. Re:What the hay? by FatRatBastard · · Score: 1

      So what... at least that why the $cientologist says. The point is to use the legal system as a weapon. If they can win then fine, if not they'll still drag everything out, filing motion after motion in order to bankrupt their foes. They care not a jot the legality of what they do, as they've shown time and time again.

    20. Re:What the hay? by haggar · · Score: 2

      If the facts are clearly in the favor of the little guy, all of the lawyering in the world may not be enough to save the big guy. Think [..]the lady who scalded herself on McDonalds coffee..

      Sure, the old lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled the cofee on herself! Facts were clearly in her favor, oh yeah.

      --
      Sigged!
    21. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI isn't supposed to be a religious organization...

    22. Re:What the hay? by The+Qube · · Score: 2, Informative
      A great book to read on the subject of CoS, their philosophy and tacticts is "A Piece of Blue Sky" by Jon Atack.

      The author was a member of the church and he recounts his experieneces from the time he joined the church and the events that followed.

      --

      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

    23. Re:What the hay? by nelsonal · · Score: 5, Informative

      I should really make this a text file so I don't have to type it each time...

      The McDonald's case, although popular belief would hold otherwise, was actually a reasonably good decision. The story brought to the jury, which is all that is allowed to be decided upon, goes as such. The lady recieved second and third degree burns all around her lower torso and legs, to the extent that quite a bit of plastic surgery was required. However even including reimbursment for medical bills and pain and suffering the compensatory damage was very small (160,000 USD). I think almost everyone can agree that was probably fair, since it compensates her for her lost time, and expenses. The rest of the judgement was punative, and was intended to punish the McDonalds corporation for their behavior. Keep in mind that the verdict was probably calculated as a result of McDonald's finances. It was later reduced to 3 times compensatory damages.
      What sort of behavior would incite a jury to want to punish the company like that? Well, first of all realize that coffee is usually served around 160 F (~71 C), which will not produce the burns she suffered. The coffee was estimated to be about 190 F (~87 C), by medical experts, from the nature and severity of the burns. McDonald's was not errant in keeping their coffee this hot, it was corporate policy. The policy was designed to save money, because hotter coffee lasted longer before dispoal was required. The jury deemed this action so negligent that they decided to punish the company, hense the judgement.

      You can read much more than I wish to type here, at a consumer's attorney page here.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    24. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention their own law firm...

    25. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Think Erin Brockovich, the lady who scalded herself on McDonalds coffee, the people who sued GM over pickup truck safety, etc.

      Erin Brockovich was the lady who scalded herself with the McD's coffee? Man, I must've missed that part when I went to the restroom. Either that, or Soderbergh's not nearly the director I thought he was! Hmm, and McDonald's are the people who sued GM over pickup truck safety? Well, that doesn't make any sense. Hey, wait....

    26. Re:What the hay? by Trollificus · · Score: 0
      On the bright side, it caused quite an uproar and brought Scientology more publicity than it would have had they ignored the post. As it seems to be everytime they try to silence a critic.
      Not only that, but the comments section was riddled with OT3 posts for weeks afterward.

      Come on, where are the OT3 crapflooders when you need them? ;)

      --

      "People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
      - Gov. Jesse Ventura

    27. Re:What the hay? by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      The same bill of rights that allows their crazy cult to exist is the same one that allows me to make fun of them.

      IANAL--and it's clear that neither are you.

      The Cult of Scientology is a private organization, and can censor whomever they want. They can exert copyright law and quasi-appropriate legal tactics to silence their oppponents--and the Bill of Rights can't touch them.

      Chalk this one up as a fault of the first amendment, and whenever you think that the bill of rights is infallible and perfect, remember that it allows scientology to do this, and ties the hands of the only organization that's in a position to squash them for it--the Federal Government.

      It's one thign to believe in an all powerful deity that created the universe.
      It's another thing to believe in a book that some guy wrote, because some other guy bet that he couldn't create a religeon.[sic]


      It doesn't matter where the religion came from--it's a religion, at least until you get to OT 8 or wherever. I could found the "cult of Doug" right now, and if I get enough followers and the darn thing carries on after I'm gone, and it doesn't disrupt everyone's life who joins it, then it's a religion.

      Doesn't anyone have balls anymore?

      The Scientologists apparantly do. Xenu.net does. The DOJ, ever since Bush got in office, seems to have lost theris.

    28. Re:What the hay? by macrohard0 · · Score: 0

      A cease and desist letter, not a lawsuit.

    29. Re:What the hay? by junkgrep · · Score: 2

      Why can't I slander them?

    30. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In others its the American way personified, money buys justice, and he with the most money wins."

      We have a similar saying over at the NRA.

    31. Re:What the hay? by Tink2000 · · Score: 1

      So which is supposed to have the more firm ethical footing, so to speak? A church that promises salvation in the afterlife, or a public institution that assures it's public safety in this life?

    32. Re:What the hay? by Ninja+Programmer · · Score: 1

      Please just go here:

      http://www.xenutv.com/interviews/woodcrafts.htm

      It will explain everything.

    33. Re:What the hay? by torpor · · Score: 2

      They don't promise salvation in the afterlife, they promise salvation in the forelife.

      Makes a difference, you know...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    34. Re:What the hay? by mpe · · Score: 2

      The scientologist have some weird fucking veiws. If i'm not mistaken, they have all this crap about how it's ok to kill/assault/lie/cheat/defam and destroy people if they are against the religion.

      Hardly a position unique to Scientologists. If anything this takes them out of the "cult" catagory and puts them together with "real religious", including various branchs of Jeudism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Shinto, etc. Which have in both past and present interpreted their holy books(s) in a way to justify all sorts of atrocities against people not of "their religion". Sometimes even when those they are attacking.use exactly the same holy book(s).

    35. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...not to slam Islam or any other religion, but you have sects/shisms/demagogic wackjobs who advocate flying airplanes into skyscrapers to bring down America, wackjobs driving around Jewish neighborhoods taking potshots at people who "look Jewish" on non-Friday nights, "lone wolf" wackjobs taking potshots at ObGyn doctors, and the occaisional presidential assassin-wannabe "acting under God's Orders".

      If you are not trying to slam Islam why not also include some Jewish and Christian examples of smiliar behaviour. e.g. Israeli "settlers" who think it's ok to take potshots at the locals, because "God promised them the land". The Christian president of the US who appears to feel that it is ok to bomb any country he dosn't like into oblivian.

    36. Re:What the hay? by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

      If someone will make it their life's mission to fuck you in ever[y] possible way without relent for all of their existence, would you bother messing with them[?]

      Hell no, I'd let her get on with it...

    37. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US prez is no more Christian than ObL is Muslim.

    38. Re:What the hay? by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      Yes, but didn't the Catholic Church try and prevent the translation of the Bible from Latin into other languages? Rather than suing, they just burned the infiringers. One of the causes of the Protestant Reformation if I recall my history correctly.

    39. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might want to read the post more carefully. The ObGyn assaults tend to be perpetuated by the Christian right who are anti-abortion. There have been both clinic bombings and at least one shooting of a doctor in his home.

    40. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if this is true, but I do find it really humorous, considering most, if not all, of the old testement was written in Hebrew and most of the new testement was written in Greek.

    41. Re:What the hay? by hkmwbz · · Score: 2
      "Are you on Earthlink? Fact: that ISP was started (and is still operated) by Scientologists."
      I dislike the Scientologists and their methods as much as anyone, and I'm not saying that what you are claiming cannot be true. However, I've found sites claiming that it isn't:

      http://bernie.cncfamily.com/earthlink.htm

      I didn't look that deeply into this, but it seems people disagree about Earthlink being run by Scientologists or even used for their purpose.

      It seems to be fairly clear that the company was started by a Scientologist, but unless the company somehow supports or is a tool for Scientology today, I don't think it should matter. And I guess it's too big for it to make any difference anyway.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    42. Re:What the hay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI has more morals and ethics than scientology does.

    43. Re:What the hay? by frankie · · Score: 2
      Facts were clearly in her favor, oh yeah.

      Hi there Mr Knee, you're a jerk. If by some bizarre accident you click the following link, you will find out that the facts really were in her favor and McDonalds was being evil as usual.

    44. Re:What the hay? by Tassach · · Score: 2
      Translation of the Bible into the local language were the political hot-button of the day. This was as much (or more) an issue of politics and money as it was over theology. The creation of the King James Bible was far from being the pure and scholarly theological effort that James tried to cast it as being. It was, in fact, little more than a ploy by James I to establish a Royal monopoly on the sale and production of English language Bibles. When James I ascended the English throne in 1603, there were 3 popular translations - The Bishop's Bible of 1568, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. After the Authorized Version was published in 1611, the printing of any unathorized bible was prohibited -- for that matter, printing the Authorized bible required a Royal License.

      James had two primary goals: to try and ease the rampant religious bickering that was tearing England apart (catholic vs protestant as well as puritan vs episcipol), and to filling the Royal treasury. Advancing his own flavor of christianity was a distant third.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    45. Re:What the hay? by quintessent · · Score: 2

      IIRC: The jury awarded millions in punitive damages, equal to 2 days in coffee sales for McDonald's. However, the judge threw most of that out. The jury was also swayed because 50-something people had sustained serious burns in the past, with no changes in corporate policy.

    46. Re:What the hay? by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 2

      Usually at ~71 C?

      Coffee needs to be brewed at a temperature of about ~97 C or else it tastes like crap. Granted, from brewing to serving it will cool a little, but ~87 C is not in *any* way a strange temperature for coffee. (Well, nowadays in McD USA maybe it is).

      What is strange is that someone can get money for being clumpsy. Or stupid enough to think that coffee wouldn't be hot. Might as well sue the hammer company for making a hard and heavy hammer, so it broke my thumb. They should understand that keeping a hammer that hard may cause injury. It is a friggin joke.

      And yes, the jury came to this conclusion. Either the jury is a big joke too, or else they all later were found in Starbucks pouring coffe on themselves for money and wanted a good earlier case to refer to.

  6. Re:New Business Model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2. Sell archived child porn to John Katz

  7. In age of bad PR, and in the land of hypocrisy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has become fashionable to go around making threats to kill millions of human beings and being proud of it, while hiding the agenda behind such threats. I just feel I am living in a nightmare that never gets any better. I feel dark things closing in from all side, and my lungs being squeezed till every last drop of air leaks out. What have we made our world into? How did we get here?

    So here we have the nation of Scientology. We sometimes like to refer to it as an evil cult. Othertimes we like to refer to it as a corporation. But, arnt were being hypocrates? What is true evil? Is Scientology as evil as the three great evil of our time, that have been well defined and written down by our elders?

    This is sad.. I feel contrained.. I feel chained.. I feel a need to exit. I know others feel the same, why are you silent?

  8. The ultimate anit-scientology site by geek · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.clambake.org/

    Operation Clam Bake. Wanna know an interestin fact? Scientologists believe we evolved from clams. Hence the name of the site "Clam Bake".

    This guy has balls taking on this cult. I'm surprised they have put a hit on him. I mean Travolta was a bad mofo in Pulp Fiction.

    1. Re:The ultimate anit-scientology site by liquidsin · · Score: 2

      Sure, Travolta was a bad-ass in Pulp Fiction, and a pretty good psycho in Broken Arrow and Swordfish, but he played a big pussy in Look Who's Talking, and a greased up dancer for most of the seventies. Real scary, that ballet.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    2. Re:The ultimate anit-scientology site by taernim · · Score: 1

      They'll get him while he's on the John... Oh, the irony... ;)

      --
      "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    3. Re:The ultimate anit-scientology site by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      How could you forget his singing career? "Gonna let her in, mmm mmm...."

      What a dork. Oh, and let's not forget his classic performances in Welcome Back Kotter.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    4. Re:The ultimate anit-scientology site by PsyQ · · Score: 2

      I have a few mirrors (including clambake.org/xenu.net) of anti-Scientology sites on my server. Dave Touretzky's Secret Library of Scientology is also among them, he posted here earlier that archive.org have deleted his entire website from their database - my copy of it is still there.

      My server is located in Switzerland, where Scientology is not recognized as a religion and therefore doesn't fall under the same legislation. They're treated as what they are, a commercial entity, and therefore I can criticize them just as I would criticize MS or other big corporations.

      I won't post the URLs to my mirrors right here, but it's not like they're hard to find :)

      Keep this stuff mirrored. Put it on Freenet. Hell, wget entire websites, zip them up and share them on P2P networks. It's not that hard to keep good information from disappearing, just spread it far enough.

    5. Re:The ultimate anit-scientology site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THE QUOTE IS:
      "PC Load Letter? What the FUCK does that mean?!"

  9. what are they afraid of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, what are they afraid of? That people will stop giving them money? That people will think for themselves? Dangerous things indeed.

  10. Is this really supposed to help? by sam31415 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fact: Most people on the net have probably never heard of the Wayback Machine.

    Fact: Most people on the net have probably never heard of Xenu.net, either.

    Fact: People on the net have, however, heard of major news outlets.

    Fact: Censorship is always a great topic for the major news outlets to cover, because it helps portray the image that they would never do such a thing with their coverage.

    Conclusion: What was the Church of Scientology thinking? This move will only increase the number of people hitting xenu.net.

    1. Re:Is this really supposed to help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      although they may be thinking that even though clambake is a site slandering them, if they can have it removed, then they'll still have this whole "scientology" name being thrown out there... which may generate some curiosity for the "religion" ... maybe even soak up some more poor misguided ppl?

      dont really know... just a thought tho...

    2. Re:Is this really supposed to help? by CleverNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      Score this as yet another victory for "Operation Footbullet."

    3. Re:Is this really supposed to help? by Derleth · · Score: 5, Informative
      Conclusion: What was the Church of Scientology thinking? This move will only increase the number of people hitting xenu.net.
      It's an old Scientology dogma to "attack, never defend." The Scienos cannot bear to have sites critical of them to exist where they can do something about it. The only reason xenu.net has existed this long is because it's hosted by XS4ALL, a hosting concern in The Netherlands, and is therefore out of range of the vicious Scieno lawyers. Anything Scientology can hit, it will hit as a matter of dogma.

      In a very real way, the Church of Scientology is waging a Crusade on the Internet. Its knights are lawyers, its swords are copyright law, and its Holy Land is an Internet the Church can control.

      Well, the Raging Clueless Cult will never silence this heathen. Muahahaha!
      --
      How can you use my intestines as a gift? -Actual Hong Kong subtitle.
    4. Re:Is this really supposed to help? by Hanno · · Score: 5, Informative

      What was the Church of Scientology thinking?

      Allow me to point to two earlier postings to explain why Scientology does this:

      They make enemies because they need enemies

      Scientology is a pyramid scheme. The product? paranoia.

      --

      ------------------
      You may like my a cappella music
    5. Re:Is this really supposed to help? by aiabx · · Score: 1

      They have shot themselves in the metaphorical foot, but only because they are spraying bullets around like monkeys with machine guns - you still want to stay as far away as possible.
      -aiabx

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    6. Re:Is this really supposed to help? by $rtbl_this · · Score: 1

      Gee, Wil, no wonder you're having trouble finding work if you insist on going round badmouthing Hollywood's power elite. :)

      --
      "Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
    7. Re:Is this really supposed to help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XS4ALL is an ISP, they are not primarily into hosting. The company was started by a bunch of hackers and has always taken a stand for freedom. That includes standing up for prosecuted web-sites and resisting frivolous government actions (when being asked to reveal information without warrents for instance), but they also provide excellent support for non-MS OS's and are very lenient in the things you can do.

      I recommend them (as a content customer).

    8. Re:Is this really supposed to help? by ClevaNickName · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow, that was clever. If crap like this keeps getting modded up, I'm gonna have to execute "Operation Headbullet" and put myself out of misery.

    9. Re:Is this really supposed to help? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      And with that "always attack, never defend" they're just like the AI in Command and Conquer - you just have to lure them into situations where it is advantageous to defend and you can soon make short work of otherwise superior forces.

      Commander "that was left handed!" Joe

    10. Re:Is this really supposed to help? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Aw, how sweet! Wil's got a stalker! Come and see, everyone, this is just so adorable! Wook at him wiggle his widdle stalker paws! Wook at his paws. He's a cwever stalker. Yes he is. Who's a cwever stalker then? Who is? Who is? Oo is!

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  11. man, i don't get the scientologists by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it's an old public relations adage: "there is no such thing as bad publicity." learn your simple lessons in life scientologists!

    i know about xenu.net ONLY because of scientology's fervent attacks on it. if you elevate something up to such consternation, you only ignite everyone else's curiosity about what concerns you so much about something. how does scientology defeat xenu.net? by IGNORING it. letting it fade into obscurity. the more they attack xenu.net, the more we all know about it, "we all" being those who could care less about scientology one way or the other. and therefore, we now all know about scientology's seedy underside. and therefore, us neutrals now DO care about scientology... that is, we don't care much for it! lol ;-P

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:man, i don't get the scientologists by hexx · · Score: 2
      it's an old public relations adage: "there is no such thing as bad publicity." learn your simple lessons in life scientologists!

      I think they know this all too well. Let us extrapolate a bit:

      Option 1: The "Church" does not force the removal of said website content. Only people who already know how silly said "Church" is visit the old versions of websites that make fun of scientology, and only said people have a good laugh. Publicity: minimal.

      Option 2: The "Church" does force the removal of said website content. The big media companies may publish stories about it. Publicity: large.

      These scumbags are constantly working to get any publicity they can. If that means violating the rights of various persons (Americans) then so be it - more publicity for them.

      Now, the question becomes, what can we do about it? What if 1% of slashdot readers got "free website" accounts with geocities and the like, and just copied/pasted the info from various anti-scientology sites? What if we did this every month? Can the church take on a large number of companies? Sure they can continually search, and continually send out lawsuit threats, but this costs them money...

      Of course, how much money do they have? Travolta (revolta?) makes what, 20mil a flick?

    2. Re:man, i don't get the scientologists by Yorrike · · Score: 2

      That's the only reason Marilyn Manson made it. If that bunch of christians who wanted to burn him at the stake had just kept their mouths shut, we wouldn't have had to suffer through any of "his" awful, awful "music".

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    3. Re:man, i don't get the scientologists by e40 · · Score: 2
      There are 3 types of people in $cientology:

      1. The weak. They need to be told what to do because they can't figure it out for themselves. When they finally figure out $cientology is not the right place for them, it's too late. The hooks are in too deep.

      2. The hunters. They have happened on a good scam and they know it. The "good" part of it is the secrecy and the use of the legal system. It means that their critics must have VERY deep pockets to fight them.

      3. The celebs. We know most actors are idiots and they are easily hoodwinked. They are lavished with all kinds of things (praise, attention, gifts) and think all $cientologists are treated this way. Listen to Tom or Jenna or any of the others talk about it. Pathetic.

      The only way $cientology can lose is for The Word about their scam to be so well known they can't get new members. We aren't even close to getting that type of exposure. We'd need the mainstream media for that, and those fucks are too scared of lawsuits. Remember Time's article about $cientology and what it got them? They won, yes, but it too many years and MILLIONS of $$$.

    4. Re:man, i don't get the scientologists by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      ... the more they attack xenu.net, the more we all know about it, "we all" being those who could care less about scientology one way or the other. and therefore, we now all know about scientology's seedy underside. and therefore, us neutrals now DO care about scientology...

      But we need to care. It's when we stop paying attention to what's going on around us that religious fanatics become powerful enough to fly planes into the buildings of infidels.

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
  12. Boom! by slug359 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Scientology follow the strict doctrine: 'Always attack, never defend,' one of Hubbard's teachings.

    In anti-Scientology circles this is known as 'Operation Footbullet' for obvious reasons.

    1. Re:Boom! by unicron · · Score: 2

      His more common and well known teaching is "Dobbs, they may be pink, but their money's green."

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    2. Re:Boom! by EZmagz · · Score: 1
      Hubbard's teaching isn't the problem here. What's the problem is that the government seems to allow these guys to do whatever they want. Harassment, legal threats, hell, death threats, the list goes on...

      I'd say the government should have stepped into this whole mess a while back, but it's almost impossible with our current Constitution. Oh well, makes for interesting news.

      --

      "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."

  13. Re:In age of bad PR, and in the land of hypocrisy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um.. ok. .U sure you don't want a mint son?

    Big oil getting on your bowls? Fear not!! We have Pepto-bis-crudole.. The answer to big oil problems and high gas prices, just swallow a gallon of this stuff and pour half of it in your car and all your worries would fly off to iraq.

  14. Travolta by Roadmaster · · Score: 2

    Well, he was also an idiot in Mad City. And who-knows-what in Battlefield Earth, based on the works of R.L. Hubbard, scientology's father.

  15. Slashdot.. by Galahad2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow.. Slashdot has looked the same for ever . I guess us nerds like to be mired in traditio... er... consistant. I mean, without the dates, old news, and missing images, I don't know if I could tell the difference.

    1. Re:Slashdot.. by Diabolik · · Score: 1

      Is that why there are so many repeat stories? They just pull them from there.

  16. Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know where online I could get the Scientology Scriptures?

    1. Re:Scientology by DerekTheRed · · Score: 5, Informative
      You can't, genius. That's the whole point. Their "religious technology" is copyrighted, so anyone who posts it, or even refers to it, gets sued by the "church."

      Apparently the deal is that A. they feel they have the right to copyright whatever they want (as I religious institution, I have my doubts about that) but also B. their beliefs are that if you hear the "higher level" teachings before you are ready, you will become sick and die. That's why it's always important to let a low-level Scientology "preclear" know that your consciousness is made up of many spirits called "thetans" from outer space who were banished to this planet billions of years ago by the evil galactic overlord Xenu. Then ask them if they are feeling well.

      --

      "Thank you, God, for your healing gift of religion."

    2. Re:Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have snuck copies of OT3 and such, so it IS possible to get these documents. It is so damned funny it is scary that people like Erika Christensen could believe that stuff.
      start at www.factnet.org, www.xenu.net, www.clambake.org
      good luck
      Do no harm with these fanatics or you will end up like Hensen. A refugee in Canada.

    3. Re:Scientology by (H)elix1 · · Score: 2

      B. their beliefs are that if you hear the "higher level" teachings before you are ready, you will become sick and die.

      I know I felt a little ill when I read a copy of the docs. Oh wait, does laughing till it hurts because some sucker paid for that content count as 'ill'?

    4. Re:Scientology by chriskenrick · · Score: 1

      Copyrighting of religious works is nothing new. Most translations of the Bible are copyrighted too, but portions can be reproduced in accordance with certain guidelines (eg what portion of a total book, etc).

    5. Re:Scientology by Xenographic · · Score: 1

      B. their beliefs are that if you hear the "higher level" teachings before you are ready, you will become sick and die.
      >>>>>

      Fortunately for us, I've never heard of anyone who died from laughing to death... :]

    6. Re:Scientology by lermanet · · Score: 1

      A NY Times article by Mike Allen talked about Hubbard's promise of death by pneumonia due to exposure to the Xenu and the Body Thetans...Their article which is HERE closed with this one great line: "In the purloined scripture, Scientologists warn that unauthorized readers can die of pneumonia. No epidemic has been reported. " Tah-BOOM Scientology LIES

      --
      Ferengi + Borg = Scientology
    7. Re:Scientology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that no Christian church would hunt you down with a pack of lawyers for putting sections of the Bible on your website.
      BIG difference.
      Most people feel that the bible is in the public domain.

  17. Travolta... by Dareth · · Score: 2, Funny

    He promised not to make any more movies if they removed the complaints....

    All together not a bad deal!!!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  18. LawMeme Has Suggestions for Archive.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    LawMeme not only has a detailed report with lots of links, they have suggestions on what archivel.org should do. See, Sherman, Set the Wayback Machine for Scientology .

    1. Re:LawMeme Has Suggestions for Archive.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing I don't get. Couldn't someone mirror the archives on a server in Germany?

      Considering their history, I doubt the scientologists will get very far in a German court.

  19. Erm.. by Galahad2 · · Score: 1

    Darn slashcode killed my link.

  20. God Damn these Scientologists!!! by RestiffBard · · Score: 5, Funny

    oh, wait. he already has.

    --
    - /* dead coders leave no comments */
  21. Re:What the hay? [ANYONE KNOW WHERE?] by ramdac · · Score: 1

    Anyone know WHERE a good site for anti-scientology? I think I'll open a site!

  22. Wait a second by Adam9 · · Score: 2

    Hmm.. so if I publish a page (or even this very Slashdot article) about the Wayback machine not archiving Xenu, would that page (or this article) get put into the Wayback machine? Seems like the press (esp. from CNN) might get archived and defeat the original purpose of suppressing Xenu.

  23. In an odd twist of irony by goodchef · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you want your site removed from the archive, their FAQ refers you to their removing documents page... which comes back with a "page not found" error.

    --

    "Inflammable means flammable? What a strange country!" -Dr. Nick, The Simpsons

    1. Re:In an odd twist of irony by MadBurner · · Score: 0

      LOL that's funny.

    2. Re:In an odd twist of irony by plockton · · Score: 1

      Maybe Scientology claimed the "removing documents page" was theirs?

  24. LawMeme's Suggestions for Archive.org by The+Importance+of · · Score: 1

    Yale's LawMeme actually has concrete suggestions for archive.org Sherman, set the Wayback Machine for Scientology

  25. Re:In age of bad PR, and in the land of hypocrisy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man! I felt exactly like that after having had 10 bean burritos.. Man.. the realease was good.. satisfying.. good lord.. u should try it.

  26. SlatkinFraud.com also blocked from ARCHIVE.ORG by touretzky · · Score: 5, Informative
    As the owners of SlatkinFraud.com, one of the websites that has been blocked completely from the Internet Archive, we were left puzzled and disturbed by the recent explanation provided by archive.org for our site's omission.

    While we understand that the organization behind the Wayback Machine does not want to unwittingly contribute to copyright infringement, we are distressed by the way in which the removal of our site was conducted, and the lack of feedback that we received from archive.org when we questioned this decision earlier this year.

    When a Wayback Machine user attempts to access the archived version of SlatkinFraud.com, they are instead provided with a misleading message claiming that the 'site owners' requested that it not be included in the archive. This is wholly untrue, and entirely in contradiction to the actual views of the website owners in question, who would very much like to see our site become part of the Internet Archive. The material contained within SlatkinFraud.com is wholly owned and maintained by its site owners.

    Unfortunately, as has become clear in recent days, SlatkinFraud.com is not the only site that has been summarily removed from the Archive based on complaints from the Church of Scientology. In the explanation recently provided by archive.org, the writer notes that the Church "asserted ownership" of an unknown quantity of material that was, at the time, available through the Wayback Machine archives. The maintainers of archive.org, however, have apparently made no effort whatsoever to inform site owners of these complaints lodged against their material, and in fact, until now, had not even replied to direct questions regarding the removal of certain sites when asked by the site owners in question.

    This is clearly not an acceptable system for determining what sites or material should be archived by the Wayback Machine, since it does not adhere to one of the main provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: the counter-notification process.

    Under the DMCA, the owner of a site that has been alleged to contain infringing material has the right to challenge that claim via a counternotification letter to the hosting ISP if he or she believes that the material in question does not infringe on the copyright in question. After receiving this counter-notification from the user, the ISP is obliged to replace any files that were temporarily removed pending the complaint, at which point the original complainant must either initiate formal legal action against the owner of the site, or drop the matter entirely.

    This system provides an important check to the sometimes perilous balance between the rights of copyright owners, and those of users. By formalizing the process, and allowing a response from the individual responsible for the alleged infringement, it frees the hosting company from the annoyance of dealing with frivolous claims.

    A similar situation that arose resulted from similar complaints made by Church of Scientology lawyers about certain listings on the popular search engine Google. These complaints initially resulted in the wholesale removal of several Scientology-related sites from the Google database. Once this omission was discovered, the decision taken by Google to remove the sites without notice led to an outcry from its users. In fact, on closer examination of the complaints from Scientology, it became immediately obvious that the Church's lawyers were acting in bad faith by deliberately mixing trademark and copyright complaints, even though trademark complaints are not covered under the DMCA at all.

    The ensuing barrage of criticism and media coverage both national and international forced Google to reconsider its decision. After several days, the company replaced the links in question, and agreed to make public any further DMCA complaints in cooperation with Chilling Effects, a non-profit website dedicated to preventing abuse of existing copyright law. This solution was welcomed by Google users, who had felt betrayed not only by the removal itself, but by the lack of disclosure on the part of Google regarding the initial complaints.

    The explanation offered by the Internet Archive does not mention whether the original complaints received from the Church of Scientology were made under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Such information would be helpful to site owners such as ourselves, as it would assist us in determining whether a complaint is justified, and remove any infringing material on our own volition.

    Assuming that it was, in fact, a DMCA request, it would serve archive.org well to follow the same procedure as that eventually and successfully - - adopted by Google, and make every effort to inform site owners of such complaints in a timely manner. This could be done through a simple email alert system that would inform the site owner that a complaint had been made, or through a similar policy to that of Google, and publicizing the letters, either on the archive.org website itself or through an interested third party such as Chilling Effects.

    This would allow the site owners to decide whether or not to issue a counter-notification, and relieve the Internet Archive of any concerns over contributory liability that may have played a role in its decision to remove the material without warning. It would also discourage copyright owners from making frivolous complaints about material that is obviously protected by fair use, since the process requires that formal legal action be taken within thirty days of receiving the counter notification letter.

    Should archive.org decide not to re-list a site within the Wayback Machine at this point, which is, of course, its right, it should also refrain from suggesting that this was at the request of the site owner, and instead, explain its own concerns over potential infringement.

    Finally, given the enormity of the Internet Archive project, and the benefits that it has provided, and, we hope, will continue to provide to the online community, it is essential for the Library maintainers to be open and transparent about the methodology used in selecting sites to be archived. Removing sites from the archive in a clandestine fashion, as dictated by the current policy, will only lead to increased concern that the Archive itself is rewriting the Internet history that it seeks to chronicle.

    The Internet Archive's stated commitment is to provide a useful, wide-ranging resource for researchers, historians and scholars. It is surely in part due to such an admirable mandate that the Internet Archive has benefited from contributions from sponsors such as Alexa Internet, AT&T, Compaq and Xerox PARC, not to mention many individual supporters who believe in the idea of an Internet history that is freely accessible to all. It is doubtful that these supporters would want to see this ambitious initiative tainted by the suggestion that the integrity of the archive itself has been corrupted by those who would misuse copyright and trademark laws to censor views with which they disagree. The risk of such silent, selective discrimination against protected speech is great; the power to prevent such abuses by making all information related to such attempts to discriminate will always be greater.

    Clearly, the best course of action is for the Internet Archive to adopt policy that is not only transparent, but dedicated to protecting not only its own interests, but those of copyright owners, site creators and, of course, the thousands of individuals who use the Wayback Machine and other Internet Archive services on a daily basis. On balance, the approach taken by Google, modified appropriately for the particular situation faced by the Internet Archive, would seem to be an excellent roadmap for the Internet Archive to follow.

    Kady O'Malley, Dave Touretzky, and Scott Pilutik

    Owners of Slatkinfraud.com

  27. good thing we've got freenet by __aawsxp7741 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Find information about scientology at

    freenet:SSK@Zl388MATYv0Ah8GY6I2GuuNJapYPAgM/borg /2 //
    freenet:SSK@WRhGF3h0ijFh1eVJnFu~H9OyIpAPAgM/an tisc ient/5//
    freenet:SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0P AgM/xenu2/ /

    on freenet.

    1. Re:good thing we've got freenet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freenet is hard to use. Is someone mirroring this information and/or web sites on Kazaa? It would be a great use for it.

    2. Re:good thing we've got freenet by DrXym · · Score: 2
      I run Freenet on one linux box (as a transient node since its a dialup) but so far its performance both speed and success wise has been hopelessly crap.


      It RARELY ever gets a site in it's entireity. Usually you're lucky to get the main content, but even then it's often missing images and secondary pages NEVER work. You can often retry for hours and not get the thing you're after. The only pages that ever remotely work are the Freedom Engine and Freenet Forever and even there graphics never load. Frankly I think the whole thing needs a rethink.

    3. Re:good thing we've got freenet by __aawsxp7741 · · Score: 1
      I agree that it can be quite stubborn sometimes, but there's quite a lot of content out there and retrievable IME. I can reliably get about half of the sites listed as working on the Freedom Engine.

      Of course, once the data store bug gets fixed, things should improve. Currently, the bug causes most nodes to lose their data store regularly, which is obviously not good for the survival of content.

      Also, when the node protocol stabilises and somebody implements a node in C, I expect the speed to improve drastically.

    4. Re:good thing we've got freenet by DrXym · · Score: 2
      I've retrieved sites before now and once I even managed to get the original zipped documents that the original Scientology site pointed to, but it was an enormous struggle. I think the issues boil down to overzealous security, Java and lack of tuning.


      The security issue is easy to misconstrue but I'm referring to the fact that everyone is treated equally whether they need it or not. As an author or a user I'd like to be able to voluntarily trade on some of my anonymity for better service. Likewise, if I'm authoring content I'd like to be able to say which files are more important than others so the servers don't waste their time propogating the wrong stuff such as some crappy bullet point and totally miss the important things.


      I wonder how much time is wasted in the Java impl. I've heard it said they are trying to get it to run via gjc which would be good. It would also be cool if they retooled the most time critical parts such as rng, crypto, key generate, file io to use native C helper apps.

  28. It HAS to be said! by unicron · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Fuck L. Ron Hubbard and fuck all his clones.

    --
    Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    1. Re:It HAS to be said! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Fuck all you junkies and fuck your short memories....

    2. Re:It HAS to be said! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Fuck smiley gladhands with hidden agendas...

      -Who said Anonymous Cowards can't have Sigs?

    3. Re:It HAS to be said! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck all these gun toting hip gangster wannabes.

    4. Re:It HAS to be said! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck retro anything.

    5. Re:It HAS to be said! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck these dysfunctional, insecure actresses.

    6. Re:It HAS to be said! by w4r3z_d00d · · Score: 0

      fuck tool.

    7. Re:It HAS to be said! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck anyone who has a lame nick like w4rez_d00d.

      learn to swim.

    8. Re:It HAS to be said! by Darby · · Score: 2

      I always thought this line was ...dysfunctional insular matresses.
      Matress as in a very impolite term for a certain type of woman.

      Any backup for this one?

  29. Re:What the hay? [ANYONE KNOW WHERE?] by susano_otter · · Score: 2

    Touch the link. It will take you to the canonical anti-scientology site.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  30. To keep the ball rolling by fobbman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Let's keep the chain going by sending your emails of disapproval here.

    1. Re:To keep the ball rolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who can't afford to pay the high fees, have to work in their centers and give portions of there salaries.

  31. Furthering the conspiracy by geek · · Score: 1

    Travolta just got his Jet Airliner pilots license. he even flew his first flight recently. Maybe the scientologists are planning to fly Travolta into the Pentagon. lets all call the FBI!

    1. Re:Furthering the conspiracy by freaq · · Score: 1

      hmmm. a world without travolta.
      a world without the pentagon.
      on second thought, let's not.

      --
      united states nuclear device terrorist bioweapon encryption cocaine korea syria iran iraq columbia cuba
  32. Thetans DRM by jmcnamera · · Score: 1

    The Scientologists need to use their secret Thetan DRM to protect their secret intellectual property rights.

    Hopefully they'll protect it so well we won't have to hear about them ever again.

    Now they need to go after Slashdot to get rid of these posts...

    --
    this is not a sig
  33. DOH! by geek · · Score: 1

    I tried so hard to forget about Grease, and you had to come along and remind me. DAMN YOU!

    1. Re:DOH! by |Cozmo| · · Score: 1

      Saturday Night Fever was much worse.

    2. Re:DOH! by sacrilicious · · Score: 2

      "Staying Alive" (sequel to SNF) harmed me in a lasting way.

      .

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  34. This might be the stark fist of removal by sawilson · · Score: 3, Funny

    that the church of the subgenius tells us to
    beware of. It's a much more logical church
    than the SoC. Some examples:

    "You'd PAY to know what you REALLY think." --Dobbs 1961

    "This is the original Time Control program that has helped thousands to fear no longer the STARK FIST of REMOVAL."

    "Follow your FOLLIES and COMPULSIONS and become rich like us"

    http://www.subgenius.com/

    Many many similarities actually. And it's easy
    to become an ordained minister. Check it out.

    1. Re:This might be the stark fist of removal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL I have a friend who is a huge subgenius fan and doesn't realize its a parody religion. You just made my day.

    2. Re:This might be the stark fist of removal by thelexx · · Score: 2

      And don't forget eternal salvation or TRIPLE your money back! :)

      LEXX

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
  35. Re:Random Lyrics Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut up Mike!

  36. Related Yale.edu Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?nam e= News&file=article&sid=350

  37. Showing support by dirk · · Score: 2

    And now, so show how much we believe that Xenu.net should be viewed, we're going to slashdot the hell out of it to make sure no one can see it! Maybe this is the scientologists real plans to take it down?

    --

    "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
  38. Maybe we need Chinese Internet archive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be ironical if Chinese are using US search engines for accessing "restricted" data and at the same time US citizens would using Chinese web archive for similar purposes?

    1. Re:Maybe we need Chinese Internet archive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be "ironic," but I doubt anything is "ironical."

  39. Consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    But you don't and they do. If someone will make it their life's mission to fuck you in ever possible way without relent for all of their existence, would you bother messing with them.


    You know, one day they're gonna fuck with the wrong person--say, a Tim McVeigh type--bankrupt the hell out of them, ruin their life, the usual. And at that point, when said person has nothing much to live for anymore and certainly nothing to lose, Scientology HQ will go up in a big orange-red ball of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil.


    Frankly, I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already. But with their present behavior, it's only a matter of time.

    1. Re:Consequences. by Malcontent · · Score: 2

      The scientology HQ is actually a ship in international waters at all times. It's immune from the law in any land and is pretty much immune to any kind of attack from a rogue individual. I am afraid you will need a submarine, missile, or a battle ship to destroy their headquarters.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    2. Re:Consequences. by Spruitje · · Score: 3, Informative


      You know, one day they're gonna fuck with the wrong person--say, a Tim McVeigh type--bankrupt the hell out of them, ruin their life, the usual. And at that point, when said person has nothing much to live for anymore and certainly nothing to lose, Scientology HQ will go up in a big orange-red ball of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil.


      Well, they've tried it with Karin Spaink and XS4ALL here in the Netherlands.
      And they lost.

    3. Re:Consequences. by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Informative

      I doubt that. Ever hear of the USS Cole?
      Now if THEY we in a submarine, it might be a different story.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    4. Re:Consequences. by REDNOROCK · · Score: 0

      Dude! You could get a bunch of people in a long distance yaht and dress up in black ninja robes and get swords and guns and stage an assault on their ship! you could fill the dingy up with explosives and ram it into the hull, then when they're trying to escape cut them down with the swords and guns! Man it'd be an all-out scientoligy blood bath!

      --
      Even if I say something insightfull or inteligent, it doens't matter cause I'm an ass.
    5. Re:Consequences. by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 5, Informative

      And at that point, when said person has nothing much to live for anymore and certainly nothing to lose, Scientology HQ will go up in a big orange-red ball of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil.

      Frankly, I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already. But with their present behavior, it's only a matter of time.


      Don't even joke about this kind of stuff - Keith Henson was convicted in California of religious intolerance for someone else cracking a joke on alt.religion.scientology about passing by the headquarters of Golden Era Productions (a Scientology front company) with a "Tom Cruise Missile", and published the coordinates for the complex, along with the occasional protest of Scientology orgs. He was convicted, and bolted to Canada. Last I heard, he applied for refugee status.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    6. Re:Consequences. by Tassleman · · Score: 1

      Since it's in international waters, would it be ok if we did that?

    7. Re:Consequences. by REDNOROCK · · Score: 0

      Legally? Yes! Morraly? Sorta..

      --
      Even if I say something insightfull or inteligent, it doens't matter cause I'm an ass.
    8. Re:Consequences. by Derleth · · Score: 3, Funny
      And at that point, when said person has nothing much to live for anymore and certainly nothing to lose, Scientology HQ will go up in a big orange-red ball of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil.
      And then Scientologists learn what Hindus have known for centuries: Karma's a bitch.
      Frankly, I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already. But with their present behavior, it's only a matter of time.
      Ya ain't whistlin' Dixie.
      --
      How can you use my intestines as a gift? -Actual Hong Kong subtitle.
    9. Re:Consequences. by bitbin · · Score: 1
    10. Re:Consequences. by Marijuana+al-Shehi · · Score: 1
      I am afraid you will need a submarine...

      Sounds like a job for Hagbard Celine.

      --
      "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
      -- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003
    11. Re:Consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but there's the Flag Base in Clearwater, Florida.
      And I would encourage everyone to sign this.

    12. Re:Consequences. by parliboy · · Score: 2
      On the plus side, the corollary is that if someone has the submarine, missile, etc., it's perfectly legal for you cause them to join Mr. Hubbard.

      I wonder if Woz is interested in funding another worthy cause...

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
    13. Re:Consequences. by Doom+Ihl'+Varia · · Score: 1

      Where's Ragnar Danneskjöld when you need him?

    14. Re:Consequences. by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      "Woz submarine sinks scientology fleet" is just too surreal for me.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    15. Re:Consequences. by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He should have bolted to Germany. I'm sure they'd be happy to grant him refugee status, since they don't bend over for the Scientologists like the American court system.

    16. Re:Consequences. by micromoog · · Score: 2

      Hiding inside a mountain with all the other elitist fucks.

    17. Re:Consequences. by villoks · · Score: 2

      Well,

      It's not over yet as can been seem fron very resent Karin's post to Politech. This a very scary example how copyright has turned into a tool of censorship :-(
      Anyway the more people are exposed to the truth about Scientology, be harder job Scientology has to do to recruit new members.

      Ville
      SP4 and and proud of it ;-)

    18. Re:Consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was political asylum, and IIRC he got it and has now been living in Canada for quite a while.

    19. Re:Consequences. by Malcontent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Amazing that "religious intolerance" has become a crime in america. What next? holding people indefinately without charges or access to lawyers? Oh wait a minute never mind.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    20. Re:Consequences. by G�tz · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be possible. The german laws of political asylum are really strict. The don't grant it to anyone coming to Germany via a safe third country. The United States would be one of thouse safe countries.

    21. Re:Consequences. by Isle · · Score: 1

      If he is an american, just dont ask for asylum. He can always get work-permit then a job then a citizensship.

    22. Re:Consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sadly they already have fucked over someone to the point of a shooting. Read about Jairus Godeka.

      That's not funny. Neither is it funny that the cult had to misuse this tragedy by altering history later in a suit against a critic.

      Mike Gormez

    23. Re:Consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientology HQ is a bloody great big mountain with caves full of weapons and food. Seriously. They also have their own independent, and armed navy in international waters - "Sea Org"

    24. Re:Consequences. by mpe · · Score: 2

      The scientology HQ is actually a ship in international waters at all times. It's immune from the law in any land and is pretty much immune to any kind of attack from a rogue individual. I am afraid you will need a submarine, missile, or a battle ship to destroy their headquarters.

      I'm sure there are plenty of individuals and small groups capable of building a torpedo bomber from scratch. Ships are very vulnerable to air attack they have no hope of outrunning even the slowest of aircraft.
      IIRC any ship not flying the flag of a real nation state is considered a "pirate" under international law. If it does fly the flag of a nation if is subject to the laws of that nation.

    25. Re:Consequences. by Artifex · · Score: 2

      Well, they've tried it with Karin Spaink and XS4ALL here in the Netherlands.
      And they lost.


      Yes, but they also tried it with Johan Helsingius and anon.penet.fi in Finland. You can read about the consequences, if you don't already know them, at Karin's webspace on xs4all here.

      --
      Get off my launchpad!
    26. Re:Consequences. by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      I thought he was slumming it in the train tunnels? Or is that only during the warm months?

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    27. Re:Consequences. by Xaoswolf · · Score: 2
      Don't need a battle ship, just one remote controlled iceberg...

      But seriously, do we really want that stuff going into the ocean, and eventually washing up on our shores. If you thought the exxon Valdeze(spelled horribly I know) caused an environmental emergancy, just picture those poor seagulls with scientologists all over them instead of oil.

    28. Re:Consequences. by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Oh come on. Do a little research and find out which prominent French author is on trial right now for "inciting religious hatred" for writing a book in which a character doesn't like Muslims. What's next after this?

    29. Re:Consequences. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Well maybe they need to review which countries they consider safe, because the US apparently isn't if you can get thrown in jail for criticizing a cult.

    30. Re:Consequences. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      That won't work if the US is trying to extradite him.

    31. Re:Consequences. by Darby · · Score: 2

      The don't grant it to anyone coming to Germany via a safe third country. The United States would be one of thouse safe countries.

      Are you certain about this? No European country can legally extradite a suspect to the USA because of capital punishment. Actually, this is probably only true if the suspected crime is serious enough that this might be an issue.
      Nonetheless, the USA isn't automatically considered a "safe" country. In most of the civilized world we are considered a barbarian nation in the same calss as China, and the "Axis of Evil" with respect to our justice system.

    32. Re:Consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this is what Sink! is all about....

  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. Copyright statement by Student_Tech · · Score: 2, Informative
    Has anybody read the copyright statement @ http://www.scientology.org/csi.htm .
    " Users are not authorized to download or transmit any of these materials electronically "


    So by viewing it on a computer you are commiting an illegal act according to the words of the document. It also says that you may not print it.

    Skiming their trademarks page, http://www.scientology.org/tmnotice.htm , that ones a killer. But skimming it in their trade marks they claim (among other things): flag, freedom, Source. After some items they have Symbol or Logo, but not after these.
    1. Re:Copyright statement by Student_Tech · · Score: 1

      Ok, I jumped the gun a little when I posted this. Under the name that they give on their trademark page, I found "Freedom" and "Flag" and "Source" in the USPTO website, and they are only Magazines.
      Although they listed so many of those on their site I am unable to find some of them in the USPTO find. Over all only 173 records were the owner's names contains "Religious" and "Center" and "Technology" (yeah, go booleen searches...), incase you need a link, http://www.uspto.gov

  42. Anti-Scientology site possible IF ... by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 1

    Guess what? It is more often than not copyright violations that get these sites knocked down. A site that was 100% upfront about all sources of all information and didn't include any copyrighted material would be much harder for them to suppress.

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
  43. more anti-CoS sites by edgarde · · Score: 4, Informative
  44. i read something about scientology... by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

    I just read the intro to scientology on Xenu.net and well now i'm really beginning to wonder why heavy-weights like amazon and google have been so polite to this 'church of $cientology'.

    My conclusion is that either those companies have some 'believers' on their lines or they have been paid to take atleast temporarily all links to critical material about $cientology.
    That might not be true but it mostly looks like that, good luck for xenu.net and other sites like that and the 'Warrios of internet' (like they say to be in their site) crippling this 'Church of $cientology'

    How twisted might have been the inventors, Ron Hubbard, mind been to make something like that up and then start believing it.
    He apparently gave his little finger to the devil and devil ate the whole man!

    1. Re:i read something about scientology... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientology, since the debacle of tax-exempt status(1993) has done everything it can to make sure that NOone can criticise the organizagion publicly. Scientology has a herd of lawyers. Scientology sues people and organizations into oblivion in the name of 'religion'.

  45. Re:What the hay?-MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "They have a deep understanding of the power and reach of the legal system. They also have deep pockets to finance squelching operations. "

    Kind of like Microsoft.

  46. Henson's home invaded just yesterday by muldrake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In recent news, Keith Henson had his home invaded just yesterday under pretext of bankruptcy asset investigation, because he has been bankrupted by Scientology litigation.

  47. Fighting back. by BoneFlower · · Score: 3, Informative

    Heres a few ideas on fighting back.

    1) Sign up for all the free websites you can. Throw as much scientology material as will fit in the space provided. Get as many people as possible to link to you. As each gets knocked down, keep putting more up. The internet can be faster than Scientology. Don't do this on paid webspace or a website you make money from unless you can afford the financial loss of the site getting pulled.

    2) Throw megs and megs of anti scientology materials and "copyrighted" Scientology texts in your Kazaa, Direct Connect, Gnutella, etc. share directories. In Direct Connect, you can have a line that users will see a brief description of what you are offering. MAke sure to put Anti-Scientology there.

    3) Get on pro Scientology mailing lists(there have to be a few with open membership) and spam it with anti scientology information. Even if they make it an invite only list in response, you still have won as fewer impressionable minds will randomly join.

    Of course, you have to be a little careful especially with the last tactic, don't use your ISP email address.

    1. Re:Fighting back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There must be a way that we can sic
      Scientology on the spammers and
      the spammers on Scientology and
      then watch the irrestible force
      meet the immovable object.

  48. Interesting thread in the archive.org forums by fobbman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read all about it over in their forums in this thread.

  49. Re: Scientology... by corey_lawson · · Score: 1

    ...perhaps if Google, et al., could reply to CoS' demands to delete anti-CoS data by also promising to delete pro-CoS data as well... maybe that would shut them up. That is what I would do, anyways. But I don't run Google.

    CoS: "You have no right to do that!"

    Them: "Actually, we do. It's our website, not yours. What is fair for the goose is fair for the gander."

  50. I don't get it... by MrSeb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whether or not it's censorship, lack of free-speech, whatever. THEY HAVE THE WORK COPYRIGHTED.

    Mod me down, but this has to be said.

    Copyright laws exist to protect the authors -- they might be using the law pretty heavy-handedly, but it's the law, they can use it.

    When someone violates the GPL (a copyright breach, in effect), we go mental at that person until they release the code again under the GPL.

    This is the same thing, it's just the copyright holder isn't held in such high asteem as linux/opensource, whatever. It doesn't mean that they can't use the law. The law is available to everyone, for whatever purpose.

    1. Re:I don't get it... by ewhac · · Score: 2

      But it's an unpublished work. How the hell is anyone supposed to know it's copyrighted?

      Some weasel saunters into your legal department representing an organization guilty of deception, fraud, and negligent homicide. He claims that some data on your servers is his "property" and must be deleted. You're going to just take his word for it?

      Schwab

    2. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Yes, you don't get it.


      Scientology removed pages that had NO Scientology copyrighted content at all. Since the owners were not notified, they had no opportunity to respond that the Scientology complaint was wholly without merit.


      For those pages that arguably did contain Scientology claimed content, Wayback ignored the provisions of the DMCA giving the alleged infringer opportunity to counternotify. This is wrong as well.

    3. Re:I don't get it... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      THEY HAVE THE WORK COPYRIGHTED.

      Actually, that's not quite accurate. They claim copyright on the work, but simultaneously deny that it's a real "church" document. I've always wondered about that. How can you claim copy rights on something that you swear you didn't create?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to know what would happen to me if I copied sections of REAL religions scriptures? Nothing I say.
      Why is that?
      The chance to VIEW material that scientology has copyrighted is SOLD to people that get caught up in scientology. SOLD like you would sell a book from a major publisher. IF its a religion why can't the material, like the bible or the Quran, be sold at bookstores? Why?
      Why copyright religious teachings?

    5. Re:I don't get it... by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whether or not it's censorship, lack of free-speech, whatever. THEY HAVE THE WORK COPYRIGHTED.

      Mod me down, but this has to be said.

      Copyright laws exist to protect the authors -- they might be using the law pretty heavy-handedly, but it's the law, they can use it.

      You are right, the law applies to everyone, including the fair-use doctrine. I have every right to quote parts of a copyrighted, written, work for editorial purposes. As long as I properly cite the source, this is allowed by copyright law. As such, if I put up a web site and slam scientology, using exceprts from thier books, this is allowed, and legal. Just because my site is negitive about thier cult, doesn't mean that they can deny me fair-use.
      No, these crack-pots are simply using the threat of lawsuits to silence critics. Almost makes me wish I was German, they recognized the Cult of Scientology for what it was, a huge pyramid scheme that brainwashes people, and banned it. Hell, they even went so far as to force Microsoft to give them a way to strip Diskeeper out of Win2k because the company that made it has strong ties to the Cult of Scientology.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    6. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Whether or not it's censorship, lack of free-speech, whatever. THEY HAVE THE WORK COPYRIGHTED.

      Copyrighted or not, it's public information now... ever heard of the Fishman Affidavit? At the risk of sounding like a Scientology school teacher: Go look it up.

    7. Re:I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, you see, Scientology is not like other religions, that's what they admit themselves. But the real reason why they're different is how they publish information.

      Other religions give their religious texts away free of charge, but Scientology decided to give it away through losing a number of court cases, accidentally giving away the the documents freely as part of legal paperwork. Other religions spread the word by choice, this religion spreads the word by shooting themselves to the foot all the time.

  51. You think that's bad? by guttentag · · Score: 2

    You should read this Slashdot posting about this really bad thing they did. Man, that was unbelievable. To think that they actually got away with that... Fortunately, they'll never be able to censor Slashdot!

  52. Re:Random Lyrics Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus, this was the funniest pseudo-troll irrelevant post I've seen in months. Hear hear!

  53. Creative rewriting of history... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had just posted a blog about this topic, yesterday - called "Sins of Ommission" - http://the-edge.blogspot.com - I'm sad to see it coming true so fast.

  54. Freenet by commonchaos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps something like this could be a catalyst for getting the word out for things like Freenet. Instead of putting actual content on the web. Put up a link into Freenet or the like with instructions included on how to get Freenet working.

  55. The ultimate anti-scientology site by c4tp · · Score: 1

    http://www.clambake.org is just an alternate link to xenu.net.

    In all my research, I've found the some very truthful and informative sites about Scientology:

    Another Look at Scientology

    Lermanet.com

    A couple other interesting articles are found here:

    L. Ron Hubbard birthday bash!

    An interview with International President Heber Jentzsch

    Learn the truth about Scientology from more than just OC because Andreas Heldal-Lund (the maintainer of xenu.net) goes a little too far at times without proper proof. He deserves our support, but he's not the only one trying to inform the public about CoS. Read more of what ex members have to say.

  56. Campaign... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2
    I know I often see reports of things that anger me on Slashdot. I sometimes decide it's worth emailing people to complain. This is one of those times. If we all email info@archive.org or wayback@archive.org and register our dissatisfaction at their caving to requests from a cult to block material from perfectly legal websites, they might get the drift that it's bad publicity for them to go down like 50 cent whores.


    If the CoS fuckers bring it to court and win, then there's nothing that can be done, but we have a responsibility as citizens and members of the Internet community to fight this kind of restriction of information about a dangerous cult.


    I personally would be glad to donate some money to anybody faced with a lawsuit from CoS - I know there are probably a lot of other Slashdotters who feel the same way, and could help out a bit. These people are dangerous to the foundation of our free and democratic society. God forbid they should ever come near me or fuck with my First Amendment rights - I would eat these people for lunch and then shit them out into a little hole in the ground, their fruity little celebrity members and all.

    1. Re:Campaign... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlikely that you or anyone could withstand the assault of their legal teams and members. Remember that these people have been told that they are the ONLY group that can save the planet. That means that many scienos are fanatics that would do anything to bring you down. FIGHT do NOT defend is their motto. Be careful what you say about them.
      Remember Sue Meister. Lisa Mcpherson.
      Look at who you are fighting on celeb.txt . Do a search.

    2. Re:Campaign... by WEFUNK · · Score: 2

      If we all email info@archive.org or wayback@archive.org and register our dissatisfaction...

      If you do, one point you might want to make is just how useless the Wayback Machine will quickly and inevitably become as long as third parties have such broad power to remove archived pages. We've already seen far too many examples of people's whole internet existance being removed from the Wayback Machine against their will, simply because of a reference to Scientology and similar censorship.

      Also, while I appreciate the need for actual copyright owners to protect and control their IP, there should be (and probably is) special exceptions for historical records, especially publically available content that is transmitted over public infrastructure. As it is, I use archive.org to access several formerly popular and very informative sites but I'm afraid to publicize them (on usenet for instance, where I've seen posts from people looking for these sites) because frankly I'm afraid that as more people use it, the more likely someone (original owner or third party) will shut down my access.

      I love the idea of archive.org, but I'm hesitant to become too fond of it (or too dependent on linking to its archived URL's which would otherwise be great for persistant bibliographies and citations) since I'm afraid that its removal policy encourages the entropy of its records to rapidly increase. I hope the people donating records and supporting the Wayback Machine keep some back-ups just in case the Wayback Machine continues to erase history and someone else needs to come along to start a better-and-more-complete-and-authoritative-archive .org to fill the gap oneday.

      I hope the Wayback Machine people can convince me that I'm wrong, but today's story really doesn't give me much hope in their ability to provide and maintain such a potentially great resource...

      --
      My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
  57. church and state by fermion · · Score: 1
    I often wonder if there were a more significant separation between church and state here in the U.S., these sorts of things might be solved. After all, a church is charges citizens, and without the aid of wiley accounts, pay no money on the profits. Churches already get special exemptions to discriminate, promote hatred, and create distrust in a community. Given that so much of what churches do is so UnAmerican, why should the get to interfere with U.S. elections or benefit from our copyright laws?

    I may not be completely serious here, but the issue remains. I see Tax Exempt Religious Organizations abusing their status way too often. If they need Intellectual Property Protection, let them pay taxes!

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:church and state by wolf- · · Score: 1

      Technically...
      Nonprofit status can be put at risk by promoting political candidates...

      --
      ----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
  58. XENILLA by jodo · · Score: 1

    So the owners of Godzilla have gone after the Mozilla guys for trademark infringement. Wonder if CoS might go after the creators of Xena the Princess Warrior r.e. Xenu.
    Just wondering...

    --

    "Don't Follow Leaders." Bob Dylan
  59. Google's Solution... by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

    Google puts up a notice if you hit one of the Scientology censored pages, with a link to the Cease and Desist letter and a list of the censored pages.

    Greatest fuck you to Scientology ever, without even having to take them to court.

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
  60. Maybe they should change the description.... by Psx29 · · Score: 1
    from the page:

    The Internet Archive is building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form.

    What it should be:

    The Internet Archive is building a, censored per request, digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form.

  61. Somebody call Alanis Morisette... by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...because this is just fucking ironic.

    The Wayback Machine is quite possibly the GREATEST example of copyright violation on the web. They steal damn near every piece of content on the web and call it a "library." Guess what folks? A *real* library pays for most, if not all, of it's content. (At the very least, they obtain their content by considerably more legal methods: grants, donations, interlibrary loans, etc... They don't just take a shopvac into a book store and suck up everything in sight.)

    And to see them remove one person on the basis of possible copyright violations (note to all: the Xenu guys is most likely a nut; it's not like I'm crusading for the guy.), that's just rich, man.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

    1. Re:Somebody call Alanis Morisette... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confused. If I go into a bookstore with a shopvac, noone would have access to that content in that bookstore except for me. The wayback machine doesn't destroy the site after it has made the cache copies.
      Stop trying to make associations that do not hold up to any analysis.

    2. Re:Somebody call Alanis Morisette... by LogicHoleFlaw · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, archive.org simply caches FREELY AVAILABLE information that is made available by the COPYRIGHT HOLDER. It also respects things like the robots.txt file and owner responses, so that it is trivial to determine what goes into the archive or not.

      Hardly what I would call theft.

      --
      -- Flaw
    3. Re:Somebody call Alanis Morisette... by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      If you go into a book store with a shopvac, and then dump the books in the middle of Central Park for all to read - - you've still stolen the books.

      Theft isn't just keeping it to yourself.

      --

      Ed R.Zahurak

      You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

    4. Re:Somebody call Alanis Morisette... by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      The information may be freely available, but more oten it's made available contingent to you agreeing to some terms of service -- usually those terms being, "hey, don't steal my fucking web site." In either case, though, it's not free to be redistributed by anyone unless the COPYRIGHT HOLDER (your words and emphasis.) expressly grants such a privilege, robots.txt files and owners' responses after-the-fact notwithstanding.

      --

      Ed R.Zahurak

      You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

  62. falun gong? by tobo · · Score: 1

    What was the point with the cult they were chasing down in china? Very similar censorship, though for quite different reasons, i think...

  63. Re:Ever notice.... by REDNOROCK · · Score: 0

    Nope. Not especialy. Why do you ask?

    --
    Even if I say something insightfull or inteligent, it doens't matter cause I'm an ass.
  64. Lesson from the KKK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was it that brought the Klan down, huge civil lawsuits that bankrupted the organization? I believe one of their training ranches was seized and sold.

    Imagine the assets the Church of Scientology owns! Lawyers would be drooling to get a contingency fee of THAT settlement.

    Too scared to post reg...

  65. Windows 2000 and Windows XP - Diskeeper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "Diskeeper", the defragmentation program integrated in Windows 2000 and Windows XP is written by "Executive Software", which was founded by Craig Jensen, an "operating Thetan at level VIII".

    Jensen is not only a Scientologist himself, he also only hires Scientologists - He requested: "Fully trained scientologists, computer skills desirable but not a prerequisite"

    The German government requested Microsoft to release the source-code of Diskeeper for review. Microsoft agreed, but later said they can't disclose the source-code.

    Later on, Microsoft released instructions (which included some registry-hacking) to remove Diskeeper from Windows 2000, which obviously was enough for the German government. That Diskeeper was reactivated after every Servicepack did not disturb anybody, obviously. I have not heard anything about Windows XP - only that Diskeeper is still in there, probably everybody has just lost interest.

    My personal opinion is that Microsoft probably does not have the source of Diskeeper themselves which would mean that not a single non-Scientologist has ever seen a line of code from Diskeeper.

    As a defragmentation program, Diskeeper has of course full access to all files on any Windows 2000 and Windows XP computer.

    Scientologie's stated goal is "clear world" which means the elimination of all non-Scientologists (either by conversion or by other means) on this planet.

    More information here:

    http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/25/058/

    Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

  66. Re:What the hay?-MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    Kind of like Microsoft.

    Actually Microsoft and Scientology have deeper ties than most people would expect. Microsoft usually never licenses any software, but in case of Diskeeper the made an exception:

    "Diskeeper", the defragmentation program integrated in Windows 2000 and Windows XP is written by "Executive Software", which was founded by Craig Jensen, an "operating Thetan at level VIII".

    Jensen is not only a Scientologist himself, he also only hires Scientologists - He requested: "Fully trained scientologists, computer skills desirable but not a prerequisite"

    The German government requested Microsoft to release the source-code of Diskeeper for review. Microsoft agreed, but later said they can't disclose the source-code.

    Later on, Microsoft released instructions (which included some registry-hacking) to remove Diskeeper from Windows 2000, which obviously was enough for the German government. That Diskeeper was reactivated after every Servicepack did not disturb anybody, obviously. I have not heard anything about Windows XP - only that Diskeeper is still in there, probably everybody has just lost interest.

    My personal opinion is that Microsoft probably does not have the source of Diskeeper themselves which would mean that not a single non-Scientologist has ever seen a line of code from Diskeeper.

    As a defragmentation program, Diskeeper has of course full access to all files on any Windows 2000 and Windows XP computer.

    Scientologie's stated goal is "clear world" which means the elimination of all non-Scientologists (either by conversion or by other means) on this planet.

    More information here:

    http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/25/058/

    Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

  67. Re:Fighting back. TAX-EXEMPT STATUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hit them where it hurts. Write your congressman and demand that this cult has its tax-free status revoked. Then and only then will we the people have a chance of defending ourselves from this cult. At the moment the cult enjoys the protection of the federal government.

  68. So the past is being censored... by aerojad · · Score: 1

    Not that I am for critising anyone.. but in the end everyone has the right to say what they want, if we agree with it or not, if it is good and just or not. So I leave you with this... "And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'."

    --

    SecondPageMedia - Wha
  69. Where was the law for Lisa McPherson? by Derleth · · Score: 1
    The law is available to everyone, for whatever purpose.
    Interesting you should mention that, seeing as how the Church has killed before and nothing much has come of it. Where was the law available for everyone then?

    I referr you to this page, the Lisa McPherson Memorial Page. The Church basically took Lisa from a hospital after a car crash to a hotel, where they deprived her of food and water until she died. She was under Scientology care, in direct supervision of people following Scientology doctrine, when she died of extreme dehydration.

    Law? The Church deserves no law, for it uses the law to its own ends, proclaiming it as it sees fit and ignoring it when it is inconvenient for them.
    --
    How can you use my intestines as a gift? -Actual Hong Kong subtitle.
  70. Anti-scientology hosting by abiwon · · Score: 1

    We are offering no-cost hosting for any and all anti-scientology websites.

    We will arrange you with as much diskspace/bandwidth and technical resources needed to disseminate and publicise your anti-Scientology site.

    Online chat (ICQ/AIM) available for tech-support.

    rabbimmsNO@SPAMispeed-dot-com

    Free Speech --> Free hosting
    May Scientology dissappear once and forever.

    p.s. refer to this quote if needed for the free (as in Free-Speech) hosting.

    p.p.s. don't forget to checkout www.xenu.net

  71. Scientology: the Enron of religions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Enron - L Ron... get it? Oh nevermind.

  72. I cant believe that anyone takes them seriously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially not someone who has read their bible (i have). It sure shows its writer in a new light. The story is in par with any sience fiction book but this is the first to become a religion.As entertainment its alright but as a religion its awful. Im all for freedom of religion but not the kind that brainwash people. A religion must be able to stand on its own legs and Scientology is not able to do that. Any sane person that reads their scripts on there own will draw the same conclusion. They are way up the creek!

    Thats probably why they are so afraid of their scripts getting out. Anyone that reads them promptly file scientology under /dev/null.

  73. Scientology is worse than you think by lermanet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The wayback machine situation and the google debacle previously covered on slashdot is just the tip of the iceberg of deception called Scientology.

    The efforts to silence criticism cover the the complete gamut of the edges of what society will tolerate.

    Time Magazine 1991
    Time Magazine was forced to spend 7.5 million defending this suit.
    The Judge in the case concluded that Scientology was a cult.

    Don't wonder why there arn't more ex-members speaking out, Scientology has a pattern of conduct of litigation for silence. Look at how much they have spent GAGGING ex-members HERE. - Note well: This is just what I have been able to find out

    Scientology claimed in its own court filings to have spent 1,700,000 suing me in RTC vs Lerma. Judge Brinkema was so outraged buy their conduct in the case, the raid where the scientologists, themselves, searched my home, even when they moved the attorney fees for the for 5/17ths of case that they 'won' { having LOST their TRADE SECRET CLAIMS ) for the story of XENU and the BODY THETANS.. Judge Brinkema Awarded them ZERO.

    Further Google, while running tons of adverts for scientology REFUSES to run mine

    Remember this - what we have webbed is only WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT for sure... I've been at this for 8 years trying to expose them, and even for me, I keep finding out that things that are worse than even I think

    You have witnessed just the tip of the iceberg of the Scientology's pattern of conduct to try to intimidate witnesses into silence by extortionate conduct.

    Anything you can do to get the word out will be appreciated..

    Sincerely,


    Arnie Lerma
    An Ex-member
    PS: Send lawyers and money
    --
    Ferengi + Borg = Scientology
    1. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by C0LDFusion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since the Google debacle, I myself felt compelled to join the worldwide battle against the Cult of Scientology.

      Since I've begun, I've met individuals like Arnie Lerma here, as well as Elizabeth Ann Cox, and members of the Lisa McPherson Trust. I've talked to people who've been at this for decades.

      They told me stories that before I'd become vocal, would've sounded stupid and impossible. But once I came out to join them for one picket, everything became true.

      I picketed the DC Org earlier this month. I was followed, photographed, questioned, and everything they'd told me was true. That the "Church" would attack and attempt to intimidate anyone who dared speak out.

      This "church" was the first one where it's "parishoners" make fat jokes in public. That anyone who says that it's wrong to censor google is a bigot.

      Scientology is EVIL. Scientology doesn't care about anything but money. Scientology's only consistent results are lawsuits and ex-scientologists. And if Scientology had it's way, everyone would be either dead or a Scientologist.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    2. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UNtil the posting of the google story on /. I had ignored scientology like I do most cults. NOT ANY MORE.

    3. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arnie is correct about the church of scientology. This is not a religion, rather it is a group of individuals blindly perpetuating the consumer fraud that is scientology. A committed scientologist will follow the teachings of LRH. People disconnect from friends, family and business associates. Lives are ruined, fortunes lost -- all in the name of scientology.

      This group must never be allowed to have any control in major financial enterprises, the military, government agencies, or politics. No matter how much you learn, it is still worse than you think. Regardless of how much I learn, how much time I spend doing this, the depths to which scientology will stoop to utterly ruin an individual never fails to amaze me.

      Elizabeth Ann Cox
      aka, Bunnyann

    4. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by gerardrj · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Hmmm...
      I'm not a Scientologist (not affiliated with ANY religion), but I've looked over your web site and watched the flash animation. All I can say is this:

      Most all of what you say is also applicable to the Roman Catholic Church:

      They exist soley to collect money (sure they spend some of it on charitable things but what's with the gold goblets, fine linen robes, vast tracks of land, incredible ornate arcitecture, etc)
      They intend to take over the world by converting everyone to their faith and using their vast monetary reserves to pay for votes in government
      Followers of the religion are often lied to by and coerced out of their money. Many give upwards of 50% of their income to the church.
      Many people have died because of their beliefs that where brainwashed in to them by the curch. How many suicides are caused by people's depression over their not living up to the ideal of the curch?
      When corruption is alledged within the curch, lies, coverups and misdirection are applied to 'fix' the sitution. The victims are chastized and declared as partially responsible for their victimization.
      Issues that get to court are often settled before trial with large undisclosed amounts of money from the curch
      They encourage their members to NOT read material about other religions, and detractors of the curch
      Many members of the curch use violence or legal tactics to silence detractors of the curch

      So what's the problem again? Oh yea. the RCC has been around for 1500 or so years, and Scientology is only about 20 years old. Older MUST be better. So why not go back to the oldest religions and worship as the Greeks, or the Chineese?

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    5. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Good. If you know anyone you care about or are related to who is in Scn... GET THEM OUT! NOW!

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    6. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to say? That the RCC is evil, or that Scientology is good?

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    7. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by gerardrj · · Score: 2

      Neither. I was not attempting to assign value to the comparison. Religion is a personal choice and is itself the basis for most people's assignmen of value of other religions.
      RCCers might think COS is evil, COSers might think RCCers are evil. Both are right, both are wrong in thier own eyes.

      There is no such thing as universal 'good' or 'evil', as is often restated: Everything is relative. Unfortunately most people can't or won't step outside their own views to evaluate something from another point of view.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    8. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      They exist soley to collect money

      Well, not exactly. L Ron Hubbard founded Scientology with a statement that it was just to make money. Historical evidence (including, but not limited to, the Bible) indicates that Jesus of Nazareth did not found Christianity due to a bet against another rabbi. Even if you don't believe He's the Son of God, you have to admit his teachings are more socially acceptable (as in, not sociopathic, paranoid, psychotic) than Hubbard's.

      Now, whether the current Roman Catholic Church or any other Christian church are still following in His footsteps, or exist solely to collect money, is subject to debate. My belief is that most Church officials have their hearts in the right place, but no organization made up of humans can be free from corruption.

      Many give upwards of 50% of their income to the church.

      Too bad none of those people go to any church I've attended. Catholics on the average don't even hit the 10% the Church "recommends" - most don't come close. I'm one of them, because I think my money can be put to better use helping people than building a new church building, as nice as that might be.

      Oh yea. the RCC has been around for 1500 or so years, and Scientology is only about 20 years old.

      They say the difference between a cult and a religion is a couple hundred years. They may be right. Incidentally, the oldest religion that's still being practiced relatively the same way it always has is probably Hinduism.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    9. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by C0LDFusion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most all of what you say is also applicable to the Roman Catholic Church:

      The Catholic Church does not have a policy of "Always attack, never defend.", it does not have an "Office of Special Affairs" that hires P.I.'s. It does not break into government buildings.

      They exist soley to collect money (sure they spend some of it on charitable things but what's with the gold goblets, fine linen robes, vast tracks of land, incredible ornate arcitecture, etc)

      Soley [For the sole purpose of?] for the purpose of money? Maybe in your eyes. According to your theory all religions that exist outside of a few people's basements is for the purpose of collecting money, because many churches/mosques/temples are on expensive tracts of land and are quite ornate.

      They intend to take over the world by converting everyone to their faith and using their vast monetary reserves to pay for votes in government

      You're thinking of the Baptist Church. If the Catholic Church bought votes, the only thing that'd be different is there'd be no abortion and condoms would be outlawed. That'd be pretty much it. And it's a bit different from Scientology, in that Hubbard stated that those who cannot become Scientologists must be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow".

      The worst the Catholic Church will do is excommunicate you, and once you've reached that point, you probably WANT to be excommunicated.

      They encourage their members to NOT read material about other religions, and detractors of the curch

      I've never been told by any member of the clergy to avoid reading anything else. In fact, one priest encouraged me to read everything I could about every other religion.

      So what's the problem again? Oh yea. the RCC has been around for 1500 or so years, and Scientology is only about 20 years old. Older MUST be better. So why not go back to the oldest religions and worship as the Greeks, or the Chineese? The problem is the following:
      1. Scientology tells people they are using a SCIENCE of the mind when they start. There is no SCIENCE in SCIENTOLOGY.
      If the Catholic Church claimed that communion was a SCIENCE, everyone would cry bullshit, but it's fine to hook someone up to a low-power TENS unit and induce a trance state and call it "applied religious philosophy" and "technology"?

      2. RCC's paid for it's crimes in the past and is paying now. As we post, Churches are closing and priests are having to either ditch the only vocation they've known since they were kids, or leave the communities they care about.
      Scientology answers for few of its crimes. Not to mention that they obfuscate the past of their founder and replace it with a fabrication that not only includes falsified stories of Nuclear Engineering and Naval War Injuries, but of travels, and even of his own family, including bigamist marraige practices.

      3. If my pockets are empty, I can still recieve Sacraments at any Catholic Church and I can still partake in communion at any protestant church. I'm not sure about other faiths, though. I do know, however, if I go into a Scientology Org and ask to take Dianetics Auditing, they'll ask where the money is. I tell 'em I'm broke, and they ask about credit cards, they want to know if I have any inheritance, or maybe I could take out a third mortgage...ANYTHING...but I can't get anything for free, except the personality test.
      It's the money factor. People volunteer their money to the Catholic Church. They won't kick you out if you don't tithe. But the Scientology guys will use ANYTHING to get you to drop some Benjamins.

      4. If I fail to show up at mass, I don't get annoying phone calls from guys asking why I haven't been around.
      If you don't show up for regular auditing at the local Scientology Org, you will be called daily, and they'll harass family members who "hold you back". And even if you get 'em to stop, they'll still junk mail you.

      And finally, most other established religions make no claims to be totally compatable with any other. There is no priest who will tell you that you can be a Wiccan and a Catholic at the same time. There is no Rabbi that'll say you can be Jewish AND a Muslim at the same time.
      Scientology claims you can be a Scientlogist and anything else at the same time...and it seems right...until you reach the upper levels and have spent around $500,000 and they tell you L. Ron Hubbard is the Messiah and that all other religions are implants from space aliens.


      In closing, there are BIG differences. Don't compare the two. Until you've done battle with Scientology, it doesn't seem as real as it is. And it's worse than you think.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    10. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by tikk · · Score: 2, Informative
      The Catholic Church does not have a policy of "Always attack, never defend.", it does not have an "Office of Special Affairs" that hires P.I.'s. It does not break into government buildings.

      Actually.. you'd be surprised at what lengths the Catholic church is willing to go to. This Article will scare the crap out of anyone not paying close attention to the priest-molestation saga. The first lines of this story sound like they're describing Scientology..

      Blaming rape victims for their own recklessness.

      Hiring private investigators to track down incriminating evidence.

      Suing victims for slander.

      Suing minor victims' parents for failing to watch over them.

      Intimidating witnesses.

      Concealing evidence.

      Stonewalling court proceedings.

      Denying knowledge of abuse -- unless the victims can prove otherwise.

      In the high-stakes arena of personal-injury lawsuits, bare-knuckle tactics like these are commonplace. But it's the last thing you might expect from the world's largest and most powerful spiritual institution. For nearly two decades, however, the Roman Catholic Church has used these very methods in its defense in lawsuits alleging sexual abuse by members of the clergy.

    11. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by gerardrj · · Score: 2, Troll

      You are comparing a mature and settled RCC against a young COS. I think it would be much more appropriate to consider the actions of the RCC in the dawning years, a time when if you didn't show up for mass, didn't tithe a large enough sum, or violated any rules you where cruicified or stoned to death. If you where lucky, you would just be harrased by your peers until you moved away or took your own life.

      When the RCC was started, it was laughed upon and its members scorned. Slowly the church grew in power through monetary donatios, political intruige and war. You ask me not to compare the two, yet the comaprisons are undeniable and plentyful.

      Perhaps this is a common starting point for what will become the 'great religions' on the future. Maybe it's common for new religions to force themselves upon the masses, at least until they reach critical mass in members and mindset. Those that don't are destined to languish as a minor player in the spiritual arena. In 1500 years, perhaps some new 'cult' will be coming to power and the COSers will be saying 'but we've paid for our crimes'. Only time will tell.

      Finally: you can be a Buddhist and anything else as the same time. But then I always use hte more universal definition of religion that defines the word as a set of tenets used to shape ones actions and goals in life. Buddhists do not worship Buddha as a god, but I think few would contest it as a religion. To my knowledge the teachings of Buddha are not incompatible with any of the major religions of the world.

      All I know is that in the end we all die. Only then is the truth about all this known... or not.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    12. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by lermanet · · Score: 1

      ABOUT RELIGIOUS CLOAKING

      I suggest that you Look at http://www.lermanet.com/LRonHubbard2.htm Which I herewith bequeath to slashdot till the end of time in case Archive.org can't manage it.

      Having watched with mine own eyes in 1969 as "PRE-CLEAR FOLDER ADMIN" turned into "CONFESSIONAL FORMULARY", we were asked to wear white "collars" and watched as a cross was dragged into the building through the front door... WHILE ALL THE STAFF WATCHED AND KNEW IT WAS MERELY A "JOKE" AT THE TIME TO FOOL THE US GOVERNMENT which I later, much later learned was IN THIS CASE:

      "An individual processed with the aid of the E-meter was said to reach the intended goal of "clear" and was led to believe there was reliable scientific proof that once cleared many, indeed most illnesses would automatically be cured. Auditing was guaranteed to be successful. All this was and is false -- in short, a fraud. " Federal District Judge Gesell 333 F. Supp. 357; 1971 U.S. Dist

      I was there, so was Joe Harrington, so was Gordon Bell, so was Alan Walters...

      "I attest this to be exactly the truth." says Roger Gonnet - Ex-director of Scientology in Paris

      We joined an applied philosophy based upon the "scientific" principles.

      Claiming Scientology is a religion WAS and IS a LIE!

      The Religious Cloaking described above was invoked by a Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, issued 12 February 1969 , on page 119 of the 1969 version of Volume 6 of the Hubbard Organization Executive Course ""All Orgs are now Churches" and "Stationary is to reflect fact than orgs are churches" and "All public literature must state that Scn is religious" It also states "This may or may not be publicly acceptable. This is NOT the point. It is a requisite defense."

      Arnie Lerma Ex-member
      --
      Ferengi + Borg = Scientology
    13. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by gerardrj · · Score: 2

      And how many people have been told that praying, laying of hands, exorcism and many other 'Christian' acts would heal them, when in point of fact evidence is quite the contrary?

      You confess, and a person tells you you are healed of all sins and led to believe this was reliable proof that once repentant many, indeed most troubles would be solved.

      Scientology is as much as religion to its followers as Catholosism is to its followers. If you are of a Judeo/Christian faith you should understand that you are in no place to be judging the acts of others.

      Most churches are not religious in the spirit of their underlying beliefs. Looking at the teachings their Jesus and the words of their god in the Bible, there is absolutly no need for a curch, tithings, or anything of the sort. The church exists soley as a political institution to collect money and act as a symbol of power to aid in converting the hethens.

      I've read the Bible and can't recall anywhere a demand from the god that priests should live in splendor despite a vow of poverty (yes it's a loophole that the church owns the goods, not the priests), or that followers of the religions should use the politial infrustructure to further their cause and legistlate their form of morality.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    14. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by lermanet · · Score: 1
      Even Worse than THAT

      Send a copy of this to YOUR congressman

      There is an organization that, that regardless of which corporation its members work in, encourages and supports the following:

      1) A plan for the best apparent performance monetarily on a weekly basis, compare to planning for the next quarterly report versus planning for the long term...

      2) Saying publicly that its members must obey the law, while turning a blind eye if those members manage to accumulate vast sums of money. - Example - Reed Slatkin, the perpetrator of a 1/2 billion dollar ponzi scheme.

      3) That hold's its goals above those of law, and whose operating headquarters, being tolerated and allowed to flourish in the United States is by our toleration of it, causing distrust and consternation amongst allies around the world.

      4) An organization which extorted the IRS to give them tax exempt status under a sealed, secret settlement, by the filing hundreds of nuisance lawsuits.

      5) An organization that has forced its own members to have abortions

      6) An organization that was party to the largest conspiracy to infiltrate and burglarize government offices and whose leaders were convicted and went to jail in 1982.

      7) An organization that has been convicted of "breach of the Public Trust" in Canada.

      8) An organization whose founder has been convicted of FRAUD in France.

      9) An organization whose members are encouraged to "Make it go right" without reservation, to bring in money.

      10) An organization who is represented by the same law firm that once represented both the USSR and the American Communist Party.

      11) An organization that to this day lies about its own founder's military record as part of its plot to deceive young people and minorities who do not have access to the voluminous documentation on the world wide web.

      12) An organization with a long documented policy of abuse of our court system, specifically, "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."(as quoted by Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema in RTC Vs Lerma)

      14) An organization with an immutable and totalitarian policy to infiltrate, influence, and dominate American communities and government.

      15) An organization the breaks up families with a written policy of disconnection from troublesome sources of information.

      16) An organization that runs veritable gulags for the disaffected so that they might never be witness against them.

      17) An organization whose founder states "Someday, someone, will say this is illegal.. let's make sure that by that time we are the ones who say what is legal or not."

      Would you not be motivated to ACT?

      Now what if this organization were called Scientology,

      Would you lose your will to act?

      I HAVE NOT

      --
      Ferengi + Borg = Scientology
    15. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by lermanet · · Score: 1

      OK, my opinion regarding scientology's bogus religosity being merely religious cloaking is what you are replying to.

      So, I feel confident I could prove scientology is just an elaborate scam

      Regarding religions, and you bring up some that answer to a higher power, instead of a dead bad science fiction writer

      I have one question for you, are you a scientologist? I expect them to start spamming these threads to try and make the critical content posted about Scientology, harder to find... and of course have every claim, especially the SCIENTOLOGY IS NOT A RELIGION clam watered down with endless verbiage about esoteric subjects

      There are certainly problems within many religions. But discussion of those problems are way out of the realm of discussion of the Scientology Scam

      Scientology is like a 19th century seedy carnival side show, whenever someone in the audience would yell out how the trick was done, he would be dragged outside by a couple of toughs stationed there for this purpose, and beaten up. Scientology's demeanor is identical to this, only in the 'civil' 20th century they use lawyers, then the entire sordid affair is cloaked in bogus religiosity.

      read THE KING OF CONS

      Sincerely,

      Arnaldo Lerma

      --
      Ferengi + Borg = Scientology
    16. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by gerardrj · · Score: 2

      I thought I made it quite clear in one of my original posts that I am not a Scientologist, though I have read Dianetics. Just as I am not Catholic though I have read the Bible, not Jewish thought I have read the Torah, nor LDS though I have read the Book of Mormon. I am Atheist, and I write my own morals and rules. I'm not defending or atacking any religion.

      Yes, there are problems with ALL religions. Hence there are problems with Scientology for that very reason.

      Again, I see nary a distinction between the actions of the initial Catholic religion and the current actions of the inital Scientology Churches. The implimentation differs, the methodology is the same, both behave as the circus bouncer.

      I think you focus on the modern term of 'religion' as being the belief in a single supreme being, not a method by which to live life, hence our differences. You perhaps should be arguing that Scientology is not a church. Like it or not, Scientology defines a method of living life by a set of rules and proceedures to achieve happyness and 'enlightenment'. That is squarely in the legal definition of a religion. Perhaps your grievance is that they chose a name that is not easly converte to an "ism"? Catholasism, Judiism, Buddhism, etc. (sorry, I'm not up on my "ism" spellings)

      Again, I am not going to assign a value of right/wrong or good/evil to any of the institutions I've discussed. I'm merely pointing out similarities in the initial years of what many consider to be 'the one true religion' and what many consider to be 'a pack of lies and deciet'. Depending on your point of view, either may be either.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    17. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by gerardrj · · Score: 2
      I've never been told by any member of the clergy to avoid reading anything else.


      Except perhaps for educational materials on evolution, contraception, abortion, satanism? I'm not saying that you in particular have recieved such instruction, I'm just saying that I regularly see churches and their supporters on TV claiming that people should not read these things and that such material should be banned. Perhaps this is just a small over-vocalized fringe group of the religions, but he who speaks loudest speaks for all.

      I've certainly never seen a high ranking curch officer handing out or encouraging the study of such material.
      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    18. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by InnovATIONS · · Score: 1

      Oh puhleeese what a lame piece this is. No human institution is perfect, but the church is completely open about what its beliefs are and does countless good works of charity. Look at the events that this thread are about. I certainly don't see the Catholic Church (or ANY other church) trying to close down Google searches and archives of its critics. And saying that suicides are caused by depression over not living up to the ideals of the church...you obviously understand very little of church doctrine. A very big part of Catholic doctrine has to do with accepting our flawed nature, accepting divine forgiveness for it and moving ahead from it...not depression. A lot, justifiably, has been said about the abuse scandals of the church. But two things tend to get overlooked. The first was that psychologists in general were much more optimistic at the time that this sort of thing could be treated and cured. The other thing is that, compared to other religions, the Catholic church has a centralized organization. If in some other christian denomination a pastor was accused of some scandal the church would just dismiss him quietly and hire another pastor. The main reason that you are not seeing the same sort of lawsuit against other churches is that there is no large entity worth suing in most other cases.

    19. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the groups on TV are Evangelicals. They take the bible literally and I will admit there is some wierd stuff in the bible. True christians according to some of the most radical groups do not eat pork and they believe that the End-Time is near.

    20. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The difference is that you are comparing the deplorable actions of members of a religion to the written practices of a fringe group that calls itself a religion. It is possible to find members of all religions that have done something horrible.

    21. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      They intend to take over the world by converting everyone to their faith and using their vast monetary reserves to pay for votes in government.

      You're thinking of the Baptist Church.



      No, you're thinking of the MORMON church. Please don't throw the Baptists (of which there are several denominations--Southern Baptists are only one of many Baptist Churches out there) under the bus for the actions of another denomination.
    22. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by praedor · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have experienced a small piece of Scientology's perfidy. Posting an obvious joke about Tom Cruise missiles for sale to be used to attack Scientology centers throughout the world in a newsgroup spied upon by scientologists got a PI sent after me. He misrepresented himself to a university cop where I was working (and from where I posted mentioned joke) as an FBI agent. The university cop, in conjunction with university computer security personnel hunted me down by manually searching for a computer with a certain IP address (that assigned to me). They found it and investigated me and almost pulled my internet privaleges.


      The university cop told me that this "FBI Agent" indicated that I would probably be visited by FBI agents and questioned (as a potential terrorist with Tom Cruise Missiles, whatever those are). I decided not to wait on the FBI to come to me and went to the local FBI office and presented myself so I could clear up the ridiculous situation. They had NO clue who I was, had no interest in me, had never heard of this (mis)represented FBI agent that started the whole mess. With the aid of some anti-scientology people and a little internet detective work, I identified the likely "FBI Agent" as a particular PI working out of the DC area and, lo and behold, known to certain scientology critics as an occassional tool of the Scientologist criminal organization. I identified the individual to the FBI and the university cop. The university cop was dreadfully sorry for having taken any action against me and became my ally (too late for certain things...a good deal of irreversable personal information was provided to the fake "FBI Agent".


      The REAL feds contacted this PI to see about his criminal act of misrepresenting himself as a Federal Officer - he denied it of course, inspite of the clear statement to the contrary by the university cop (this is a real cop, not a fake student cop or some such...they are a branch of the city cops where the university resided).


      The Scientologist criminal organization tried to cause me trouble but I won in the end. If any real harm comes out of this, I still have the very real option to sue the crap out of certain people for this entire episode (there were some agregious privacy violations involved). I have kept ALL my correspondence with the FBI, the university cop, and those who aided in my personal investigation of who the "FBI Agent" really was. It took only a few days of relatively simple internet-based investigating to ID this clown.


      The Scientologists are a criminal terrorist group and needs to be eliminated just as surely as they were eliminated from Turkey recently.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    23. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by forkb0y · · Score: 1

      Gerard,

      Really, the anti-Catholic racist jibe is pretty out of place here.

      1) You know well the Catholic Church doesn't exist to collect money, it exists to save souls. Mock that as you like, but it is what any Catholic I know would hope they could do, in whatever small way they are able.

      2a) The Church would like it very much if everyone believed the same thing, but actually we do a pretty rotten job of 'converting' people. The hope is that we can help people get their own lives in order by giving a good example of our own behaviour.

      2b) Wouldn't it be nice if ANY government was on the side of the Catholics. If you had done any research on the subject you'd see that for most of the last 2000 years, people both in and out of power have had the same hateful point of view you do about Catholicism. In fact, I'd venture to say that this is the ONE thing we DO have in common with Scientology, the fact that quite a lot of people harbor significant blind agression towards us without bothering to even find out who we are or what we are really about.

      3) Don't be silly, I've never met someone who gave anything like 5% of their income on a regular basis, much less 50%. While it would be great, as it would allow for a lot more charity work, it simply doesn't happen.

      4a) People die for their beliefs all over the world, for all sorts of reasons. Are you saying that all the men and women who died during WWII for their beliefs in freedom (like the freedom which allows you to post your hate speech here in public) were wrong to do so?

      4b) Stating that the Church causes people to take their own lives is quite frighteningly innacurate - are you familiar at all with either Christ's teachings or the Ten Commandments? At lease do a bit of homework here!

      5 and 6) Again I implore you to do a bit more research than just what People Magazine has to say.

      7) The Catholic church does quite the opposite. I have always been encouraged to learn as much as possible about all religions as a way to understand them and perhaps share some of our views with their adherents in a way that makes more sense to them. I've read Dianetics, the Torah, the Koran, the Gita, what can be found publicly on the Book of Mormon as well as various writings relating to smaller Christian sects, Reverend Moon, Jim Jones et al.

      8) Again, when you tie your hostilities to such meaningless targest as 'many members' you can't hope for others to believe you are doing more than fomenting a personal hatred.

      9) To your point further down the thread about evolution, contraception, abortion, satanism. Please do some homework, we have most definitely been taught about all of the above.
      9a) You really need to separate the Catholic church from many of the 'literalist' evangelical sects that take the Bible at its strictest and most explicit. We believe the world was created in seven days, however long seven of God's days were. An awful lot of space for interpretation in there, no?
      9b) We are MOST DEFINITELY taught about contraception. We are also taught that you shouldn't use any intrusive method like condoms, but that simply abstaining during ovulation is a whole different matter. I'm not a Priest, so please feel free to check my facts.
      9c) I would venture to guess that I know more about abortion in all it's greulling detail than you ever will. We were taught in such depth to allow us to see why the Church considers the procedure murder.
      9d) Again, are you just trolling here? I have four books that I can see from where I am sitting written by Priests written about satanism and the devil. Again, if you had done any background reading before letting loose with your attack you would have seen that the Catholic church has done more reasearch on satan and his works than anyone. How on earth can you suppose otherwise?

      I considered not replying to your post on the hope that you are just flame baiting, but thought that perhaps by trying to clarify a bit it might help some other folks reading your tirade distinguish between your own personal anger and the reality of Catholocism today.

    24. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I am Atheist, and I write my own morals and rules. I'm not defending or atacking any religion."

      Ah, but many other atheists do attack other religions. How many innocents were murdered under the guise of atheism in the 20th century -- some 80 million? -- many of them because of their religion!

      Watching you try to morally equate Scientology with the RCC while pretending to be "above it all" as an atheist would be funny, if it wasn't so very chilling to someone who, like myself, has a grasp of the recent history of atheism.

    25. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by gerardrj · · Score: 2

      I started responsing to your points one by one and found myself repeating the same things over and over, so in general:

      Nothing I wrote was anti-anything. There were no moral values assigned in any of my writing. If you think I hate RCC, Christianity, or Scientology or anything else I wrote about, then you are merely projecting your dislike of the things I pointed out that go/went on within those establishments of religion. The closest I come to assigning any moral or personal value to RCC or Christians is that I consider them to by hypocrites on many points, but there is no hatred, in whole or part.

      Most of your rebuttals are indeed correct for the RCC of today. My comparisons are not of the modern church, but the RCC in the early years of development against the COS in its early years of development. Those "early years" in this case are separated by about 1200 or so years depending on whose figures you use. The RCC as it exists today is not the church that existed even 200 years ago.

      In my opinion the only reason the RCC doesn't still use these more violent and controlling tactics is they've found that changing their rules and behaviours to be more lax will allow more willing converts and give them more political power from a vibrant and supportive constituancy. Keeping so many people under tyrany would lead to revolution within the ranks. Keeping people happy is the road to long-term sucess for any orginization.

      No I'm not trolling, I am comparing the early development of two religions from the point of view of a dis-insterested third party. I think the fact that both religions involved seem to think I hate them and deny the legitimacy of the comparisons shows that I must have performed the task at least somewhat admirably. And no-one has yet rebutted my comparison except to use the "modern" RCC as the example. I would welcome any true rebuttals using facts about the RCC from lets say the first 500 years of its existence.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    26. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by forkb0y · · Score: 1

      Gerard,

      Thanks for your response. I'm not trying to deny you the ability to make comparisons, I simply wanted to try to present things from the Catholic perspective as I felt comparing us with Scientology, a cult I have studied at some length, was invalid.

      As to time lines, I think the period you want to focus on for us is the Crusades, the first 500 years the Catholic church was still so small all you will find is lots of us dying for the what we believed, not the other way round. Certainly during the dark ages things were a mess all over, but then again you pretty much have to write off most of western civilization during that time. It was so bad for us, the Holy Father recently made a blanket request for forgiveness for the foolish things done in the name of the Church back then. Certainly not something anyone would be proud of.

      In any case, thanks for being willing to give the modern Church a break - all the folks I've ever been involved with really are just trying to do their bit to make things better.

    27. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by gerardrj · · Score: 2

      Yes, but in the first 500+ years of its existence, Cristianity was considered a cult by the powers that be, just as in its now infancy the Church of Scientology is considered a cult by the powers that be.

      For Christians to decry the Scientologists as a cult smells of hypocracy to me given the history involved.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    28. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $cientology is the worst cult I have ever seen or heard about.

      They are all about money and screwing up good minds.

      I need not to even mention how they screwed over the IRS so they could get their 'special' treatment from them either.

      Or how about people that have died in their hands ? (Lisa McPherson for one)

      What about how they tried to sue Time magazine for telling the TRUTH? And how they LOST it?

      How about that they are the only 'church' that has no GOD (except themselves) and worship by being hooked up to crude lie detectors ?

      Or how about the $300,000.00 (or more) path just to find out that they are all about aliens being stuck to your body and you have to do the lie detector thing to get rid of them ? (This is called 'Auditing')

      Oh yea, if you protest against them, they will lie and cheat and do anything to try to ruin you, put private investigators out to watch you and even paper your neighborhood with lies (even say you are a drug dealer or rape kids).

      I need not say more. The above is not even 1% of the things that cult does or has done.

      If you deal with them, you have been warned!

      Merk - IRC
      was-almost-a-member-but-was-given-truth

    29. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      Well, it's funny though...because it seems as if you're justifying Scientology's fight to censor the web by expressing the crimes of another religion. It makes little sense.

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    30. Re: Scientology is worse than you think by C0LDFusion · · Score: 1

      When the RCC was started, it was laughed upon and its members scorned. Slowly the church grew in power through monetary donatios, political intruige and war. You ask me not to compare the two, yet the comaprisons are undeniable and plentyful.

      Actually, the technical birth of the RCC is when Emperor Constantine converted and made it the state religion of Rome. (Get it? Roman Catholic?)

      The church you're thinking of that was persecuted was the Gnostic and the Orthodox churches.

      Finally: you can be a Buddhist and anything else as the same time. But then I always use hte more universal definition of religion that defines the word as a set of tenets used to shape ones actions and goals in life. Buddhists do not worship Buddha as a god, but I think few would contest it as a religion. To my knowledge the teachings of Buddha are not incompatible with any of the major religions of the world.

      A Buddhist would believe that, but most priests would not agree. And they tell you that when you enter the door, not when you reach "OT 8"

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
  74. Scientology gave me SUPERPOWER!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm now able to molest chimps at nearly three times the speed I was capable of before SCIENTOLOGY SUPER POWER!!!!!!!!

  75. Add it up. by 3seas · · Score: 2

    Add up all the anti-rights going on including DRM and Palladuim (sp?) and what you have is a revert back to the dark ages via computers....

    I've been saying that it's been more majic spells and such than computer science.....

    We have been there before and have gotten out of it before...

    If history is a lesson to prevent duplication of history, then why are we not using that history to not duplicate it?

    1. Re:Add it up. by TheDanish · · Score: 1

      Well, that's why I'm going to the School of Majicks nearby to learn how to cast Spells of Operation on my Logic Medium (and others'). Maybe I can learn how to disspell the Restriction Circles that they're planning on casting. Except their powers are unimaginable...

      --
      Danish != nationality
  76. Re:Random Lyrics Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got an ofice job for the sole purpose of sexually harassing women.

  77. Re:What the hay? [ANYONE KNOW WHERE?] by tongue · · Score: 2

    Seems like Germany would be a good place to host an anti-Scientology website, since I believe they have laws against scientology, recognizing it for the cult that it is... Without engaging in a debate over the rights/wrongs of religious freedom here, does someone from germany know what would happen with a website of this nature hosted within germany?

  78. Google supports Scientology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it turned out Googles' top executives were scientologists and they use google to support scientology, who would stop using their search engine?

    I would.

  79. they blocked my ENTIRE web site! by touretzky · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ARCHIVE.ORG has blocked my entire web site: all of www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst. My home page. My list of professional publications. My research project web pages. The Gallery of CSS Descramblers. Tutorial pages, Lisp book, everything I've written.

    I don't exist. I've never existed. I've been erased from Internet history.

    All because I dared to have some Scientology material on my web site.

    ARCHIVE.ORG boasts a relationship with the Lbrary of Congress and with the National Science Foundation. I wonder if they are receiving any government funding. Surely it is impermissible to do the bidding of an abusive cult, at the expense of honest citizens, while taking government money?

    -- Dave Touretzky

  80. Their trademarks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They claim that these trademarks are registered in many countries throughout the world. However, TESS lists only some for the US, where they're based, I had thought?

    Also, if you check this link here, you can see that Scientology has 173 trademarks, which include the letter "S", "THETA", "LIFE", and "NED", among many others.

    Trademarks only started being registered about the mid eighties, but they point first use back into the fifties.

    Point of this? Why on earth would a "church" or "religion", or even pseudoscience, *NEED* 173 Trademarks? Anyone who feels that this "religion" is truly something founded on research and not the facility of a science fiction hack who was paranoid and delusional, and is nothing more than a real pyramid scheme . . . Well, hope they wake up before they're too far into the cult.

  81. Here's a scientology nightmare....... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 2

    Gnutella! Put all of what Scientology is fearful of on Gnutella and spread via peer to peer. Shut THAT down Scientology.

  82. Help! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tried twice to post something funny, but Slashdot won't let me!

    CMDRTACO IS XENU!

  83. L. Ron Hubbard sucks my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    L. Ron Hubbard sucks my ass

  84. Spread the offending material via Gnutella! by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 2

    It would be even beyond $cientology to shut that down.

    Umm, umm fried clams...

    1. Re:Spread the offending material via Gnutella! by Hartley · · Score: 1

      The 'secret scriptures' of Scientology have been widely distributed on the Internet. Summaries are easy to find.
      This will not deter the Church of Scientology. For theological reasons it is neccessary for them to believe that their secrets are still secret, so they will continue to fight this already lost war for long as there are people willing to fund them and corrupt governments willing to give them tax breaks.

  85. Morons by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    The whole lot of them should be taken out back and shot.

    They are all a bunch of f-ing idiots and need to get a grip.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I appreciate the sentiment but PLEASE be smart when you attack these people. Only through a legal concerted effort can we rid ourselves of this cult.

  86. Re:Fighting back. FRONT GROUPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Make sure that none of the groups listed below has access to your life.
    Applied Scholastics
    ABLE
    Narconon
    Crimonon
    Drug Free Marshals
    -
    Inform your child's school that these groups are front groups for scientology and that you do not want these groups to have access in any way to your child.
    Inform you ciy, state, governments that these groups are front groups for scientology.
    Most people are NOT aware of the true nature of scientology.
    Most people feel that a truly evil cult would be discovered and pushed out of our society.
    Most people are too busy to learn about all of the things scientology has done.
    Make sure that you check the connections of Every group you associate with.

  87. THE REAL TRUTH behind why they are called clams. by xeeno · · Score: 4, Informative

    Warning! Top Secret Clam facts are about to be exposed.
    This may cause jaw pain and extreme cases of uncontrolled
    laughter.

    All over the internet, the latest question due to well known
    controversies originating from alt.religion.scientology seems to
    be, "What is this bit about clams?" "Why do people on ARS think
    this is funny?", and the ever popular, "Can I be in on the joke?"

    Well, here are some answers to all of this and more.
    L. Ron Hubbard late in 1952 wrote a book called "What To Audit",
    later renamed "The History Of Man". It is still sold by the
    Church Of Scientology and this book contains many of the basic
    beliefs of the Church Of Scientology. It is considered by many
    connosieurs of kook literature as a true classic of kook nonsense
    and it is well worth looking for this book in used books stores
    if you are indeed interested in a book that proves that there isn't
    anything so stupid that people won't believe in it if it's in a book.

    L. Ron Hubbard in the introduction claimed it was "a cold blooded
    look at your last 60 trillion years." How could this be wrong?
    He also claimed his book finally proved the theory of evolution.

    (Patience, we will get to them clams soon enough.)

    This following excert of History Of Man is taken from the book
    Bare Faced Messiah by Russell Miller, a fine book for the neophyte
    Scientologist watcher and clam afficionado.
    Thanks also to Diane Richardson who originally typed this excerpt
    up and posted it to ARS.

    In a narrative style that wobbled uncertainly between
    schoolboy fiction and a pseudo-scientific medical paper,
    Hubbard sought to explain the the human body was occupied by
    both a thetan and a 'genetic entity', or GE, a sort of low-
    grade soul located more or less in the centre of the body.
    To underpin his new science, Hubbard created an entire
    cosmology, the essence of which was that the true self of
    an individual was an immortal, omniscient and ominpotent
    entity called a 'thetan'. In existence before the beginning
    of time, thetans picked up and discarded millions of bodies
    over trillions of years.

    ('The genetic entity apparently enters the protoplasm line
    some two days or a week prior to conception. There is some
    evidence that the GE is actually double, one entering on the
    sperm side...') The GE carried on through the evolutionary
    line, 'usually on the same planet', whereas the thetan only
    came to earth about 35,000 years ago to supervise the
    development of caveman into homo sapiens. Thus the GE was
    once 'an anthropoid in the deep forests of forgetten
    continents or a mollusc seeking to survive on the shore of
    some lost sea'. The discovery of the GE (Hubbard hailed
    every fanciful new idea as a 'discovery') 'makes it possible
    at last to vindicate the theory of evolution proposed by Darwin'.

    Much of the book was devoted to a re-working of evolution,
    starting with 'an atom, complete with electronic rings'
    after which came cosmic impact producing a 'photon
    converter', the first single-cell creature, then seaweed,
    jellyfish and the clam.
    ^^^^^^ Look! Clams!

    Many engrams, for example, could be traced back to clams.
    The clam's big problem was that there was a conflict
    between the hinge that wanted to open and the hinge that
    wanted to close. It was easy to restimulate the engram
    caused by the defeat of the weaker hinge, Hubbard pronounced,
    by asking a pre-clear to imagine a clam on a beach opening
    and closing its shell very rapidly and at the same time
    making an opening and closing motion with thumb and
    forefinger. This gesture, he said, would upset large
    numbers of people.

    'By the way,' he warned, 'your discussion of these incidents
    with the uninitiated in Scientology can cause havoc.
    Should you describe the "clam" to some one [sic], you may
    restimulate it in him to the extent of causing severe jaw
    pain. Once such victim, after hearing about a clam death,
    could not use his jaws for three days.'

    Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
    Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
    Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!

    Does your jaw ache, dear reader?
    Bwahahahhahahahaha!
    Clams! And people pay to be taught stuff like this from silly lads
    who believe stuff like this. And they claim it is science!
    And a religion! Low level Scientologists are discouraged from
    reading this book and are told it will all be explained later
    when they are ready to understand the higher secrets of Scientology.

    'Clam' is a word used on alt.religion.scientology to describe
    scientologists who believe stuff like this and explains the rash of
    clam jokes of alt.religion.scientology.

    More secrets of Scientology:

    After the clam became the 'Weeper' or the 'Boohoo', a
    mollusc that rolled in the surf for half a million years,
    pumping sea water out of its shell as it breathed, hence
    its name. Weepers had 'trillions of misadventures',
    prominent among them the anxiety caused by trying to gulp
    air before being swamped by the next wave. 'The inability
    of a pre-clear to cry,' Hubbard explained, 'is partly a
    hang-up in the Weeper. He is about to be hit by a wave,
    has his eyes full of sand or is frightened about opening
    his shell because he may be hit.'

    Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
    Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!

    Progressing along the genetic time-track, evolution arrived
    at the sloth, which 'had bad times falling out of trees',
    the ape and the famous Piltdown Man, which was the cause
    of a multitude of engrams, ranging from obsessions about
    biting to family problems. These could be traced back to
    the fact that 'the Piltdown teeth were enormous and he was
    quite careless as to whom and what he bit.' Indeed, so
    careless was the Piltdown Man, Hubbard recorded, that he
    was sometimes guilty of 'eating one's wife and other
    somewhat illogical activities.' (Unfortunately
    for Hubbard, just twelve months after The History of Man
    was published, the supposed fossil remains of primitive
    man found in gravel on Piltdown Common in the south of
    England were exposed as a hoax. The Piltdown Man had
    never existed.

    The History of Man drifted into pure science fiction when
    Hubbard came to the point of explaining how thetans
    moved from body to body. Thetans abandoned bodies earlier
    than GEs, it appeared. While the GE stayed around to see
    the body through to death, thetans were obliged to report
    to a between-lives 'implant station' where they were
    implanted with a variety of control phases while waiting
    to pick up another body, sometimes in competition with
    other disembodied thetans. Hubbard revealed that most
    implant stations were on Mars, although women occasionally
    had to report elsewhere in the solar system and there
    was a 'Martian implant station somewhere in the Pyrenees'.

    Well, there you have it. How can we deny the genius of
    L.Ron Hubbard? The thoughtful and useful ideas he taught
    the world? He obvious deep learning and careful judgement?
    The certain correctness and amazing insights of the basic beliefs
    of Scientology?

    More tartar sauce with your clams?

    Poor Little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
    Poor Little Clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
    Pope Charles
    SubGenius Pope Of Houston
    Slack!

  88. Re:I cant believe that anyone takes them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dianetics is NOT a scienos bible.
    Dianetics only touches on a very small percentage of what the cult teaches.
    The only way to legitimately see all of their material is to pay BIG bucks for auditing.
    Having said that I am happy you saw through the bullshit.
    Wish you the best on the outside.

  89. Re:Scientology gave me SUPERPOWER!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you don't even have to be in the same room. Just exteriorize yourself and molest away!!!!

  90. Scientology = America's Al Qaida by Arcturax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've posted this before, but what the hell, I might as well do it again.

    Basically, Scientology is a terrorist organization/organized crime syndicate based out of the US. In fact, you can very easily compare them to Al Qaida.

    Scientology and Al Qaida share these traits
    - Threats of violence (and actual cases of murders and harm to people) and abuse of host countries legal system against detractors
    - Interference with and infiltration of the governments in the countries they are hosted in
    - Cells operating all over the world
    - Stockpiles of weapons and armed compounds
    - Religious dogma used to control members and threats and violence used to stop members who want to leave from leaving
    - Members are expected to be utterly loyal and are stripped of almost all money and most worldly possessions.
    - Use of torture and inhumane forms of punishment
    - Uses money to attack enemies (for Al Qaide, the US and her allies, for Scientology, it is anyone who detracts from them.)
    - Aims their recruiters at people who are vulnerable or off balance (drug users, the poor).

    Hell, they even went as far as to interfere with medical workers helping 9/11 victims last year in their rush to try to recruit people in a state of shock over what had happened.

    So, when is the Bush administration going to get serious about terrorists in this country and take out America's largest and most heavily financed terrorist organization?

    When is the FBI going to raid Gold Base? Why isn't the Free Winds seized at customs next time it stops by and searched. I bet they find a lot of nose powder on board for the leaders despite the "church"'s insistance that they hate drugs.

    Why don't they look into Clearwater and the CO$'s interference with the government there?

    Why won't they listen to our own Allies who are telling us that the CoS is a big criminal racket?

    So come on Bush admin, if you are going to bomb other countries, why don't you just take care of the terrorist organizations HERE in the US first?

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    1. Re:Scientology = America's Al Qaida by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      So, when is the Bush administration going to get serious about terrorists in this country and take out America's largest and most heavily financed terrorist organization?


      Even the president doesn't have that kind of legal power.

      *sigh*.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:Scientology = America's Al Qaida by Reglar_Joe · · Score: 1

      The Free Winds, I believe, cannot stop at any US port because of the blue asbestos that the ship contains. Most, if not at all, civilized ports would consider the ship toxic and refuse it berth. (http://cultpreres.users4.50megs.com/scientology.h tm)

  91. real reason by Lepruhkawn · · Score: 2

    Embarrassment over an archived draft version of Battlfield Earth.

    --
    Jesus saves....And takes 1/2 damage.
  92. The Mormons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are also considered a cult.

    ac

  93. Re:Fighting back. FRONT GROUPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I new C.A.N. was a scientology front, but is Narconon too?

  94. WHY are these people dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do a search on Yahoo for the phrase 'why are these people dead'
    You will be surprised.
    Scientology is NOT a religion.
    Scientology is a cult.

  95. Re:Fighting back. FRONT GROUPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The distiction between the two groups
    Narcanon
    narconon
    -
    The scientology group has a CON in the middle. Fitting don't you think.
    Narcanon.org is a wonderful organization. Its services are FREE.
    NarCONon is a group run by the cult and is expensive. Ask Kirstie the coke whore. She knows. Ask Julliette Lewis. She knows.

  96. Rewriting History by Josuah · · Score: 1

    The first thing that hit my brain when I read this is "history is written by the victors". Because in a lot of ways, that is exactly the type of tactic that is being used here.

    The Wayback Machine has always been something I viewed as a type of historical record. But for the first time, we actually had a real record of everything. This wasn't an interpretation of history by an individual, or organization. This wasn't a collection of stories told by people, where each time the story is retold the meanings are changed and people tell things differently and emphasize different points of view. This was an actual snapshot of our history that would not be presented in any way other than it was, or corrupted by human motives or fallacy.

    How many times have you wished for a time machine just so that we could really know what happened? We could really know how the Dinosaurs were destroyed. Who shot JFK. Why Hitler would invade his own country and promote racial superiority with characteristics he did not have himself. What really happened when Jesus was crucified. Exactly what did Mohammed see when Allah appeared to him. Did Atlantis exist. Did King Arthur really receive a sword from a lady in the lake.

    Pure data gathering through something like the Wayback Machine has a real chance to take snapshots of time. You would have the ability to look at firsthand testimonials, videos, images, and audio from every viewpoint and in an entire context. U.S. history books may never discuss how the United States polarized after September 11th, but preserving all of the blogs and news articles and video footage and interviews dumped onto the Internet, from the United States, Afghanistan, other countries in the Middle East, all over the world, would provide our descendants with an understanding of what happened orders of magnitude greater than anything we can comprehend about history today.

    A thousand years from now, when Scientology becomes the religion 99% of the human race believes in because we are scattered across galaxies, a historical record of Xenu.net and the debates on Scientology, the believers of Scientology, and the detractors, would be akin to finding the original stone tablet which Moses brought down from the heavens, along with every single version of the bible in every single language since then.

    I cannot be happy with our species to see history get thrown away like this.

  97. Re:Scientology gave me SUPERPOWER!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen Brother!

  98. First they came for the scientology critics, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a scientology critic.
    Then they came for the fair-use activists
    and I did not speak out
    because I didn't care about fair-use rights.
    Then they came for the librarians
    and I did not speak out
    because I did not use the library.
    Then they came for me
    and I was too poor
    to speak out for myself.

    "Yeah, yeah, pissy civil liberties assholes comparing some crap no one cares about to the death of millions of people." You might not care that what is happening will produce another dark age that will set back societal progress hundreds of years, but I do.

  99. Dave Touretzky by Mr+S1n · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen a link posted to Dave Touretzky's page yet. Here it is: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/. His Scientology page is here: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html. He has even been protested on-campus by these idiots because of his site.

    1. Re:Dave Touretzky by tikk · · Score: 1

      He has even been protested on-campus by these idiots because of his site.

      He sure has. His students even counter-protested :)

  100. All you need to know about Scientology by emkman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Besides all the general information related to Scientology found at Operation Clambake, there are two categories of information that I feel are most important in understanding the premises under which the Church of Scientology, or Co$ for short, operate:

    Copyright:
    This page explains Scientology's misuse of copyrights and explains why their documents should not be subject to copyright laws. Basically, copyrights were intended to encourage publication of works, the exact opposite of what Scientology is trying to do. Furthermore, copyright law allows fair use for the purpose of critical review. How can you review something that isnt published? A significant portion, if not the whole document would need to be reproduced in order to evaluate it fairly.

    Legal Standings:
    Read the decision of WOLLERSHEIM vs CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA. To sum up the case, a man who was mentally unstable was psychologically tortured and further had his business and life ruined by Scientology. He sued and won millions after 20+ years. The judgement is important because it shows that Scientology is a religion, however its actions were not protected by the First Ammendment because its actions were performed in a coercive manner, and further that the Co$ deliberately tried to ruin his life socially, financially, and psychologically, by means not neccesarily legal. This covers the practices of Fair Game and Freeloaders Debt used and condoned by the Co$.

    --
    Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
  101. Note about the court decision by emkman · · Score: 1

    Even if you aren't very interested in Scientology I highly reccomend you read the court document. You will be educated greatly on the provisions of the Religious clause of the First Ammendment. Both sections of it, the establishment clause, and the practice clause are discussed, as well as what is protected by them, and specific examples of when the government can and has overridden them, and why. It will make you smarter, I happened to be reading it tonight before this article was posted on /. strangely enough.

    --
    Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
  102. The government knows . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . what they really are. When I was younger, I had a little run in with that cult and evidently ended up on their shit list. I didn't find out about this until years later. During a series of interviews I was having to obtain a security clearance, I was asked extensively about it. I have a very strong feeling (but no proof) that being a member of that cult will prevent you from ever getting a clearance.

  103. how about the heavy handed tactics of slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'moderation' ruined it

  104. Re:The government knows . . .operation snowhite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientologists cleaning up.
    A covert op gone bad.

  105. hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fucking scientologist guddam stupid bastards...i'll kill the next one I see on the street

  106. Re:The government knows . . .operation snowhite by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

    That's almost a haiku, but not quite. I'll fix it.

    Op'ration Snow White
    Scientologists clean up
    Covert op gone bad

    --

    Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
  107. Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by beej · · Score: 2
    No, they did not. I have the good sense to stay away from them. Easy as that.

    You stay away from them too, and you'll be ok. Don't bait them by posting pieces of their copyrighted work, even if you feel you have (or truly have!) fair use rights to do so. Then they won't bother you.

    But, you activists are saying, Scientology is an evil organization that murders its followers after taking all their money while giving you bogus and demeaning tests!

    Well, well, well. I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of "evil" organizations out there--way way too many for you to take on. Even if you eliminited Scientology*, one thousand other organizations will be right there to demand your immediate attention. You can't win.

    * And when I say "eliminate", I mean that in the sense that you cannot do it. The people who get roped in are exactly the same people who don't read your expose web pages, so no work done.

    The only solution to educating the general populace about dangerous organizations is for parents to educate their kids. Can you imagine how many more traffic deaths there would be if it were up to the government to tell kids to not walk across busy streets without looking both ways? Those kids are spared because we've distributed the solution to the problem across millions of people.

    Swell, huh? Now all we have to do is convince parents to teach their kids something or another, which is an uphill battle that we also cannot win.

    However, you'll notice a distinct difference between not winning against the parents versus not winning against the 'Church: I don't have the Scientologists breathing down my neck.

    So when all is said and done, it really sounds like I'm telling all you Scientologist-fighters that you could do something more productive with your time. And I am. But it's your time, so have fun.

    1. Re:Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by thunderbee · · Score: 1

      First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out -- because I was not a Jew.

      Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out -- because I was not a communist.

      Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out -- because I was not a trade unionist.

      Then they came for me -- and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

      --
      In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
    2. Re:Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by leereyno · · Score: 2

      The only thing evil needs to win is for the good to do nothing to stop it.

      If I don't speak out about organizations like scientology then I'm doing nothing but help them. I'm sorry, but I'm just too damned responsible to stand by and watch.

      Lee

      --
      Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    3. Re:Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've ignored them my whole life and they are as strong as ever. Doing nothing will NOT stop scientology. Be smart when you attack them. Make sure its legal. If you have a police record or engage in illegal behaviour you should NOT attack the cult, because the cult will find out about anything in YOUR past and use it against you.
      The cult also tells its members that everyone that attacks them is a criminal or at least has a criminal record.
      Be smart.
      Do no harm.
      Educate.

    4. Re:Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by beej · · Score: 1
      Then they came for me -- and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

      What does that have to do with anything?

      The Scientologists are not out to get me. What would they gain by doing so? Nothing. They are not "coming" for anyone, except whoever they can convince to play their game. (Just like loansharks, just like casinos, just like any scam artist.)

      The only possible thing they are doing that could impact me is their possible disrespect for fair use and the utilization of lawyers and cash to back it up. That's a problem, but it's a far more widespread problem than just the Scientologists, and requires a more widespread solution than just punishing them in particular.

      Ironically, what does irk me is how people take documents that they know are copyrighted by the Church, and redistribute them under the pretense that The Truth Must Be Told. This is classic copyright that you're disrespecting, not some DMCA horseshit. Copyright must be blind to the publisher, or it's ultimately worthless.

      And here's the kicker: everything you need to know about the Church and why you shouldn't join isn't even printed in the Church texts. So why the copyright violation in the first place?

      I obviously just don't understand the motives and conflicts between the Scientologists and Anti-Scientologists well enough, but someone could make good money on a book about it.

    5. Re:Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by beej · · Score: 1
      If I don't speak out about organizations like scientology then I'm doing nothing but help them. I'm sorry, but I'm just too damned responsible to stand by and watch.

      Look man, I'm all for education. Just don't violate copyright law when you do it, and you're ok in my book. (And I'm not saying "do nothing", I'm saying do the right thing.)

      It boils down to this: if people can't take these hints, that it has been suggested that

      • people in the Church have died under suspicious circumstances
      • people critical of the Church have been pursued and possibly spied on or plotted against by the Church
      • advancing in the Church can cost you a lot of money
      • you should proceed at your own risk with extreme caution

      ...then I can't help them. They must Learn By The Hot Needle.

      See how easily that was summed up? No copyright violation necessary, no big megaphone necessary. I just tell all my friends these four points, and they tell all their friends, and it works out for the best for everyone.

      I think a lot more people will be disadvantaged when they have to pay-for-play music and movies, or when it is illegal for children to share books, so I fight much harder on that front.

      Scientology is barely a blip.

    6. Re:Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by zinjifar · · Score: 1

      Strictly speaking, you're right. If you decide that offering yourself up to the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune' inherent in publicly criticizing the 10,000 lb. pinworm known as the Church of Scientology is not your cup of tea, it's your good right.

      There are levels of social responsibility that are *not* mandatory, but, while you hardly deserve condemnation for not feeling up to the challenge, you also hardly deserve the self-adminstered 'clap on the back' you feel is due you for your cleverness in avoiding the issue.

      In fact, the only real objection to your post is that you felt it necessary at all. What's it to you? Apathy isn't a crime.

      Zinj

    7. Re:Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by beej · · Score: 1
      In fact, the only real objection to your post is that you felt it necessary at all. What's it to you? Apathy isn't a crime.

      A good question. What it is to me is this: here are people illegally distributing content in a way that can only shift the balance of copyright power more to the hands of the very people I fear have too much already.

      Lots of the sites that are critical of the CoS link to sites with illegally distributed copyrighted content. Under some portions of the DMCA, this is illegal--you can't link to infringing sites.

      So what better way to destroy the net of anti-scientology sites than suing them all, even the ones that only link to sites that have illegal content? It's perfect leverage for the Church to attack the anti-crowd. So I gotta ask, what do you gain from this risk? Because it looks like nothing to me.

      But I'm not going to get anywhere saying, "Look respect copyright, please" because people say, "But they're animals and don't deserve it!" So I lather it up with the "do yourself a favor and stay out of prison" angle.

      I know people who have been called by the CoS and asked to remove copyrighted materials. The copyrighted materials were removed, but all the material critical to the CoS remains to this day, and the person has not yet been killed by the Church.

      If it were only critical material, and not libelous or coyrighted by CoS, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on legally. As it is, they could complain that we need stronger copyright laws and sue people who link to sites with copyrighted CoS material to get it offline.

      I lose personally in those cases, because it represents an intrusion into something I hold dear.

      So basically I feel you could do it my way with the same good effects, and fewer negative effects. And while you're at it, respect copyright, please.

    8. Re:Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by leereyno · · Score: 2

      Do you realize that scientology sues to harrass? The idea that anyone is violating copyright law where they are concerned is irrelevant. They'll sue you not because they have a case but because they want to make you spend money paying a lawyer. That is the long and short of it. Not to mention the fact that I care about as much about their copyrights as I do about the right of the North Korean government to persecute political dissidents. After all in their legal system these dissidents are classified as criminals, yet I don't think anyone who wasn't some kind of nazi would agree that they should be locked up, tortured, killed, etc.

      Sunlight is the best disenfectant, and if shedding light on scientology means stretching the bounds of fair use then so be it. Scientology uses copyright to prevent people from finding out about them, which is not and has never been the intention behind the concept of copyright. If anyone is violating copyright law it is scientology by misusing the law for a purpose that is contrary to the aims and ideals of the people who wrote the law.

      I myself am an ex-scientologist and let me tell you those motherfuckers deserve a bullet in the back of the head followed by a shallow grave. If I were president Bush I'd be dropping Daisy cutters on Hemet.

      Lee

      --
      Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    9. Re:Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by thunderbee · · Score: 1

      Well, you should read those document. To make it short, if you're not with them, you're against them.
      They seem to have an excellent intelligence department (some say superior to the government ones), and mess with justice decisions on a regular basis. They have killed people.
      But then, with your line of thought, child molesters should be left alone as long as they don't harm _your_ kids right?
      You're a scientologist heh? High enough up the ladder to talk about restricted materials? Or will it kill you? ;)

      --
      In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
    10. Re:Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by beej · · Score: 1
      But then, with your line of thought, child molesters should be left alone as long as they don't harm _your_ kids right?

      Wrong, actually. See, in that case there's a faultless victim who didn't want or choose to be involved. I'll go pretty far to protect anyone's kids from child molesters.

      Joining the CoS is more analogous to gambling. In this case, there is no victim as such, since the person getting ripped off by the casino is there by choice and is a consenting adult. I'm not going to go very far at all to protect clueless adults from themselves.

      But say for the sake of argument that the CoS was going after kids to get them prepped for later. This I'd find morally questionable, and borderline abusive. However, it still does not justify illegally distributing CoS documents when the act of doing so will not prevent the abuse from occurring.

      You're a scientologist heh? High enough up the ladder to talk about restricted materials? Or will it kill you? ;)

      Heh! Nope, nope, and nope. I personally view the CoS as a fairly dangerous cult that has a strong effect on the weak-minded, and like to think that I'm smart enough to not join.

    11. Re:Did Scientology take my home, my kids, my life? by thunderbee · · Score: 1

      Joining the CoS is more analogous to gambling. In this case, there is no victim as such, since the person getting ripped off by the casino is there by choice and is a consenting adult. I'm not going to go very far at all to protect clueless adults from themselves.
      But when they pull a stunt like they did after 9/11, offering 'psychological help' to the ones in need, don't these people in shock desserve some protection?
      If you have the time to spend, I suggest you go read some accounts of former CoS members on xenu.net
      Most weren't "gambling", they got in the same way you might go and see a shrink.
      Everyone knows what gambling is, like smokers know they'll eventually die. Many people just don't know about CoS. The point is to make thoses people aware.
      I don't fight CoS. I just inform others of their doings. The choice remains their.

      --
      In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
  108. think differently.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe xenu.net is RUN by scientologists...

  109. No completely there's still some left ..... by taniwha · · Score: 2
    My Xenu spoof is still there ....

    If Co$ claims they own my writing I'll have to go sue them for plagarism :-) .....

    Want to get your own back against Co$ientology for their continuing censorship of the net? This thanksgiving when you're with your family (or whoever) bring up the subject ... tell them:

    • Scientology believes people are haunted by space aliens
    • They don't tell new recruits until they are well inside the cult and have spent more than $300,000 with them
    • They are abusive to their members and run prison labor camps in some of their facilities
    • Some people have died
    • If they know anyone who's getting interested in Scientology bthere's a place of the net where you can find this stuff out - just search on Google
  110. DeCSS by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 0

    Maybe we need to create one verry definitive page, then mirror it EVERYWHERE much like what was done for decss.c?

    --
    Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
  111. Re:Whoever modded this up Insightful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think a bullet in your head would be too easy. As I recall, Scientoligists like to starve people to death. That would be cool to watch.

  112. Re:What the hay?-MS by junkgrep · · Score: 2

    That's some scary scary stuff. Is any of it true?

  113. Holy repeat of a post by systemaster · · Score: 1

    is this post exactly the same as above

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=40629&ci d= 4323709

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=40629&ci d= 4323749

    Note one is 09 and one is 49, Is that the way I'm supposed to get my Karma to max out, keep reposting the same stuff untill somebody mods it up enough???

    --
    LinuxWorx
    Spelling errors are intentional as are gramatical error
    1. Re:Holy repeat of a post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But... he's ... posting ... anonymously.... how... karma... uh... I'm not stoned again am I? It's him isn't it?

  114. Re:What the hay? [ANYONE KNOW WHERE?] by troc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dunno about Germany, but Scientology is regarded as a cult in France and is well and truly illegal there :)

    It's possibly one of the few reasons to live in France (I have to say that, I'm British)

    Troc

    --
    Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
  115. Finally lost one... by Misch · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, $cientology lost one recently. A court case, started back in the 80's, which cult head David Miscavaige promised "Not one thin dime for Wollersheim", was finally resolved this year when $cientology paid 86,748,430 thin dimes ($8,674,848) to Lawrence Wollersheim after the long battle. He originally won $30 million in a lawsuit, but was later reduced to $2.5 million on appeal. $cientology drained the assets out of the "Church of $cientology of California", then claimed bankruptcy, forcing long drawn out proceedings to extend the judgement to the receivers of C$C of California's assets.

    As Wollersheim prepared to expose $cientology's true corporate structure, $cientology paid the $2.5 million, plus stautatory interest of 10% since judgement (hence the $8.6 million award).

    --

    --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    1. Re:Finally lost one... by e40 · · Score: 2

      This is a case of winning a battle and losing the war. Yes, Wollersheim won. How many other people are in his position? None that I know of. How many corporations are standing up to them? Few. Google comes to mind.

  116. Re:THE REAL TRUTH behind why they are called clams by lermanet · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The "CLAM" incident was based upon Hubbard "auditing" L ron Hubbard Jr., AKA NIBS HUBBARD, AKA Ron De Wolfe.

    When Scientology was kicked out of Wichita Kansas, and Hubbard fled to Pheonix AZ ( He had to leave there in a Hurry too)His son drove non stop from Wichita to Pheonix, high on "bennies" (Amphetamines). Hubbard Sr. "audited" his son as soon as he arrived. Of course, the amphetamines during this long drive (There were NOT interstate highways then folks - 1951) made Nibs grit his teeth, and by the time he got to Pheonix, his jaws were pretty sore, from clenching them.....So Hubbard's Book :History of man", this book is based on Hubbard Auditing his own son after he'd been up for days whacked on speed!

    Scathing Newspaper Article "Son of Scientology" L Ron Hubbard's Son - Ron DeWolf denounces his own father as a fraud - Read this hard to find 1982 interview in the News Herald

    And For jollies, listen to this slam poetry by L href="http://www.mp3.com/stations/jamie_kennedy">R on Hubbard's Great Grand son Jamie Kennedy talk about "My mother still has a letter from Ron threatening to break my grandfather's legs"

    Having a nice day David Miscavige? (Kid who replaced "Ron") He used to be called the asthmatic dwarf

    Sincerely
    Arnie Lerma
    --
    Ferengi + Borg = Scientology
  117. yes it is true by zonker · · Score: 0

    here are some articles (some of which are joke articles making fun of the situation).

  118. Re:What the hay?-MS by amorsen · · Score: 2

    Read the link to Heise. You probably do not know c't, since it is only available in German, but it is famous for the quality of its reporting.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  119. American judiciary system by G�tz · · Score: 1
    > The McDonald's case, although popular belief would hold otherwise, was actually a reasonably good
    > decision.

    Really? I think it's rather a reward for stupidity that wouldn't be possible anywhere else.

    1. Re:American judiciary system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with you morons? Can't you read more than the first line of an article or post?

      Context, motherfucker, context.

  120. More of the background on the Xenu.net case by sleeplesseye · · Score: 1

    Here is a post I made several days ago on Metafilter regarding the xenu.net blocking.

    Truth of the matter is that xenu.net wasn't the only site blocked. The owner of Xenu.net posted all the details to alt.religion.scientology.

    In short, archive.org blocked a whole list of sites that the CoS objected to - not just one - and they did so without notifying the site owners that their material was blocked. This is a very wrongheaded thing for any site to do, much less one that is supposed to respect the historical value of archiving the Internet.

    In order to get the legal protection that the DMCA offers, a site has to take down content almost immediately upon notification, *BUT* they are also obligated to try and notify the owner of that content about the take down. The owner of the content can then object to the take down, in which case the content can be unblocked. Legal action could then potentially be taken against the party who objected to the takedown of the content, with no liability whatsoever to the host of the content. Xenu.net was never given this option however. The owner of xenu.net also informed me the other day that archive.org has yet to respond to his requests for information regarding this issue.

    Frankly, the minimum that archive.org could have done is to at least let its users know that threats from the CoS have caused them to block several sites about Scientology. Instead, they took down several sites (we still don't know which ones) without telling anybody. To me, this an act of cowardice. Did they have to block the content for legal reasons? Yes, I suspect they did. However, they didn't have to become a silent partner to an act of censorship.

    "All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent"... or words to that effect.

    In other words, it's time for the sites that we all depend upon to wake up and grow a set.

    1. Re:More of the background on the Xenu.net case by sleeplesseye · · Score: 1

      Oops. Here is a post I made several days ago on Metafilter regarding the xenu.net blocking...

  121. I am an ex-scientologist by leereyno · · Score: 2
    Here are some links to some very good information on scientology:

    Online Library of books about Scientology. VERY GOOD

    Operation Clambake

    FACTNet, over 50 megs of information about $cientology

    Tell your family, tell your friends. Forewarned is forearmed.

    Lee

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  122. Re:The ultimate anit-scientology site HOWTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Howto wget an entire website? Please explain.

  123. My Father went to Narconon by Ferguson · · Score: 0

    It is a Scientology based alcohol and drug reform center. He said it changed his life. I never ever thought my dad would stop drinking and he has been clean and sober for over a year and quite happy. I have to agree that it is life-changing, all for the better. Insurance paid for his 3 month stay.

    I guess you can say Scientology worked a miracle for me because it has brought back someone in my life who I had written off as dead (and trust me it wasn't dumb luck).

    Take it for what you will. Since this is a positive statement concerning Scientology I'm sure it will be modded down to "-1 Troll".

    1. Re:My Father went to Narconon by leereyno · · Score: 2

      There is a direct correlation between substance addiction and religious fervor. A substantial percentage of "true believer" scientologists are those who once had drug problems. From what I've seen this is pretty much in line with other cults. What it comes down to is that religion replaces the drug in these people's lives. If you ask me this is for the best because religion generally doesn't destroy someone's life the way drugs will. The problem is that Scientology is the exception to that rule because it is a predatory organization who will strip its victims of their livelyhood and toss them aside.

      Lee

      --
      Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
    2. Re:My Father went to Narconon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very happy that your father has been able to beat the addiction. Hopefully he will not get pulled any deeper into the cult.

  124. Kudos to Slashdot by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

    It's nice to see at least one news source keeping up the struggle to expose Scientology for the cult they are.

    I just hope they don't go too far before they get sued into the ground.

    I for one really dislik....

    er, never mind. I don't that kind of money to protect myself.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  125. Re:Scientology gave me SUPERPOWER!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are broken. Only a $19,000 treatement in the gullibility ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h e-meter can clense and clear you from your chimp molesting.

  126. Why not just take their money away? by stomv · · Score: 1

    [Will never see light of day due to too many comments anyway...]

    So -- if Scientologists are able to censor with lawsuits, why not just inundate them? Then, they have to hire more lawyers, and spend more money. If a bunch of folks all put up mirrors all over the place (methinks .edu domains would be a good start), they'd have to work damned hard to send out lots of letters and make lots of phone calls. Their lawyers are either (i) mind controlled scientologists, or (ii) on the payroll. They only have a finite number of (i) and so the more we use up their resources of (ii) the less money they have overall.

    They have lots of money. We have lots of cyberspace. Methinks I'll post some links today.

  127. Re:Bigger news- celeb.txt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Cage gets added to the long list of hollywood stars that I will boycott.
    Sad.

  128. good ol' 1984 quotes by EMH_Mark3 · · Score: 1

    'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'
    --George Orwell's 1984

    --
    Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me
  129. Re:Whoever modded this up Insightful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nazi societies, whose atheistic views

    Maybe you should spent a few every so valuable seconds of your existence reading up on exactly what the basis for the persecution of the Jews was. If you're really good, you may even be able to spend a whole minute working out what role certain churchs played during the Nazi regiem.

  130. We all need to take responsibility by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 2

    The issue isn't whether or not McDonald's kept their coffee too hot. The issue is what did the consumer do that led to the accident that led to the spilled coffee?

    Now, if a drive-thru attendant dropped the coffee in her lap while handing it to her then there's definitely a case for negligence. If instead, which I believe to be the case, the woman chose to use her lap as the holder for said cup of coffee then you really have to wonder about things.

    Life is inherently a dangerous game. People take risks and should be aware that their are consequences for the risks that they take. Our current judicial system has eliminated that calculation and now the idea is that there are only potential rewards for your actions. (Look at all those ads, "Were you in an accident? You may be entitled to monetary compensation..."

    Maybe the McDonald's case isn't the best one to hold up for this. There are plenty of other cases that show how bad this is too. I had a coworker whose farther worked for Coleco (remember them?). He was a lawyer whose job it was to go around the country defending Coleco in law suits related to their pools. One suit was about a man who had paralyzed himself after setting up one of these pools (they're little 4' deep above ground numbers), installing a diving board and then diving into the pool and breaking his neck. Despite all of the "No Diving" warnings and the fact that the problem was created by a user modification (installing the diving board) Coleco still had to defend itself from a lawsuit.

    We need a "you shouldn't have been doing that" clause for these suits.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    1. Re:We all need to take responsibility by will592 · · Score: 1
      I think the point that you're missing is that people should have a reasonable expectation that if they buy something designed for human consumption that it will not horribly disfigure them if they spill it on their leg. I've always wondered what would have happened to this woman had she actually swallowed coffee that was this hot. McD's was found negligent (IANAL, but I believe this is the right wording) because they showed a disregard for public safety. This was also not the first time that McD's got in trouble regarding this coffee situation. Shouldn't we expect to not become disfigured or ill from food we buy at a restaurant? If you got sick because McD's served you undercooked chicken you might be upset. If you found out it was corporate policy to serve chicken undercooked because it cost to much to cook it completely, I think you would probably sue. Similar situation, in my opinion.

      Chris

    2. Re:We all need to take responsibility by goatee · · Score: 1

      It's _coffee_.

      Except for the iced-mocha crowd, everyone expects coffee to be served hot. Ideal brewing temperature is 195 to 205 degrees F, so a fresh cup is going to be damn toasty.

      The lady in question did a dangerous thing, and got burned...

    3. Re:We all need to take responsibility by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 2

      So, how about all those restauraunts that hand us plates and say "look out, it's hot."

      I suppose we should instantly outlaw fajitas (served on a skillet so hot the meat's still cooking). We sell people paint strippers and acitone. There are products on the market that we're not supposed to get on our skin or in our eyes. Remember the ol' "happy fun ball" skit from SNL? That was only a slight exagerration of where we've gotten to today.

      You're undercooked chicken example misses the point. In that case the company was actually negligent and didn't perform proper safety in preparing the food.

      In this particular case someone ordered a beverage that is served hot. They then proceeded to have an accident. People get injured in accidents all the time. The true lesson to learn from that is to pay more attention and be careful, not that you might get a couple hundred thousand dollars from your own mistake. (Remember, she spilled the coffee.)

      --
      --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  131. parent is karma whore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent is a fp karma whore - the post is a shameless cut and paste from http://xenu.net/clam_faq.html without any credit.

  132. sour grapes by ex-scientolotgists by peter303 · · Score: 2

    The ex'es are whining because they were dumb enough to be duped by this pop-religion. Some of he ex'es are as fanatical as the proponents IMHO. Makes for interesting entertainment.

    1. Re:sour grapes by ex-scientolotgists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While your statements may be applicable to a few individuals, they're not applicable to the vast majority of ex-Scientologists.

      Most ex-Scientologists simply walk away and have nothing further to do with it. After a mere 4-5 years, the incessant phone calls dwindle, although the mail never stops coming. [As a challenge, if you doubt this statement, take a personality test, mail it in, and see how easy it is to get your named removed from the mailing lists. Do it with three Scientology organizations and it's virtually impossible.]

      There is a huge problem with equating Scientologists with ex-Scientologists as you just did. Ex-Scientologists generally don't encourage you to spend thousands of dollars, max out credit cards, and take out second mortgages to pay for the next "service". Nor do ex-Scientologists disconnect from family members and cause divorces if you disagree with them. Nor do ex-Scientologists write Knowledge Reports and send them to a central office if you say things critical about Scientology.

      Sound bitter? It might be, but unfortunately it's also true. A great place to start to learn more is:

      http://www.clambake.org

  133. We need to start with the schools first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need to be taught this:

    The Advanced Bonewits Cult Danger Evaluation Frame 2.6
    http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html

    German Version of the ABCDEF 2.0
    http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF_German.html

    French Version of the ABCDEF 2.6
    http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF_French.html

    if they were taught this in school we wouldn't have this problem.

  134. Both by tomzyk · · Score: 1

    When they discovered that the idea of midichlorians was frowned upon by the majority of sci-fi fanatics, they decided to give up on religion altogether to prevent further public embarassment.

    oh wait... midichlorians... that's Star Wars, not $cientology. oh well. So much for me being able to keep track of religions based on science fiction.

    --
    Karma: NaN
  135. A BILLION YEARS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Therefore I contract myself with the SEA ORGANIZATION for the next billion years.
    ^
    ^
    Spot a thetan.

  136. I WISH I HADN'T POSTED THIS by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I didn't really expect to get modded +5 for something anti-CoS, or I probably would've posted as an AC.

    I live in a quiet cul-de-sac in a small town in Nebraska. This morning, a white late-model Buick Regal (or similar) with Nebraska license plates 7-A4163 pulled up to my neighbor's curb and started taking pictures of my house. The driver, a heavy middle-aged male wearing dark glasses, drove off when I stood up from the breakfast table to get a better look.

    Great - I really needed some extra grief in my life right now.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  137. Just another in a series of Trolls by edgarde · · Score: 1
    You gotta be kidding...it's not a "church"..especially not one worthy of capitalizing the word "church".....nothing more than a Cult after your $$$. Isn't it interesting how the members almost always seem to be very rich folks.

    While it may be flamebait to say "Church == Cult", I feel like anyone saying CoS is not a church should be accountable for explaining the difference (at least before they earn their "+1, Insightful"; more like "Troll" to me). It's a trivial task to list religious groups who ...

    • profess beliefs that are strange and irrational,
    • suppress their opposition relentlessly,
    • cultivate and fleece wealthy believers.
    While we're at it, the term "cult" is also loaded. It used to mean a small religious sect, but is now a scare term whose definition is flexible at the convenience of the accuser.

    Sig may be flammible ...

  138. [OT] Your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At work I have an Alpha workstation with 96 MB of memory. I tried running Mozilla, but it was takes up so much ram that my machine thrashes like crazy and it's difficult to get anything else done. Thus, I run Netscape.

  139. Paging Mr. Fucktard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (I'm addressing this post to Mr. Fucktard, the CofS member who, as part of his official duties, entered a pro-CofS post on a previous anti-CofS thread. I'm fairly sure that at least one reasonably advanced CofS member will be given the job of reading all the posts on this thread, and possibly entering a riposte post. Whether it will be the same Fucktard as before, I do not know.)

    My dear Fucktard,

    You have my sympathy. Tracking down all the ultimate sources of entheta directed against the CofS is a dismaying task - there is so much of it coming from so many directions. Who are all these Anonymous Cowards and who are the real people behind all the logon names?

    Really, it does not matter. You have come to believe that all attacks on your church are ultimately the work of evil, supressive people who intend to thwart mankind's only true hope for freedom and enlightenment, for "a world without insanity or war or crime, where the able can prosper and where honest beings have rights."

    You also have a reality on the benefits of CofS training and auditing that none of the wog posters here could possibly share.

    What you might find interesting is that many former members (possibly including a few on this thread other than just me) do acknowledge those benefits. (Check out the O.J. Roos story - fascinating stuff!)

    Yet they and I, at the end of the day, realized that we had been enslaved, that our losses exceeded our gains. A fair part of that loss is due to the incredibly bad public image that the CofS has earned for itself. The church's practices of bleeding its members dry financially, of relentlessly attacking its critics and of mercylessly overworking its staff (of being "ruthless" in the words of an FEBC transcript) are at the root of the comtempt people have for the church - not "black propaganda" spread by its enemies.

    Sure, I know you've had some real gains, otherwise you wouldn't be so involved with the church. But if you honestly seek the truth and if you have the integrity to recognize it when you see it, then you might someday be free of that monstrous institution that you think is saving your life, but which is actually ruining it.

    I wish you success in finding true freedom!

    Much Love,

    Anomyous Prudent Person.

    P.S.: I asked myself, "From where could I communicate to a victim?" The answer that popped into my head was "Slashdot!!" ;)

  140. Oops, wrong URL... by hkmwbz · · Score: 2
    Clipboard problems it seems. Copy and paste the URL instead, or just open this one:

    http://bernie.cncfamily.com/earthlink.htm

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  141. Re:I WISH I HADN'T POSTED THIS ;] Holy Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You've been marked as an SP.
    Suppressive Person. Enemy of Scientology.
    Probably they hired a PI to check you out. SHRED before you throw away documents.
    7-a4163
    YOu might be able to run the license plate to see who the guy is.
    \
    Unless your house is up for sale. [;)

  142. I stand corrected by gentlewizard · · Score: 1

    Yes, that's right. But my point is that even Slashdot, which has a tradition of allowing just about anything due to its excellent moderation system, still felt the need to physically remove material in the face of dealing with the Scientologists.

  143. Re:What the hay?-MS by kbyrd · · Score: 2

    You all have no reason to believe me, but...
    I personally know someone who worked for Executive Software from a about a year who has seen source code. He is not a Scientologisst. He did site part of his reason for leaving them (Executive Software) was that he was getting pressure to "check out" Scientology.

    In any case, he's seen source code. But the company clearly has Scientology as a core value.

  144. Google won't run ads for critical sites by kristiw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At my Scientology Lies site, I document my correspondence with Google about ads for that site. Google's policy is not to run ads for sites that are critical of a person or organization, so it's impossible to advertise consumer information sites warning people about unethical or illegal practices by any organization, be it Scientology or McDonald's.

    When I pointed out that one of the sites Scientology advertised was bashing psychiatrists, though, they didn't feel that ran afoul of their policy.

    As for shenanigans, there's an excellent analysis of just how successful Scientology's attempts to spam search engines have been.

    Kristi

  145. Re:I WISH I HADN'T POSTED THIS ;] Holy Shit by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Interesting
    For the record:

    • I do not smoke or use drugs, and I rarely drink (and never to excess).
    • I have not cheated on my wife, nor would I.
    • I have never abused my children in any way.
    • I am not in debt more than your average recent college graduate (i.e., I have student loans, a car payment, a mortgage, and a manageable credit card balance).
    • I enjoy life, wake up refreshed each morning, and have lots of friends. I would never commit suicide.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  146. What a sure-fire strategy! by why-is-it · · Score: 2
    Well, well, well. I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of "evil" organizations out there--way way too many for you to take on. Even if you eliminited Scientology*, one thousand other organizations will be right there to demand your immediate attention. You can't win.

    "When they came for the Communists, I did not speak out, because I was not a Communist.
    When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.
    When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak out, because I was not a Catholic.
    When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."

    -Martin Niemoller
    --
    *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    1. Re:What a sure-fire strategy! by beej · · Score: 1
      When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out

      And if the Scientologists were "coming for" any of these groups, or any group at all, in fact, then I might agree with you a little.

      But they're not, and that makes all the difference.

    2. Re:What a sure-fire strategy! by zinjifar · · Score: 1

      But they are. By immutable dogma they are coming after *everything* and everyone not in 100% compliance with Scientology's goal of 'Clearing the Planet'.

      Of course they're nuts, and about as likely to gain the position to implement their stated genocidal ambitions as they are to *actually* make ashtrays fly.

      It's not about what they can do though; it's about the relatively lesser harm they cause while trying.

      If you consider corruption of your government officials, perversion of the justice system *you* pay for, deliberate obstruction of civil liberties all citizens are supposed to be guaranteed to be irrelevant to you...

      Well, that's your good right.

      Zinj

    3. Re:What a sure-fire strategy! by beej · · Score: 2
      But they are. By immutable dogma they are coming after *everything* and everyone not in 100% compliance with Scientology's goal of 'Clearing the Planet'.

      I'll stipulate, but I don't know that much about Scientology.

      If you consider corruption of your government officials, perversion of the justice system *you* pay for, deliberate obstruction of civil liberties all citizens are supposed to be guaranteed to be irrelevant to you...

      Of course these issues matter to me, and if I thought destroying the CoS would in some way fix that, I suppose I'd reconsider.

      But this is kind of like toweling out your house after a flood--eventually you gotta fix the levee.

      This is another issue I have where people feel better because they're doing something even if the thing they do doesn't actually accomplish their goal. It is rampant with people who write the government with no effect, but feel good for having done so, and also with the government passing "feel-good" laws.

      Feel-good laws hurt me because they often restrict liberties with no benefit.

      Something should be done, but often implemented solutions can be worse than nothing. And if you're going to act, act decisively and with (figurative) force. If you can't do it now, save it for the right time.

      I'm looking into my crystal ball. At the current rate, the CoS will be up to the same tricks in 72 years regardless of the actions of these lawbreaking anti-CoS sites.

    4. Re:What a sure-fire strategy! by why-is-it · · Score: 2

      But they're not, and that makes all the difference.

      I have read some of your other posts on this thread, and I am not sure if your opinion is based on apathy or the head-in-the-sand approach.

      I agree that education is part of the solution, but the damage this group has inflicted on people is very real. I know their "religion" is a front for a cheezy pyramid scheme, and I suspect most /.'ers know the same. But for the people who dont post/read/troll here, the message has got to get out somehow.

      BTW Beej's Guide to Network Programming was a great help to me back in University. Thanks for putting that together and posting it.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
  147. Scientology and Your Rights Offline by kristiw · · Score: 1

    The Wayback Machine thing sucks, as do so many other Scientology actions against the net, but frankly I'm a little more concerned about how Scientology's actions affect people's rights out in the non-virtual world.

    This is an organization that has framed critics, including journalist Paulette Cooper, who was indicted for sending bomb threats which, in reality, Scientology had sent to themselves. Scientology also attempted to frame Clearwater mayor Gabriel Cazares (for hit-and-run), U.S. District Judge Ben Krentzman (for solicitation and drug use), attorney Michael Flynn (for cashing a forged check), BBS operator Tom Klemesrud (for battery), attorney Graham Berry (for child molestation and battery), author Russell Miller (for murder), and former Scientologists Martin Hunt (for Internet posts; his report of the police officer's visit didn't mention what was being alleged about the posts) and Gene Allard (for grand theft - Allard won a 1974 malicious prosecution suit against Scientology).
    Numerous instances of making false reports to police have been reported.

    This is an organization that has seen 11 top-ranking executives go to jail in the U.S. for infiltrating government offices to steal and plant documents. In the similar Canadian trial, three Scientology executives and the Toronto church organization itself were found guilty of similar crimes.

    The FBI raids in the late 70s turned up evidence of the frame-ups of Cooper and Cazares, along with evidence that Scientology had infiltrated numerous other government offices, such as the California Attorney General's office, as well as newspapers like the Clearwater Sun, law offices like Sidley & Austin, and other organizations, such as the Clark County Mental Health Agency. A Scientologist on the San Diego police force was fired for passing police information to Scientology.

    A typical response from Scientology spokepeople is "that was years ago." (We never did that, and besides, we don't do it anymore.)

    Well, there were five frame-up attempts that I can count in the past 3-4 years (Keith Henson, successfully framed and now a fugitive in Canada; Mark Bunker, acquitted; Bob Minton, acquitted twice but now apparently extorted into testifying for Scientology; Jesse Prince, hung jury).

    There are also disturbing signs that Scientology is continuing to infiltrate government offices and businesses. A motion was filed just a couple of weeks ago alleging religious discrimination in the case of a woman who was fired from the Greenwich Housing Authority after Scientology management systems were introduced and employees were required to attend Scientology courses, paid for with thousands of dollars in public money, and the EEOC recently took action in a Texas case in which employees at a dental office were fired after refusing to attend Scientology classes. The Sacramento News & Review did a story not long ago about a publishing house that uses Scientology management techniques, run by Scientologists Dennis McKenna (who, as a Scientology spokesman, defended what Scientology did to Paulette Cooper) and Don Pearson (who gave extensive Scientology training to Allstate employees until management finally stopped it); the company, eRepublic, publishes a magazine on the use of technology in government (and another on the use of technology in education) and consults to governments on technology issues. The magazine includes ads for business training - never mentioning that it teaches Scientology principles - offered by people like Arte Maren - long-time Scientologist, co-conspirator in the 70s government infiltration case, and trainer in the Greenwich Housing Authority case.

    I'm concerned that people confronted by Scientology training in the workplace don't know their rights. I hope the EEOC will vigorously defend people who are being illegally subjected to Scientology training at work - and I hope journalists will keep a closer eye on Scientology's continuing infiltration in government and business.

    Kristi
    Scientology Lies

  148. Cult vs. Church by GunFodder · · Score: 2

    I think the primary difference between a Cult and a Church is a single charismatic leader. A Cult relies on this leader to hold the flock together. A Cult graduates to a Church when the leader dies and the flock keep their faith.

    By this logic the CoS is really a Church. Every Church starts as a Cult, so the only Churches that get misidentified as Cults are the relatively new ones (like Scientology).

    If anyone thinks Scientology is too ridiculous to be a Church then remember that Buddha saw demons, the Torah requires five prayer sessions a day and the Bible states that the earth is less than 5000 years old. It wouldn't be faith if it made sense :)

  149. Re:Bigger news LISA MARIE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NICK the dick Cage married Lisa Marie Presley heiress to the Elvis fortune and a devout scientologist.
    Priscilla is the mom.

  150. Boycott these people BOYCOTT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From celeb.txt
    Rising star Erika Christensen is a 2nd generation clam. Swimfan, Traffic, Banger Sisters
    Malcolm in the Middle star who plays the oldest brother. Masterson , also a 2nd generation clam AND who just happens to be the brother of the guy that plays HYDE on 'that 70's show'.
    Grounded for Life- Bartelson. the older daughter. Also 2nd generation. Daughter of a Scientology lawyer. Talk about a cult with teeth.
    Apparently that Hyde bastard from the 70's show has got 'donna=prepon' doing scientology courses.
    Bart Simpsons voice. Scientologist.
    Of course Cruise, Kirstie Alley, Jenna Elfman, Travolta, Julliette Lewis.
    Catherine Bell from JAG. Yes she is hot but I'm sorry, it must be done.
    -
    Check it out.
    Just run searches on your favorite stars on google
    'john travolta' scientology
    You will be surprised.
    There money supply has to be shut off.

  151. Kafka revisited - Scientology vs Archive.org by Hartley · · Score: 1

    I read on the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology that certain websites critical of the Church of Scientology had been blocked on Wayback Machine. My website (www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk) falls into that category, so I took a look. To my surprise, I found a note to the effect that my website had been blocked at my request.
    At my request? I hadn't known Wayback Machine existed!
    So I wrote them. Back came a form letter referring me to a post on the Archive.org forum, which indicated that certain websites had been blocked at the request of the Church of Scientology. No apology. They've now changed the notice to say my URL is 'not available'. No explanation as to why.

    Earlier this year my website was checked by CoS lawyers who asked me to remove material over which they claimed copyright. I did so. My website is currently legally clean so far as the Church of Eternal Litigation is concerned, but Wayback Machine will continue to block it - forever.
    Archive.org have presumably not checked to see if the complaints were valid. That would cost money. So would websurfing to Slashdot and elsewhere to find out what happened to Google - bad publicity.

    Let's be clear about this. The Church of Scientology is not concerned about copyright issues in general here - their own website www.scientology.org which is full of copyright notices is still available on Wayback Machine! What they want to do is to block access to their secret advanced courses, for which they charge Church members thousands of dollars.
    They are legally entitled to this protection. My concern is that archive.org have yet to formulate a coherent policy towards blocking. They don't inform website owners that their sites have been blocked, they don't check to see if the blocking requests are valid, they don't say why a site has been blocked.

  152. A Logo for the WayBacked by zinjifar · · Score: 1

    http://members.tripod.com/zinjifar0/wayblock.gif Zinj

  153. Re:Whoever modded this up Insightful... by unitron · · Score: 2
    Would that be a certain church that received a cut from Germany's income tax collection every year right up through 1944?

    Of course if you really want to be scared, consider that the same type of people who were virulently anti-Jew prior to World War II are now big fans of Israel because they see it as helping to fulfill prophecy and bring about Armaggedon. Like we don't have enough to worry about without having to deal with the end of the world as well.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  154. Why aren't these people chased out of town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WITH Pitchforks?

  155. CTEA should be repealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Copyright Term extension act passed by Sonny Bono, who was a scientologist had this bill passed and directly benefits those Scientology Thetanoids.

  156. Re:Fighting back. REPEAL CTEA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    copyright term extension act.
    A bill passed by Sonny Bono. A scientologist.