Church of Scientology Full version of Operating Thetan leaked: your opinions

Martine says:

Terryeo writes: “Likely, you don’t have access to full definitions and are unlikely to fully understand every specialized term.”

Full Scientology glossaries, technical dictionaries, admin dictionaries etc are available via torrents.

Also, the bgodley posting at 8.14pm is not the genuine one, I have read bgodley’s comments elsewhere and as much as I disagree with them, they do not contain spelling errors like “plagerism” or “humurous”.

bgodley says:

“bawww wai do pple b stelin mine naem )))’: ” bgodley cried to his Auditor. Well, because it’s funny, and quite frankly you’re a joke.”

With all due respect, you are helping prove my case with comments like these. Here is some advice, some people read this stuff who aren’t Scientologists or Anonymous. This isn’t a video game message board.

Fredric L. Rice says:

Yeah, it’s pretty amusing. The various NOTs, L, and everything else have been afloat around the Intertubes for something like 15 years now — something like 1993 was the first series of “secret” documents scanned in to computer and routinely spread around the ‘tubes.

Having it all in one place is kind of interesting, though, but it’s unlikely that there’s anything actually new in this latest series.

Nobody but Free Zoners, Rons Orgers and the like who actually believe such insane, drug-induced stupidity actually wants this stuff. The rest of us step through it for the LOLs and then we delete them — or think that maybe they’re not spread around enough and lend a hand.

It’s funny. The Scientology crime syndicate is being dismantled with something like 40,000 remaining customers world wide — and yet their actual documents, the actual truth about what the insane crooks eventually sell to the rubes, marks, and suckers, have never been more widely known.

There is massive irony in all this. Try to keep one’s crimes, abuses, and bait-and-switch bunko frauds a secret and they’ll get wider coverage than if you try to sell them.

Any way, I looked these things over back before that profoundly insane criminal Helena Kobrin issued her RMGROUP to the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup to try to stop the civil rights and human rights activists from discussing Scientology crimes, homicides, and what the insane crooks actually sell their marks. I scanned through these stupid piles of idiot drugged out nonsense, laughed a bit, and deleted them. Nearly everyone does.

All my own opinions and just my own opinions, as always.

bgodley says:

Anoynymause,

No I actually dodn’t dodge your “questions”.

I just have a hard time repeating myself over and over and over.

You can look at some recent responses in the message boards of ohio state’s online paper. I go over in exhausting length some responses to a few of the common accusations.

http://uweekly.com/newsmag/03-26-2008/7952

Now realize Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard and church staff have been accused of hundereds of things, whatever someone’s fancy lends itself to. It is virtually impossible for me to spend all my time trying to handle one wild accusation after another. You can come up with as many accusations as there are ideas. Often, when I have spent time addressing accusations, another accusation or rumor pops up and then I get accused of not handling that one. Then I handle that and then it repeats itself ad nauseum.

What I often think is that these critics are just talking to themselves in a way. Often to try and remind themselves that they are actually doing the right thing. They start sites like the enturbulation site where they can pat each other on the back for brave attempts at saving the world by trying to take down the “evil” church. Then they run to comment boards like this regurgitating the same stuff they bought hook, line and sinker from the anti-scientology sites.

My honest opinion and this is going to sound a little harsh - you are being used.

Any decent intention to help by some is being twisted by a campaign of those with not so decent intentions. They will talk to you nice, call you brother and reiterate with regularity all that is bad with Scientology. They will throw in some mockery and degradation to make it sound fun and for laughs. But deep down they don’t have the professed do-good intentions they claim. These guys would as easily throw you under a bus as they would ordering a cup of coffee if they thought it “right”. Now realize again when I say this it doesn’t fit the majority of the Anonymous group - it is minor portion. By the way this same minor group is what often comprimises that small band of ex-Scientologists who got thrown out of the church. Again not everyone of those, but some.

The reason I write these posts is often to not just defend my church but to try and reach those kids who are being duped and used. They often don’t see it which is something I am well aware of. It however has almost become a secondary goal. To help that portion of the anonymous group wake up a bit.

As for that minor group, well, lets just say I wouldn’t risk my neck saving theirs.

Anoynymause says:

BGodley: Very well, I have read the 12 comments posted on the article under your name (and I do say it that way, because it’s quite obvious you weren’t the only person posting it).
If you don’t mind, I’ll try and respond with my thoughts on your comments in order (at least the ones I believe are yours), and add a synopsis of my remarks after the comments (or as we like to say, a tl;dr). You seem genuinely interested in a discussion, and I am genuinely interested in discussing also, and I don’t believe that making personal attacks, from either side, will help progress our understand of each other’s perspectives. And so we go!

first post, bgodley | 2008-03-25 - 09:13:58 PM (CDT)
You seem to question the validity of the sites and articles that Anonymous uses as resources. So are you then questioning the TIME’s credibility, or the BBC? I could understand finding suspicious a website that is anti-Scientology, however, Andreas Heldal-Lund continues to hold an open mind on the subject (I’m sure you know what website he owns, I don’t need to name it), and asks that if any misinformation be spread on his website, that you can email him and ask for it to be fixed. And he will do this, so long as you, the person who emails him, can prove that what they are saying is the truth, or that what Heldal-Lund is saying is ineffectual. Yet, his site continues to hold critical arguments that have not been disproven, even after the Church of Scientology brought him into a court of law on the subject of his website’s content (and several times, at that!). This, in my opinion, makes it all a more credible source.
And it is true, there have been some calls to physical action. But this happens in every kind of group, no matter what they are promoting. And Anonymous makes sure that these ideas do not propagate because it realizes that it’s counter-productive to our cause. How exactly does this make us bigots? (I see no religious argument if we’re opposing the Church of Scientology, as it is not the religion of Scientology.)
I have never seen a discussion about not having to prove anything. We feel there is a lot of proof that is currently available, what with all the testimonials. And I do understand that not everything works for everyone, but the amount of testimonials out there and their concurrency only makes them more valid, and usually when even only a few cases happen, there is an investigation opened as to resolve the problem, or at least there are claims within which has not worked (in this case the Church of Scientology.. I’m just feeling my wording might be a bit tricky) that it just doesn’t work all the time. But I’ve read many times on Scientology websites, or in comments made by self-proclaimed Scientologists, that the Tech has a 100% success rate.
On that note, however, I will not deny that testimonials on their own would stand in a court of law. And that is why that we use these testimonials so that if investigative organisations feel the need to do so, they will have some ground to suppose something is not right. And we do feel that these investigations will not leave them empty-handed.
And, I’m sorry to be beating a dead horse, but there have been previous investigations within the Church of Scientology, what with Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout. Also, there have been a lot of investigations happening lately; journalistic investigations, that we feel have really started to speed up thanks to our protests. If the journalistic investigations turn out to prove and show once and for all that the Church has nothing to hide, then Anonymous will cease and go back to doing whatever it was doing before. If this isn’t the case, then legal action will be taken and more police investigation will occur.

It is possible to accuse an organisation of commiting crimes, and not believe that all its followers are criminals and that they may continue doing what they please. When a company’s director is accused of embezzling money, the company will crumble; but the accountants can continue being accountants, and the secretaries may continue being secretaries, and so on. If the Church of Scientology does crumble under the scrutiny of an investigation (that we hope will happen), you can continue practicing and believing in Scientology under the banner of FreeZone. There is an alternative. Of course, people will continue to chuckle at what your belief system upholds (people chuckle at me, too, when I do silly things, I don’t mind), but at least they won’t believe that your Church is comitting criminal activities, or anything of that effect. (Anonymous is accountable as being “people”, and we do believe this is happening. We are spreading our beliefs, and hoping that they will continue to be supported through more empirical data and proof.)
I will answer your question: I believe that I am a leader. However, I also know that following is a good idea from time-to-time. It’s a terrible idea to always believe in the same concept, because then there is either: A) no progress, or B) no direction. However, I don’t think that’s very relevant to the discussion at hand.
I do not believe that you have some insidious plans, or that you’ve personally comitted crimes, nor that you are a bad person. There is absolutely no proof to support any claim like that. However, Tory Christman (also, I would believe you’ve at least heard of her? Although she did blow in 2001, so you might not’ve been a member early enough…) had been in the Church for over 30 years, and had achieved OT VII. And she admits to have participated in insidious plans to silence critics, for instance creating spamming accounts on websites such as a.r.s. . She did not make these plans up; the Church of Scientology told her to do it. And being a good follower, she did. I’m sorry if I’m dissecting your wording like this, but it’s a strategy that is often used both in Courts and in professional debates.
Also, the new website of Scientology.org, with its 82 videos… There is at least one person that is shown in the testimonies, who claims that their statements were taken out of context. And a few other people were found to’ve either been non-existant (as in, the position they claimed is not one that actually exists), or didn’t showcase the person who was declared to hold that title. This makes the videos dubious at least, and until the Church can at least adress the concerns of the single person who’s come out and contested his participation in these videos, I cannot personally hold them accountable or credible.
As Anonymous, we felt that we needed to take up this cause because we thought that what we believe about the Church is the truth, and we went out of our way to inform the public of the dangers we’ve perceived. I think it’s a bit ironic that you should say the following: “They in some way seem to see most of the world as an enemy and can\’t conceive of the idea that people actually do go out of their way to help other people.” We absolutely do conceive that idea, because it’s exactly what we feel we are doing. And we understand the world is not our enemy; unlike most protestors (think of those against the G8, or GreenPeace for instance), we try very much to comply and cooperate with the police, and to not endanger the public, and we make sure that we do not become a violent group that is only lashing out.
I personally do have a roller-coaster life, and I would not be surprised if other Anonymous were in the same situation. But you know what? That is the case for just about everyone in the world, at least at one time or another, most generally during the late teens/early adulthood (which is, coincidentally, where most Anons are). And I believe that there is nothing wrong with that. Protesting is actually giving us something steady that we can hold onto, and it’s making us happier. We could’ve joined a book club, and it would’ve had the same effect. Or, as you suggested, we could’ve joined Scientology; same effect.
(On a side-note, I don’t think many churches have “peace corps”, or at least none that I’ve heard about…)
I am glad that you did give the option to the author of that article to ask you questions. Whether you’d like to believe it or not, most News outlet do try to get in contact with Scientology representatives, but are unfortunately denied, or given a copy/paste response. Why? We don’t know, but it does not help them defend what is being reported.

TL;DR : Anonymous in no way condones criminal activities / You can continue practicing Scientology in the Freezone / There are investigations happening in the Church of Scientology and that have happened, both investigative and journalistic / There is nothing wrong with a roller-coaster life.

I will only be adressing this first post for now, I have some things to work on for two or so hours. I hope it wasn’t too much to digest, and I also look forward to continuing this discussion with you.
Please feel free to express any concerns in regard to my comments, or adress anything that you might feel was misinterpreted. I’ll gladly oblidge to admit my mistake, or to reiterate if I feel you have a point on the issue.
Thank you!
-David (no, it’s not my real name — it’s an Anonymous thing)