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

BGodley: I have read the comments, and would like to adress them and earnestly hold a discussion with you. Not on the subject of the allegations of the Church conducting criminal activities, but rather on the group that is Anonymous.
I would have liked to have held it here, but that doesn’t seem possible. There seems to be a posting limit, and I feel that it would hinder our discussion capabilities. If you could please send me an email to : anonymousanonymousanonymous1@yahoo.ca, I’ll gladly reply so that we may hold a civil debate. Obviously, that email is not my legit email, and if you feel so inclined you may also use a throw-away email.
I look forward to discussing with you (:
-David

Anonymaue,

I would prefer to address your concerns here in a public forum so as to have others follow the discussions.

In reference to your comment about Time magazine and BBC, yes I very much do consider them to be dubious sources. I have met and know about the lives and businesses of some of the people referenced in the Time magazine article. I can tell you personally that there is flagrant untruths. So you can just toss that one out the window.

I wasn’t as personally connected to the BBC piece but I can tell you that much of it was filled with generalities and inuendo. “people say”. “critics think”. This type of reporting is used to obfuscate the source of the comment which is often the reporter himself. This makes the comments inflammatory and relegates the piece to opinion not journalism. This, not to mention that the reporter lost it in his job. I sent an email to the BBC after the piece and the editorial staff responded and said that they were aware of the problems associated with the piece and would look to address problems regarding it internally.

As to Heldal-Lund and the Xenu site. He has about as an open mind as fort knox safe.

Here are some direct quotes from his own website;
Frequently Asked questions page.

“I do not state anywhere that I am objective. On the contrary, I am a thinking human and I have my personal opinions.”

“I made a web site to inform others about my concerns. It is not unbiased or objective, and it never claimed it was. Why should it be?”

He then goes on to contradict himself in a few comments later.

“I do not want others to base their opinions on censored or biased propaganda.”

He explains that he is biased and then says he doesn’t want others to base their opinions on bias information.

This is an attempt to cover his tracks in saying he is only giving his unobjective opinion and then trys to say that he really wants others to be objective. This is a sign of an artful liar. If you careful examine the communication of others you can see it.

He also says on the website:

“I spell it out pretty clearly; these are my opinions and here is the documentation which I base them on.”

So I looked at his “documentation”. The thing I found to be of most interest is that almost all of his sources are just opinions of others. More specifically opinions of apostates and few critics.

I can pretty much sum up his whole website for you.

Opinion based upon opinion.

Thus I can also sum up the entirety of many of Anonymous claims too as many other critical sites cross reference each other to look legitimate.

Opinion based upon opinion based upon opinion.

The opinion gets whitewashed as being documents and evidence. For example, some use Judge Latey’s judicial opinion from 30 years ago on Scientology as evidence. He obviously didn’t like it but that was his opinion. He was not trying a criminal case, it was a custody battle (where his decisions ended up tragically by the way).

I repeat:

Opinion based upon opinion based upon opinion.

Now, Lund does reference people who have very unethical backgrounds including Steve Hassan.

He was involved in several kidnapping/”deprograming” events in the 70’s and 80’s. In one such event was with a member of the Unification Church, Arthur Roselle. He testified in a sworn statment, “Hassan aided, abetted, and conspired in my kidnapping and in my subsequent false imprisonment.” Roselle also accused Hassan of actively assisting in depriving him of sleep, insulting and humiliating him, and treating him like “a captured animal in a zoo,” as well as attempting to coerce him into signing a false affidavit exonerating Hassan of the kidnapping claims.

He also references only information that supports his hypothesis. He references all scientology critics, no shock there really.

Opinion does not make something true. Facts and evidence of wrong doing make something more true. Why has the Church not be convicted of crimes? Because there aren’t any. If there were ,we would have seen something on this by now.

There was a blight on the chruch’s image in the form of old group of Scientologists who were convicted of a crime. That singular crime had nothing to do with the vast majority of Scientologists or L. Ron Hubbard himself. The prosecutor in that case even stated that these individuals acted autonomously. The group that they belonged to was obviously summarily disbanded and many of those members kicked out for unethical behavior. The irony in this is that actually many of those same scorned ex-Scientologists make up a percentage of the critics that are often referenced as sources.

Now possibly it was this case that has caused so much controversy. Possibly it was this case that caused some critics to think of the church as a criminal organization or some such. I cannot be sure.

What I can be sure of is that all these claims of evil doing are bogus and, as mentioned above, are opinions and remain opinions until hard facts are shown. What I can state is that many cases of slander and criminal convictions have occured amongst many within this small band of church critic. There is proof of that.

I do not know if any of this sways you. I am not going to kid myself and think it will. I will only offer it for your inspection.

FOR SALE The power of God.
Be like God & u too can have anything u want.
Special rates to be like God.
Get to know the tech God didn’t want u to know.
Don’t go for cheap substitutes.
Get the real power of God at your Org.
It seems to me that Scientology is selling the power of God to those obviously who can afford it.
Too many Gods spoil the broth unless they are democratic.

I haven’t really read and posted on a lot of blogs and message boards before, but I’ve been following this Anonymous vs. Scientology thing.

One thing sticks out to me that is worth commenting on. These anonymous people are shockingly rude. They are just plain out disrespecting people in any way they can.

Maybe it’s the culture on the internet, and something they’ve gotten used to being able to do being “anonymous”.

I’m personally shocked to see the epithets and complete disrespect Scientologists are being treated with. I can’t imagine why this is acceptable to do to any religious group. It’s like you think they aren’t even human beings.

Is anybody seeing this except for me and the Scientologists? Does no one want to stand up for individul Scientologists at all? Is this okay just because it’s not directed at you, or your religion, or your family?

It makes it clear to me that this “anonymous” movement is a bunch of immature kids who don’t know what they are talking about. It’s really cruel and a sad sight to see.