You really seem to hate Australians, Jack. Are you a racist? Or just xenophobic?

Now, I would like to put forth a theory, and see what you think.

The group called the church of scientology hates psychiatrists, blames and insults the entire group, engages in verbal insults towards all members of the profession and believes themselves to be superior to them, merely because of their collective profession.

Could you please explain how that doesn't may your group a "hate group", by definition?

I would also ask the same question about your view towards Australians, unless it is a view you hold contrary to that of your brethren? BTW- where did the Batman nicknames come from? It makes things difficult to follow :) If a group is against crime, does that make them a 'hate group" against criminals, Mark Tomles? Of course it doesn't. I don't know whether "the Fiddler" is a Batman nickname or not. Ah, but is your group against crime itself, or the perceived crimes allegedly perpetrated by an entire group, again based solely on profession?

Please allow me to follow up with a question. My neighbor, down the street, is a psychiatrist- do you know if he is good or bad based on that fact alone?

If you are not convinced based on verifiable fact that he is truly "bad" for that fact alone, then your joke can only be construed as hateful (for the psychiatrist portion) and racist (for the Australian portion).

Is this how all scientologists that you know behave? It's ironic that, on one hand, you post a defense of DM, who you feel is slandered based on multiple written comments (which are protected under the 1st amendment, as DM is a public figure), but you viciously engage in far more mean-spirited attacks against not only this private citizen, but every Australian in general!

Why would you do such a thing, if not driven by malice? I don't know anything about your alleged neighbour, Mark Tomles. Scientologists, apart from following 100% standard tech, choose how they behave because they are individuals. You will note that my argument is against Australian criminals and religion-bashers, Mark Tolmes, not good Australians. No, my friend, that's a sidestep.

You even quote Hubbard here as saying “Under the false data of the psychs (who have been on the track a long time and are the sole cause of decline in this universe) both pain and sex are gaining ground in this society and, coupled with robbery which is a hooded companion of both, may very soon make the land a true jungle of crime.”

Are you saying that not all scientologists agree with Mr. Hubbard on this?

And, may I add, the scientology website itself? I'm not saying anything about "all Scientologists". The Scientology website can speak for itself. "YConfirming Australia's reputation as a nation of criminals, founded by criminals, for criminals"

Your comments seem to contradict you, Jack. You said:

"Confirming Australia's reputation as a nation of criminals, founded by criminals, for criminals"

"fairly worthless Australian dollars"

"However, what else would you expect from such people? Australia's de facto national anthem is about a sheep-rustling hobo who commits suicide by drowning. Australia produced the Scientology wrecker, the Fact-Checker, who accused Church leader Mr David Miscavige of beating him. Australia's coat of arms features a giant hopping rodent Kangaroo and a dim-witted over-sized turkey known as “Emu”. Australia, whose Prime Ministers, Government Ministers, and High Court Judges have included dozens of self-confessed agnostics, atheists and deviants, has for its national hero a murderous, pistol wielding psychopath, Ned Kelly, who was hanged for his crimes.
Australia's most popular movie features a man who threatens Americans with a huge knife and thinks it's funny. "

"As L Ron Hubbard observed of Australia “Only a society founded by criminals, organized by criminals and devoted to making people criminals, could come to such a conclusion” against Scientology. "

I don't see any distinction, just blanket racism. Sorry, spade's a spade here. Jack, can you answer simple questions?

I was asking you about your experiences and beliefs, as well as opinion.

what's more, your sentiments reflect what appears to be the communal standards, or did you get your hatred of psychiatrists from another source? When did the facts become racist, Mark Tomles? Also, I think "Australian" is a nationality, rather than a race. Did you slip the racist term "Spade. in on purpose? You said no facts- only opinions. I do not believe that Australia is a nation of criminals, for instance, but that is my opinion as well.

Race is defined as, "people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock". You have expressed a belief that all Australians are form the same genetic stock (eg, criminals). Ergo, it is indeed racism. And xenophobia, if you would prefer.

Spade was unintentional. I'm afraid I just don't think that way. Do you actually believe that all that you said about Australians to be "facts"? Do you dispute any of the facts, Mark Tomles? Yes, I do. But, then again I'm not the one who made the claims.

Really, we only need to find a single "good" Australian to prove your racist claims false. Do you allow that there is at least one "good" Australian? For that matter, is there one "good" psychiatrist? Ms Kate Ceberano is a good Australian. I don't know of any "good" psychiatrists. Maybe there are "good" bank robbers, but I don't know of any, either. So then you would say that your statements do not apply to all Australians?
And, you failed to answer- do you allow that there may possibly be ONE good Psychiatrist? Indeed, not all all Australians are criminals or psychs. I don't believe I said that they were. I don't know whether there is a good psych or not. It seems unlikely, but I'm not saying its impossible. Goodness, I know Kate Ceberano is also a scientologist- surely your reason for calling her 'good'- how do you think she would feel about you, a fellow scientologist, calling her entire nation criminals? That's an odd way to deal with someone who you consider to be good and a brethren. I didn't call the entire nation criminals. I don't know how Ms Ceberano would feel about the criminals and psychs in Australia, but I wouldn't like it myself. Again, your comments seem to imply otherwise. Indeed, they seem rather slanderous.

So, I believe that we can agree that not all psychiatrists are necessarily bad based on their profession? In other words, you would disagree with the official CoS position that it is "opposed to psychiatry"? Jack, you said, "Confirming Australia's reputation as a nation of criminals"...

1. you stated that australia has a reputation as a nation of criminals

and

2. You stated that it had been confirmed.

How else could that be interpreted? One should own their statements, once made. Where did you get the idea I was other than "opposed to psychiatry"? Just because I haven't discounted the remote possibility of a "good" bank robber, doesn't mean I don't oppose bank robbery. Check the history books, Your points 1 and 2 are facts. Read my comment again. I said, "So, I believe that we can agree that not all psychiatrists are necessarily bad based on their profession? In other words, you would disagree with the official CoS position that it is "opposed to psychiatry"?"

very simple question, really. No, they are not facts, much less historical ones. You are speaking as to their current state, not implying that this is in a distant past.

Also, you are saying that this current blog confirms their "reputation".

Do you believe that they are -STILL- a nation on criminals? grocery shopping break- back later :) Answer to your simple question, Mark Tomles: No.

The Fiddler's current blog confirms the reputation of a nation with a heritage based in criminality, Interesting conversation.

I know Australia had a lot of convicts dumped on its shores a few dozen decades ago, but I wouldn't hold that against the current population, nor would I consider it a valid arguement to support a rant about any person I had a beef with.

As for psych docs, they have just as much purpose in this world as religious adherents, maybe more.

Like someone else said on another rant, you can do just as much good talking to a friend. Jack, is there someone you trust, someone who can be honest with you and nice at the same time? Ask him or her what he thinks of your essay. Reflect upon the answer. "Very informative." "Well written." "The Fiddler's current blog confirms the reputation of a nation with a heritage based in criminality, "

Okay, I think we're getting somewhere. So, in short, you would disagree with Hubbard when he says, "Only a society founded by criminals, organized by criminals and devoted to making people criminals, could come to such a conclusion” (against Scientology).

You would also reverse your previous confirmation of Australia as a "nation of criminals"?

I suppose that you may be able to think critically after all, my friend!

"Very informative." "Well written."
Out of curiousity, was your friend (if you did truly ask one) already a scientologist, and do they really agree with your statements against (a) the Australian people, (b) Psychiatrists, and (c) the man which you wrote about?

Lastly, do you personally agree with the scientology position that they are "opposed to psychiatry"? You had started the thesis, my friend, surely knowing that some would hope to discuss your position. Are you able to do so?
One man's criminal is another man's hero. All of our founding fathers were criminals, all the minutemen, all the ones we call patriots, as soon as they conspired to overthrow the English rule in the New World.

Research question:
How many of those stranded on Australia were actually just political prisoners that the King wanted to get rid of, but couldn't martyr? One thing to consider (and contrary to certain views slandering the Australian people), the first people in Australia were not criminals- they were the indigenous peoples of Australia.

In fact, if Wikipedia is to be believed, there were many settlers to Australia- some were criminals, but there were multiple British Colonies:

"Cook's discoveries prepared the way for establishment of a new penal colony. The British Crown Colony of New South Wales began a settlement at Port Jackson by Captain Arthur Phillip on 26 January 1788. This date was later to become Australia's national day, Australia Day. Van Diemen's Land, now known as Tasmania, was settled in 1803 and became a separate colony in 1825. The United Kingdom formally claimed the western part of Australia in 1829. Separate colonies were created from parts of New South Wales: South Australia in 1836, Victoria in 1851, and Queensland in 1859. The Northern Territory was founded in 1911 when it was excised from South Australia. South Australia was founded as a "free province"—that is, it was never a penal colony. Victoria and Western Australia were also founded "free" but later accepted transported convicts.[24] The transportation of convicts to the colony of New South Wales ceased in 1848 after a campaign by the settlers.[25]" So "Australia Day" is really "Opening of the Prison Day", Mark Tomles?.

That sounds like a great celebration. What do they do on that day? Spend it in jail?

So, one of the colonies only had it's local criminals to work with instead of imported British ones, I see. Jack- You could call it that, if you were so inclined.

Do you have anything relevant to say, or are you still strictly attacking the long-dead Australians?

You could make a similar argument about our own independence day, if you were so inclined: "sounds like a great celebration. What do they do on that day? Kill British?"

No, they don't, Jack, but I think you would agree- just not when it's about a Nation that you seem to hate. I just can't quite figure out why.

But, perhaps you would hold the same standard to America?

"The British used North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Convicts would be transported by private sector merchants and auctioned off to plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is generously estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the eighteenth century.[1]"

Do you mock America for the same reason? Or San Cristóbal? Or Siberia? Or Bermuda? From Wikipedia "Larrikinism is the name given to the Australian folk tradition of irreverence, mockery of authority and disregard for rigid norms of propriety."

Also from Wikipedia "Fred Negro (his real name) is an Australian satirist, musician, songwriter, and cartoonist born in Richmond, a suburb of Melbourne, Victoria, in 1959. He has fronted numerous rock or country bands, with local success, including:

* The Editions (drums)
* I Spit On Your Gravy (vocals/drums)
* The Band Who Shot Liberty Valance (vocals)
* The Gravybillies (vocals)
* The Brady Bunch Lawnmower Massacre (vocals)
* Shonkytonk (vocals)
* The F*** F***s (vocals) [Yes, this says what you think it says.]
* Squirming Gerbil Death (vocals)
* The Twits (vocals)
* They Might Be Negroes (vocals)
* The Eggs (vocals)
* 57 Pages of Pink (vocals)"

This is the Australian culture at work. I just think the criminal past accounts for the "disregard for rigid norms of propriety" and anti-Scientology sentiments there. No, that is Fred Negro at work. And, perhaps others that mock authority in such a manner.

But, once again, you hold Australia at a standard that you won't hold America to, which is, again, xenophobic and/or racist.

Why don't you site our own KKK? Or Black Panthers? Frank Zappa?

But, you are very fastidiously looking for anything to insinuate that the Australians are somehow lesser than we are. You, no doubt, are still looking and will surely try to post again before I complete this!

So- you claim that this one man is indicative of the entire culture? So you believe that they are still criminals, or still influenced by a distant criminal past? Because of one man, and one group?

That's quite a stretch, especially since we in the US have had many counterculture movements. Remember punk? Anarchists? But, of course, we're different, right? We're better than them? (on a personal note, racism does rile me so- if I get personal, my sincere apologies, and I will certainly attempt to be civil. I do believe that I have been, but it is quite a troubling subject) More Australian culture thanks to Fred Negro " Life Is A Joke Vol 2 LP"
"Dostoievski (I Wanna Be Clive Robertson's D***)"
"Hey Hey We're The F*** F***s"
Squirming Gerbil Death, "Up To My Brim In R**"
"Catholic School"/"Peakhour F******"

That's just one example I found in seconds on Wikipedia. (Short add-on: The number of convicts pales, however, compared to the immigrants who arrived in Australia in the 1851-1871 gold rush. In 1852 alone, 370,000 immigrants arrived in Australia and by 1871 the total population had trebled from 430,000 to 1.7 million people.[3] The last convicts to be transported to Australia arrived in Western Australia in 1868.) Jack- seriously, what does that prove to you that couldn't also be applicable to America? You have been civil, Mark Tomles. Also from wikipedia: It should be remembered that these convicts were, for the most part, not violent criminals, but rather petty thieves, other non-violent offenders or supporters of Irish independence. "You have been civil, Mark Tomles"

Thank you, sir- as have you, despite our fundamental disagreement. In reality, it has been rather engaging. Why would Australia be any different than America, Canada or England. Are you aware that Teegeeack is one big prison planet? Is Australia sort of like the RPF's RPF? A few other things to point out-- Canada, like Australia, has a rodent as a national symbol, the beaver. It is the largest rodent in the world, but taxinomically a rodent. We find the symbol charming. I understand that American's prefer the eagle. Each to their own.

Are you upset that the Fiddler is anti-religion or anti-Scientology? Let's remember that Scientology eventually teaches it's members that the religions of this world are implanted and false. I don't have the exact words but they are to that effect. I suppose all countries are on a continuum of criminality, but Australia was founded on it, Frederick.

I don't know much about the Fiddler, but he is definitely anti-Scientology, and that means anti-religion. The beaver, I prefer to call "The Nibbler". "The beaver, I prefer to call "The Nibbler". "
Was that a joke, Jack? If so, good one- hearing you make a joke made my day :)

"I suppose all countries are on a continuum of criminality, but Australia was founded on it, Frederick"
No, we covered that, already. Like North America, Australia had a thriving native population, which settled the continent between 40-70,000 years ago.

If you're only counting white settlers, the first colony was founded by Captain Arthur Phillip on 26 January 1788 as a habitable (non-penal) colony. This date is Australia Day, correcting our previous historical error. The first penal colony was founded in 1824, almost half a century AFTER multiple colonies were settled and founded.

So you really can't say that Australia was "founded" on criminality- but you could say it was founded by sailors, if you were so inclined. But there is certainly no foundation to claim that the history of the Country is Indistinguishable from their penal colony usages- that's ignoring the rest of their rich history.

"I don't know much about the Fiddler, but he is definitely anti-Scientology, and that means anti-religion"
With that precedent, wouldn't your position as anti-Australian make you anti-human? Or would you be anti-career if you were anti-psych? It is a non sequitur to claim that opposition to one specific concept makes one automatically opposed to all things similar.
historical note, Frederick- Benjamin Franklin had a great deal of support for his idea for the National symbol- the wild turkey. I think I prefer the eagle :)

Thanks for the info Mark. The moose seems to compete with the beaver as well. The moose is on our $.25 coin while the beaver is on our $.05 coin. We like the Canada Goose, because, I think, the word Canada is in the name. We like the loon even more because it sits on our lakes and makes an interesting sound at night. Still though, the beaver has an official status. No one thought that it diminished us as a people by having a rodent as a symbol.

In my entire lifetime I have heard no one, except Jack, finding offence in a national symbol being a rodent. I think one characteristic of a suppressive person is that they are always finding fault. I am not sure though. I have never taken the course on suppressives.

Everyone loves kangaroos. Are they rodents? I know they are marsupials. Are rodents and marsupials mutually exclusive. It would take a biologist or at least someone with access to wikipedia to answer that.

I JUST CHECKED WIKIPEDIA!! It confirms that the kangaroo is a marsupial. The word RODENT is nowhere on the page! Until proven otherwise, I will assume that Jack knows nothing about taxonomy, either. Still, as a Canadian, and a suppressive, I think I have the right to be offended. How dare he diminish the people of a country because they have a rodent as a national symbol. CANADA STANDS ALONE. You will get no more of our oil, Jack, if I have anything to say about it. I will inform the RCMP of the bigot south of the border. Does the office of special affairs know that you go on the internet and behave in a rude and bigotted manner towards Canadians WHILE USING AN AMALGAM OF L.R.H. PSEUDONYMS!!! You will be busted to TREASON. I bet Jack got the idea from the really great Sylvester the Cat cartoon where he tries to impress his nephew by showing himself to be a great mouser! But when he goes to find the mouse, he finds a kangaroo instead! Chaos ensues! It's a riot!

Jack Remington knows as well as I that it is the policy of the Church of Scientology to attack its critics rather than to deal honestly with criticm (it cannot deal with criticism, since the criticism is legitimate and very serious) so, since Scientology has been criticised by an Australian psychiatrist, you present a blanket condemnation and slander of both psychiatry and Australia, in the apparent belief that this is the way to make friends and influence people.

You are the most seriously delusional of all the cultists who have posted comments and rants on this site. Although you also do make an occasional joke, which is in your favor (but of course, you would never make a joke about Scientology, since that is forbidden by the LRH policy "Jokers And Degraders").

The reality is that Australia is not a nation of criminals, it has a lower crime rate than many other industrialized nations, and is one of the world's better places. And psychiatry, you would be amazed to discover (if you were still capable of seeing anything for yourself) actually helps people who suffer from mental illness, which is a lot better than Scientology has ever done. Of course, you think that psychiatrists are all ice-pick weilding madmen who are out to lobotomize everybody, but current treatments are generally safe and effective. They are not 100% safe and effective, however, psychiatry is the best treatment available. Certainly your cult offers no useful treatment for the mentally ill. What would you do with mentally ill people if you were to succeed in abolishing the profession of psychiatry? Not your problem, I suppose. Mentally ill people can fend for themselves, while happy cultists can congratulate themselves on their delusional OT abilities. Just look at L. Ron Hubbard, the greatest OT of them all, who lived to the astonishing old age of 74. How did he do it?

Time to stop lying to yourself, Jack. Frederick, you are probably right about the kangaroo not being a rodent, at least according to currently accepted scientific conventions.

The kangaroo rat, however, is definitely a rodent.

The kangaroo might have been chosen for the Australian coat of arms to honor Kangaroo Courts.

I don't have any arguments with the Nibbler.
You may be right about the classification of animals... but what about the rest of the discussion? :) Guys, when I first read this rant, I thought it was tongue-in-cheek humor. I find it hard to believe that anyone or any group could be so thin-skinned as to blame an entire country for what one man said. Whatever happened to "sticks-and-stones may break my bones"? Whatever happened to the idea of forgive and forget?

I'll tell you what, Jack, if you are representative of scientology as a whole I'll have none, thank you very much.
You are so vindictive! Sheesh, you remind me of my mother-in-law. She can't let go of a perceived slight, either.

On the other hand, if this is a piece designed to show just how silly and cruel scientology really can be, bravo, it was brilliant. I'm sure there are Scientologists out there who are more forgiving and forgetful than I, OOTB. Don't let me put you off!

I've already forgiven the kangaroo for looking like a rodent. Yeah, we have opossums, and they look like rodents, too. Evil, smelly, vicious ones, though. Cousins of the kangaroo, I think, and the koala. It's a bad family. May I ask, then, why you represent scientology so fervently on this forum? You post many scientology-themed posts, but you seem to agree that you may not be the ideal representative. The psychologist to whom you refer does not appear pseudonymously anywhere on the internet except in this, Jack H Remington's, article. If you, Jack, have given him the pseudonym, you need to attribute that to yourself. Really, people don't like it when you call them names. You should at least have the decency to own up and announce when you are doing it.

Intimating that (most) Australians are somehow a lesser people because of the sins of their forefathers is an offense worthy of punishment. Mark Tomles has been too kind with his cordiality in engaging you on this point. But I won't dignify your worthless assertions with a response. Australians are far more motivated and capable of doing it themselves. In fact, I think I'm heading over to some Aussie forums to post your link.

You should also look at your latest mailer from the Way to Happiness foundation, as it features a topical quote from an Aussie constable. At least, I'm pretty sure she's Aussie.

"I would be out of a job, quite happily, if we used The Way to Happiness program everywhere... if people had respect for each other, they wouldn't be doing bag snatches. There would be no assaults or domestic violence. There would be no theft. There would be no crime, really, if everybody stuck to the rules of The Way to Happiness." -Sgt. Libby Bleakly, Senior Constable, Chifley local area command, NSW

I'm assuming NSW is New South Wales. And it's pretty ironic that you're insulting her whole country while she praises your religion's tech. And also pretty ironic that she happens to be in criminal justice. lol, I may be too kind, but it is for the benefit of the ones that would visit this site, and may have been born "every minute", if you know what I mean :)

Thanks for the addition, and the research.

You're right about Sgt Bleakly- she's an aussie :)
http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/225/ How is a Sgt a Senior Constable? Aren't these two different ranks?

Anyway, I have sympathy for the Sgt. She seems to be bemoaning the fact that too many of the locals don't have respect for each other and are doing bag snatches, assaults, domestic violence and thefts, and not enough are following the technology of Mr L Ron Hubbard as expressed in the Way to Happiness. I don't suppose the Fiddler picked up a copy of the Way to Happiness when he was infiltrating the Church. It might have done him some good. @jhr - "Even though Mr L Ron Hubbard, as the Senior Naval Officer in Northern Australia, saved Australia from invasion in World War Two." ??? That is an incredible claim - please cite your source for this.
The history I have read about elron is that "By assuming unauthorized authority and attempting to perform duties for which he has no qualifications, he became the source of much trouble... This officer is not satisfactory for independent duty assignment. He is garrulous and tries to give impressions of his importance. He also seems to think he has unusual ability in most lines. These characteristics indicate that he will require close supervision for satisfactory performance of any intelligence duty." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_L._Ron_Hubbard.
'nuff said.... "How is a Sgt a Senior Constable? Aren't these two different ranks?"

No- one is a rank, the other is a title. If you look her up, she's very active in cycling.

I can't seem to find any praise or similar comments from Sgt Bleakly, outside of the mailer, however, so I can't confirm her comment.

And as far as US criminals go: Charles Manson ($cientologist), Jeffrey Dahmer, the Columbine killers, etc. Need I go on? On every continent there have been criminals, whereas Australia is quite low down on the list of those who kill for no good reason. The US, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa were all places that "criminals" fled to, to avoid prosecution from petty crimes, which today would not even been considered crimes.
Try http://www.lronhubbard.org/poet/thewar1.htm for a brief account of the vital war activities carried out by LRH against the Japanese and in defense of Australia, Provocateur. I must also note that I could several Aussies as good friends- they're good folks, active in international affairs, good at their jobs, well respected. I, quite honestly, have never met an aussie I didn't like.
Jack- only problem with that link, is that's the only site that makes such claims. Hubbard's own war record, ratings, etc tell a far different story. In fact, please try and find a single reputable site NOT controlled by scientology that backs up your claims.
If you're interested, you can see copies of the original documents here: http://www.cosvm.org/lrhnavy.htm
Case in point:
This letter requesting that Mr. Hubbard be returned to the US is from the Melbourne Naval Attache and reports Mr. Hubbard to be "unsatisfactory for any available assignment". (http://www.lermanet.com/L_Ron_Hubbard/mr546.htm) Jack H Remington, hereafter known as the $cilon JR, (because I feel like calling him a name, and am not scared to admit it), was hit squarely by an Irony Smash and emerged unfazed. The $cilon JR then babbled something about his inability to comprehend the idea of multiple hats in a paramilitary organization like a police force (c.f. the Sea Org), thereby inflicting an Irony Smash upon himself. The $cilon JR also managed to ignore this, his own Footbullet, then continued babbling about petty societal problems faced everywhere, and not just in the country that the $cilon JR hates. Maybe, then, now's a bad time to follow up with this scan (http://www.lermanet.com/L_Ron_Hubbard/mr549.htm), in which the Commandant "urgently" requests that Mr. Hubbard be relieved of independant command, and placed under the immediate supervision of a superior officer? @jhr - elron told the "church" to lie, lie, lie, so why would I use the "church's" literature to confirm that he did anything of note. I prefer to use independent sources that have no vested interest in the "church". And there are many sources that confirm that he was nothing but a failed sailor, failed sci-fi writer and a master conman. He even conferred a PhD on himself, stated that he was a nuclear physicist. No legal record of either of these exist.
Sadly, you have been drawn into the scam and are so embarrassed by this, that you try to justify it by scamming others. Prov-
I wrote this at one time. It's a little dated, but may be interesting to you.

Part I:

L. Ron Hubbard is often referred to by followers as "Dr. L. Ron
Hubbard", based on an honorary PhD granted by Sequoia University "in
recognition of his outstanding work and contributions in the fields of
Dianetics and Scientology." This is surely an honor, to be recognized
by an institute of higher learning which surely has rigorous standards
for honorary degrees.

Except, this was not the case.

Sequoia University was allegedly first formed as the "College of
Drugless Healing", which was traced by the US Government to a
residence in Los Angeles, CA, although the business operated strictly
through a PO box. This institution was unaccredited, and granted
Doctorate degrees without the burden of studies, exams or classes. In
other words, Sequoia University was a degree mill.

Joseph Hough, (or Dr. Joseph Hough, if you accept a degree mail
ordered from Mexico) made a great profit selling mail order degrees.
So it's no surprise that he attracted the attention of the California
State Assembly during a 1957 crackdown on degree mills. The
investigation was made more difficult by the fact that he invoked the
5th Amendment 22 (!) times during the testimony, but the mill was
officially shut down in 1984. Although Sequoia was given a chance to
reopen once in compliance with State Educational laws, it failed to do
so.

This degree was often used by Hubbard to add validity to his beliefs,
as who would doubt "Doctor Hubbard"? Part II

To his credit, Hubbard publicly disavowed the degree in 1966 when he
said, I, L. Ron Hubbard of Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, having
reviewed the damage being done in our society with nuclear physics and
psychiatry by persons calling themselves 'Doctor', do hereby resign in
protest my university degree as a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.),
anticipating an early public outcry against anyone called 'Doctor';
and although not in any way connected with bombs or 'psychiatric
treatment' or treatment of the sick, and interested only and always in
philosophy and the total freedom of the human spirit, I wish no
association of any kind with these persons and do so publicly declare,
and request my friends and the public not to refer to me in any way
with this title"

However, this was most likely for PR purposes, as he publicly defended
the degree just one year earlier when confronted with Australian and
British investigation/awareness of the incident:
"I was a Ph.D., Sequoia's [sic] University and therefore a perfectly
valid doctor under the laws of the State of California".

The disavowal didn’t last very long, either, as Hubbard claimed in an
interview on Rhodesian television the following year, "Actually I have
a degree in philosophy, a Doctor of Philosophy”, and the degree was
mentioned in official Scientology literature years later, such as
“Mission into time” (1973) @Legion - time to count him out. Retired hurt and bleeding to his corner. Technical knockout - for this thread, at least. Another epic win for Anonymous! Part III

After the flap, Hubbard allegedly declared that the term "Doctor"
would not be used in Scientology, as "the name has been disgraced" due
to "the abuses and murders carried out under the title of 'doctor'".
This may be a reference to his distaste for Psychiatry, which he
apparently did not always maintain, particularly when he mentions
Freud in HCO Information Letter of 14 April 1961. Reprinted in the
Organization Executive Course volume 6:

“For hundreds of years physical scientists have been seeking to apply
the exact knowledge they had gained of the physical universe to Man
and his problems.
Newton, Sir James Jeans, Einstein, have all sought to find the exact
laws of human behavior in order to help Mankind.
Developed by L. Ron Hubbard, C.E., Ph.D., a nuclear physicist,
Scientology has demonstrably achieved this long-sought goal. Doctor
Hubbard, educated in advanced physics and higher mathematics and also
a student of Sigmund Freud and others, began his present researches
thirty years ago at George Washington University”

While lying about the validity of a degree and claiming certain
credentials in and of itself is not a crime, it’s also not very
ethical. I suppose it’s true what they say about the company one
keeps. Mark, is the FPO in your address, Fleet Post Office? As such, I assume that you are Naval Personnel, and therefore would take offense that elron takes personal credit for being the saviour of the Australian continent during WWII. Correct me if I am wrong. Speaking for Terryeo since he's not around again and is very busy else where trying to explain why he admitted to having some very peculiar ideas with respect to what his critics believe; Terryeo thinks critics of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology believe it to be some kind of space alien psychic organisation (he's been reading too many LRH pulp fiction books). Terryeo also believes Scientology is not a belief system, he believes it simply "is" - but then he would deny he believed in it - he "simply knows". I digress. On behalf of Terryeo:

I don't know this Jack H Remmington guy. He's nothing to do with me. I have never met him. We don't share a basement room. We're not sat next to each other. I have never got him coffee. He has never put his hand on my knee in an out 2D fashion. He's never whispered in my ear "if only LRH could see us now", sending shivers down my spine. I only know GaryDM. la la la la, I am not listening, interesting idea but that's not it. It's bright in the sunshine. It's windy on the hill in the wind. Have a nice day. @JR - "If a group is against crime, does that make them a 'hate group" against criminals, Mark Tomles? Of course it doesn't."
So, therefore; If a group is against Scientology, does that make them a 'hate group" against $cientology, JR? Of course it doesn't.
Cyberterrorists, my eye. Anonymous has never used threats or violence. We are peaceful protesters educating the public about the dangers of a sad, sick cult. "Mark, is the FPO in your address, Fleet Post Office? As such, I assume that you are Naval Personnel, and therefore would take offense that elron takes personal credit for being the saviour of the Australian continent during WWII. Correct me if I am wrong"

No, but I've worked with them, and am currently engaged with some of their personnel. Good bunch of guys.
I can tell you that, among the few that even know about Hubbard's claims consider it a hoot, and that includes the aviators.
I will say that after working, sweating, bleeding, laughing and crying with brave men and women such as these, it's heartbreaking to hear their work maligned in such a way. Mark,

I bet a coffee that this guy is a troll. Or somebody who should spent some serious time finding his misunderstoods in Scientology.

- Louanne Louanne! Very nice to see you- I was wondering where you had been.
He could be a troll. That's possible.
He could be a well meaning scientologist, with poor understanding.
I suppose his understanding could also be accurate, albeit unique.
Whatever the case, it would be a true shame if someone took his viewpoints as representitive of the entire group, which I still believe are generally well-meaning. That was my first thought also. While I have no dealings with scientology, and never will, I found it hard to believe anyone would defend the cult in the way he did. Bear in mind another (to remain nameless) poster at Alt.religion.scientology, who fervently defended her beliefs, as outlandish as they were. She seemed to be passionate, and believe in what she was saying, although almost certainly mentally ill, and in need of help (no judgments on what kind, scientologist or psychiatric).

This person may be similar, if sincere. Of course, that's rather difficult to determine, I suppose, on the 'net. :) You are correct, Mark, in pointing out that Scientologists are generally well meaning. This is an illustration of the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's not enough to mean well, you also have to know what you are doing, otherwise you can still get a very bad result, which is what happens with well meaning Scientologists. Those who believe the lies that they have been told by L. Ron Hubbard will wind up doing harmful things in the mistaken belief that they are doing good. And you know, even Jack Remington, with his bizarre, xenophobic tirade, does mean well. He actually believes that this kind of slander will help bring people into the fold of Scientology and thereby make them more spiritually aware, and ultimately make the world a better place. Unfortunately, his concept of awareness is delusional. You're correct, skeptic. But good intentions can work both ways, depending on the direction of the individual. Properly guided, a well-meaning (and, ideally, aware and educated) individual can accomplish great and wonderful things. But when misled, their passion and good intentions can be dangerous.

I believe that's a very common thread in history, when groups believe what they're told by a less well-meaning leader. Take, for instance, the current climate in the middle east. Generally, most of the insurgents believe themselves to be freedom fighters (to turn the phrase, "one man's insurgent is the other's freedom fighter") or holy warriors, and are generally under the direction of an imam that provides their motivation and inspiration.

Compare that to the well-meaning Iraqi Army Soldiers. Same religion. Same beliefs. Different leadership. Largely, because they placed themselves under different leadership.

But I digest (family guy joke).

Look, perhaps, at the different (although interwoven) messages of scientologists. They're told that they will:

a) Save the planet and help people, such as during disasters

b) Grow individually and become a happier person, or perhaps (some claim) gain certain powers

and c) develop skills that will help them to be successful.

Part I Part II

Essentially, this addresses the best of what we all WANT to be, by promising that is what they WILL be. It also serves to reach a huge potential audience- those that are well meaning and want to help, those that have needs in their lives, and those that desire success.

However, unless they can do each of those things (I'm not inviting debate to that point, as I think we can all understand eachother's positions), they must find another way to retain members once they realize that they have not achieved what they sent out to do.

Unfortunately, that's easiest when working with the well-meaning, as there can always be another threat to rally them (such as, the world is in turmoil and we can't clear it because the SP's block our OTs) If y'all you don't like what I said, fine. Don't blame Scientology. Scientologists are individuals but, attempt to invalidate Source at your peril. ... what would be my peril?
Wasn't that what Mr. Hubbard said, though? To not even take HIS word for it? The peril of eternity, Mark Tomles. You say Mr Hubbard said not to take his word for it, yet you are taking his word for that. I think the message you should get is that you have to try it and prove it for yourself. ... and I did, my friend. :)

"yet you are taking his word for that."
The fact that he said it? Yes. If you don't believe him on that, then you have yourself a pretty deep paradox. Just a quick note about the person who Jack H Remington comments on as sagely observing

“ You are obviously acting as an agent for the cyberterrorist group “Anonymous”. You should be honest about your true intentions for attacking Scientology in this article, which is that you do not want people to get better and want to impede the creation of a saner planet. Given that you adhere to the pseudo-science of “Psychiatry” it does not surprise me. I implore the readers of this blog to ignore the Psychs and their agents such as apostate, disgruntled “ex-Scientologists” and the internet hoodlums “Anonymous”

was posted by Tom who works for The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (a Scientology front group)and even links to it from his comment). So the only wise person to comment in Jacks opinion was another scientologist. "The kangaroo rat, however, is definitely a rodent."

No, it definitely isn't. It's definitely a kangaroo-like marsupial, named for its size similarity to the rat.

Judging by your brilliant logic and level of knowledge, you must also believe that sea monkeys are primates.


"The kangaroo might have been chosen for the Australian coat of arms to honor Kangaroo Courts."

Err, no. It was chosen because it was the most widespread, recognisable, iconic animal in the country.

You really aren't the sharpest knife in the cutlery drawer, are you? Foozwah, according to Wikipedia, Kangaroo rats, "genus Dipodomys, are small rodents native to North America. The name derives from their bipedal form: they hop in a similar manner to the much larger kangaroo."

If you are talking about the Australian version, Wikipedia has this to say "A hopping mouse or kangaroo rat is any of about ten different Australian native mice in the genus Notomys. They are rodents, not marsupials, and their ancestors are thought to have arrived from Asia about 5 million years ago."

So, since I was probably right about kangaroo rats being rodents and you are probably wrong, your cutlery comment was probably misplaced. Samknight, you have been blessed with a good sense of humo(u)r, Guv'nor. Because for some reason we're talking about animals (?)...
There may be a miscommunication, that may have something to do with local convention.
The "Rat Kangaroo" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/491867/rat-kangaroo) is a marsupial.
Can we move on? Ok. I looked up your Rat Kangaroo.

Has anyone ever seen a cuter animal than this? - http://www.fnpw.com.au/OurProjects/Plants_Wildlife/Rufous_Rat_Kangaroo.htm

So, it's Australian and I like it. I never said all Australians are criminals, either. What does the word "confirming" mean to you, when you say: "Confirming Australia's reputation as a nation of criminals, founded by criminals, for criminals"

Anywho, since we're on a non-animal topic, perhaps I should ask outright. Do you believe that all Australians are criminals? Now I have had the difference between a rat kangaroo and a kangaroo rat explained to me. It's like this http://www.thebatsquad.net/batman/bat_vsmanbat.html No, Mark Tomles, I believe that plenty of Australians aren't criminals. But even their South Australian Premier (bearing in mind this state is supposed to not be a criminal colony) disparages religious leaders in harsh terms. So I think we can agree that SOME Australians are criminals.
For that manner, I think we can agree that SOME Americans are criminals.
However, in both cases, that does not reflect on the rest of the citizenry.
Do we agree on that point? By 'confirming' I mean 'supporting' or 'lending weight to'. Okay, but I believe that we've established that this reputation is erroneous? The USA is the birthplace of Scientology and a place where Scientology has great popular support. In contrast, Australia has a negative attitude, which I attribute to the criminal larrikin culture. So, while both countries have criminals I believe there is more support for criminality in Australia, due to its history and romanticization of criminality. And I thought we were getting somewhere :)

You said: "In contrast, Australia has a negative attitude, which I attribute to the criminal larrikin culture". I haven't noticed a widespread negative attitude- only the isolated cases that you mention. Do you have anything to back up your theory?
I go by what Mr Hubbard said. You're being very evasive, Jack. It makes conversation take much longer.

How do you, personally, interpret Mr. Hubbard's comments? Take my word for it, Jack H. Remington is anti-scientology. Slightly more clever than a critic who actually expresses his opinion, slightly more devious than a person able to resolve an issue in their own mind, Jack H. Remington is attempting to create confusion where little or not confusion exists. It is not that he is attempting to be evasive, it is that he is unable to create an opinion for himself, rather, he reacts against good opinion. Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if the Shrink this article names IS Jack H. Remington. Terryeo, anyone who starts their post with "take my word for it" is starting a lie, everyone knows that! It's like "Trust me" (this won't hurt a bit). Question is what kind of lie is it?

It's actually only a small lie. You don't honestly know who this Jack H Remington is but that in as of itself doesn't precluding him being a supporter of your organisation and you know this. Guess he really hasn't being touching you up in the basement then. ;-)

OK his posts make you uncomfortable but they don't contradict what you know from your scientology teachings.

You know for instance that psychiatrists are the root of all evil and orchestrated the holocaust. You know that Scientology in alliance with the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights is on a mission for "The Global Obliteration of Psychiatry".

You probably also recognise the L Ron Hubbard quotes (taken out of context again ofc) as well as the claims and counter claims presented by Jack with regard to statistics.

Jack's post no doubt upsets you in the same way as that guy who killed an abortion doctor recently annoyed the pro-life group - it annoys you because it shows your side in a bad light; many denounced him and even called for the death penalty, or claimed they would be prepared to execute him despite their otherwise "pro-life" manifesto.

You're perhaps more uncomfortable because you actually secretly agree with what he expresses but know that people won't understand it presented as has he does.

You know it takes years of study in the organisation calling itself the church of scientology to really understand what is going so you can appreciate his views and not be "confused" by them.

Notice you don't disagree with him, where as you firmly disagree with the critics.

What you stated is something you hope is true (that he's a troll) rather than something you know is true, hence you started the sentence with "Take my word for it". What upsets me most is that I'm told "You can't understand Scientology until you've tried it and applied it," over and over again. Yet, individuals who HAVE tried it, HAVE applied it, are then denounced for voicing a negative opinion.

Therefore, the only rational deduction is that the only acceptable opinion is the one Scientology tells you to have. Terryeo, I'd be interested if you could spell out your specific arguments, so I can resolve them for you, if they exist.

You say you 'wouldn't be surprised' if I were a shrink. I'm not responsible for the vast number of things that probably 'wouldn't surprise you'. There's not really a worse insult than the off-handed shrink one, but I'll give you the opportunity to explain it.

Then you accuse me of 'reacting against good opinion'. It's news to me that you have been appointed the arbiter of 'good opinion' for me.

I'm criticizing a psych who went into a Church with a pre-conceived opinion and proceeded to see only what he chose to see and ignored his own personality. The Fiddler's blog is EXACTLY the same mentalitity behind the so called 'Anderson Report'.

If you can't recognize that, I will explain the Australian Psych-backed, convict-inspired, 'Anderson Report' to you. If you can, I will accept your apology.

Are you really writing in approval of the Fiddler when you say I am against good opinion?

Speak your mind. I won't be calling you a psych for it.

Could someone please explain where they came up with the name "The Fiddler"?

Makes me think of this: http://my.execpc.com/~icicle/FIDDLER.html The thing that has fooled everyone about Scientology stats going thru the roof, Is that every time someone buys any book by LRH, he is now counted as a Scientologists by Ronbots. Or if they take a personality test and never take a course he is now a counted as a Scientologist. Or if he takes a mini-course and never comes back he is now also counted as a Scientologist.
That is the lie behind the rapid increase in Scientology. This is a propaganda brain-washing war that they know they will lose, because we know that it is a LIE.
if they only counted the scientologists that actually signed the billion year contract, they would be exposed as frauds. That is why they use a plain visit to a center, wesite or a book sale as proof that they are increasing in numbers.
Don't let their stats fool you -- Scientology is NOT increasing worldwide, but it is on a steep downward spiral. It is failing because of its own policies to harm other human beings. No REAL Church encourages its members to harm, kill, hurt, abuse or attack people that want to tell the world the truth as they saw it within the CULT.
Always look beyond their words and you will always see their frauds.
Remember that Ronbots would gladly lie, cheat, steal, kill, hurt others for the cult.
THE RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
From Hubbard's Naval record:

"By assuming unauthorized authority and attempting to perform duties for which he has no qualifications, he became the source of much trouble... This officer is not satisfactory for independent duty assignment. He is garrulous and tries to give impressions of his importance. He also seems to think he has unusual ability in most lines. These characteristics indicate that he will require close supervision for satisfactory performance of any intelligence duty."

Don't they, just a little too perfectly, describe Slappy's scientology career? "Slappy" is the one known as the Kingpin. I wish I could keep these comic book characters in order :)

So far we have the fiddler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiddler_%28comics%29)

Kingpin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingpin_%28comics%29)

who am I missing?