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."

49 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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 CleverNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. 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.
    3. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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 .

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

    oh, wait. he already has.

    --
    - /* dead coders leave no comments */
  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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."

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

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

  15. 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.

  16. more anti-CoS sites by edgarde · · Score: 4, Informative
  17. 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.

  18. 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.

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

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

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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?
  23. 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.
  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.
  27. 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: 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.
    2. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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

  30. 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!

  31. 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
  32. 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.

  33. 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
  34. 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.

  35. 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?
  36. 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?