Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Censorship Your Rights Online

Wayback Machine Purged of Scientology Criticism 443

muldrake writes "The Wayback Machine, an archive of websites as they appeared in their past incarnations, is reported by CNET in this story as having censored the Scientology-critical Xenu.net, in a repeat of the heavy-handed tactics used against Google as reported in this previous Slashdot thread."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wayback Machine Purged of Scientology Criticism

Comments Filter:
  • Bigger news (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:32PM (#4323124) Journal
    Lifelong Scientology foe, Nicholas Cage, was married to Scientology fan Priscilla Presley last month. Which one changed religions?
    • Thats a very interesting observation. Do you have any sources that refer to Nicholas Cage and his anti-scientology views? This isnt meant to dispute your claim, I'm just curious. :)

      • Re:Bigger news (Score:3, Interesting)

        A Google [google.co.jp] search results in a ton of links regarding Cage's and Jim Carrey's shenanigans. It seems that Carrey is more vehement in his opposition to CoS, but Cage seems to be right there with him.

      • And for the non-Japanese speaking folk, that link is here [google.com]
  • by rpresser ( 610529 ) <rpresser@gmai l . com> on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:32PM (#4323131) Homepage
    It's very typical of the Church's actions; it's very typical of reactions to the Church's actions; and the next obvious step is public pressure from those who have an opinion, resulting in a very typical denoument: reversal of the removal. Ah, this was probably a very typical comment, adding nothing of interest. Go ahead and mod it down.
  • What the hay? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:33PM (#4323132) Homepage Journal
    What is it about these scientologists that they can get away with this? The same bill of rights that allows their crazy cult to exist is the same one that allows me to make fun of them. If I had the money I would make the mother of all anti-scientologist websites. If you are a scientologist and are reading this, I invite you to my house.
    It's one thign to believe in an all powerful deity that created the universe.
    It's another thing to believe in a book that some guy wrote, because some other guy bet that he couldn't create a religeon.

    Doesn't anyone have balls anymore?
    • Re:What the hay? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:35PM (#4323148) Journal
      What is it about these scientologists that they can get away with this?

      They have a deep understanding of the power and reach of the legal system. They also have deep pockets to finance squelching operations.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        "They have a deep understanding of the power and reach of the legal system. They also have deep pockets to finance squelching operations. "

        Kind of like Microsoft.
        • Re:What the hay?-MS (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Kind of like Microsoft.

          Actually Microsoft and Scientology have deeper ties than most people would expect. Microsoft usually never licenses any software, but in case of Diskeeper the made an exception:

          "Diskeeper", the defragmentation program integrated in Windows 2000 and Windows XP is written by "Executive Software", which was founded by Craig Jensen, an "operating Thetan at level VIII".

          Jensen is not only a Scientologist himself, he also only hires Scientologists - He requested: "Fully trained scientologists, computer skills desirable but not a prerequisite"

          The German government requested Microsoft to release the source-code of Diskeeper for review. Microsoft agreed, but later said they can't disclose the source-code.

          Later on, Microsoft released instructions (which included some registry-hacking) to remove Diskeeper from Windows 2000, which obviously was enough for the German government. That Diskeeper was reactivated after every Servicepack did not disturb anybody, obviously. I have not heard anything about Windows XP - only that Diskeeper is still in there, probably everybody has just lost interest.

          My personal opinion is that Microsoft probably does not have the source of Diskeeper themselves which would mean that not a single non-Scientologist has ever seen a line of code from Diskeeper.

          As a defragmentation program, Diskeeper has of course full access to all files on any Windows 2000 and Windows XP computer.

          Scientologie's stated goal is "clear world" which means the elimination of all non-Scientologists (either by conversion or by other means) on this planet.

          More information here:


          Posted anonymously for obvious reasons.

      • Re:What the hay? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @08:04PM (#4323739)
        They also have deep pockets to finance squelching operations.

        And where do they get these deep pockets? Not just their members.

        Are you on Earthlink? Fact: that ISP was started (and is still operated) by Scientologists.

        They have a deep understanding of the power and reach of the legal system.

        Not only that, their members are encouraged to lie and deceive. They have used slander and libel against their critics and have blackmailed third parties into making false accusations on record.

        • Re:What the hay? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Not only that, their members are encouraged to lie and deceive. They have used slander and libel against their critics and have blackmailed third parties into making false accusations on record.

          The same could be said about the FBI.

          Knowing the bounds of the law and how to exploit them is all part of knowing the law inside and out.
    • Travolta... (Score:2, Funny)

      by Dareth ( 47614 )
      He promised not to make any more movies if they removed the complaints....

      All together not a bad deal!!!
    • Re:What the hay? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bogie ( 31020 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:48PM (#4323240) Journal
      "If I had the money "

      But you don't and they do. If someone will make it their life's mission to fuck you in ever possible way without relent for all of their existence, would you bother messing with them.

      In others its the American way personified, money buys justice, and he with the most money wins.

      I used to sneer at blanket statements like that, but anyone who disagrees at this point is living in LaLa-Land.
      • Consequences. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        But you don't and they do. If someone will make it their life's mission to fuck you in ever possible way without relent for all of their existence, would you bother messing with them.

        You know, one day they're gonna fuck with the wrong person--say, a Tim McVeigh type--bankrupt the hell out of them, ruin their life, the usual. And at that point, when said person has nothing much to live for anymore and certainly nothing to lose, Scientology HQ will go up in a big orange-red ball of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil.

        Frankly, I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already. But with their present behavior, it's only a matter of time.

        • The scientology HQ is actually a ship in international waters at all times. It's immune from the law in any land and is pretty much immune to any kind of attack from a rogue individual. I am afraid you will need a submarine, missile, or a battle ship to destroy their headquarters.
          • Re:Consequences. (Score:2, Informative)

            by theLOUDroom ( 556455 )
            I doubt that. Ever hear of the USS Cole?
            Now if THEY we in a submarine, it might be a different story.
          • On the plus side, the corollary is that if someone has the submarine, missile, etc., it's perfectly legal for you cause them to join Mr. Hubbard.

            I wonder if Woz is interested in funding another worthy cause...

        • Re:Consequences. (Score:3, Informative)

          by Spruitje ( 15331 )

          You know, one day they're gonna fuck with the wrong person--say, a Tim McVeigh type--bankrupt the hell out of them, ruin their life, the usual. And at that point, when said person has nothing much to live for anymore and certainly nothing to lose, Scientology HQ will go up in a big orange-red ball of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil.

          Well, they've tried it with Karin Spaink and XS4ALL here in the Netherlands.
          And they lost.
        • Re:Consequences. (Score:5, Informative)

          by Platinum Dragon ( 34829 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @07:57PM (#4323687) Journal
          And at that point, when said person has nothing much to live for anymore and certainly nothing to lose, Scientology HQ will go up in a big orange-red ball of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil.

          Frankly, I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already. But with their present behavior, it's only a matter of time.

          Don't even joke about this kind of stuff - Keith Henson was convicted in California of religious intolerance for someone else cracking a joke on alt.religion.scientology about passing by the headquarters of Golden Era Productions (a Scientology front company) with a "Tom Cruise Missile", and published the coordinates for the complex, along with the occasional protest of Scientology orgs. He was convicted, and bolted to Canada. Last I heard, he applied for refugee status.
          • Re:Consequences. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Grishnakh ( 216268 )
            He should have bolted to Germany. I'm sure they'd be happy to grant him refugee status, since they don't bend over for the Scientologists like the American court system.
          • Re:Consequences. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Malcontent ( 40834 )
            Amazing that "religious intolerance" has become a crime in america. What next? holding people indefinately without charges or access to lawyers? Oh wait a minute never mind.
        • And at that point, when said person has nothing much to live for anymore and certainly nothing to lose, Scientology HQ will go up in a big orange-red ball of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil.
          And then Scientologists learn what Hindus have known for centuries: Karma's a bitch.
          Frankly, I'm surprised that it hasn't happened already. But with their present behavior, it's only a matter of time.
          Ya ain't whistlin' Dixie.
      • Re:What the hay? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rgmoore ( 133276 )

        The idea that he with the most money wins is partially true, but it doesn't cover everything. Yes, it's true that if one side has deep pockets and the other doesn't, the side with deep pockets can frequently bury the other in piles of procedural crap until they run out of cash. And it's also true that having a good (i.e. expensive) lawyer can help a lot. But there are limits to what money can get you. If the facts are clearly in the favor of the little guy, all of the lawyering in the world may not be enough to save the big guy. You see this from time to time when somebody wins a big punative damage award from a large company. Think Erin Brockovich, the lady who scalded herself on McDonalds coffee, the people who sued GM over pickup truck safety, etc.

        The other thing to understand is that having lots of money seems to help more if you're the plaintiff than if you're the defendant. That's largely because the plaintiff stands to get damages if he wins, while the defendant only avoids them. That makes it a lot easier for a little guy to get a good lawyer as the plaintiff, since there are plenty of lawyers out there willing to work on contingency. IOW, if you want to tangle with Scientology, you're better off attacking them with a lawsuit (provided you actually have a case) rather than waiting for them to attack you with one.

        • If the facts are clearly in the favor of the little guy, all of the lawyering in the world may not be enough to save the big guy. Think [..]the lady who scalded herself on McDonalds coffee..

          Sure, the old lady who sued McDonalds because she spilled the cofee on herself! Facts were clearly in her favor, oh yeah.
          • Re:What the hay? (Score:5, Informative)

            by nelsonal ( 549144 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @08:58PM (#4323994) Journal
            I should really make this a text file so I don't have to type it each time...

            The McDonald's case, although popular belief would hold otherwise, was actually a reasonably good decision. The story brought to the jury, which is all that is allowed to be decided upon, goes as such. The lady recieved second and third degree burns all around her lower torso and legs, to the extent that quite a bit of plastic surgery was required. However even including reimbursment for medical bills and pain and suffering the compensatory damage was very small (160,000 USD). I think almost everyone can agree that was probably fair, since it compensates her for her lost time, and expenses. The rest of the judgement was punative, and was intended to punish the McDonalds corporation for their behavior. Keep in mind that the verdict was probably calculated as a result of McDonald's finances. It was later reduced to 3 times compensatory damages.
            What sort of behavior would incite a jury to want to punish the company like that? Well, first of all realize that coffee is usually served around 160 F (~71 C), which will not produce the burns she suffered. The coffee was estimated to be about 190 F (~87 C), by medical experts, from the nature and severity of the burns. McDonald's was not errant in keeping their coffee this hot, it was corporate policy. The policy was designed to save money, because hotter coffee lasted longer before dispoal was required. The jury deemed this action so negligent that they decided to punish the company, hense the judgement.

            You can read much more than I wish to type here, at a consumer's attorney page here. [lectlaw.com]
    • Re:What the hay? (Score:2, Informative)

      by REDNOROCK ( 597025 )
      The scientologist have some weird fucking veiws. If i'm not mistaken, they have all this crap about how it's ok to kill/assault/lie/cheat/defam and destroy people if they are against the religion. Anything you can do to silence the 'blasphemeres' is OK! In other words, they think it'd be ok to, say they see you driving along, 'accidently' swerve into you and make your car go head long into a light pole, or use any kind of leverage they have to spread lies that you molest children, have sex with your sister, and kill puppies. All of a sudden, you can't get a job anywhere, and you start getting ticekts for no reason. Of course, it depends who wants your ass. Not ever scientologist really knows what they're about. But, you get what i'm saying.
    • Re:What the hay? (Score:2, Informative)

      by The Qube ( 749 )
      A great book to read on the subject of CoS, their philosophy and tacticts is "A Piece of Blue Sky [cmu.edu]" by Jon Atack.

      The author was a member of the church and he recounts his experieneces from the time he joined the church and the events that followed.

    • The same bill of rights that allows their crazy cult to exist is the same one that allows me to make fun of them.

      IANAL--and it's clear that neither are you.

      The Cult of Scientology is a private organization, and can censor whomever they want. They can exert copyright law and quasi-appropriate legal tactics to silence their oppponents--and the Bill of Rights can't touch them.

      Chalk this one up as a fault of the first amendment, and whenever you think that the bill of rights is infallible and perfect, remember that it allows scientology to do this, and ties the hands of the only organization that's in a position to squash them for it--the Federal Government.

      It's one thign to believe in an all powerful deity that created the universe.
      It's another thing to believe in a book that some guy wrote, because some other guy bet that he couldn't create a religeon.[sic]

      It doesn't matter where the religion came from--it's a religion, at least until you get to OT 8 or wherever. I could found the "cult of Doug" right now, and if I get enough followers and the darn thing carries on after I'm gone, and it doesn't disrupt everyone's life who joins it, then it's a religion.

      Doesn't anyone have balls anymore?

      The Scientologists apparantly do. Xenu.net does. The DOJ, ever since Bush got in office, seems to have lost theris.
    • Re:What the hay? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Steeltoe ( 98226 )
      You don't understand, because you don't seem to know spirituality (but hey, what do I know?). I may- or may not have a little more grasp on it, the area is vast and fuzzy, so it's hard to be concrete. Just hear me out on this and be open minded.

      Scientology uses many popular exercises from Eastern spirituality (eg. many from the Indian Vedic Scriptures) that enhances your life-quality and consciousness. Many of the exercises have been used for many, many ages. Regression-therapy, eye-gazing, etc, are VERY ancient techniques commonly used in many different parts of the world. I even recently read about Maya Indians (completely different continent) using such techniques in order to see auras and heal. This is NOTHING new, except to the western masses.

      THAT is why scientology has succeeded as it has! The people who join and stay have GENUINE experiences. A few people get them in the very beginning and are immediately hooked, others take a little time, but they stay for curiosity and is lured in to believe all the lies when they start opening up to the experiences. This is because in order to have the experiences, you must open up, but then you are also more open to lies and deception. It's a very delicate and vulnerable time.

      I have always been critical of people looking down on cults. I have always felt them incapable to understand the people joining, in order to feel superior or something. Of course they stay because they experience something profound! Just like those who experiment with drugs do. They are not weaker, sometimes they are much stronger than you can imagine. They take a REAL stand for what they believe and they have the guts to do what others just have fancy dreams about: Sacrifice everything in order to "save the world". (Save a world that doesn't WANT to be saved? Haha, Fools ;*). Countless times, such people have become the heroes we admire (but only when history is rewritten to approve of their actions!).

      It's when lies, corruption and power-control is the main theme, that things go wrong. This happens in politics, economics as well as religions. It's the dark egoistic side of humanity, not anything inherently wrong with either of the three institutions (or any institution for that matter).

      When people become aware of this and work toward their REAL goal, not further their own egosentric interests, be it through money or spirit, that you will see real progress. Then, many such cults will simply die because of lack of interest. They will be exposed for who they are.

      To date, western society have been too spiritually immature to really understand such cults. Thus we have a duality where some join and others frown upon their practice. The frowners just don't understand that the joiners seek and obtain genuine experiences, and that alternatives should exist where lies and deception are not the norm. However, with higher awareness, people will simply see the lies for what they are. In a way, cults such as scientology have indeed helped the world risen the awareness of the dangers of seeking your answers in others.

      To conclude:

      1) Scientology is not a new phenomena. Cults that use genuine experiences to induce lies have "always" existed.

      2) Hubbard did not invent his "Tech", he read about them somewhere or got training from someone. Possibly, he had such powerful experiences himself that he did indeed go insane from them. A true spiritual teacher is humble, like Jesus. Hubbard was the excact opposite.

      3) If you're looking for spirituality. Don't read glossy web-pages or listen to people with lofty ideas, big ego (ie, God only speaks to me) and seeking great experiences. Find those who are humble, do real work, and respect and even admire others' opinions.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Operation Clambake [xenu.net]. It's doubtful that they'll give in to any CoS overtures.
  • why in the... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Skal Tura ( 595728 )
    Why do they censor some sites, i thought their job was to preserve everything, not just some things.
  • by Drunken Coward ( 574991 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:34PM (#4323146)
    What is Scientology?
    by Xenu.net

    L. Ron Hubbard quote:
    "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion"
    Reader's Digest reprint, May 1980, p.1
    Hubbard later created the Church of Scientology...

    Based on a text by ex-Scientologist Roland Rashleigh-Berry. Roland wrote: "This is my personal opinion. I grant permission to anyone to reproduce this material. This description has been tailored to people who have never been Scientologists and seek a simple and short explanation as to what it is and why it is surrounded by controversy."

    In a Nutshell
    The Church of Scientology is a vicious and dangerous cult that masquerades as a religion. Its purpose is to make money. It practices a variety of mind-control techniques on people lured into its midst to gain control over their money and their lives. Its aim is to take from them every penny that they have and can ever borrow and to also enslave them to further its wicked ends.
    It was started in the 1950s by a science fiction writer named L. Ron Hubbard in fulfilment to his declared aim to start a religion to make money. It is an offshoot to a method of psychotherapy he concocted from various sources which he named "Dianetics". Dianetics is a form of regression therapy. It was then further expanded to appear more like a religion in order to enjoy tax benefits. He called it "Scientology".

    Scientology is a confused concoction of crackpot, dangerously applied psychotherapy, oversimplified, idiotic and inapplicable rules and ideas and science-fiction drivel that is presented to its members (at the "advanced" levels) as profound spiritual truth.

    The Harm it Does to a Person
    The results of applying their crackpot psychotherapy (called "auditing") is to weaken the mind. The mind goes from a rational state to an irrational one as the delusional contents of the subconscious mind are brought to the surface and are assumed to be valid. It also makes a person more susceptible to suggestion since it submerges the critical thinking faculties of the mind into a partial subconscious state. It results in a permanent light hypnotic trance and so from thenceforth that person can be more easily controlled. The person will, to a much greater extent, believe and do whatever they are told. And of course this is used to the full in persuading them to hand over further money and dedicating themselves further to the cult.
    The results of applying their oversimplified and inapplicable rules in life is to lose the ability to think rationally and logically. A person loses the ability to think for themselves and so they lose the ability to challenge incorrect ideas. This makes them easier to control. It also isolates and alienates the person from society so that they withdraw from normal society and into their "Scientology" society. This further increases their susceptibility to the influence of their group. They end up being afraid of society, believing all society to be controlled by a group of drug companies, psychiatrists and financiers all of whom report to more remote masters. In other words they are in a state of mass paranoia. They therefore avoid reading newspapers and the like since they fear it will disturb their safe Scientology world. It is a downward spiral into madness.

    The science fiction content of Scientology is revealed to them after they have reached the state they call "Clear", meaning freed from the aberrations of the mind. However, perhaps "brainwashed" would be a more applicable word to describe the mental state of someone who has survived the near entire delusional contents of their subconscious mind brought to the surface and presented to them as "truth". On the "advanced" levels (called OT levels) above the state of "Clear" they encounter the story of Xenu. Xenu was supposed to have gathered up all the overpopulation in this sector of the galaxy, brought them to Earth and then exterminated them using hydrogen bombs. The souls of these murdered people are then supposed to infest the body of everyone. They are called "body thetans". On the advanced levels of Scientology a person "audits out" these body thetans telepathically by getting them to re-experience their being exterminated by hydrogen bombs. So people on these levels assume all their bad thoughts and faulty memories are due to these body thetans infesting every part of their body and influencing them mentally. Many Scientologists go raving mad at this point if they have not done so already.

    The "Ethics" Trap
    On the surface the Church of Scientology seems reasonable. The insane content of it is only revealed to a person when the early stuff has done its work and made them more susceptible. After a short while a person "believes" that Scientology is doing them good. They are then persuaded to help their new-found group further by donating money and/or working for the organisation for almost no money. Many people do exactly that.
    "Ethics" is used to good effect to trap a person. A person's natural tendency to do good is worked upon. Yes - they want to be more ethical, but what is ethical? This is where a clever trick is pulled! "Ethics" is redefined by Scientology in such a way that to be ethical is to be a better Scientologist and obey the "church". Young people, not yet made cynical through the machinations of life and politics, are very keen to contribute to the world and to be ethical. So the "ethics" trick works easily into persuading them to join the "church". Many of them join an elite group called the "Sea Org" where they become brainwashed slaves. There they work a hundred hour week for almost no pay. There they are subject to every cruel whim of their masters. It is a living hell that they endure because of the conditioning they have received and this now perverted sense of ethics that they have accepted. The "Sea Org" is the ultimate in brainwashed slavery. They are expected to work harder and harder to achieve ever higher targets of production. If they fail to meet their targets there are various penalties. One of them is to be put onto a diet of beans and rice and to miss sleep. Another is to be sentenced to a period on the RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force). This is the equivalent to "hard labour". Such is the extent of their brainwashing that they actually write "success stories" when they complete their sentences.

    Brainwashing Bites Back
    There is no doubt at all that L. Ron Hubbard incorporated brainwashing techniques into Scientology to put people under his control. He even wrote a "brainwashing manual" which is still in existence today. However there was a cruel twist in his scheme. He fell victim of it himself. In creating his devoted slaves, the Sea Org, he created an audience that believed every word he said. Now L. Ron Hubbard had an over-active imagination plus delusions of grandeur. The negative feedback he would obtain by being part of normal society was replaced by the positive feedback from his devoted followers. Through this his imagination got the better of him and combined with his delusions of grandeur, his thinking became increasingly bizarre which, on acceptance, led on to more bizarre thinking and the idea that he and Scientology had the job of saving the entire universe He wanted to take over the world in order to further Scientology's aims to save the universe and so branches of Scientology were set up to try to influence governments and gain positions where they could influence to world to a high degree. So what started out as a mass confidence trick backed up with brainwashing became a monstrous and insane organisation with fantastic, fanatical ideals. Because of this change, the Church of Scientology survived the death of their founder. It is like a runaway monster machine that tramples on society and peoples lives that is very difficult to stop.
    Stop the Monster
    The whole machinery called the "Church of Scientology" needs to be jammed somehow so that more people do not get sucked in and the people already in it have a chance to get out. We must not forget the people already in this "church". Although they are the ones perpetrating this crime they are also the victims. They need our help as well.
    And here we come to the "War on the Internet".

    The War on the Internet
    The "War on the Internet" is the war between the Church of Scientology and Internet users who copy their documents and post them on the Internet.
    The people who are copying their material and webbing it are using the huge accessibility of the world-wide web to get information out to people to warn them of the insanity and danger of this cult. They are doing it for the public good. The hope is that if they can get this information out to the public and make it broadly known then people will be forewarned and will not join the cult. If they can starve the cult of new members in this way then the whole organisation may collapse and then the existing members can be helped to return to society. But of course the people within the cult believe only their own founders interpretation of things so they use every means they can to stop this. Usually the method they use is harassment through lengthy and expensive legal processes. Sometimes it is physical harassment. Sometimes worse!

    The people who post and host the copyrighted and confidential works of Scientology are risking themselves to help warn the public about the dangers of Scientology. They have a strong sense of public duty and care for their fellow men. They are breaking copyright laws it is true but they are acting out of conscience and out of high human ideals. As they get broken down by legal or physical harassment more rise to take their place.

    I hope this short piece of mine is a befitting and deserving introduction to these people, the "Warriors of the Internet".

    In an article to alt.religion.scientology 6. September 1998, parkerbp@webtv.net wrote:
    Here's a short summary of my experience with $cientology.
    Staff was very friendly with me as a student and pc, as long as I kept forking over the dough for services and "fund raisers."
    I joined staff at an org and the attitude of other staff toward me got a little less than friendly.
    I joined the Sea Org and put up with alot of crap from staff and LRH's policy because I thought I was helping myself and my fellow man.
    I found out I was helping no one and hurting myself. I got out I began surfing the net and found many of my doubts and suspicions about the CO$ were very well founded.
    I had been lied to and deceived by the CO$ in order to gain my trust, my money, my loyalty, and dedication to a lost and evil cause.
    Now I am dedicated to voice my experiences and opinions of the cult of $cientology.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Auditing allows the mind to strengthen itself.

      Unfortunately, when delivered in a high-pressure, hard-sell environment where everyone ignores and suppresses uncomfortable opinions, the power of auditing is diluted to uselessness. Auditing cannot be fully effective when there is turmoil in the recipient's life, and from what I've seen and heard, many Scientology orgs are exactly as I have described here.

      The Church appears to have been declining steadily since the late 1960s, and many older "excommunicated" Scientologists will confirm that. After Hubbard died, it really hit the wall.

      Scientology is like a powerplant run by monkeys. It has so much potential to do so much good, but it's next to impossible to get even one volt out of it because of all the constant games and screwing around that goes on. If you try to tell any of the monkeys they ought to be running the powerplant rather than harassing each other, they fling feces at you.

      That, and Hubbard's inexplicable decision to "hide" the upper-level stuff, is why the Church is so crackpot today. I mean, come on now, if people will believe the mushroom fantasy of Revelations, why wouldn't they believe in the whole Xenu story? They're both equally plausible. :)

      I don't buy the idea that reading OT VIII will cause people to get sick or go crazy. A person's bullshit filter is NEVER turned up higher than when he is reading quietly.
    • by llywrch ( 9023 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @08:00PM (#4323708) Homepage Journal
      Take a look at

      http://www.rdrop.com/users/llywrch/essays/mhunt. sc ientology.faq


      http://www.rdrop.com/users/llywrch/essays/mhunt. bo oks.html

      (Take care -- in previewing these URLS I notice that the http interface has put a space in them.)

      Martin Hunt was, 5 years ago, the most prolific poster to alt.religion.scientology. He tired of the fight on a.r.s., & deleted many of his posts & for a while took down his own website. These two items came from there.

      BTW, he returned to a.r.s., & I believe updated these two items. I still have them on my website because I'm too lazy to remove them. Feel free to download & preserve them on your own machines. (And if I get slashdotted, my ISP may remove the links, but you should be able to find them on the way-back machine.)


    • by tobo ( 307569 )
      This is a really funny parody of scientology. It's a fictional story on a scientology-type cult which is based on the ideas of Philip K. Dick, another science fiction writer.

      http://www.philipkdick.com/articles/newageprophe t. html

      Besides, IMHO Philip K. Dick is the best science fiction writer ever... Hubbard sucks!

  • It's just a matter of time before those cultists^H^H^H^H^H^Hmaniacs^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hspiritual ly enlightened folks get a federal law passed making it a capital offense to say things like "scientology is a cult" or "scientology is a scam" or "scientology may be slightly imperfect."

    Really, though, this greatly reduces the value of the wayback archive, since it can no longer be considered canonical. I wonder what else they're omitting?

  • by geek ( 5680 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:37PM (#4323170)

    Operation Clam Bake. Wanna know an interestin fact? Scientologists believe we evolved from clams. Hence the name of the site "Clam Bake".

    This guy has balls taking on this cult. I'm surprised they have put a hit on him. I mean Travolta was a bad mofo in Pulp Fiction.
  • by sam31415 ( 558641 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:38PM (#4323181) Journal
    Fact: Most people on the net have probably never heard of the Wayback Machine.

    Fact: Most people on the net have probably never heard of Xenu.net, either.

    Fact: People on the net have, however, heard of major news outlets.

    Fact: Censorship is always a great topic for the major news outlets to cover, because it helps portray the image that they would never do such a thing with their coverage.

    Conclusion: What was the Church of Scientology thinking? This move will only increase the number of people hitting xenu.net.
  • it's an old public relations adage: "there is no such thing as bad publicity." learn your simple lessons in life scientologists!

    i know about xenu.net ONLY because of scientology's fervent attacks on it. if you elevate something up to such consternation, you only ignite everyone else's curiosity about what concerns you so much about something. how does scientology defeat xenu.net? by IGNORING it. letting it fade into obscurity. the more they attack xenu.net, the more we all know about it, "we all" being those who could care less about scientology one way or the other. and therefore, we now all know about scientology's seedy underside. and therefore, us neutrals now DO care about scientology... that is, we don't care much for it! lol ;-P
    • it's an old public relations adage: "there is no such thing as bad publicity." learn your simple lessons in life scientologists!

      I think they know this all too well. Let us extrapolate a bit:

      Option 1: The "Church" does not force the removal of said website content. Only people who already know how silly said "Church" is visit the old versions of websites that make fun of scientology, and only said people have a good laugh. Publicity: minimal.

      Option 2: The "Church" does force the removal of said website content. The big media companies may publish stories about it. Publicity: large.

      These scumbags are constantly working to get any publicity they can. If that means violating the rights of various persons (Americans) then so be it - more publicity for them.

      Now, the question becomes, what can we do about it? What if 1% of slashdot readers got "free website" accounts with geocities and the like, and just copied/pasted the info from various anti-scientology sites? What if we did this every month? Can the church take on a large number of companies? Sure they can continually search, and continually send out lawsuit threats, but this costs them money...

      Of course, how much money do they have? Travolta (revolta?) makes what, 20mil a flick?

    • That's the only reason Marilyn Manson made it. If that bunch of christians who wanted to burn him at the stake had just kept their mouths shut, we wouldn't have had to suffer through any of "his" awful, awful "music".
  • Boom! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by slug359 ( 533109 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:39PM (#4323185) Homepage
    Scientology follow the strict doctrine: 'Always attack, never defend,' one of Hubbard's teachings.

    In anti-Scientology [xenu.net] circles this is known as 'Operation Footbullet [xenu.net]' for obvious reasons.

  • Slashdot.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Galahad2 ( 517736 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:42PM (#4323204) Homepage
    Wow.. Slashdot has looked the same for ever . I guess us nerds like to be mired in traditio... er... consistant. I mean, without the dates, old news, and missing images, I don't know if I could tell the difference.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:44PM (#4323213)
    LawMeme not only has a detailed report with lots of links, they have suggestions on what archivel.org should do. See, Sherman, Set the Wayback Machine for Scientology [yale.edu] .
  • by RestiffBard ( 110729 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:45PM (#4323218) Homepage
    oh, wait. he already has.
  • Hmm.. so if I publish a page (or even this very Slashdot article) about the Wayback machine not archiving Xenu, would that page (or this article) get put into the Wayback machine? Seems like the press (esp. from CNN) might get archived and defeat the original purpose of suppressing Xenu.
  • If you want your site removed from the archive, their FAQ [archive.org] refers you to their removing documents page [archive.org]... which comes back with a "page not found" error.
  • by touretzky ( 215593 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:50PM (#4323253) Homepage
    As the owners of SlatkinFraud.com [slatkinfraud.com], one of the websites that has been blocked completely from the Internet Archive, we were left puzzled and disturbed by the recent explanation provided by archive.org for our site's omission.

    While we understand that the organization behind the Wayback Machine does not want to unwittingly contribute to copyright infringement, we are distressed by the way in which the removal of our site was conducted, and the lack of feedback that we received from archive.org when we questioned this decision earlier this year.

    When a Wayback Machine user attempts to access the archived version of SlatkinFraud.com, they are instead provided with a misleading message claiming that the 'site owners' requested that it not be included in the archive. This is wholly untrue, and entirely in contradiction to the actual views of the website owners in question, who would very much like to see our site become part of the Internet Archive. The material contained within SlatkinFraud.com is wholly owned and maintained by its site owners.

    Unfortunately, as has become clear in recent days, SlatkinFraud.com is not the only site that has been summarily removed from the Archive based on complaints from the Church of Scientology. In the explanation recently provided by archive.org, the writer notes that the Church "asserted ownership" of an unknown quantity of material that was, at the time, available through the Wayback Machine archives. The maintainers of archive.org, however, have apparently made no effort whatsoever to inform site owners of these complaints lodged against their material, and in fact, until now, had not even replied to direct questions regarding the removal of certain sites when asked by the site owners in question.

    This is clearly not an acceptable system for determining what sites or material should be archived by the Wayback Machine, since it does not adhere to one of the main provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act: the counter-notification process.

    Under the DMCA, the owner of a site that has been alleged to contain infringing material has the right to challenge that claim via a counternotification letter to the hosting ISP if he or she believes that the material in question does not infringe on the copyright in question. After receiving this counter-notification from the user, the ISP is obliged to replace any files that were temporarily removed pending the complaint, at which point the original complainant must either initiate formal legal action against the owner of the site, or drop the matter entirely.

    This system provides an important check to the sometimes perilous balance between the rights of copyright owners, and those of users. By formalizing the process, and allowing a response from the individual responsible for the alleged infringement, it frees the hosting company from the annoyance of dealing with frivolous claims.

    A similar situation that arose resulted from similar complaints made by Church of Scientology lawyers about certain listings on the popular search engine Google. These complaints initially resulted in the wholesale removal of several Scientology-related sites from the Google database. Once this omission was discovered, the decision taken by Google to remove the sites without notice led to an outcry from its users. In fact, on closer examination of the complaints from Scientology, it became immediately obvious that the Church's lawyers were acting in bad faith by deliberately mixing trademark and copyright complaints, even though trademark complaints are not covered under the DMCA at all.

    The ensuing barrage of criticism and media coverage both national and international forced Google to reconsider its decision. After several days, the company replaced the links in question, and agreed to make public any further DMCA complaints in cooperation with Chilling Effects, a non-profit website dedicated to preventing abuse of existing copyright law. This solution was welcomed by Google users, who had felt betrayed not only by the removal itself, but by the lack of disclosure on the part of Google regarding the initial complaints.

    The explanation offered by the Internet Archive does not mention whether the original complaints received from the Church of Scientology were made under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Such information would be helpful to site owners such as ourselves, as it would assist us in determining whether a complaint is justified, and remove any infringing material on our own volition.

    Assuming that it was, in fact, a DMCA request, it would serve archive.org well to follow the same procedure as that eventually and successfully - - adopted by Google, and make every effort to inform site owners of such complaints in a timely manner. This could be done through a simple email alert system that would inform the site owner that a complaint had been made, or through a similar policy to that of Google, and publicizing the letters, either on the archive.org website itself or through an interested third party such as Chilling Effects.

    This would allow the site owners to decide whether or not to issue a counter-notification, and relieve the Internet Archive of any concerns over contributory liability that may have played a role in its decision to remove the material without warning. It would also discourage copyright owners from making frivolous complaints about material that is obviously protected by fair use, since the process requires that formal legal action be taken within thirty days of receiving the counter notification letter.

    Should archive.org decide not to re-list a site within the Wayback Machine at this point, which is, of course, its right, it should also refrain from suggesting that this was at the request of the site owner, and instead, explain its own concerns over potential infringement.

    Finally, given the enormity of the Internet Archive project, and the benefits that it has provided, and, we hope, will continue to provide to the online community, it is essential for the Library maintainers to be open and transparent about the methodology used in selecting sites to be archived. Removing sites from the archive in a clandestine fashion, as dictated by the current policy, will only lead to increased concern that the Archive itself is rewriting the Internet history that it seeks to chronicle.

    The Internet Archive's stated commitment is to provide a useful, wide-ranging resource for researchers, historians and scholars. It is surely in part due to such an admirable mandate that the Internet Archive has benefited from contributions from sponsors such as Alexa Internet, AT&T, Compaq and Xerox PARC, not to mention many individual supporters who believe in the idea of an Internet history that is freely accessible to all. It is doubtful that these supporters would want to see this ambitious initiative tainted by the suggestion that the integrity of the archive itself has been corrupted by those who would misuse copyright and trademark laws to censor views with which they disagree. The risk of such silent, selective discrimination against protected speech is great; the power to prevent such abuses by making all information related to such attempts to discriminate will always be greater.

    Clearly, the best course of action is for the Internet Archive to adopt policy that is not only transparent, but dedicated to protecting not only its own interests, but those of copyright owners, site creators and, of course, the thousands of individuals who use the Wayback Machine and other Internet Archive services on a daily basis. On balance, the approach taken by Google, modified appropriately for the particular situation faced by the Internet Archive, would seem to be an excellent roadmap for the Internet Archive to follow.

    Kady O'Malley [wwwaif.net], Dave Touretzky [cmu.edu], and Scott Pilutik

    Owners of Slatkinfraud.com [slatkinfraud.com]

  • by __aawsxp7741 ( 78632 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:50PM (#4323255)
    Find information about scientology at

    freenet:SSK@Zl388MATYv0Ah8GY6I2GuuNJapYPAgM/borg /2 //
    freenet:SSK@WRhGF3h0ijFh1eVJnFu~H9OyIpAPAgM/an tisc ient/5//
    freenet:SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0P AgM/xenu2/ /

    on freenet [freenetproject.org].
  • by sawilson ( 317999 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @06:59PM (#4323308) Homepage
    that the church of the subgenius tells us to
    beware of. It's a much more logical church
    than the SoC. Some examples:

    "You'd PAY to know what you REALLY think." --Dobbs 1961

    "This is the original Time Control program that has helped thousands to fear no longer the STARK FIST of REMOVAL."

    "Follow your FOLLIES and COMPULSIONS and become rich like us"


    Many many similarities actually. And it's easy
    to become an ordained minister. Check it out.

  • And now, so show how much we believe that Xenu.net should be viewed, we're going to slashdot the hell out of it to make sure no one can see it! Maybe this is the scientologists real plans to take it down?
  • Has anybody read the copyright statement @ http://www.scientology.org/csi.htm .
    " Users are not authorized to download or transmit any of these materials electronically "

    So by viewing it on a computer you are commiting an illegal act according to the words of the document. It also says that you may not print it.

    Skiming their trademarks page, http://www.scientology.org/tmnotice.htm , that ones a killer. But skimming it in their trade marks they claim (among other things): flag, freedom, Source. After some items they have Symbol or Logo, but not after these.
  • by muldrake ( 171275 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @07:17PM (#4323405) Homepage Journal
    In recent news, Keith Henson [operatingthetan.com] had his home invaded [operatingthetan.com] just yesterday under pretext of bankruptcy asset investigation, because he has been bankrupted by Scientology litigation.
  • Fighting back. (Score:3, Informative)

    by BoneFlower ( 107640 ) <george@worroll.gmail@com> on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @07:17PM (#4323407) Journal
    Heres a few ideas on fighting back.

    1) Sign up for all the free websites you can. Throw as much scientology material as will fit in the space provided. Get as many people as possible to link to you. As each gets knocked down, keep putting more up. The internet can be faster than Scientology. Don't do this on paid webspace or a website you make money from unless you can afford the financial loss of the site getting pulled.

    2) Throw megs and megs of anti scientology materials and "copyrighted" Scientology texts in your Kazaa, Direct Connect, Gnutella, etc. share directories. In Direct Connect, you can have a line that users will see a brief description of what you are offering. MAke sure to put Anti-Scientology there.

    3) Get on pro Scientology mailing lists(there have to be a few with open membership) and spam it with anti scientology information. Even if they make it an invite only list in response, you still have won as fewer impressionable minds will randomly join.

    Of course, you have to be a little careful especially with the last tactic, don't use your ISP email address.
  • by fobbman ( 131816 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @07:17PM (#4323408) Homepage
    Read all about it over in their forums in this thread [archive.org].

  • I don't get it... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MrSeb ( 471333 )
    Whether or not it's censorship, lack of free-speech, whatever. THEY HAVE THE WORK COPYRIGHTED.

    Mod me down, but this has to be said.

    Copyright laws exist to protect the authors -- they might be using the law pretty heavy-handedly, but it's the law, they can use it.

    When someone violates the GPL (a copyright breach, in effect), we go mental at that person until they release the code again under the GPL.

    This is the same thing, it's just the copyright holder isn't held in such high asteem as linux/opensource, whatever. It doesn't mean that they can't use the law. The law is available to everyone, for whatever purpose.
    • But it's an unpublished work. How the hell is anyone supposed to know it's copyrighted?

      Some weasel saunters into your legal department representing an organization guilty of deception, fraud, and negligent homicide. He claims that some data on your servers is his "property" and must be deleted. You're going to just take his word for it?


    • Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @07:47PM (#4323616) Homepage Journal

      Actually, that's not quite accurate. They claim copyright on the work, but simultaneously deny that it's a real "church" document. I've always wondered about that. How can you claim copy rights on something that you swear you didn't create?
      • by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Wednesday September 25, 2002 @10:43AM (#4327282) Homepage Journal
        I didn't really expect to get modded +5 for something anti-CoS, or I probably would've posted as an AC.

        I live in a quiet cul-de-sac in a small town in Nebraska. This morning, a white late-model Buick Regal (or similar) with Nebraska license plates 7-A4163 pulled up to my neighbor's curb and started taking pictures of my house. The driver, a heavy middle-aged male wearing dark glasses, drove off when I stood up from the breakfast table to get a better look.

        Great - I really needed some extra grief in my life right now.
    • Whether or not it's censorship, lack of free-speech, whatever. THEY HAVE THE WORK COPYRIGHTED.

      Mod me down, but this has to be said.

      Copyright laws exist to protect the authors -- they might be using the law pretty heavy-handedly, but it's the law, they can use it.

      You are right, the law applies to everyone, including the fair-use doctrine. I have every right to quote parts of a copyrighted, written, work for editorial purposes. As long as I properly cite the source, this is allowed by copyright law. As such, if I put up a web site and slam scientology, using exceprts from thier books, this is allowed, and legal. Just because my site is negitive about thier cult, doesn't mean that they can deny me fair-use.
      No, these crack-pots are simply using the threat of lawsuits to silence critics. Almost makes me wish I was German, they recognized the Cult of Scientology for what it was, a huge pyramid scheme that brainwashes people, and banned it. Hell, they even went so far as to force Microsoft to give them a way to strip Diskeeper out of Win2k [wired.com] because the company that made it has strong ties to the Cult of Scientology.

  • You should read this Slashdot posting [slashdot.org] about this really bad thing they did. Man, that was unbelievable. To think that they actually got away with that... Fortunately, they'll never be able to censor Slashdot!
  • Freenet (Score:3, Insightful)

    by commonchaos ( 309500 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @07:40PM (#4323574) Homepage Journal
    Perhaps something like this could be a catalyst for getting the word out for things like Freenet. Instead of putting actual content on the web. Put up a link into Freenet or the like with instructions included on how to get Freenet working.
  • I know I often see reports of things that anger me on Slashdot. I sometimes decide it's worth emailing people to complain. This is one of those times. If we all email info@archive.org or wayback@archive.org and register our dissatisfaction at their caving to requests from a cult to block material from perfectly legal websites, they might get the drift that it's bad publicity for them to go down like 50 cent whores.

    If the CoS fuckers bring it to court and win, then there's nothing that can be done, but we have a responsibility as citizens and members of the Internet community to fight this kind of restriction of information about a dangerous cult.

    I personally would be glad to donate some money to anybody faced with a lawsuit from CoS - I know there are probably a lot of other Slashdotters who feel the same way, and could help out a bit. These people are dangerous to the foundation of our free and democratic society. God forbid they should ever come near me or fuck with my First Amendment rights - I would eat these people for lunch and then shit them out into a little hole in the ground, their fruity little celebrity members and all.

  • Google puts up a notice if you hit one of the Scientology censored pages, with a link to the Cease and Desist letter and a list of the censored pages.

    Greatest fuck you to Scientology ever, without even having to take them to court.

  • ...because this is just fucking ironic.

    The Wayback Machine is quite possibly the GREATEST example of copyright violation on the web. They steal damn near every piece of content on the web and call it a "library." Guess what folks? A *real* library pays for most, if not all, of it's content. (At the very least, they obtain their content by considerably more legal methods: grants, donations, interlibrary loans, etc... They don't just take a shopvac into a book store and suck up everything in sight.)

    And to see them remove one person on the basis of possible copyright violations (note to all: the Xenu guys is most likely a nut; it's not like I'm crusading for the guy.), that's just rich, man.
  • by lermanet ( 567993 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @08:36PM (#4323912) Homepage

    The wayback machine situation and the google debacle previously covered on slashdot is just the tip of the iceberg of deception called Scientology.

    The efforts to silence criticism cover the the complete gamut of the edges of what society will tolerate.

    Time Magazine 1991 [lermanet.com]
    Time Magazine was forced to spend 7.5 million defending this suit.
    The Judge in the case concluded that Scientology was a cult [lermanet.com].

    Don't wonder why there arn't more ex-members speaking out, Scientology has a pattern of conduct of litigation for silence. Look at how much they have spent GAGGING ex-members HERE. [lermanet.com] - Note well: This is just what I have been able to find out

    Scientology claimed in its own court filings to have spent 1,700,000 suing me in RTC vs Lerma. Judge Brinkema was so outraged buy their conduct in the case, the raid where the scientologists, themselves, searched my home, [lermanet.com]even when they moved the attorney fees for the for 5/17ths of case that they 'won' { having LOST their TRADE SECRET CLAIMS ) for the story of XENU and the BODY THETANS [lermanet.com].. Judge Brinkema Awarded them ZERO.

    Further Google, while running tons of adverts for scientology REFUSES to run mine

    Remember this - what we have webbed is only WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT for sure... I've been at this for 8 years trying to expose them [lermanet.com], and even for me, I keep finding out that things that are worse than even I think

    You have witnessed just the tip of the iceberg of the Scientology's pattern of conduct to try to intimidate witnesses into silence by extortionate conduct.

    Anything you can do to get the word out will be appreciated..


    Arnie Lerma
    An Ex-member
    PS: Send lawyers and money
    • Since the Google debacle, I myself felt compelled to join the worldwide battle against the Cult of Scientology.

      Since I've begun, I've met individuals like Arnie Lerma here, as well as Elizabeth Ann Cox, and members of the Lisa McPherson Trust. I've talked to people who've been at this for decades.

      They told me stories that before I'd become vocal, would've sounded stupid and impossible. But once I came out to join them for one picket, everything became true.

      I picketed the DC Org earlier this month. I was followed, photographed, questioned, and everything they'd told me was true. That the "Church" would attack and attempt to intimidate anyone who dared speak out.

      This "church" was the first one where it's "parishoners" make fat jokes in public. That anyone who says that it's wrong to censor google is a bigot.

      Scientology is EVIL. Scientology doesn't care about anything but money. Scientology's only consistent results are lawsuits and ex-scientologists. And if Scientology had it's way, everyone would be either dead or a Scientologist.
    • I have experienced a small piece of Scientology's perfidy. Posting an obvious joke about Tom Cruise missiles for sale to be used to attack Scientology centers throughout the world in a newsgroup spied upon by scientologists got a PI sent after me. He misrepresented himself to a university cop where I was working (and from where I posted mentioned joke) as an FBI agent. The university cop, in conjunction with university computer security personnel hunted me down by manually searching for a computer with a certain IP address (that assigned to me). They found it and investigated me and almost pulled my internet privaleges.

      The university cop told me that this "FBI Agent" indicated that I would probably be visited by FBI agents and questioned (as a potential terrorist with Tom Cruise Missiles, whatever those are). I decided not to wait on the FBI to come to me and went to the local FBI office and presented myself so I could clear up the ridiculous situation. They had NO clue who I was, had no interest in me, had never heard of this (mis)represented FBI agent that started the whole mess. With the aid of some anti-scientology people and a little internet detective work, I identified the likely "FBI Agent" as a particular PI working out of the DC area and, lo and behold, known to certain scientology critics as an occassional tool of the Scientologist criminal organization. I identified the individual to the FBI and the university cop. The university cop was dreadfully sorry for having taken any action against me and became my ally (too late for certain things...a good deal of irreversable personal information was provided to the fake "FBI Agent".

      The REAL feds contacted this PI to see about his criminal act of misrepresenting himself as a Federal Officer - he denied it of course, inspite of the clear statement to the contrary by the university cop (this is a real cop, not a fake student cop or some such...they are a branch of the city cops where the university resided).

      The Scientologist criminal organization tried to cause me trouble but I won in the end. If any real harm comes out of this, I still have the very real option to sue the crap out of certain people for this entire episode (there were some agregious privacy violations involved). I have kept ALL my correspondence with the FBI, the university cop, and those who aided in my personal investigation of who the "FBI Agent" really was. It took only a few days of relatively simple internet-based investigating to ID this clown.

      The Scientologists are a criminal terrorist group and needs to be eliminated just as surely as they were eliminated from Turkey recently.

  • Add up all the anti-rights going on including DRM and Palladuim (sp?) and what you have is a revert back to the dark ages via computers....

    I've been saying that it's been more majic spells and such than computer science.....

    We have been there before and have gotten out of it before...

    If history is a lesson to prevent duplication of history, then why are we not using that history to not duplicate it?
  • by touretzky ( 215593 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @08:47PM (#4323954) Homepage
    ARCHIVE.ORG has blocked my entire web site: all of www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst [cmu.edu]. My home page. My list of professional publications. My research project web pages. The Gallery of CSS Descramblers. Tutorial pages, Lisp book, everything I've written.

    I don't exist. I've never existed. I've been erased from Internet history.

    All because I dared to have some Scientology material on my web site.

    ARCHIVE.ORG boasts a relationship with the Lbrary of Congress and with the National Science Foundation. I wonder if they are receiving any government funding. Surely it is impermissible to do the bidding of an abusive cult, at the expense of honest citizens, while taking government money?

    -- Dave Touretzky
  • Gnutella! Put all of what Scientology is fearful of on Gnutella and spread via peer to peer. Shut THAT down Scientology.
  • It would be even beyond $cientology to shut that down.

    Umm, umm fried clams...
  • by Arcturax ( 454188 ) on Tuesday September 24, 2002 @09:45PM (#4324231)
    I've posted this before, but what the hell, I might as well do it again.

    Basically, Scientology is a terrorist organization/organized crime syndicate based out of the US. In fact, you can very easily compare them to Al Qaida.

    Scientology and Al Qaida share these traits
    - Threats of violence (and actual cases of murders and harm to people) and abuse of host countries legal system against detractors
    - Interference with and infiltration of the governments in the countries they are hosted in
    - Cells operating all over the world
    - Stockpiles of weapons and armed compounds
    - Religious dogma used to control members and threats and violence used to stop members who want to leave from leaving
    - Members are expected to be utterly loyal and are stripped of almost all money and most worldly possessions.
    - Use of torture and inhumane forms of punishment
    - Uses money to attack enemies (for Al Qaide, the US and her allies, for Scientology, it is anyone who detracts from them.)
    - Aims their recruiters at people who are vulnerable or off balance (drug users, the poor).

    Hell, they even went as far as to interfere with medical workers helping 9/11 victims last year in their rush to try to recruit people in a state of shock over what had happened.

    So, when is the Bush administration going to get serious about terrorists in this country and take out America's largest and most heavily financed terrorist organization?

    When is the FBI going to raid Gold Base? Why isn't the Free Winds seized at customs next time it stops by and searched. I bet they find a lot of nose powder on board for the leaders despite the "church"'s insistance that they hate drugs.

    Why don't they look into Clearwater and the CO$'s interference with the government there?

    Why won't they listen to our own Allies who are telling us that the CoS is a big criminal racket?

    So come on Bush admin, if you are going to bomb other countries, why don't you just take care of the terrorist organizations HERE in the US first?
  • Embarrassment over an archived draft version of Battlfield Earth.
  • Besides all the general information related to Scientology found at Operation Clambake [xenu.net], there are two categories of information that I feel are most important in understanding the premises under which the Church of Scientology, or Co$ for short, operate:

    This page [xenu.net] explains Scientology's misuse of copyrights and explains why their documents should not be subject to copyright laws. Basically, copyrights were intended to encourage publication of works, the exact opposite of what Scientology is trying to do. Furthermore, copyright law allows fair use for the purpose of critical review. How can you review something that isnt published? A significant portion, if not the whole document would need to be reproduced in order to evaluate it fairly.

    Legal Standings:
    Read the decision of WOLLERSHEIM vs CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA [xenu.net]. To sum up the case, a man who was mentally unstable was psychologically tortured and further had his business and life ruined by Scientology. He sued and won millions after 20+ years. The judgement is important because it shows that Scientology is a religion, however its actions were not protected by the First Ammendment because its actions were performed in a coercive manner, and further that the Co$ deliberately tried to ruin his life socially, financially, and psychologically, by means not neccesarily legal. This covers the practices of Fair Game and Freeloaders Debt used and condoned by the Co$.

With all the fancy scientists in the world, why can't they just once build a nuclear balm?