“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

Scientology: Internet news groups, blogs and forums
(Scientology in the media and on the Internet (2))
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

             “Scientology is as sane as each of us are.”
              (‘Roadrunner’ was my username on the various forums)  

Scientology in the media and on the Internet   (page 2, groups and forums)

Go to “Scientology in the media and on the Internet” index page


     An overview
  My experiences with the various groups
               - a) Introduction
- b) Forum #1 (Free Zone oriented)
                Forum #2 (Ron's org oriented)
                Forum #3 (anti-Scientology oriented, only for ex-Sea Org staff)
                Forum #4 (anti-Scientology oriented)
                     (Includes: My tale; How another member of this forum was subjected to a similarly unfair treatment)
                Forum #5 (anti-Scientology oriented, originates from Norway)
               (Includes:  (Introduction; FAQ and trolls;  Introduction of my person on this forum and approach; The Jason Beghe incident and getting kicked; The approach of the forum owner; Last comments)
                Forum #6 (Independent Scientology oriented)
               - c) Afterword
- Additional comments (1) - The matter of communication & The use of the ‘ignore button’
- Additional comments (2) - Freedom of speech vs? Freedom of speech
- Additional comments (3) - Forums or counter ‘movements’ turning into cults themselves?
  A few additional relative notices about Internet groups
            - Seeing OSA everywhere and anywhere ...
- The anti- or ex-Scientology groups
- The no-Scientologist

Back to Main Index An overview

Out there on the Internet there exist a variety of forums, yahoo groups, and newsgroups that are focusing on the subject of Scientology. Those people that are active or a member of such groups then can roughly be divided in 3 different categories.
First category:  On one side we have those that wish to practice Scientology & Dianetics outside of the control of the Church of Scientology. They use these forums as a means to discuss various issues with each other concerning the Scientology technology or share experiences, ideas, upcoming meetings and such. Some of these groups also provide materials for download. And yes I have also seen that so-called squirrel techniques (alteration of Scientology/Dianetics processing) at times are touched or discussed on these forums. These may however be disguised forwarded as extensions to Scientology technology. Don't get however caught in these things!
Second category:  On the other side we have those that may have been active in Scientology but either received a bad treatment or finally figured for themselves (often after having been inside for quite a many years) that they have been had. For them these groups function as a means to utter their complaints.
Third category:  Then we have these various persons that although they have never set one foot in a Scientology church or actually looked into the subject more seriously, but here they are various of them claim nonetheless to know a lot about it (and may even be regarded as or promoted as supposed experts) on this subject of Scientology. I generally find out very quickly that they are missing basic knowledge on the topic. Often the discussion with me gets cut when they claim that we have different opinions. But then, what does it have to do with opinion. It is how you came to have that opinion which is of more interest. Don't expect to be able to start any sort of serious discussion with such individuals, because they are not knowledgeable at all about the subject. It is funny to see that there are in fact these persons that, so they may claim, went on a crusade to save people from this evil of Scientology, without actually knowing what it is about, unable to make any sort of distinction, and without actually having performed a proper critical analysis. Often a search on the Internet suffices for them to get them going. Many of them appear just to pass time. For some reason it appears attractive to some people to have a game going with ridiculing other people.

For a while I have been going around on these groups. It was curiosity that drove me. Curious how people would go about things, and an opportunity to possibly forward some information. It was experienced that if you wanted to stay one that you basically sort of had to adjust to or accept the general take of things that were shared by the majority of the members of a group. The group moderators (admins) may also aptly appear at your front door step if you fall out of line too much. You may be asked why you are here on this forum and such. If you do not submit to any demands made your time on the forum may be short, it may result in that you will be kicked and/or your IP banned. People in general just find it so very hard to deal with views that challenge their own. In particular when they themselves are insecure or not that knowledgeable. Most of the members of these groups just want to be there on that group and be acknowledged and are generally quite unwilling to take an alternate view of things. Very seldom they are there to learn something. So, they are there to join up with persons that share their take on things, and any person that says something that doesn't toe that line, they are quick as a whip to ridicule these persons. And indeed, the level of intelligence generally found is not particularly high either.

Be aware that generally on such forums you will find a rather twisted interpretation of the subject of Scientology. In general these forums are not places where you will found out what the topic actually is about. The misconceptions and/or the prejudices that can be met there can really be astounding. And it often doesn't matter a whole lot if the contributors never have been a Scientologist or have been involved at one time.

Go to index

Back to Main Index My experiences with the various groups

a) Introduction
b) Forum #1  (Free Zone oriented)
  Forum #2  (Ron's org oriented)
  Forum #3  (anti-Scientology oriented, only for ex-Sea Org staff)
  Forum #4  (anti-Scientology oriented)
               (My tale;  How another member of this forum was subjected to a similarly unfair treatment)
  Forum #5  (anti-Scientology oriented, originates from Norway)
      (Introduction;  FAQ and trolls;  Introduction of my person on this forum and approach;  The Jason Beghe incident and getting kicked;  The approach of the forum owner;  Last comments)
  Forum #6  (Independent Scientology oriented)
c) Afterword
Additional comments (1) - The matter of communication  &  The use of the ‘ignore button’
Additional comments (2) - Freedom of speech  vs?  Freedom of speech
Additional comments (3) - Forums or counter ‘movements’ turning into cults themselves?

Go back a) Introduction

(my username)

To cut it short, I have literally been kicked from 6 such Scientology related groups/forums (3 of them claim to be pro-Scientology, and the other 3 are sort of anti- or ex-Scientology). In addition to these there are also various so-called open message boards and newsgroups where I went around for a while. One can not be kicked from these, but some individuals may have wanted to achieve that either way (one can complain to the Internet provider via one's IP, which was actually attempted).

Now, why was I kicked from these privately managed forums? Well, I simply chose to not conform to the general agreements that were prevalent there. I just gave my opinion and I was straightforward. I also used my rather extensive knowledge of Scientology history and my personal observations that I had made through the years. Initially I was flabbergasted by the unwillingness of the members of either of these groups to consider alternate options. It also appeared that freedom of speech was not considered an option, although they claimed to support that! It also did not appear to matter if these groups claimed to be pro-Scientology or anti-Scientology, this in how they operated and went about matters. You either adjust to the ‘mentality’ of that particular group or you are bound to get kicked out of there in the end. I found that there is no exception to this rule. If you are considered uncomfortable one will resort to any means to get rid of, or invalidate you, or in some way to silence you.

You will find that I have avoided to address any persons or the groups by their actual name. There are some reasons for that, for one I am not forwarding an attack site, the intent is to relate about situations. They mean to just give you some insight in what you may expect if you get yourself involved in forums and groups. It is a behavioural study you may say. I simply recorded the occurrences, and these are faithful.
Those visitors of my pages that are familiar with any of these forums that I describe may suspect or aptly know which forums and or persons I talk about. There are also here and there some phrases (as published on the forums) that could actually be used in an Internet search. In any event I do not give any identity up front. Mind though that I did attribute an illustration sort of catching the forum owner, sometimes displaying their descend, posture, the nature of the behaviour they displayed or other.

Go back
Forum #1  (Free Zone oriented)
Subscribed:  13 December 2006
Kicked:  8 January 2007

“How will I fix this?”
One of the claimed pro-Scientology groups at one point started to badmouth a person on the group that was not a member. It got incited when various comments were made by some female person. Then 4 additional persons joined and supported the slander. This even included the forum owner that turned very strong-voiced about the person being smeared. He wrote amongst other that “she was nuts”. As it happened to be, the person being demolished by use of just words, I considered to be a friend of mine. I opposed on the group and privately to the forum owner without much response. Shortly after I then got accused by this forum owner to have copied contents from his private group and to have published it elsewhere. All that I actually did was contacting my friend and informing her that she was seriously being badmouthed on this so and so yahoo group (providing the Internet address of the group).
It should be told here as well that the lady that actually instigated the initial smearing demanded from me on the forum to promise that I would not violate the group rules again. A rule that in fact never got violated. This lady rather actively acted to have me kicked from the group if I did not promise this. It is interesting that these demands came from the very person that found it alright to start a smearing campaign on a person that was absent. It was me that pointed out to her that this was totally not alright to do. I wrote on the forum that she should refrain from doing so. This appears to have been the reason for her vendetta against me. The forum owner I would perceive was put under quite some pressure by this lady as well. She kept on battering about this on the forum.

Either way in the end I got kicked for reason that I had threatened the forum owner (so he himself claimed). The reality was that he actually set an ultimatum to me that I opposed and I instead quoted freedom of speech. He basically ordered me to conform, and I refused under these conditions (I had done nothing wrong). I was of the opinion that I was the wrong target, he should correct the lady that started the smearing of my friend, which I told this forum owner. Instead he was submitting to this lady's demands and continued to primarily act against me. He demanded: “I need your promise that you'll no longer communicate matters on this forum elsewhere.”. I perceived this as if I was not allowed to have informed my friend about her being smeared. It seemed to promote that private smearing on the group is actually alright! In fact the group rules only address that one is not allowed to post texts from the group messages publicly, which I never did. As it appeared I was found guilty solely by suspicion. Ironically this forum owner wrote to me when I had applied for membership for his forum: “Your website has been much admired.”. Indeed this of course is all very nice ...

Go back
Forum #2  (Ron's org oriented)
Subscribed:  21 February 2005
Kicked:  21 April 2007
Another pro-Scientology group I was kicked out of is still sort of shrouded in mystery. This group hosts 2 message boards, a general board for information and the other for discussions. I have never been given a reason why I was kicked. I also received no unsubscribe message(s). I knew I had been kicked as I was unable to log on to the group, then I discovered that my username had disappeared from the list of members for both these forums. Repeated messages send to the forum owner requesting clarification remained unanswered. Obviously some people must have misunderstood something about the subject of Scientology. Scientology's main means is just this of being in communication. At least you would expect to receive a reason why some action was taken against someone.

I have had 2 issues with this particular group. Firstly I acted rather strongly about the commendation and merchandising of a particular non-LRH technology that was promoted as an extension to Scientology. The latter issue was concerning some claims that were made about the Office of Special Affairs (OSA), the legal section of the Church of Scientology. I wrote that I would ask the local DSA about that (Director of Special Affairs). It was not so long after this that I got (silently) kicked. One may have thought that I was an OSA infiltrator of some sort. Some messages that got posted by the forum owner a few months later on the forum indicated that those that have connections with the Church of Scientology or OSA are requested to go elsewhere. Well, which Martians did we not uncover as yet I may wonder ... ?

Go back
Forum #3  (anti-Scientology oriented, only for ex-Sea Org staff)
Subscribed:  10 September 2006
Kicked:  2 November 2006
A big problem seems to be the moderators themselves. What they actually do is they moderate! This means that they can reject your message so that it does not get posted on the groups forum. And there I was on this rather anti-Scientology oriented group. This forum owner is originally from England. Here I relate about about 2 occurrences.

Incident 1:  I had written this short essay entitled: “Where is LRH?”. It was asking questions and raising the issue if L. Ron Hubbard had not left the scene already at a much earlier date than generally is assumed/believed. It was supported with various factual observations. It never got posted. I also did not receive a reject message from the forum owner for which reason I inquired several times what had happened with it.
The forum owner had already earlier reasoned to me as follows: “You may not be sure whether one should attempt to keep conflicts out of the list or not - I am totally sure that it is necessary, though not always possible. The fact that it is not a 100% proposition does not mean that it should not be done.”. In regards to my not posted essay he finally responded as follows by explaining to me why he had created his group: “It is a way for people who, by the very nature of the organization we left, have been kept apart to get back in touch with each other.”. Thus he considered his group to be a means to reconnect with people one had lost sight of. And he failed to see what my essay (referred to by him as yet not approved) got to do with that.
This reasoning is however odd as all sorts of topics did get discussed on this very forum, that also were missing any relation with catching up with old friends. The general tone found on this group was going towards finding fault with L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology in various ways. And these things could be discussed at large as I found in many past discussions on his group. Then apparently postings or responses that in some way may oppose to or question the validity of various particular statements made on the group are simply rejected by the forum owner as I personally experienced.

Incident 2:  The other noted incident occurred when I was opposing to some claims made about some persons that had, or so was claimed, exposed the fraud of Scientology. I made some serious critical although factually supported comments in regards to the credibility of these persons. My message did not get posted. When I inquired with the forum owner he basically implied that I had no support for my utterances. Which in fact I had and which I also had laid out to him. Then this forum owner further wrote to me that he personally knew one of these persons and confided in so many words that he would not accept my take of things. We got into an argue. I was seriously questioning his objectiveness regarding moderating the messages of what gets posted and what not. The final outcome of all this was that none of my messages regarding got posted and that I got kicked from the group.

My experience with this group is quite clearly that minute control is exercised in guiding the flow of information that is allowed to appear on its forum. In the way it is exercised on this particular group it is quite clear that it seriously violates freedom of speech. It simply appears to present the likes and dislikes of its forum owner. Messages that invalidate L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology that may get support by opinion only are freely posted without any limits. On the other hand messages that go against the general agreement, be it supported with documentation or not, get rejected. This is the heaviest moderated Scientology-related group that I have come across.
This forum owner actually was one of the persons that later on another forum called me for being a mimeo freak (discussed earlier in this chapter). It may be rather hard to envision for some people that this very person once (for a short while at least) was acting as the CO (Commanding Officer) of one of the AO's (Advanced Organization).

Go back
Forum #4  (anti-Scientology oriented)
Subscribed:  24 June 2007
IP banned and username prohibited from posting:  19 September 2007
Officially kicked:  20 September 2007
A variety of my postings appear eradicated from its database:  at least since mid-2012
  My tale
  How another member of this forum was subjected to a similarly unfair treatment

Go back
My tale

Another adventure of mine was on a forum that was also rather anti-Scientology oriented. I gave my opinion on matters. Things escalated when various persons there highly commended another member there and that they appreciated him so much. As it appears this commended member was the very same person that had earlier kicked me from his own yahoo group of which he was forum owner (see previous discussed group). So here I was giving my opinion and related my experiences with this individual. It appeared that it was not very appreciated by some other members of this group which they expressed on the forum. It already then culminated in that some member uttered on the forum to have me banned from the group. You see how quickly that goes! The obstacle was that I had not violated any rules of the group.
Either way at about that time messages started to appear on the forum from the forum owner herself such as “I have plans in the wind ...” , “It's not being ignored by me.” and then suggesting that “there is more than one way to skin a cat”. Before one more day had passed I was unable to log in to the forum. The site seemed (for me) disappeared (page not found). Although I was able to log in with ease when I actually changed my IP. Obviously the forum owner had banned the IP I had registered with. I send some emails to her and a few others on the group. One of these persons then posted on the forum what I had written and wanted to verify what I had claimed. Then some turbulence started on the forum. The majority took sides with the forum owner and believed her. I was not banned she wrote on the forum, as my username was not indicated with that it was banned. I could post on the forum so she claimed. Be it noted here that in spite of that although I could log in with another IP I could not post with my username! It appeared that I effectively was prohibited from posting and defending myself on the forum!
Then the rumour started that I had send ‘nasty’ emails to some of the group members. A rumour that was given life by the forum owner herself on this very forum! All I had done actually was to simply fold out what I was experiencing (unable to log in, and so on). Then I had put the forum owner to the test when I actually accidentally disclosed that I had logged in to the forum via Within 2 hours after having send my private email to her also got banned! With these IP's I could not surf nor visit the site. I again changed my IP and was again able to surf on the site (as a visitor) without any problem. At about this time the forum owner wrote on the forum that she considered to ban my username. She finally did some days later. On the forum she relayed about that if she would not have found out about my “other accounts” and “nasty PMs” that she probably would not have banned me. Although one of these persons that had received my private messages confided on the forum that my emails had not been nasty (and in fact they were not).
Next what happened was that this forum owner send a private message to another member saying that she had ‘discovered’ that I had as many as 2 additional accounts. This member however send me a copy of that message. The fact here is that I had created just 1 alternate account, and this was solely and only for to verify if I was able to actually create another account with my usual IP! It appeared that this was actually possible, and this was all I ever did or intended to do with that account. Either way at about the same time my usual IP and suddenly worked again. When I used either of these respective IP's however one could then read the message on the forum (for me only) that “your IP has been banned, contact the moderator”. Still I had not violated any group rules. So I was banned solely because of rumour, a rumour that was started and spread by its forum owner. Then on a thread on the forum dedicated to me one could read how this decision of the forum owner was commended by various members. Some even claimed that I had not(?) contributed with anything and so it was alright to ban me. Even if this would be true (which it is not) then would this make for a proper criteria to actually ban someone? Oh, well ...

An interesting side note is though that one of the members (with whom I had an email exchange about this), he now received a message from this very forum owner asking to receive the emails that I had send to her, as she claimed she had not received any of them. Her email address however was openly posted on the forum, and I did not receive any of my messages to her back because of them being undeliverable. Also my email address and site address were known to her. To date she has never communicated with me directly. Also previous private messages that I had send to her via the group mailsystem (prior to her banning my IP) remained unresponded to. Then a few weeks later after my official ban from the group I noticed that she started to post her old Scientology certificates on her forum (a Class IV auditor). One may wonder how much she had understood about the tool of simple communication.

It is interesting to see though to what measures one may resort to if one aims to prevent a person from speaking one's mind or even defend oneself. That is if it is already clearly established that the person does not submit to the general agreement and thus it is judged not desirable to have this person freely posting messages and responding. The simple reality here is that no group rules had been violated. Therefore, and only therefore, other actions had to be taken to prevent the person from expressing oneself, or (as in the end also has been done) that one just fabricates some supposed ‘breaking of the rules’ story, and then you just go ahead and kick the person.
A final note on this forum would be that a short while back (mid-2012), that I checked for my old postings. Previously my posting and username were still to be found in its database, and my username indicated that it was ‘banned’. Today however a large selection of my postings and my username have been carefully removed. Now, isn't that interesting! I did however save off-line the main threads that I posted in, may be I will post these some day here, but probably not. They will however serve as my evidence if anyone comes to question me. Not to mention the personal email exchanges that I had with the forum owner.

Go back
How another member of this forum was subjected to a similarly unfair treatment

As a matter of comparison it is interesting to make mention here that at a rather recent date (late June 2008) another member got banned from this same forum. In regards to comparability to my own ban it can be noted that it was pretty much for the same claimed reasons. The forum owner writes in the message banning this person: “offers nothing to the board, is not here to learn or discuss and just creates noise.”. In addition the person frequently was referred to as a troll, and even by some persons for being a spy for OSA. The forum owner adds to say: “Some might disagree with this decision. Sorry but its just one of those decisions that won't please everyone.”. Indeed this is rather applicable here, as it was met with opposition. Noted is that this was the only other member (beside myself) that actually could go in effective opposition on this forum about matters. Now, we have this thread that was started by the forum owner in where she announced this banning (quoted in the above). Only just over 36 hours later this very thread counted 23 pages and 226 posts. A final post on this thread, #227 (following #226 with just 10 minutes) a forum moderator puts out the message: “Thread closed.” (apparently indicating that it was forcefully ended). See, the banning obviously attracted a bit of attention, and more importantly the banning was met with resistance from some particular members that had some steady repute on the forum. Now, the person banned had been a member there since July 2007 (a bit longer than me), and posted messages that urged people to consider various things, gently opposing the common agreement. This member thus did not adjust to the general opinion found on this forum and uttered opposition whenever he found it deemed suitable or necessary. Nonetheless this member was moderate in his wordings and considerate, and as time passed he earned appreciation from various other members. It was these other members (3 in particular) that now gave their opinion (protest) in that thread about this ban that was put on this member, it stirred up things a bit.

Then suddenly, 15 days later (mid-July 2008), we see that apparently the ban on this person had been lifted! This person himself told me that he never was informed about his ban being lifted by the forum owner or other. He writes to me: “Then I attempted to view a thread one day and suddenly, I could log in.”. The unofficially reinstated member, to that effect, started a thread on the forum discussing and clarifying the matter and summarize the happenings. There was just one very short message from the forum owner that appears in this thread (#23), that some member had “PMed” her ASKING to have his account banned”. And this is all she got to say about the matter (as far as I could see), this after the reinstatement of the member. No reinstatement notice, apology, explanation, or announcement of some sort, I could find, nothing. Which would have been proper as evidently her evaluation of this member was highly incorrect. Well, at least in this case she has failed to get rid of a to her uncomfortable member, and make the accusations stick or at least get them accepted by the majority without too much protests. The attempt simply failed. Unfortunately I apparently wasn't long enough on the forum to earn more appreciation from already reputed members of the forum. Either way, the recorded happenings as they folded out sum up rather nicely how this forum owner goes about things, or at least attempts to.

This unofficially reinstated member wrote to me: “Your write up was quite succinct and to the point. My personal opinion is that the forum owner has an axe to grind with anyone who doesn't toe the line re: Scientology and even sent me a couple of rather nasty private messages because I am, as she claims, a Scientologist.”. Be it noted here that this person in reality is not a Scientologist. He however promotes a genuine interest to a fair approach. Rather obviously the forum owner does not!

Go back
Forum #5  (anti-Scientology oriented, originates from Norway)
Applied:  8 December 2007
Account enabled:  18 February 2008
Kicked:  21 April 2008
  FAQ and trolls
  Introduction of my person on this forum and approach
  The Jason Beghe incident and getting kicked
  The approach of the forum owner
  Last comments

Go back

This is one of the larger Scientology oriented forums, or at least one of the more renowned ones. Somehow my attention was never really drawn to this forum. This forum originates from Norway, when I mention this various persons will know which this is. There appears to be a waiting list before you get your account enabled. Approximately 2-3 months appears common although it can go much quicker at times as I have seen.

When I compiled this page and decided to write these brief synopsis' about my experiences on these various groups, then I realized that I actually missed out on the most significant one. So I decided to apply. Reason was two-fold. Would I be accepted? (I did not hide my identity in anyway, rather the contrary). It was a sort of putting the freedom of speech to the test that is promoted by the forum owner. In fact I received a message from this forum owner (dated 18 Jan 2008) that read: “I reply to all applicants in the order they came in and I never refuse anybody because of their opinions.”. Second reason for applying was to find out if I could influence something here on this forum loaded with anti-Scientologists.

As I already indicated this forum is rather anti-Scientology oriented. I frequently do notice that various persons that are posting on these forums are not in particular well-informed about the subject of Scientology and may just have accepted some statements from some person from some place. I still had some (blind) notion that I would be able to add something worthwhile to the discussion. Although I attempted to keep a rather low profile. The intent was to refrain from getting into any serious conflicts or creating any, thus per this it would be rather unlikely that I was going to be kicked, or so I figured. Nonetheless I would not refrain from giving my view on matters.

Go back
FAQ and trolls

On its FAQ page we are informed that “This message board was created to offer a friendly and safe place to meet others and discuss subjects related to the Church of Scientology.”. This forum was advocated to be “neutral ground”. Further it is explained that it was meant to be a means to help people that someway had been wronged and actually wanted to leave the Church of Scientology; “trying to get out of the cult,” as they phrased it. The forum had different sections in where you could tell about your personal experiences, debates, media reports, and so on.

Then it said in the FAQ that “The cult and individual cult apologists will always try to distract or disturb any critical debate.”, thus are promoting off topic subjects, or derailing threads (discussions). It is further urged to guard oneself against that and to not feed such persons. A reference is then made to Internet Trolls, which is defined in Wikipedia as:
“An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.”  (see further here, external link)
I would say here though that it should be obvious that one should also be on guard for, that prior to labelling a particular person with this, that one should have verifiable means to effectively determine that you are really dealing with such a person that is here with the intent to disrupt. You see, labelling a person being a troll is easy, backing it up may not be equally easy. Those persons that do not toe the general line present at a forum can quickly get the same label. You have to watch for that you don't label a person whose only guilt may be that he did not adjust him/herself to the general agreement that is present on some forum. Incorrectly labelling, thus on false grounds, a person can just be an effort to get rid of an uncomfortable poster for the sole reason that he/she is of a different opinion. Happens all the time as I have seen.
Thus mind that the article on Wikipedia also relates:
“The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.
 Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities.”

Go back
Introduction of my person on this forum and approach

I made some introduction of my person and my approach towards the matter of Scientology on this forum in a first post (see here, pop-up window). I did propose some issues and my view on things, adequately supported it with reference to relevant documents, and so on. Pretty much from the beginning various responses that I received were of a rather exceedingly unappreciative nature. I however simply stated my case with communication in a gentle manner and in spite of that at some point things turned sort of hectic. By now I was receiving repeatedly personal attacks and crude invalidations of various nature. Some members finally then started to confess that they actually wanted me out of there. The site administrator of this forum however interfered and urged “If someone is breaking the rules ... I expect you to notify me with links so I can look into it.”. He further urged to be sensible about matters. I found that the various members that frequently posted on this forum are as I encountered them on all the other forums. The only reason apparently why I remained an active registrant on this forum is because its forum owner did seem to appear to live up to the freedom of speech that he so actively promotes and advocates. Well, at least for a little while.

A member of this forum then started a thread (a discussion) in the section “Feedback & Help”. It was aimed to be the place where all complaints about me could be forwarded. On that thread I urged that people would ensure that they would follow the forum rule “The complaint must contain proper reference and/or link to the text it refers to.”. I also urged that if some discussion got “derailed by this or that poster”, to then be “specific” and also “explain why” some person would “consider it being derailed”. This thread counts 42 messages, but not even one single exact incident had been reported! Nonetheless it was simply claimed that I had disrupted many a thread. Be it noted that I time after time after time had urged on this forum to be specific about any of the accusations at my address. They could not ever be delivered. It remained being a general finding-fault-with as in plain opinion.

Go back
The Jason Beghe incident and getting kicked

Then I made some comments in regards to this Hollywood star named Jason Beghe that had defected in early April 2008. For a period of about 12-14 years or so he had been involved with the Scientology organization, and now he was speaking out against it. The story goes that he had contacted the forum owner of this forum, he in turn redirected him to another fellow that was making video interviews and posting them on the Internet. There was this thread (a discussion) apparently started by Jason Beghe himself in where he expressed his appreciation for the “kind words and support” he had received. At first I uttered some distrust about if this really was this person. Shortly after that I was able to pretty much confirm that it actually was him. On another thread (a discussion) someone put out some links to pages on the Internet (that had now been taken down) in where I found the following quotation attributed to this Jason Beghe:
“If life is a game, Scientology gives you the tools to play it with a stacked deck and win consistently. Scientology has enabled me to make my dreams come true, really. I know that it can do the same for anyone. It is a rocket ride to spiritual freedom.
Jason Beghe  Actor”       
And so I placed an inquiry and was asking if “this was true once or not” for him. After all he was today calling Scientology a con. So I wondered “what he has been doing all those 14 years” he had been involved with it. My inquiry was frowned upon by various members of this forum. It was even uttered on the forum that I was “bullying” Jason Beghe with my “demands”?? As ever people wish to interpret as it fits them! A very simple inquiry now was seen as bullying and a demand, no kidding! Either way I defended myself and simply reiterated that it was a simple inquiry. I urged for sanity in the matter.
Followingly I started to be harassed by this member uttering phrases such as: “interrogate Jason Beghe” & “repeated demands ... amount to bullying” and directing his attention to the forum owner and a forum moderator with the question: “Is this really going to be tolerated?”. When all I actually had done was trying to establish that it was a simple inquiry, and not some demand. I did not even repeatedly put forward this inquiry, in fact it was my pursuer that continued accusing me and persistently lit the fire on this! By now this pursuer was accusing me of a variety of things.
This Jason beghe himself never actually responded.

A forum moderator then participated and wrote about this “narcissistic poodle” (referring to me) that “hump his leg in our living room”. Then 3 additional members joined supporting the find-wrong-with messages. Finally we see a message from the forum owner: “The problem is not the provocateurs, we know about and expect them, the biggest problem is the ones who feed them. Those who let them push their buttons. They are IMHO a bigger ruin to the message board.”. It was followed with a link that lead to a first post in a newly created thread (a discussion) in where the information was relayed that my “Posting privileges” had “for now been paused.”. It seems though that I was judged by the forum owner being a provoker when the actual situation was that I was the one that persistently was being provoked! The forum owner simply could have approached my initial harasser, instead he made me being the target for disciplinary actions. Thus it does seem that he fell for the absurd arguments of my harasser. Or rather he found it easier to target me. After all I was not adjusting to the general agreements that were prevalent on this forum!

Go back
The approach of the forum owner

It may also be noted that I was not being warned about anything either, I simply got kicked without any prior message send to me. With this the forum owner was actually violating his own forum rules! I received a message from a member that has been for quite a while active on the forum. She wrote to me that it was usual for the forum owner “to warn people before he bans them”, and that she is “not sure what prompted the change”. Odd enough I did also receive 3 info emails that a pm (private message) had arrived at my mailbox on the forum, which I was thus unable to even collect.

Either way the sudden ban robbed me from all these communication lines rather abruptly. This forum owner after this did send me a separate email message in where he informed me about this ban. Translated from Norwegian it reads:
“For a while you been allowed to walk around on OCMB, at this time however it starts to become more of an annoyance than of usefulness and for this reason your rights to post messages has been restricted (paused). Most of the things you relate about have already been discussed at other places and are easy accessible.”
Ah, even this be true (which it is not), is that a valid reason to ban someone?? Well, not according to the forum rules it isn't!
The reason the forum owner provided for banning me simply stated a general evaluation without any specifics which rules I had been breaking and exactly where. This is sort of contradictive as his own forum rules tell that in case of a complaint that it “must contain proper reference and/or link to the text it refers to.”. Then the member being banned may “After two weeks ... apply for the account to be opened again”. Now, this becomes sort of troublesome as the person that was actually being harassed (being me) was kicked and not the harasser.

A further message send to this forum owner asking him to clarify himself according to his own forum rules remains unresponded to. This forum owner also has failed at any time to interfere when various threads (discussions) were created that contained tirades of rude invalidations, personal attacks, ridicule, and foul language that were directly targeting me. Ironically this forum owner writes on his FAQ:
“You are to behave polite and friendly here (just adding a lot of smilies is not enough). Use netiquette.”
“Flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated.”
“If you can't hold back on personal attacks then do so somewhere else.”
Now, do you remember that I mentioned this one forum moderator on this very same forum that called me for a “narcissistic poodle”? This moderator had expressed similar things about me in other messages on the forum, now did we see this forum moderator or any of my pursuers disciplined by the forum owner? No, we most certainly did not!!!
See, I was being banned and have not at any time been disrespectful, rude to any person on the forum! Well, all these guide rules appear being rather empty words.

The forum owner further rules in his FAQ:
“It's fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person.”
Well, it more than clearly folds out here that this forum owner, this supposed renowned advocate of freedom of speech is after all not so very much for this freedom of speech at all. This myth too has finally and effectively been put to rest!

This forum owner then has posted a justification as follows (posted on the forum as an addition to his FAQ page):
“I'll say this: I have my way of treating the ones you say I should ban and I've seen some good effects of that. Not perfect, not better than others, but I don't believe there is one Miracle Cure or one Messiah here. I believe if many did their little thing the way they do best then the results - added up - will be amazing. I'm doing my little thing my way. Not to get any prizes or approvals, but because I believe it is the right thing for me to do. I have my own personal perspective I act from and don't expect you or anybody else to see or call it as I do.”
It would appear that the message relayed here is that he simply does as he pleases and doesn't put himself in the position that he even has to clarify himself either.

As an anecdote and an interesting comparison I quote here from one of these so-called Anti-Social Personality characteristics as listed in HCOB 27 Sept 66 “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist”. It may speak for itself. Attribute #6 reads:
“The anti-social personality habitually selects the wrong target.
If a tyre is flat from driving over nails, he or she curses a companion or a non-causative source of the trouble. If the radio next door is too loud, he or she kicks the cat.
If A is the obvious cause, the anti-social personality inevitably blames B, or C or D.”          LRH
It may be considered that I was disciplined (kicked) and not my harasser for provoking. It is obvious though that this forum owner thus “kicks the cat,” and is abiding to his own personal motives and goals.

His FAQ on the forum also tells the following interesting claim that these so-called “cult and individual cult apologists” may “make pretend they are critics”. Indeed I did say that I was a critic, and in fact that can be easily verified. My site can hardly be called a run of the mill defence for some ‘cult’, it simply examines information in depth.
Nonetheless it has persistently be so claimed by a variety of its members as if I would be working in favour of or for the Church of Scientology or even OSA. All that I actually ever asked for was perspective and differentiation in matters. The FAQ further relates:
“Be truly skeptical and measure people on what they actually contribute and not only on what they write or claim. Be extra cautious if you see people trying to distract the debate by soliciting ad hominem attacks or promote off topic subjects.”
I guess that various members had not been scrutinous enough in regards to me, including the forum owner failing to follow up on his own advices. I never made a single unsupported claim or statement. I remained being on-topic.For this reason we are lacking any instances linked to in where I could have been made answerable to various of the suspicions and foul language I was persistently subjected to.

Go back
Last comments

An additional consideration could be made in regards to Jason Beghe. May there have been a fear that I would get to Jason or scare him away from this forum? That great Hollywood actor? I had been placing my message on that thread that he started. Then, about one hour later the complete video interview (2 hours) that was made with Jason Beghe got released (a message appeared on this forum). Was it feared that I would comment on it? I don't know really about this. Although the time coincidence may be interesting for which reason I mention it. And the fact that I was not even been given any warning in advance.
It may also just have been that I had been attracting far too much attention thus far. On the forum statistics one could see that the threads (discussions) where I had been posting messages attracted many visitors. Mind that these messages also do appear publicly on the Internet for anyone to see. My opponents on the overall however responded rather childish and quite unintelligently, and it may have been found necessary to also put a stop to exactly that. After all I was the cause for these silly messages flourishing the forum. See, that's just not good advertisement! I appear to have been the obvious choice. Let's say that this forum owner rather than keeping control of the behaviour of those in his own cohorts, that he finds it easier to kick the other person.
An obvious contributing factor, will also have been those members that have been complaining about me. It makes you think how dependent this forum owner then actually would turn out to be.

Go back
Forum #6  (Independent Scientology oriented)
Subscribed:  26 January 2014
Kicked:  28 January 2014
A brief adventure of a rather late date. And brief it was indeed, it took only 2 days to have myself banned from this forum, my record thus far. This time around the person owing the group is a so-called Independent Scientologist, an auditor so he says. He runs this private forum. At this interim in time I didn't look for any more forums to join, but here I was invited by another person. And I was thinking to look around a bit and may be just run a few postings and then let it be.

Because these exchanges that I had direct towards a philosophy that appears to be sort of prevalent amongst those Scientologists that are active outside of the reign of the Church of Scientology I have placed my experiences, findings and overview at link here below:  (separate window).
    “Some of us have developed technologies that go far beyond anything Hubbard wrote about.”

Go back c) Afterword

Well, this is how things may go on such groups of you do not conform to the general opinion. Things may turn very rude indeed. I have received tirades of all kinds of invalidations and opinions from various of its members just when I proposed a different view on things. I also received repeated accusations of various nature but that were never supported with exact verifiable incidences. I would not advice anyone to go around on these forums and participate, i.e. if you are not made of solid material yourself. If you are not it may turn into a rather negative and devastating experience. All will be fine as long as you agree and conform, if you however propose something different which is considered controversial on the particular group you easily will become a target yourself. Generally I find that the most regular posters are also not members of any acceptable level of intelligence. The misduplications that I have encountered are rather astounding. There is a significant problem regarding the ability to view exact pieces of data without any bias. Interpretations are being made, and this they will they you is what you said. Thus a rather significant level of actual misduplication. Thus you will not be able to have a sensible conversation with various of its members because of this.

Be it noted though that you can in fact find good people on these groups as well. Because of my running around on these groups I did get some good contacts and sources of information. Some of these actually also quit the group after seeing that the standard was not as hoped for. Further I found interesting historical information in the databases (old discussions) of these groups. You may also find a variety of Scientology old-timers on these groups chatting about these early days. Mind though that one has to scrutinize these personal interpretations of happenings when you come across them. Just remember where you are.

Go back Additional comments (1) - The matter of communication  &  The use of the ‘ignore button’

These forums are a means of communication or at least they aim to be that. Although in practice it often appears to be used as a means to primarily converse with those persons that share the same or at least a very similar opinion. Therefore those persons that are of a different opinion, and they may very well have good arguments that do not get disproven that easily, they generally tend to be perceived as uncomfortable by those persons that oppose them. This now may create a particular situation. The tone used in addressing the person may start to get unpleasant, ridicule may enter, it can become very personal indeed (ad hominem), sometimes it may turn plain nasty. These quarrels may now witness that the topic or argument forwarded is not really addressed anymore by the opponent. It thus starts becoming an unfruitful discussion. Regularly we may see that this opponet will try to overthrow the other person with just plain opinion and at the same time one is trying to convince other participators of the discussion of the rightness of the own opinion. Of course this is far from sufficient to disprove the argument, but what else is there left to do if you can not show the incorrectness of that argument. I have experienced so very often that various people on these forums will not admit that may have been in error about something. A variety of members, I have found, will continue to persist being right about matters. One should watch for this typical behaviour on the various forums, and it should be seen as an indicator. An indicator that may point in the direction of that these people that are going around on these forums may not be so knowledgeable at all about the matters they try to make wrong.

Various of these forums may have this feature that is called an ‘ignore button’. If you for some reason do not wish to read messages of some particular person you can put him/her on ‘ignore’. When activated you can still see that the person that you've put on ignore placed a message, however you will not see the text of this message. On some other forums you don't even see that this person has placed a message. This way you can sort of select the messages that you do wish to read. It may be promoted on forums to put some person on ignore, and this may be just because some have the opinion that it is not worthwhile to read the messages of some person. It is interesting to see that various members of some forum may promote it as a “liberating experience”. I wonder actually about this. What is so liberating about it? Even if you have not put some person on ignore, you still are not obliged to read the message if you do not wish to do so? So, are some people compelled to read a text when they see it?
More interesting though may be that I have personally experienced that it is heavily promoted by a variety of members of some forums to put in particular my person on ‘ignore’. It is then claimed that I have nothing worthwhile to say, am repeating myself, don't contribute with anything, and more such supposed reasons. But why promoting this so heavily to others? It looks even like as if one intends to prevent that any person actually would read my messages. A sort of not allowing people to actually find out for themselves if it is any worthwhile or not. This is where the oddity starts. So is this rather a situation in where one attempts to prevent that other person listens to some person? May be because they indeed do have something to say? Is it because some don't want a voice heard that opposes or may expose those that try to silence this member in this manner? My experiences with this does appear to confirm this possibility. In some way this may even class with freedom of speech as questionable efforts are being exerted to let a voice not being heard.

On one of these forums there was this site moderator (forum #5) that suddenly started to flamboyantly recommend other members to put me on ‘ignore’ (thus using this button). Per him I was just a nuisance, that “spout his nonsense”, and was only there to disrupt. A total of 6 messages did appear from this moderator on this forum with these kind of valuations, without him ever been able to address me personally!! I did actually send him a pm (personal message) via the internal message system on the forum inquiring where I exactly had gone awry and what his counterarguments were. He failed to ever answer me or provide for any clarification. Nonetheless he wrote this message on the forum that amongst other said: “I only rarely take him off Ignore in order to take a look at what's going on when someone sends me a PM of complaint about him. He soon thereafter goes plonk as there is not much I can do about him ... .”. This actually would have said it all, doesn't it! Nonetheless it is directly followed by a quotation from a response he had send to some member that had complained about me.
“I would partially ‘quarantine’ [him] to one thread somewhere on the message board. Call it the ‘Converse With [...] Thread.’ There, he could spout his nonsense till Kingdom Come.
I would then set up his account so that outside of that special thread, [he] gets only one post per day. One post per day in the greater remainder of the message board. Further, I would put a maximum word limit on that one post of the day at about 500 words or whatever a medium sized post might be.
This would allow [him] the right to speak, but would also serve to eliminate him as a major distraction, as a royal pain in the ass and as a major keystroke waster on this message board.”
It appears that one is ready to go at length to control some person. The simplicity however here is that message boards have rules, but what to do if some uncomfortable poster does not violate the rules? Then you do the above I guess for damage control. But why could the forum rules not take care of that all by itself? This would be the question to ask. A question that will not be answered though.
This moderator ended of his message with:
“Of course, the above situation would not have to be permanent and [he] could ‘earn the right’ for a return to greater access to the message board.”
Now is this not all very nice and gentle?

There was another forum owner (forum #4) that also was utterly unable to converse with me directly. She made claims that she had received none of my messages that were send to her personal email address (which was openly posted on her forum), but communicated through another forum member expressing the wish that she wanted to see them. (She had in private approached another forum member to get that message to me, which I received). Well, why not sending me a message directly?? She had the email address! Anyway she made up a story and kicked me from her forum. Later she then appeared on this forum #5, and I actually laid out a bit about my experiences with her, and questioned her reliability because of my experiences (some claims were made about her honesty about other matters by some member on this forum #5, which naturally I questioned). Anyhow then for the first time she actually started to address me directly. She did that 2 times and then she disappeared saying that she had put me on ‘ignore’. She again failed however to explain anything, just plain opinion about how much at fault I was.

I shortly after found out that this one site moderator from forum #5 was the boyfriend of this forum #4 owner. This may very well explain some of the happenings and the joined prejudiced approach from this person.
Either way I actually perceive here that there is some problem about actually having the courage to directly facing the opposition. Which in itself is rather interesting. Then there is the repeated lack of explanation and answers to queries.

Go back Additional comments (2) - Freedom of speech  vs?  Freedom of speech

A usual claim made by those forums that oppose to Scientology is that they themselves would be about freedom of speech, this as opposed to the Church of Scientology that supposedly limits freedom of speech. I can confirm that a certain pressure may be put on you from various people within the Scientology organization. Mind though that this may or may not be ordained by the actual original writings however (see for some details my page “A word about Criticism: Critical responses received and my defence”). Either way you most certainly do have the right to your own opinion and to actually disagree as various codes with the organization clearly lay out. Various of them are listed in full in the publication ‘What Is Scientology?’.

Now what about those that oppose to Scientology, are they really about freedom of speech? My conclusive personal experiences about that are rather excruciating. Freedom of speech is allowed as long as it follows a certain pattern, the pattern being that one has to adjust oneself to the general agreement that one finds on a particular forum or group.

I received an interesting response from a person that was harassing me on such a forum (forum #5):
“If [the site admin] were to kick your sorry bottom to the curb he would NOT be denying you free speech. He would simply be exerting his right to freedom of association (or freedom to not associate), and his property rights.
Censorship is something that governments do to stop individuals from speaking. Kicking out a rude guest who is badgering other people at a dinner party (for example demanding that somebody speak to you, or justify their reasons for leaving the cult) is NOT censorship.”
I responded on the forum with:
“The bottomline is that you use an poor excuse to actively attempt to deny someone the right to ask questions. That is the simplicity of it. You appear to have no sense of what freedom of speech involves. You actually do accuse me of what you are doing, which is putting demands. Governments always have done like you through times. You deny free speech, but call it something else.”
The matter was actually that I posted a simple inquiry which was then interpreted as a demand which shortly after then was perceived as bullying.

Anything one may do on such a forum may get twisted by another member simply to make you look bad, and give them a reason (justification) to get rid of some other member who's only crime may be that he or she is of a different opinion.

Another response that I received on this forum reads:
“Free speech does not include the right to crap all over a privately run board. [He] has been kicked off other boards for the same behaviour it is practicing here. In addition to the ignore key, I wish we had a ‘report’ key, and a mod would be good, too. But lacking those, please PM [the site admin] and express your opinions regarding [him].”
It clearly urges to “express your opinions”, thus not actual incidents, just opinions. This very member actually did create shortly after this thread (discussion) where complaints about me could be collected. This thread however maintained being conspicuous by the absence of links to any specific incidents whatsoever.
This same member also claimed about me: “... trolls like [him] interfere with everyones free speech.”. So, it not being enough that my freedom of speech was interfered with, I was in addition being accused that I interfered with other persons' their freedom of speech. I am not sure how this all would work though. When asked for specifications about all these accusations I only received replies like: “your posts speak for themselves, no further proof is needed”. And I was thinking, ain't that all swell!

When it finally comes down to it, the right for freedom of speech bears no relevance on such forums. It is simply not being respected. Matters persistently are being regulated per the likes/dislikes or purposes/agenda of the person(s) managing the rulings!
Even if you may not have violated any rules, but if you just attract too much attention for whatever the reason, you simply will be stripped of your rights. Other actual offenders that did violate the rules of decency, foul language, personal attacks, ruthless invalidation lacking any ground will not so quickly be disciplined by a site admin or moderator as long as these are directed toward the person that does not share the general agreement of any given forum or group. In fact it appears from my experiences that forum owners or moderators may even join the attempts for persecution.

Go back Additional comments (3) - Forums or counter ‘movements’ turning into cults themselves?

This actually would be an interesting subject for discussion. Could there though be found any truth within this particular concept?

This following response was posted on an open message board out on the Internet. (This is actually the site admin of forum #5, anti-Scientology oriented.)
“I don't understand how you can claim a cult has been built up around me. I thought I would have noticed it. I experience everything but that, thank you very much. I work alone and live thousands of miles from all other critics, I get no gain from this - only hassle and lots of real risks to my personal life, I get a lot of pepper. I have however got to know a lot of interesting and great people all around the world, a few I also consider friends. If getting to know people now is getting a cult then words and debate is getting meaningless...”
I responded to this as follows:
“A cult is a creation of man. Often a some sort of distorted response to some phenomena or person. One only has to regard how your site is being used and the way it is promoted. What people do may not directly effect you personally in that respect. It is the behaviour of people.”

Various of these noted forums were a counter reaction to the phenomena of Scientology. There would not be an anti-Scientology movement or sorts today if there was no Scientology in the first place. That what should be considered is if the anti-Scientology movement is actually displaying cult behaviour amongst its members. Are the ‘debates’ found on the established forums meaningful? In the previous chapters I have noted my experiences on various forums that relate about Scientology. These may speak for themselves.

Go to index

Back to Main Index A few additional relative notices about Internet groups

Go back Seeing OSA everywhere and anywhere ...

A note can also be made about that any of these groups (the anti- or ex-Scientology or the various Free Zone), that either of them (as I experienced) have an eye open for as they call them OSA agents or OSA ops (operators). This Office of Special Affairs (OSA) is the legal section of the Church of Scientology. It is considered, and probably with good reason, that they wish to somehow infiltrate the various Scientology offshoot groups and the anti-Scientology groups. All this in an effort to make them disappear or disband. Then I repeatedly had the experience that as soon as one does not agree on certain issues that one instantly may be considered as some sort of OSA operator. Some appear outright delusional about this. Indeed I have been subjected to this myself at a variety of occasions. In fact me having this website has at times been claimed to be my disguise to win credibility when I defended certain issues. It is quite interesting to see how various on these groups may discuss some person that is somehow suspected to be such an OSA operator. It even has, because of that, been questioned if I was really this person having this website. These people when reading these lines may be convinced now that I actually am that person.

Go back The anti- or ex-Scientology groups

We have some technology or knowledge of data and we have people that do something with it. The former does not necessarily come with the right application by the latter. I find that these so very easily get mixed up. Application does not represent Scientology technology. It represent a person or persons that did something. It is quite vital to separate this as very much can have gone awry from original technology to actual application.

The general tone found on the anti- or ex-Scientology forums and groups is that the people there could be said to pat each other on the shoulders and acknowledge each other about their misfortunes in regards to Scientology. Frequently I may find that they themselves may not have had the courage, at the time they were put through various ordeals, to keep their own integrity in track. Be it understood though that various persons that I have spoken with had been put through some really bad experiences. It is not my intent here to invalidate anyone. Nonetheless I wish to comment that in whatever situation one may have been, one still has a personal responsibility. In particular then various don't want someone in their midst that in various ways may make them aware of this. Thus it is here also a matter of know-how and actual understanding. It is always easier to blame someone or something else for what has occurred to oneself. The sadness lies in that fairly many of them (after sometimes many years) still can't let go of and take a different perspective. A problem also comes along with that various of them are of the opinion that they know things better. They then simply don't want to be questioned in what they have assumed or believed was true to them for may be many years. Some however are only there to just be able to talk about the old days and refresh their memories. Unfortunately the general tone on these groups is pretty much as like I describe here.
When you go about such groups you'll find that its members generally appear quite pleased with themselves as if they know it all. They appear fully convinced they have right and it is interesting to see how they actually may respond to flatter. And then to see how they affectionately pat each other on the shoulder. They appear living in their personally created reality which has little to do with the factual world outside of that. At least in where it concerns the subject of Scientology, but may be not with its organization. You see, 2 different things they are. But they usually get mixed up and are considered and presented as if one and the same. It is also interesting to see that various after having been pro Scientology for quite some time, today may heavily speak out against it. For some reason Scientology still appears to occupy their life at present. It seems hard to let go and move on.

Go back The no-Scientologist

Even sadder though is the tale of the no-Scientologist. Somehow various people got hooked up on the subject of Scientology and talk against it although they are lacking any (or little) personal experience with it. You will find such persons on especially the anti- and ex-Scientology forums and groups. There they may be spending a lot of their leisure time discussing (or rather finding wrong with) the subject they never really were able to get a grip of, or know very much about. They just figure that Scientology must be gotten rid of. For them it appears all bad. I experienced that it is also quite useless to debate with such individuals. Pertinent questions to situations, if hard to provide an answer to that actually acknowledges their conviction or views, are avoided. They may either simply ignore or utter some generalities. After which they go elsewhere and make the same claims. But then, why spending so much time with something you do not approve of? In essence this could be looked upon as rather insane as others simply move on. Why can't some let go of? Occupy yourself instead with something you do believe in and promote that. If one listens to them it also appears that they don't believe that there are many Scientologists around anyway. Then why consider it a threat? So, there they are, on these forums, newsgroups whatever, passing time, ready to spout their quirks and twists.

Either way, my running around on these various groups and posting on them at this time are done and over with. I have no intention nor motivation to involve myself with that ever again. I received my answers, I know what these groups and the people active on them are like. I know how one goes about things over there. And as it appears the far majority of the people there don't want to listen, hear or learn anyway. There is simply no willingness to consider alternate options or reflect upon another perspective. It remains undoubtedly true that you can not make people see if there is no intention to actually look. Insight is in direct relation to knowledge of self. That means that one has to be able to be critical of oneself, it again appears that indeed very few are willing to do so. On the overall I experience that the majority of these discussions found on these groups are either presumptuous or of a rather silly (useless or unintelligent) nature. Don't people have something more constructive things to do? For many of its members it may appear that they are just there to pass time. It be noted also that most appear anonymous, providing for no contact information or even a valid email address. Any that wishes so may get themselves involved with these petty mindgames that are played about on these forums. For me it was interesting for a while to learn about them. Today however I have no business with that anymore. I permanently moved past that.



     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window).
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
Mimeograph section. The section within the Scientology organization that takes care of all the printed references, printing, storing, organizing, filing etc. Since the 80's however the printing is not done anymore with a mimeograph machine (or ‘Roneo’), it became off-set printing. However the name Mimeo is still the name used to address this section.
Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649)
     Sea Org (SO):
Short for ‘Sea Organization’. This is the senior organization within the Church of Scientology that see to it that Advanced Organizations (AO's) and the Class IV-V organizations do function well. They send out so-called missions if there are indications or if they find that improvement or corrections are called for. They also provide for dissemination and other programs that the Scientology organizations are to comply with. Missions may be send out to implement these and instruct the organizations.

Go to top of this page