Xenu.net contains offensive information about Scientology (like it's criminal and dangerous and stuff)! Why isn't it red??

phantazm
Posts: 4906
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:46 pm

Stupid..?

Post by phantazm » Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:58 pm

amfazzed09: "if we wanted a religous argument would we not want to agrue with a priest/minister/rabbi or whatever????"

I agree! But my additional point is still, that scientology presents religion as science. Look at the name: it invokes both 'science' and 'logic'. Would anyone think 'religion' - if they only knew the name? Well, I wouldn't...

PS: No, I don't think scientology is stupid; after all they managed to convert some second rate scifi plots into a global business. Hubbard was right: If you want to be a millionaire quickly, start a new religion...

The Big Bin
Posts: 915
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:31 pm

Re:

Post by The Big Bin » Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:20 pm

Not that I want to say anything against a 'religion'. But I have learned about scientology at school, and what I learned was, that they first let you do the so-called 'Oxford-test', and then tell you they offer courses to improve your character. These courses however, are very expensive, and at some point, they are nothing more than asking you the same question "I ask you again: Do fish swim" for TEN hours, every ten seconds! This actually makes you crazy, and at the end of each course, they tell you you need to do more of those courses, and in your situation you even believe it. This goes on until you spent all your money, and are poor, while they are rich. I don't know if you think this is a true 'religion'...

Btw, this is what I learned at school. I have not experienced it myself. Take it as a speech of opinion.

phantazm
Posts: 4906
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:46 pm

Testing the test...

Post by phantazm » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:50 pm

FlyAqua: "this is what I learned at school. I have not experienced it myself."

Maybe I can add some experience. Yes, they offer a 'free test' (but thereafter it costs a fortune). Once upon a time I accepted the test, out of curiousity. I tried to answer all questions honestly. And I was told that I could really need their help to optimize my life. I disagreed, so nothing further happened. Later I met them again, and still curious I accepted another test. However, this time I was testing the test: I answered the exact opposite as last time. Result? I was still told the same: I needed their help. Again I disagreed. The third and last time I met them, I had the first two tests in mind, and based on that I tried to deliver the 'optimal' answers. Indeed, they had seldom seen so good results. But, in the end I was still told that I needed their help. So I concluded, that no matter how you answer their 'test' - in the end you're told the same: you need them.

FlyAqua: "I don't know if you think this is a true 'religion'..."

Ha ha! I would neither call them 'true' or 'religion'. To me they rather resembles a weird mix of obsolete scifi plots and vulgar freudianism and cheap reincarnation. Let me explain: Freuds idea was that present problems may come from earlier experiences, not just last year but from your childhood. If these problems can be recognized they should eventually vanish. However this process may take a long time...

Scientology takes this idea a step further: First they promise to solve all your present problems, by going back in time. But what if you eventually remember everything but still could feel better? Ok, they say, there could be more to deal with - but this belongs to your former life. Of course they can go on like that forever - and make money all along...

PS: No, I'm not a freudian. But neither was Freud... ;-)

Guest

Being Tested

Post by Guest » Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:59 pm

Well if you have tried there tests phantazm you probably more idea about them than the rest of us.I had a neutral view about then but on reading up here and there find they are not what they say they are.As you once pointed out they go under lots of different names wich is suspicious to say the least.The name Narcon springs to mind.I find myself now agreeing with your views on them.

The Big Bin
Posts: 915
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:31 pm

Re:

Post by The Big Bin » Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:52 pm

This matches exactly what we've learned. No matter how you answer, you're told you need them. And in the end, after answering ten hours whether fish swim or not (without your answers really seeming to be heard), then you might have a real psychical problem... I don't know how long I could sit in there without smashing the table. ;-)

phantazm
Posts: 4906
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:46 pm

Some time ago...

Post by phantazm » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:18 am

Perhaps I should add that all this happened some decades ago.
But I'd be really surprised if they had improved their ways since...

phantazm
Posts: 4906
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:46 pm

Fishy indeed...

Post by phantazm » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:53 am

I remember having read about the fish procedure. It reminds me of what I've read about other cults; they isolate their members from the rest of the world, and at the same time overstimulate them so they'll never have enough time to process all the new 'information' properly. A kind of brainwash imo...

SeanW
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:44 am

True enough, one of the

Post by SeanW » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:05 pm

True enough, one of the differences I've noticed between WOT and SiteAdvisor, is that WOT takes a more holistic view of trustworthiness whereas SiteAdviser just focuses on major problems and technical safety.

On SiteAdvisor, both Scientology.org, xenu.net are rated green, and for example hateful websites such as stormfront.org, the godhates*.com websites, resistance.com etc are all rated Green, even though they're absolutely f***awful hate filled loads of bile.

I can see good arguments for both approaches - I approached SiteAdvisor reviewing with the more narrow good-or-one-of-six-bad criteria, and only abandoned SA due to repeated site report errors and report inflexibility (hazardous frauds rated green and good sites rated bad, and never changed).

I don't see in any problem with rating hate speech websites and dangerous cults with a Red rating, so the WOT approach is fine by me, my only problem with it is that with the current arrangment, Adult Content seems to be treated the same way as fraud, viruses etc. I really think that needs to be demarcated better but that's OT for this thread.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests