Scientology Apostate Part IV: Deciding the Church Was a Fraud

Categories: internets
anonymous.jpg
For now, ethicstrouble is playing along - and beating the e-meter
For our final post -- for now -- from the self-proclaimed Scientologist apostate inside the San Francisco Church of Scientology, we talk to ethicstrouble about the path to deciding that Scientology was a hoax. "The reason I'm talking to you is I want this thing to fall apart," ethicstrouble told us. "I think it abuses people's faith, promises things it can't deliver, and I think it's awful."

If you'd like to catch up with our previous conversations, here are our posts to date:
Ethicstrouble releases San Francisco churches statistics
Life in the Org
Anonymous' Effect On Scientology

SF Weekly: So was this a long process or was there one "aha" moment that started you on the path to questioning Scientology?

Ethicstrouble: It's a very, very slow process. You had something in your life that made you so happy, that told you I've lived past lives, I'm an immortal being, and Scientology is going to bring me up to a state where I experience immortality. If you believe that, you're willing to overlook so many things. Once you're a believer, it's hard to break that spell.

SFW: When did the process start for you?

ET: Ive been looking online for about three years now for information. 

SFW: So would you say that the Internet is the death knell of Scientology?

ET:  Absolutely. Before you believed whatever they told you, I saw people getting in trouble years and years ago for reading A Piece of Blue Sky [a 1990 book that criticized the church], for having that and looking at it. They were told the book is all a lie, and you were already converted so you totally thought the book was a lie.

SFW: Other than masked Anonymous protesters dancing outside the org, what made you start to question your beliefs? 

ET: It's fueled by the fact the technology does not work. Anonymous wakes people up and makes them question more. The chairman of the board say we're going straight up in vertical, but it's been six years and the number [of people] in our courses is the same. You slowly start picking out lies. People who reach these OT levels are supposed to have these special abilities, and you look at them and say, 'They're the same they were years ago.'

[Ethicstrouble references a passage from L. Ron Hubbard's History of Man that states: "So, again, as a final note on this chapter, let's not go upsetting governments and putting on a show to 'prove' anything to homo sapiens for a while; it's a horrible temptation to knock off hats at fifty yards and read books a couple of countries away ..."] 
 
None of them can knock hats off at 50 yards. People in the OT levels supposedly don't get upset anymore, but I know OT8's that get upset all the time. You start finding little things that don't make sense. 

SFW: Was there any other major blows to your belief? 

ET: The retraining for auditors was supposed to make so many auditors, but there's less auditors! The basics release was a big thing. [Reporter's note: In July 2007, Scientology leader David Miscavige announced the church would rerelease all L. Ron Hubbard's basic books after they'd found Hubbard's original recordings and corrected mistakes.]  For the whole package of the books it's probably about $1,200. It's big money. The blame was put on the people who edited the books, made mistakes and didn't copy it exactly. That's why the books had to be resold. That was a big factor for me -- when I was at that event I was like, 'What the hell, didn't L. Ron Hubbard look at his own books and make sure they were correct?'

SFW: So hasn't the e-meter shown you to be a nonbeliever? 

ET: I have learned how to beat it. When you ask a question, if the needle jerks that means there's something there. And when the needle floats back and forth that means you've told all. When you believe, you can't hide anything. But when you start not to believe, all of sudden one day I was in, and I got away with stuff, and I learned I could beat it.

SFW: So were you scared to go online and post that message thanking Anonymous for their protests?

ET: Yeah, but I'm scared of everything I do. Just like I had a purpose to be a Scientologist, now I have a purpose to know what's really going on. 

SFW: So what's keeping you back from just walking out of the church and never returning? 

ET: The stupidest thing would be say I know it's all a scam. So what I'm doing is what I have to do. Hundreds of people don't go to events and courses anymore, they have left the church, and nobody knows about it. I'm not doing that. If I were to leave the church, I would be declared a "suppressive person."

Every Scientologist would have nothing to do with me. They'd go to my work, put fliers around my house saying what a bad person I am, stuff like that.

[Reporter's note: ethicstrouble confirmed that Tommy Gorman and Jennifer Stewart have been declared "suppressive people" after they left the church and now protest it. As covered in our 2008 cover story, Stewart alleges she was repeatedly raped by a church leader from the Mountain View org, a claim the church denies while having settled with Stewart out of court for a handsome sum. Gorman and Stewart don't mind being declared suppressive people: They show up to protest the church with Anonymous, and Gorman once shaved the letters "SP" into his crew cut.]

SFW: So when will you defect from the church?

ET: I plan on leaving when the things fall apart. You and me talking is no accident. With the attrition that's happening, there's less staff, there's auditors and leaders leaving, things are going downhill in response to Anonymous. At some point, the church is going to crash. I don't know if it's next week, or next year. The reason I'm talking to you is I want this thing to fall apart. I think it abuses people's faith, promises things it can't deliver, and I think it's awful. Me talking to you now is my one little part in bringing this thing down.

Follow us on Twitter at @TheSnitchSF and @SFWeekly
My Voice Nation Help
68 comments
Clam On A Halfshell
Clam On A Halfshell

When you leave, ethicstrouble, the wog world (the real world) will be out here waiting for you with open arms. ((((HUGS)))) Well done.

Mike
Mike

Sizzle you do have a point with Rathburn, but the fact remains that no one really knows where that data comes from.  Further, if MR is realy hatted on reading graphs he should state that the most difficult scientology condition to handle is "Affluence", stats suddenly streaming upward.  And if MR is well trained he should be able to see from the graphs the precipitice fall around April '11.  With stats trending upward soon after.  Does this really mean that the protests are being effective?  Or is it the "ebb and flow" of commerce, specifically the rough economy we are all seemingly in effect of.   I doubt that the graphs are replicated from s/o's imagination (unless that person is truly psychotic), who would really do such a thing?  Also, these graphs have a line which s/o carefully took the time to black out with a permanent marker.  Who would do that?  These graphs where being thrown out or designated for a shredder.  Why would s/o from staff black out this particular portion of the graphs and then leave the real pertinent data fully exposed?  From the staff end this makes no sense, if they are blacking out s/t, black out the whole lines.  Not one little portion.  From s/o trying to hide something relevent, the "black-out" portion perhaps is highly significant - funny how this is not mentioned on the numerous articles and very intriguing that "et" is not given the opportunity to address the issue. I am Scientology public, I do not have a nmber of contacts with the church or friend who are Scientologists.  I go to the orgs to my business and then go home and try to improve my life.  This person is a fraud and the SF Weekly should man up and admit to it.

Xenu
Xenu

Hello again, Mike;

As an experienced and OEC-trained exec, I'd like to respond.

For starters, the graphs do not prove that Anonymous is accomplishing anything, or that the org was inexplicably crashing during the period covered, and I'd hope that nobody came away with the impression that they DID prove either of those things.

Most of the org appeared to be in a condition of Danger, but, considering that the LRH birthday game would have been ending during the earlier parts of the graph, it's usual for the stats to drop afterwards, and not a big deal in and of itself.  It happens every year in many (most?) orgs.

You can't say that it proves Anonymous has accomplished anything, because for that you'd need clear stat trends for the pre-Anonymous period; you'd really need over 3 years of stats, which we don't have.

So what do they prove?  They show that the stat range for the org is very low.  Much lower than any quarter during Jeff Q's first decade at SFO, and, for that matter, much lower than the stats of the mission that Jeff worked at prior to joining the GO.  Anonymous, and the Internet in general, almost certainly played a role in that, but without the earlier numbers it's speculation to try to guess how big the impact's been.  All we know for sure is that the org's stats are, by historical standards, in an extremely low range.  And that IS a big deal.  The economy's bad, yes, but how many viable businesses have lower income now than they had 35 years ago, when auditing was $25 an hour and a loaf of bread was 29 cents?

As for the apparent redaction of names, I don't think that tells us a thing.  Maybe they were highlighted at the org, and appear black due to the copier or fax machine used.  Maybe someone decided that it was impolite and unnecessary to include personal information, and blacked most of them out.  Who knows?  I think it'd be rash to jump to any conclusions based on something that we don't understand at all, I look at that aspect of them as irrelevent.  Maybe ET will enlighten us later.

When people like you are looking at both sides, it shows me that you're still engaged in the search for truth, which can only be a good thing.  Without truth, you can never have real self-determinism or freedom, can you?

Mike
Mike

X -Highlighters do not block they would allow the writing underneath to show through.  Also the "redaction of names" is very important.  It could prove conclusively that the graphs came from the org.  As I said, as a data evaluator, it doesn't make sense for church staff to only redact that portion of the graph.  It makes sense to redact that portion only if you are trying to hide something. 

If you are OEC-trained then you should know how to evaluate data. 

If you have been trained as an auditor then you should also know that some of ET's statements regarding his auditing sessions are not probable.  Also, that most of his comments are general in nature and can be found on most "ihatescientolgy" web sites posted by enemies of the church.

I am in search for the truth, but the experiences expressed in these articles and in other web sites simply do not reflect my experiences with Scientology.  For me it is a very simple equation: do I beleive my own experiences (since 1988) or do I believe what people are saying in the press?

A "he said/she said" proposition maybe factual but it is not provable.  Technically speaking (Scientology Tech or psychiatric tech) it is not unusual to have apostates to have an "axe to grind" against their former affiliations.

I read about the court cases and see that Scientology wins more than they lose. 

I have seen LRH's quotations used out of context to vilify the church and yet other quotes used to counter an aurgument are dismissed out of hand.

Also you should know that one is not declared for simply leaving the church. 

LRH was no saint, all Scientologists know this...but he did codify a technology for spiritual healing that very few of even the most hardened apostates seem to still support that aspect.

I have a constant search for truth and if DM hit s/o and they let him get away with it then they are not following the Code of Honor: "Your self-determinism and your honor are more important than your immediate life."

It just doesn't make sense to me.  For the life of me I cannot see any Scientologist allowing that to happen, especially a SO member, who I hold in very high regard. 

Anonymous
Anonymous

And another thing. Why, per say, does this group, "The Church of Scientology," who calls themselves a religion, run it like a business? That would be like me going into church and then having to pay $50 to receive holy communion! I find it positively absurd and unjust.

Xenu
Xenu

Hi again Mike,

To respond to your main focus on ET's authenticity:

You're making a big deal out of the name redactions, but every graph says in the upper left corner that it's from SFOD or SFOF.  All of them are dated.  Now notice the Case Supervisor's graph for out tech situations, which does not have his name redacted.  Compare it to the C/S's graph relating to out tech situations that does have the name redacted.  Notice that they exactly agree.  Notice also that you can see the bottom parts of some of the letters in the C/S's name, and that they are consistent with the C/S's name on the unredacted graph.  Notice how the C/S's sending people to cramming is consistent with the redacted Div 6 graph for success stories (since you have to write one after being crammed) and various completion graphs.  Other redacted and unredacted graphs show similar relationships, reinforcing each other's credibility.  They fit together like pieces of a puzzle, describing interrelated aspects of two organizational wholes (D and F), which is exactly how they should look.  To weigh against all of this apparent reality we have nothing more than the public utterances of Jeff Q., and the existence of some markings that nobody has a convincing explanation for.  If either of us could think of some nefarious purpose they'd serve, I'd consider the possibility, but we both seem to have drawn blanks, don't we?

Mike
Mike

Sizzle you do have a point with Rathburn, but the fact remains that no one really knows where that data comes from.  Further, if MR is realy hatted on reading graphs he should state that the most difficult scientology condition to handle is "Affluence", stats suddenly streaming upward.  And if MR is well trained he should be able to see from the graphs the precipitice fall around April '11.  With stats trending upward soon after.  Does this really mean that the protests are being effective?  Or is it the "ebb and flow" of commerce, specifically the rough economy we are all seemingly in effect of. 

I doubt that the graphs are replicated from s/o's imagination (unless that person is truly psychotic), who would really do such a thing?  Also, these graphs have a line which s/o carefully took the time to black out with a permanent marker.  Who would do that?  These graphs where being thrown out or designated for a shredder.  Why would s/o from staff black out this particular portion of the graphs and then leave the real pertinent data fully exposed?  From the staff end this makes no sense, if they are blacking out s/t, black out the whole lines.  Not one little portion.  From s/o trying to hide something relevent, the "black-out" portion perhaps is highly significant - funny how this is not mentioned on the numerous articles and very intriguing that "et" is not given the opportunity to address the issue.

I am Scientology public, I do not have a nmber of contacts with the church or friend who are Scientologists.  I go to the orgs to my business and then go home and try to improve my life.  This person is a fraud and the SF Weekly should man up and admit to it.

Aidanfxherman
Aidanfxherman

Can I trust this person is legit? I mean it's pratically suicide to be an 'uncover particpant' in Scientology with all their intellegence going on.  They'd work out who was quickely.  Think I'd rather leave and be stalked by them than be headhunted within the organisation.

KeepOnLearning
KeepOnLearning

This guy/gal's story still doesn't hold water. 

And Smiley can't get past her own fawning to press the question that even allies ask:

Why do you allege that you hold off blowing because somebody might annoy you for it? You're going to be declared SP sooner or later. 

The answer is that you aren't on staff at SFO. You're slurping up all this media attention and loving parading your fake persona because yoru real-life accomplishments are limited to diggint into garbage cans or lying to staff to snag some docs. 

In short, you have no place to blow from.

Xenu
Xenu

What's this?  Trying to troll identifying information out of ET?  OSA must be pretty unhappy right now.

Ethicstrouble posted on whyweprotest weeks ago, saying,

"To give you an idea of staff pay, a staff member still training may be getting 15 to 30 a week, a trained exec maybe 175 to 225 depending. But I am not worried, the next release will boom my org and I will not have to work a wog job anymore. Oh, wait, I think they said that about the last 5 releases, hmmm, why did I forget that? I am making it sound like I am staff; I AM NOT, to throw them off the trail."

And in a second post,

"Pssssst, listen Jeff, you have no idea if I have been on the phone with you talking about this sit recently or we just passed in the hall or I left staff 2 weeks ago, 2 months ago or 2 years ago."

You don't have much to go on, they could be staff, ex-staff, family or friend of staff, family or friend of ex-staff, public, or ex-public, and sec checking everyone who fits one of those descriptions isn't feasible.  For all either of us know, it's Danny Quiros.  It's almost certainly someone with friends and/or family still in, who they don't want to be disconnected from, but that's true of almost every Scientologist, isn't it?

Sucks to be OSA right now.  Sucks, especially, to be DSA of SF.

KeepOnLearning
KeepOnLearning

Zzzzzzzz.....

Anon A
Anon A

Go ahead and take a little nap there, KOL.We'll wake you up when the next embarrassing media "flap" for Scientology hits the news.Tip: don't get too comfortable.

Gsgarcia69
Gsgarcia69

keep working hard anos. if you make a dent to scientology i will congratulate you. for that you will need more then good luck. go scientology go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DuckBenway
DuckBenway

Make a dent? Dude, all the fenders are crumpled and the drive train is mangled! The cult is a wreck already!

And for the record, Anonymous runs on lulz, NOT good luck!

Mike
Mike

As a Scientologist I have read all four (4) parts of this "expose" and even though it does not reflect mt personal experiences as a 20-year member of the church, I have decided based upon this anonymous, unsubstantiated and unverifiable journalistically biased reporting from a publication that has a documentable record of publishing negative articles regarding the COS, that I have come to question my faith...NOT!  Honestly you guys are all about this "critical thinking" and you cannot see the forest from the trees. 

(1) Scientology orgs like any human organizations have ebb and flows;(2) Scientology Admin Tech (AT) also has provisions for handling down statistics...that means that they do occur;(3) AT also has a way to analyze the graphed statistics.  In brief, staff handles from day to day, unit managers handles from week to week, general management handles month to month and upper managment handles the from quarter to quarter, and so on.(4) Management also reads trends from those perspectives.  A brief review of some of the graphs may indicate a large downward trend, but with an upward trend on the short term...this is called a good indicator;(5) I love the "experts" you have called in to "analyze" the graphs.  Marty & Co. may have a superficial understanding of LRH's AT, but that is it.  Asking Marty to comment on these graphs is like having your sales staff brief you on the financial disposition of the company...they may not have the knowledge to fully analyze all of the given data;(6) "Reporter's note: ethicstrouble confirmed that Tommy Gorman and Jennifer Stewart have been declared "suppressive people" after they left the church and now protest it..."  STOP THE PRESSES...Gorman and Stewart have been declared after joining Anonymous and protesting the church...now that is news...this must prove that he is an "insider because former members who are known protestors hardly ever get declared...geez...you can do better than that!(7)  Go to any "ihatescientology" web site and forum and you will find, almost verbatum, every single "ethicstrouble" response.  This article is basically a re-hash of every single scientology-hater that posts on those forums.(8)  Yes you can "fool" an e-meter.  Great a sentient being out-foxing a non-thinking machine...what a genious!  The e-meter only works if you want to be there.  If you do not want to be audited you are simply wasting everybody's time.  However, it is virtually impossible to replicate the e=meter reads.  His comments "...When you ask a question, if the needle jerks that means there's something there..."  Now when he is in session how does he know if the needle is "jerking" or not?  It is impossible for him to know when that happens.  (9) "...And when the needle floats back and forth that means you've told all..." he is referring to a "floating needle" or an F/N.  On an assessment list this occurs as an instant read and it is taken up, plus it is very difficult to replicate on a consistent basis.  It can be done but not on a consistent basis and it is next to impossible to consistently replicate an "f/n" as an instant read.  Further an end of a process "EP" is usually a an F/N with a long fall blow down and good indicators, replicating a blow down is virtually impossible to do...it is something that just occurs.(10)  The last item is truly eye-opening.  Here I am in an organization with lousy pay, intolerable hours (especially with a supposedly "downstat" org -- in downstat orgs you work day and night to get the stats up) and I am going to "...stick it out until it collapses...this year or next year..."  Who would do that?  I mean it is hard enough to do when you do believe!  And here is a guy who has lost faith and he is going to "stick it out"?  Pul-eeze!

SF Weekly, you should be ashamed of yourselves!

sizzle8
sizzle8

Mike,  You may have good intentions but I think that you are missing the forest for the trees.  Scientology as an organization is in serious trouble.  The PR has never been worse. Any new person will go onto the Internet to research what they are getting into.  With all the first hand stories and the irrefutable documentation, org denials or attempts to 'dead agent' actually backfire.

For years now, the only real new blood has come from the children of long time Scientologists.  I can easily go back to old completion lists from the 70's,  80's and 90's and ascertain that SF is producing less than it did decades ago.  Those graphs are not a short term situation. It does not take an OEC/FEBC to see the obvious. (Your dig at Marty Rathbun not being admin trained is pretty empty - as Inspector General Ethics RTC, 2nd in command to COB, you're really saying that Miscavige is an idiot for posting a non -admin trained person to that post. That, or that DM was so blind (due to overts) that he was fooled.)

What you are missing is that the problems you have are internal.  You - your group.  Don't point fingers.  Management, specifically David Miscavige and his PTS robots have not only failed you, they have changed the character of the organization to the point that most old timers, not to mention, new public, will have nothing to do with you. There are thousands who have "quietly left". I'm sorry that you can't see this. 

As long as you are supporting them, then you have a responsibility in the matter.

There have been some fascinating discussions about why scientology is in the state it's in. The first person accounts of those who worked with LRH tell much of the story as the seeds were planted during his time.  It's a shame that you can't read the full history (unless you're OSA or HCO and then only if you are part of a sanctioned program).  And why can't you read them?  Because you can't be trusted to keep toeing the company line.The truth is that dangerous. No matter how high you go on the Bridge, you will never be considered cause enough to read and understand or discard what we lowly exes and wogs can.

There are some who feel that Scientology has to go completely, but that is a minority.  Most people don't care what you practice as long as you tell the truth, don't break the law and don't take advantage of your followers. Although there are policies that tell you to do this, there are other policies that can be, and are, interpreted to do the opposite. All three points are seriously absent in the organization.

So what should you do?

You don't want to lose your comm lines and friends yet you know that the ethical thing to do is to change the organization.

Wouldn't it be great to be free to practice what you believe in without the cross-orders, entheta, the financial irregularities and irrational demands of management?

I believe that sunshine disinfects. Exposure of the human rights abuses (which are orders of magnitude greater the higher you go on the command lines), eliminating disconnection, transparency, etc are all necessary for the recovery to start.  Do something.

You could be the next 'ethicstrouble' and win.

Mike
Mike

Sizzle, Scientology is always in serious trouble.  It can never rest and it can never sleep.  Always there are constant attacks.  If you are trains in Scientology ethics or if you have ever taken any Scientology Admin courses LRH redicts these situations.  It is true that the internet is something no one could have ever predicted, but it is also true that the general public is not happy with the general state of today's "press" and looks with a jaundice eye on just about anything published on the net.  When s/o begins a sentance with "I heard on the internet that..." the story ot tale is immediately doubted.  I do not see what you are seeing.  Parking is still a big problem in LA.  Course rooms are filled. 

Anonymous
Anonymous

Mike, mike, mike... Think objectively. Follow this link: http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.c...WATCH IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH. If you don't believe it, then check the references it cites. Then if there is some reason this is still wrong, then please explain it to us.

Anna Asks
Anna Asks

"tell the truth, don't break the law and don't take advantage of your followers"

That is a fantastically succinct sum-up of the problems currently facing Scientology!  Thank you, sizzle8.

Mike
Mike

Nice to see that much vaunted "critical thinking" you guys try to espouse is still rather deficient.  If it is anti-scientology you guys are blindly for it.  Any positive review of the subject and it is "OSA".  The stat graphs may be accurate, but they may not reflect what is going on at the SF org, they may be from somewhere else, no way to tell.  But "ethicstrouble" is a fraud, not afraid to say it.  whether SF Weekly is complicit remains to be seen.

Toulouse Lautrec
Toulouse Lautrec

Mike, all that I need is one unambiguous, independently confirmed OT phenomenon and I am on your side. Until then, as-is yourself.

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

Do you have proof that he's a fraud, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Xenu
Xenu

Mike doesn't write like OSA.  That means the guy's basically going to have to write a Knowledge Report on himself now, and will have some major 'splainin' to do.  Did you expect him to leave without saying anything that might get Jeff Quiros off his back, whether he believes ET or not?

SFF
SFF

So you don't trust Marty's interpretation of the graphs. How about Jeff Hawkins? As I understand it, he was a marketing exec and also ran the Copenhagen org for a while.

As for critical thinking, are you willing to concede that some ex-Scientologists who are critical might be telling the truth or are you buying Tommy Davis's line that all "apostates" are liars? Also, are you willing to look at possibly "entheta" evidence that backs up someone's point?

If you can't do both of those things there isn't much point having a debate of ideas so pointing out the policies followed by OSA internet handlers is as productive as anything else.

SFF
SFF

Oops. It was Rinder not Rathbun who commented on the graphs. I duplicated your mistake, there.

Old OT7
Old OT7

Once again, he can do no different.  Official policy is to "attack the attacker, never defend."  So, in essence, he's just parroting the official party line which is deny, deny, deny.  

rocketscientist
rocketscientist

oh Hi Louanne! I mean Lisa Lirones! i see you still doing your amends for the cult! you must be David Miscaviges last supporter on earth....

Xenu
Xenu

Dear Mike,

I'm very glad that you read the series, and, apparently, a number of "ihatescientology" web sites too.  I hope that your lame attempt at refutation  will be enough to keep you out of the EO's office, and that you'll continue reading things online. 

Oh Hai!
Oh Hai!

"Hurr durr silly wogs"

How does it feel to be on the Titanic of "religions"?

Anon A
Anon A

tl;dr version...The unethical "church" of Scientology is in trouble, and these documents prove it.So let's "attack the attacker" and baaawww about it via argumentum verbosium.

MarcAbian
MarcAbian

A fascinating series of articles.  Thank-you Lauren Smiley!

John Saint-Clair
John Saint-Clair

This thing is coming down alright! I am optimistic that within 12 months or so there will not be a person on this Planet that doesn't know about the Human Rights abuses of this Cult, David MiscSavage will be in a cell somewhere awaiting trial, the RPF - Forced labor camps  - will be open to full public view, children will be reunited with their parents. It is no wonder Germany has outlawed this Cult due to its resemblance to Nazi Doctrines, soon the whole World will be aware of this'great beast' and they will wonder why it took so long to bring down. In the memory of the  great martyr Lisa McPherson - who was killed ...starved to death actually - by Scientologists in 1995 we HAVE to destroy this Cult!

John Saint-Clair.

Toulouse Lautrec
Toulouse Lautrec

I am not as optimistic and I think you are off the mark with Germany. Nonetheless I hope everything you say comes true.

MarkCabian
MarkCabian

Thank you sfweekly, and thank you Anonymous! Thank you for exposing and ending this cult. You do a wonderful public service.

Oh Hai!
Oh Hai!

We have caek, they have lies.

Lurve you, Miss Smiley & ET

-Chanology SF and Anonymous everywhere

DuckBenway
DuckBenway

Bravo, Ethics Trouble, and Bravo SF Weekly Blogs!

A huge BRAVO for Chanology San Francisco for keeping the pressure on over the very long hauls. <3 <3 <3 !!!

It is so refreshing to read statements telling it like it is. So many of us have had it up to here with those telling it like it isn't.

Goodbye $cientology. The cult is doomed! Expect it!

Old OT7
Old OT7

I second Duck!  It truly is refreshing that someone who had been brainwashed is now waking up and that is exactly what Anonymous is doing:  Waking the cult members up!

Bravo, indeed!

sizzle8
sizzle8

Type your comment here.Don't forget to sign the petition to have the FBI investigate Scientology for human rights abuses.http://wh.gov/4Os

Inethics
Inethics

Have you ever heard someone trying to put on an English accent?  No matter how good it sounds, a real Englishman will be able to tell in less than one sentence that the accent is fake.  That's how "ethicstrouble" sounds.  He might sound convincing to anyone who is not a Scientologist, but as a Scientologist myself, I can tell you -- everyone I know thinks this dude is a joke.  It is some troll who thinks he knows how to sound like a Scientologist.  It's just like when some Scientologist tries to sound like a 4-channer.  It must be blatantly obvious to all the Anons, because it is usually obvious to me.  Well, that's what "ethicstrouble" sounds like.  Good try dude, but the ex-Scientologists you are listening to obviously didn't understand the subject either, which is probably why they are exes. 

Toulouse Lautrec
Toulouse Lautrec

Well I'm not surprised. Everyone in the cult has already done a lot of foolish things. What is one more?

robert
robert

Then why is there such a response on your part?  If this were really just a troll, you wouldn't bother.  Your people responding(such as you have left) indicates the reality of it all.  

Old OT7
Old OT7

Inethics is required to respond like this.   Denial is not a river in Egypt.  But it is official policy.  Like telling an "acceptable truth." 

choocho
choocho

Someone in your Scientology Office of Special Affairs internet patrolling division wants the general public to think that ethicstrouble is not credible, and therefore no challenge to the huge amount of effort that you put into marketing Scientology, whether it be forthright or not, on the internet? 

MrEricSir
MrEricSir

"...everyone I know thinks this dude is a joke."

Yes, that's exactly how cults work. It's called brainwashing.

Xenu
Xenu

More likely they're having a little difficulty translating everything into wog terminology.  When you've been surrounded by Scientologists long enough, that can be pretty difficult.

Also, as a Scientologist, you're blind to clues they gave that they WERE in.  Like in their original post, where they say that Jerry made that Div 6 stat chart up out of "whole cloth."  They knew that term because it's on a very basic taped lecture -- Student Hat, if I remember correctly -- as well as in some other Hubbard materials, such as the PR Series.  The term is in every Scientology dictionary.  But its use isn't nearly as common among wogs, excepting maybe those who are over 75 years old.  They gave a strong sign that they were real, and you couldn't even see it.

LoyalOfficer
LoyalOfficer

Except he had all of those real stats and graphs from the org. Now the org has had to shred the stats immediately. Oh well, they are all straight down vertical anyway.  His/her story is pretty common in the cult. You should be planning to blow too.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

©2014 SF Weekly, LP, All rights reserved.
Loading...