Wednesday, July 2, 2008
"If one wishes, one may also troll on the "other side of the fence". That is, troll the critics of Scientology. This is often the source of many epic lulz, since critics get so caught up in their "activism" in railing against Scientology, that they often don't see that they are, themselves, becoming the very model of what a Scientologist should be.
Trolling critics is generally a longer set up that your garden variety troll, but depending on the set up can last anywhere from a couple of months to over a year. The troller should find a Scientology critic message board (Operation Clambake being the largest example thereof), create an account and once situated within the community, incite chaos by doing one (or all) of the following:
- Declare your love/admiration/respect for L.Ron Hubbard. Add that he was brilliant.
- Start every topic and answer every question with a Hubbard quote.
- Say that Scientology means "Study of truth" and ask the critics why they are against truth.
- Claim that there is actual "value" in Scientology "tech"
- Claim that Scientology is a "bona fide" religion.
- Say that Fair Game doesn't exist. And Xenu is an invention of ex-members.
- Claim that Scientology "helps people become more able"
- Say that all critics are oppressors, bigots, intolerant, Nazis etc.
- Bad mouth psychiatry
- Suggest to bomb the Church and say it will be a kewl terrorist attack.
- Threaten to drop docs on someone's Powerword: IRL Name on the boards.
(Note: Threatening to drop docs, or "outing" a critic is a troll ending move, but the resultant panic generates much lulz)
Any or all of the above will brand you immediately as a "Scieno", "Clam" or the entity most dreaded by the critic "community", O.S.A. which is short for Office of Special Affairs, the "dirty tricks/litigation" arm of the Scientology "Church". Many lulz ensue as the critics bad mouth you, tell you you're stupid, that Hubbard was a mad man, sling epithets and generally attempt to butthurt you with tired, cliche arguments over and over. These critics have developed a kind of "visual stealth technology" wherein if you point out that they're acting exactly like the big, bad entity they're fighting against, blinders will come down, your observation will be either categorically denied (despite the obviousness) or ignored.
Remember: these "critics" are the ones who claim to want to "help" people exit the cult of Scientology, but seem to be the first ones to drive Scientologists running screaming right back to their E-Meters for "Life Repair Handling" or courses in shattering "Suppressive Persons" (more like Smart Persons amirite?). "
Indeed, the sole source for them is Gerry Armstrong, who supposedly received them from an unnamed source, supposedly re-typed them, then supposedly destroyed the original copy he received!
As to why he destroyed the handwritten copy that would have proven it coming from LRH is puzzling, except of course if it just is a cover-up to "explain" why he can't substantiate their origin and possibly just made it all up.
He claims he destroyed it for copyright reason, but this does not make much sense. At the time, Armstrong was already a fugitive from American justice because he walked away with the $800,000 he received from the CoS as part of a settlement that he repeatedly violated. Publishing the source of these Admissions or at least preserving it would not have made a difference for his case, whereas publishing them as proof such a damaging document indeed comes from LRH would have made a huge difference regarding the Scientology issue.
In this respect, the possibility that Armstrong actually wrote these Admissions himself is not that remote.
Here is a good post from this thread that summarizes the situation.
Related blog entries: R-Affirmations-