oh, and for the record, I’m tired of reading about the CoS.
How anyone can get sucked into this is beyond me, but I can’t help them. If you are convinced that an auditing session with an e-meter is helping you on the road to your salvation, who am I to argue? How do the Tom Cruise’s of the world function on a day to day basis?
Since the federal govt. can’t shut these people down, I have to wonder why. Perhaps the CoS members have some folks on their payrolls. Or perhaps they aren’t doing anything illegal.
I’ll just say “Uncle” and move along. It’s probably for the best anyway. And I have much more exiting things to worry about, anyway… like why don’t pitchers wear single numbers?
It appears that our good friend, Constipated Mathematician, has no idea what a ‘magazine’ is, nor why it has no ‘links’ in an article written for the paper version. What a strange and unusual concept!
Between Waverly and E-Sabbath, the whole CoS “discussion” has turned into a name-calling peurile poo-fest.
Constipated Mathematician had an interesting first post, and both of you sat so heavily on the first instance of someone calling him a Cos member. Congratulations…you’ve won the award for “Making the OP title Ironic”.
Between E-Sabbath’s cite-diarrhea and Waverly’s “look at me! I’m calling him a liar for Niacin-bashing”-drama, they’ve dragged the whole CoS discussion into the mud.
I don’t want to put words into CM’s mouth, but I think he started off with a (admittedly) loose series of questions and thoughts, and was slammed for that. LRH forbid we don’t adhere to the rigorous standards of E-Sabbath and Waverly!
CM, I’d like to see you stay onthe board. It’s nice to see someone who wil take the time to read postings, respond (at length!), and not take the whinings of e-bullies too badly.
Please add me to this sentiment. I also hope you stay CM, and I read the whole thread. I am impressed that you returned time and time again when other people would have gotten frustrated. I say nothing about the veracity of anyone’s claims but I do like that particular quality in you.
Yep-that’s the cult’s MO down to a T. Instead of addressing the arguments, go dig up shit on the person making them to try and distract them into defending themselves and abandoning their claims against the cult.
Constipated Mathematician-your selection of quotes from me and my issues and how you chose them say FAR more about you than they do about me.
Yes, I’m OCD. Yes, I’m currently unemployed, living at home, and I’m a total cliche of the immature loser, at least, to some people. Oh well. Such is life. I never said I was something I wasn’t, though. I don’t have anything to hide-do you?
If you want me to act all outraged and embarassed and breakdown crying-well, sorry to disappoint you.
I’m late to the thread and it seems I’ve missed my chance to ask Constipated Mathematician why he kept asking why the government didn’t take action against CoS, and yet he obviously knows about Operation Snow White for which many of the highest level of CoS management, including Hubbard’s wife, served prison time. If the top brass going to prison isn’t an indictment of the organization itself, what is? Not that it was likely that CM would have addressed this point.
I’m surprised by posters like Cemetery Savior (to name the most recent) who somehow see this as a pile-on. It wasn’t. The discourse was actually far more civil than I would have figured given that CM refused to directly address any argument, but instead attacked the sources, asked vague questions and then ignored the answers, and did everything but actually discuss a topic. After reading through a few of his posts I had to ask what his point was. That one or two articles on CoS lacked citations? What about the many of others that have them? If CM wanted to argue that no one can prove that the CoS was corrupt he needs to explain the many, many past members and those who have documented the CoS’s history, and why their accounts aren’t valid. Instead he argued that none of us should care about the CoS one way or the other, which is just silly.
The only reason I created a cite-fest is because our favorite Constipated Mathematician kept asking for them. And then disbelieving them and ignoring them, and asking for more.
Really, this is a pit thread. I’ve been far more civil than I wanted to be.
I’ve been procrastinating a return to this thread, but there’re a few points raised that I now would like to address. Constipated Mathematician, begging your permission:
I’m not sure what the answer is to this question, CM, and I’m not sure it matters. Could the US Government have bigger fish to fry? Could the government have already investigated the CoS and decided that they couldn’t find any illegality? Could every undercover FBI officer that attempted to infiltrate the CoS have undergone auditing and subsequently gone completely insane?
What’s your theory?
My point here is that even if the CoS is involved in no illegal activity, there are still valid reasons for this thread to exist - namely, warning people about the dangers of getting involved with a money-making scam of a pseudoscientific religion.
Agreed, absolutely. That doesn’t make them evil or wrong.
What makes them “evil” (your term) that they are bilking people out of cash for services that they know to be spurious (unless they are profoundly deluded, in which case we can give them a pass). What makes them “evil” is that they commit themselves to ruining their critics.
What makes them wrong is that there is no valid science behind their method of “helping” people.
What makes them wrong is that there is no plausibility to their explanations of human emotional struggle.
With all due respect, CS, you may want to save that for the Christian Science thread. Establishing that other religions shun medicine won’t legitimize the CoS, except with respect to their philosophical right to shun medicine or psychiatry. I certainly won’t begrudge them that right, whereas I reserve the right to shout from the rooftops that their methods are dangerous - which, again, is the value of this thread.
Right again, CS, that’s not what makes them a “public menace”.
What makes them a “public menace” (your term) is that they are bilking people out of cash for services that they know to be spurious (unless, again, they are profoundly deluded, in which case they’re unwittingly a public menace). What makes them a “public menace” is that they commit themselves to ruining their critics.
And while the practice of psychiatry certainly has had it’s troubles, some distinctions need to be made between the legitimacy of psychiatry versus Scientology:
A) Psychiatry: founded by credentialed, ostensibly sane people.
Scientology: founded on the theories of a single dissatisfied science-fiction writer with no discernible credentials, who professed to posess super-human abilities.
B) Psychiatry: theories developed, tested, then judged in peer-reviewed journals in an ongoing process.
Scientology: Theories developed by L Ron Hubbard, quite some years ago. Can you find evidence that the theories described in “Dianetics” were subject to affirmative review by L Ron’s peers - who, presumably, were likewise-dissatisfied science fiction writers with super-human abilities- or by anyone with any legitimacy, for that matter? Yeah, me neither.
C) Psychiatry: requires a rigorous cirriculum to practice legally. Practitioners subject to board review:
Scientology: Indoctrination is essential. Beyond that, who knows? Is there any evidence to suggest that any practitioner should be assumed competent?
D) Psychiatry: A mostly a transparent, mostly scientific discipline. Textbooks available almost everywhere.
Scientology: Not so transparent. Fiercely protective of “secrets”. Vengefully litigious.
E) Psychiatry: “OK, so you disagree with our theories? Well, prove us wrong.”
Scientology: “OK, so you disagree with our theories? Well, let’s see how you like it when we call your boss and tell him about those dirty secrets we’re explicitly encouraged by our religious leader to spread about you.”
First, CM, I think it’s worth noting that Operation Snow White is a valid example to bring up, as long as it’s brought up in context.
In this case, the context is the fraudulent “research” described in “Dianetics”, on which the religion’s “auditing” techniques are based.
The context is the risible mythology which the CoS serves up to believers after collecting tens of thousands of dollars from them.
The context is the larger pattern of behavior exhibited by the CoS toward it’s detractors, stretching from at least the 1960’s to the present.
Exhibit A) Filing a lawsit for $400 million in damages against Time Magazine, after Time published an article critical of the religion. A suit that the CoS lost by dismissal.
Exhibit B)
Lest we forget (and Lord knows, I’m trying my best to hammer this point home):
“The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than 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 professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”
These are the things we know to be true. Within this context, the onus is on the CoS to convince us that Operation Snow White is an irrelevant anomaly.
Well, thanks, Constipated Mathematician, I like you, too.
What do you want from me? I *agreed * with the concept of “ultra high doses of niacin” being not so good for people. I’ll even use the word “dangerous” if it makes you happy. You didn’t supply the best cite. That was done by Frylock, who for some reason understood what I was asking for. I “obliquely” agreed? Do you have a thesaurus handy? How did I “obliquely” agree?
That’s not what the cites that were listed said. If you pump someone full of saccharrin (in ultra high doses) it could kill you too. I haven’t seen one cite provided by you or anyone else out here that outlines the CoS’ method of niacin administration. Furthermore, I haven’t seen a list of names of former CoS members who have been fitted for a toe-tag because they took too much niacin. I’ve seen quotes in articles which I’ve quoted ad-nauseum, and won’t bother the readers again. Remember, “some think” that “high doses” could/may be “harmful”. Sorry if I wasn’t bowled over with that.
Great reply, E-Sabbath, but did you actually read my response? Or did you even read the article in Rolling Stone? There are problems with that article. OK, don’t supply me links. How about putting the url in the article with the inflammatory information on the web about the woman who’s life was being destroyed? What about giving some information on the lawsuit (a case number would have been a good start. Or how about CoS vs. Destroyed Lady). And how about some information about the methods of how the CoS is trying to get her fired?
You ever hear of Stephen Glass? He wrote articles for the New Republic (and other magazines) with a similar approach. A first-person story, no real sources, no way to fact-check. The author’s notes are all there is. That doesn’t make her a liar. It makes me question the details of the story.
Anaamika, and Cemetery Savior, thanks for the kind words. I have a feeling that it will bring down a storm of name calling and protests from the right-thinkers on this board, but I really just wanted to make the accusers and bashers give us something more than the standard rhetoric. I’m not sure I’ll stick around on the boards, but I thank you for your votes of confidence. I never intended to get caught up in this thread, and I’ve spent entirely too much time reading about stuff I never really paid attention to. That in of itself isn’t bad. But trying to have a normal conversation with some of these posters is just impossible. “they’ve seen this trick before”, “my behavior is similar to what a CoS supporter would do.” and my favorite “constipation is an important part of the CoS” (or some such nonsense.) And before you rail me, the quoted text above is from memory, not exact. I don’t have the energy to find that crap again. But they believe what they want, and will keep stating that I haven’t done my research. What research have any of these CoS bashers done? Google searching aside, it would be nice if they actually read something AND answered some of my questions for a change. other than look!ninjas, I get the same old stuff.
I think I may be starting on a bad note. I was followed into another thread, identified to the readers of that thread that I might be a Scientologist, but hey, that’s fair game. And the best part is no one ever said that I was a Scientologist… I just have the “signs”. ooooooooooooooooo! I’m one of them! I’m also on someone’s “radar screen”. That can’t be good. :dubious:
Which brings me to my favorite:
They do? Read them again. And if you have the energy, read all of those threads in full. You have the search function. I think the average reader will agree that they say far more about you than me (or anyone else for that matter). Oh wait. I forgot. ooooooooooooooooo! I’m one of them! :rolleyes: You throw around insults, and then tell me that if I can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Good advice… you should follow it. Tell me, what does my apology to you say about me? This is the pit. I shouldn’t have to apologize. Nobody else seems to. But I did because it was the right thing to do.
Finally, to Enter the Flagon,
I don’t know. Perhaps the Government doesn’t see this as a big problem. Perhaps they can’t get an agent into the CoS, or if they have, they’ve been converted. :eek: Perhaps it’s a manpower issue.
I know my post about the RS article is long, but if you read through it, you will see a bunch of my questions. I frankly don’t have these answers. This is what troubles me so much about the CoS. The alligations of murder, brainwashing, kidnapping, etc. are all illegal activities. And before one of you sharp tickets posts me a cite where the CoS have these poor souls signing their lives away, please. Those documents wouldn’t hold up in a court of law. “But your honor, she signed her loyalty to the church for a billion years! See?” Please. They’d be laughed out of court.
I did ask a number of real questions in that response. One of which was “who does the CoS target for its members?” They aren’t wasting time on homeless people. You need money. And apparently, a lot of it.
If nothing else, can someone explain how an organization receives the IRS church-exempt (or non-profit) status? We could all benefit from that. Perhaps even start a church of our own. (just kidding - about the church, not the answer)
Hey! What do you know… someone who can read, disagree, but still appreciate me. Seriously, I’m glad you didn’t get drawn in to the CoS. And for what it’s worth, I do think you (more than most) have added much to this thread.
indeed. Now that is logic tough to argue with.
In retrospect, perhaps I should have stayed in the ESPN pit thread. Now **THAT ** was worthwhile.
Not really hard to find. Just took about 15 minutes to find that thread. I remembered it because it was in the pit. I also remembered it because I thought it was an unfair attack on a paying member. So I read it. Since I’ve been reading the board, I’ve seen your name everywhere. And for the most part, you add value with your responses. So, I was (and still am) on your side when it comes to your posting frequency. You should do it as much as you wish.
When I went back to find it, I did what is available to a guest. I went to the forum, I asked for the threads from a year ago, and then I searched on your name. It wasn’t that hard, it just took some time. Once I found the thread, someone in that thread linked to all of the threads I quoted from. So I didn’t invest as much time as you’d like to think. I’ve already apologized. For someone who didn’t give a rat’s behind about calling me a name, and telling me to get out of the pit if I couldn’t take it, I find your objection to my retort a bit hypocritical. I also was looking for you to slam **E-Sabbath ** for stalking me in another thread, but I guess that behavior is ok as long as you agree with the person doing the stalking. :rolleyes:
I could be wrong (it has been known to happen), but I thought that based on your posting history, your anger against T.C. and the CoS was based more on their rejection of psychiatry and the medication used by the profession. Now, you may know **EVERYTHING ** about Scientology, but I wouldn’t exactly call you an unbiased source based on your medical past. But I will concede that since I don’t know you personally, I may have jumped to an incorrect conclusion, and your hatred of Scientology has nothing to do with their stance on psychiatry.
Seriously, Guin, believe what you want. Hate Tom Cruise (we happen to agree on something). Take your meds (it’s ok by me, but then I’m not a Scientologist). Yell about the CoS from the highest mountain.
From a personal standpoint, I have no axe to grind with you. I truly wish you well, in your life, job search, love life and anything else you may be frustrated with. But for the sake of this thread, I’m not going to respond to anything else you post unless it is relevant.
I should point out that I in no way approve of the way you argued with Guin. That was under-handed and mean-spirited, to bring in things that really weren’t related, no matter how much you stress them.
still, you keep coming back to defend yourself, and don’t do so in short one-liners like many long-term posters here. That’s what I like about you.
Actually, she’s got a point. The fact that you responded to her posts by dredging up a bunch of shit from her past kind of does say a lot about you. There are better ways to respond than that. And honestly, judging by your responses to myself and some of the other people in this thread, you should know better than that. Address the argument and not the people in it.
And I know we’re in the pit, but heck, we might as well be in GD now. Nothing wrong with putting forth your best argument, no matter where you are.
I will actually try to dredge up more cites for you, incidentally, but it might be a while - it’s my first day at the new job, I have some sewing to do for a friend, and then it’s Project Runway night. (Laugh at my priorities all you want - someone breaks the rules and gets kicked off, and I damn well want to know who it is and why!)
I find this thread a bit strange; oh, well, it’s the Pit.
On one hand, I can say with a goodly amount of confidence that Scientology is bullshit and that L. Ron Hubbard was a major asshole for inflicting this dreck on society. I also think that there’s some kind of weird nefarious stuff going on with the CoS, and that Operation Snow White, etc. are some indication of the integrity of the leadership or lack thereof. I’m no fan of Scientology as I see it. But I’m no fan of religion in general, either.
On the other hand, where is an independent, non-biased resource for a discerning doper to get, well, the dope?
I’m not here to attack or defend any specific allegation, but it seems to me there’s got to be more independent confirmation of the allegations made on the Anti-CoS site for it to really pass muster. Again, I’m convinced that Scientology is a buncha hooey and likely has nefarious elements, so it’s not like you need to convince me, but generally here on the Dope, biased sources don’t count for much. Don’t get me wrong, there are a couple of cites in this thread that are unbiased and actually have good (bad?) info on the CoS. but still, nothing unbiased to really tie the case against the CoS together.
I think that **Constipated Mathematician ** (hey between you and bored mathematician I can’t seem to keep my mathematicians straight ) is absolutely in the right for asking for reputable, unbiased cites of some of the wrongdoings alleged to have been perpetrated by the CoS. This is the Dope; it’s what we do.
But I was also a bit creeped out by some of the similarities in his arguments/obliqueness to what had already been pointed out as beeing characteristic of typical CoS responses to criticism. But he’s said he’s not a Scientologist, so I’m not going to ask him to declare that L. Ron Hubbard was full of shit to prove that.
So, where do we go from here? What is the Straight Dope?
I’m not sure which site you’re referring to, but www.xenu.com contains a compilation of sources that were originally published elsewhere. In some cases, such as Miller’s book The Bare-Faced Messiah or Paulette Cooper’s The Scandal of Scientology, the books were bullied out of print by the CoS itself. There are a great many other sources contained in the site or linked to it – the site itself, in other words, is a library of independent sources, gathered together for convenience. There’s plenty of corroboration between the different sources on the site.
And they’re not all rabid anti-CoS people. (I would maintain that none of them are “rabid anti-CoS people”, in fact.) Miller, for instance, was actually hired by the CoS itself to write his bio of Hubbard, but they didn’t like the direction it took. It’s a well-researxched and balanced book.
I know that, but the guy who runs the site does acknowledge his bias openly. While some of the stuff comes from unbiased sources, (and, again, you don’t need to convince me they’re up to no good), it’s harder to really hang your hat on that. That’s all I’m saying.
Well, you can do your own research ( you should, if you’re interested), but my experience is that CoS material tends to be very polarized – you either are wholeheartedly on their side or you’re ritical of them, or apathetic. Very few people are [mildly critical of the CoS. I believe that the book Cults of Unreason, the title notwithstanding, being one of these. Aside from a very few sources of this type, the site tends to collect anything on the anti-side of the fence. So it’s only cherry-picked to the extent that it hasn’t got any of the “plus” sides to the CoS. To be truthful, I don’t see many plus sides, though. YMMV.
I am looking into it. It’s just that I keep running across this thread (and reminded to do more research) when I’m at work and I’ll be damned if I leave any of that shit in my cookie trail.
That polarization is what I’m talking about, though, in terms of being frustrated with the lack of neutral info.
) is absolutely in the right for asking for reputable, unbiased cites of some of the wrongdoings alleged to have been perpetrated by the CoS. This is the Dope; it’s what we do.