Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Catherine Bell


Celebrity Scientologists: Catherine Bell Gearing Up for 3rd Season of Army Wives!

I didn't know she was a Scientologist, but I do know her from JAG, Bruce Almighty, and Evan Almighty.

Do I like her so much better when she is not in army uniform? YES!

Andrea Gerak Music


Andrea Gerak Music

Apparently a Hungarian Scientologist singer living in Sweden.

Magoo Admits to Censorship

From Magoo's channel:
"I delete, because you don't care about me, you're here to spread what you THINK is "Black PR", and it's a distraction off of any message."
Check my previous post for example of what she deletes.

"I delete, because you don't care about me.

Magoo claims that legitimate discussion about the inconsistencies between what she says to the press and her affidavit is a sign that the poster don't "care about her". And this is why she deletes, of course, no because it contains uncomfortable truth...

you're here to spread what you THINK is "Black PR".

Magoo calls legitimate discussion about the inconsistencies between what she says to the press and her affidavit "Black PR". And this is why she deletes, of course, no because it contains uncomfortable truth...

and it's a distraction off of any message.

Magoo calls legitimate discussion about the inconsistencies between what she says to the press and her affidavit a "distraction". And this is why she deletes, of course, no because it contains uncomfortable truth...

Not only does Magoo engage in blatant lies, she also engage in censorship, and justify with blatant lies as well.

The plain and simple reason she has been deleting messages that clearly point to the inconsistencies between what she says to the press today and her affidavit from 2003 is because it clearly shows she is lying to the press today. She also has been banning their authors to prevent any sensible discussion on the subject.

The last message, from one Gymoxoq, was not deleted yet - probably because she realize that her censorship has let her opponents now to email people individually and she needs to have some sort of silly justification up to fool people into thinking she is actually addressing the issue, even though she is not, as we showed previously.

More Proof of Magoo Censorship

It happened again. One "gaxeviw" posted four messages in the comments section of Magoo's channel. These were not spam, not offensive, just three direct addresses to comments posted by other posters, and pointing to the discrepancy between what she says and her affidavit. Here is a screen shot after the first three messages (click on the picture for a bigger rendition):


Try to find these messages now. She just deleted them!

The fourth message, that was only dealing with some question about religion and not pointing to the discrepancy between Magoo's current claim and her affidavit, is still there. This is how it looks now:
The order is slightly different because, apparently, Youtube reorganizes the comments after a while, putting replies under the posts that were replied to, rather than concentrating on top. Or maybe this is not done automatically, I don't know. You can see on this picture that the comment of gaxeviw, the fourth one that did not point to magoo's inconsistencies, is still there, now as a reply to the message that was addressed. However, the three other messages are not there anymore. They have been deleted by "free speech" Magoo.

See below an example of Youtube (automatic) reorganization. The Magoo comment you see in the first picture, which was the last message in replies she made to herself, is now indeed below the message she replied to, on the last position:

You may think that they are now under the messages that were replied to rather than at the top, but it is not the case. You can make a search on the string from the original message replied to, and you will find the message without gaxeviw reply underneath. Check it out.
Messages by one "FreedomDignity", who also questioned her on that subject, were not deleted, but those from gaxeviw were, as where those by two previous accounts, which she also blocked from posting again, just like she banned gaxeviw too.

Remember this the next time you'll see Magoo carrying her "CoS is against free speech" sign!

Hong : Elephant Artist


Yepee - I now have my very own elephant painting!

Ever since I saw that video, I vowed that if ever I go to Chang Mai, Thailand, I will go and see that amazing feat. An elephant painting a self portrait!

One of the reasons I wanted to see it was to check if it was really true. Well, it is! It really is the elephant himself who paints it! Of course, you can see that the Mahout is holding her ear and speaks to him, so almost for sure the mahout is the one who directs the brush, via the elephant, but nevertheless!

It also has to be said that this particular elephant is a very nice being. It actually is a she, a young girl elephant born in 2001 and named "Hong". She even kissed me! OK, I gave her some banana for it, but nevertheless. I still remember to this day her soft breath on my cheek...

Then she was also the one elephant among the pack who was allowed to swim freely on to the other side, ran a bit there like a dog let free, and then came back on its own volition. Clearly a superior intellect and character, for an elephant, that is.

What surprised me was that those people there in Thailand do not seem aware that this elephant is world-famous. It was impossible for me to know while in Chang Mai where she was working. In desperation I just went to Maesa, the most known elephant camp, something like 30 km from town, even it was clear that Hong was not working there. Luckily, when I arrived there and asked for Nong, finally someone told me that she was working in another elephant camp, called Maetamann. They don't have their own web site, and they are selling her master pieces at the same prices as other paintings! As I said, they just seem unaware that they have among them a precious jewel that is worth much more!

Scott Pilutik Not a Free Speech Activist

Breaking: Scientology international headquarters seeks ban on HIV+ protesters : Indybay: "Constitutional free speech and church-state religious issues have caught the attention of the respected UCLA professor Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy and Scientology critic and attorney Scott Pilutik."

This may look like constitutional free speech religious issues have only recently caught the attention of some sort of independent established attorney, Scott Pilutik, that in addition is associated in the same paragraph as a "respected UCLA professor".

In fact, Pilutk is a veteran anti-Scientologist who was still a student at law not long time ago and. to my knowledge, was a biased Scientology critic long before he even started studying law.

Since he supported the Kady O'Malley and Rob Clark driven ban against me on their pet IRC channel, whatever he would write about "free speech" does not have much credibility in my eyes.

HIV+ Rumor Only a Rumor

Breaking: Scientology international headquarters seeks ban on HIV+ protesters : Indybay: "Outrageously, Scientology had obtained and distributed personal medical information from the private health records of AGP and Happy Smurf."

It is common knowledge that Happy Smurf is Gary Scarff, and Scarff himself has made public his alleged HIV+ status. It is thus deceptive to give the impression that this was some secret that Scientology obtained from his private health record.

I do not know about AGP, though the article notes that "Happy Smurf and AGP have confirmed they are both HIV+", whatever that means.

Besides, how does Graham Berry knows any of this, since by his own account he was not allowed inside the gate?

Now, this being said, IF true (and that, as you would notice, is a big IF), it is of course totally irrelevant that the protesters are gay or HIV+. If the CoS really obtained information from their private health records and were using this against them it would indeed be outrageous. But how do we know this is true? Critics are already jumping all around on what is only a rumor, with as the only source it seems Graham Berry, a notorious biased and unreliable anti-Scientologist. This rumor is already considered as a fact by critics who are already jumping the gun and blindly shooting everything that moves.


Relevant links:
Blog entries in this series:
Related web pages:

Riverside Ordinance - New Information

Breaking: Scientology international headquarters seeks ban on HIV+ protesters : Indybay

I have been blogging last January 6, about what appeared to be a ridiculous ordinance preventing critics from picketing Gold base.

However, what the article did NOT say, and what apparently was also concealed by critics, is the following information to be found in that article:

"However, the revision preserved Anonymous' right to protest in its usual position across from the main gate"

So, during all this time, critics were protesting about a supposedly anti free speech ordinance when in fact it preserved their right to protest in the position where they protested before?

Furthermore, we also learn of new developments as well:

"At one point, the Sheriff's Deputies emerged and their Sergeant informed us that Scientology and the Riverside County's Legal Counsel had worked out an interpretation of Ordinances 884 and 888. Provided we did not use the name of any living Scientologist specifically, and only protested Scientology generally, we could protest up and down both sides of Highway 79."

For the rest, I am highly skeptical of the article, considering the source. IndyBay has indeed been so biased against Scientology in the past it could virtually be considered as a critic mouthpiece, with all the cultic thinking that goes with it. I would need to wait for more reliable source before considering what they claim as a worthy news item.

I already note, however, a couple of fallacies, which I blog about separately here and here.


Related blog entries:

Dentist Settles Sexual and Scientology Harassment

Chicago dentist to settle forced Scientology, harassment case -- chicagotribune.com: "A Chicago dentist has agreed to pay $462,500 to settle federal allegations that he violated U.S. discrimination laws by sexually harassing workers and by forcing employees who wanted to keep their jobs to submit to indoctrination in the tenets of Scientology. [...] A consent decree resolves a lawsuit, but doesn't include an admission of guilt by the defendant."

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Obama to Close Guantanamo

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Obama to act early on Guantanamo: "Barack Obama will issue an executive order within days of entering the White House to close the Guantanamo detention centre, senior advisers have confirmed."

I am delighted to hear that.

This came as a good and refreshing news after I read about the press conference of *&(@#*^Bush that made me fall off of my chair of incredulity.

Anonymous Pulls CoS Book Out of Shop


UN is selling Co$-PR. UPDATE: LOL NOT ANYMORE (at least online) - Why We Protest | Activism Forum

Anonymous found out that the UN shop was selling what is probably a CoS front group book, "Youth for Human Right" . Flood of calls and email to put it down, which the UN does, at least online.

My question is- isn't that a free speech abuse?

What would be the reason to ask then to put it down?

Everybody on WWP of course automatically agrees that this is bad bad bad, but I have not seen what is the argument for it.

If a Christian group publishes a book dealing with Human Rights, should it be banned too?

The UN shop website has in fact very few items.

One of it is entitled "1001 Inventions: Muslim Heritage in Our World".

Is it OK for this book to be sold and not the Human Right one of the CoS? Why?

What about if the Muslim book would be called "1001 Inventions: L. Ron Hubbard Heritage in Our World"?

What if another book they sell, "Doing Business 2008" was published by Wise, another CoS front group? Would it be reason enough to make a scandal and ask the UN shop to pull it out right away?

I am only pondering...


Relate blog entry: R-Youth4HumanRight-

Daily Mail Possible Cause for Article Pull Down

I reported recently that the Daily Mail article about Jett's death was pulled off the net.

Glosslip now claims this was after threat from the CoS.

While this is, of course, very probable, what bothers me is that only Glosslip, itself a gossip rag not better than the Daily Mail, is the only one reporting it so far. I would like to see better confirmation of this before really reporting it as news.

More Tory Christman Lying Justifications

(Magoo addressing the criticism from her Youtube channel):

ToryMagoo44 (17 hours ago)

I have said and I'll continue to say C of S demanded that *I* get OFF of my medication, all of it, for Epilepsy, in 1972 when they told me I was "Unqualified" for the Sea Org while on *any* medication. My MOTHER--which I've said, over and over, saved my life, and helped me get back on my medication.
Still no sign about the fact that this unqualified staff was corrected by Hubbard himself. She was ordered off, her mother saved her, bla bla bla... Telling the truth while lying her teeth out because she omits the rest of the story.
I STILL fought C of S for 30 y e a r s re medication+auditing.
Reading this you would think she was forbidden to take her medication in 1972 and that she fought the CoS over it, while still being prevented from taking her medication, for 30 years until she won... A very very very very far cry from the truth, which is that the order was reversed in 1972 and she was allowed until the end to go online while on her medication.

She tries to justify the criticism, but in doing so she just lies even more.
Don't try to change history for your PR---it won't work, ever. Start doing right things, vs. all the wrong.
Best to all,
Tory/Magoo
Who is changing history? Just read her affidavit and compare it with what she is telling to the press and in her video. All of what she is NOT telling is what makes it a lie.

These kinds of justification from her only manage to dig her more into the ground than she already is.

ToryMagoo44 (16 hours ago)

I explain it, you alter it, and then call me a liar. I've explained it.......in detail...and although on my medication (thanks to my Mother)...I did fight C of S for 30 years "in".
This is an answer to a post she deleted! She says "you alter it" but she deletes the post she replies to! This is not just censorship, it also prevents people from making their own mind as to whether what she says about alteration is true or not.

I have seen the post in question and of course there was no alteration. It said basically what I say in my blog. The source is her own affidavit! In her own words! And of course she has not explained it at all, only managed to lie more. Check this blog entry for her "explanation". It just is yet another lie. And like for the poster to which she reply now, she also deleted the post of the person to whom she made her lying explanation, and banned him as well, after which, knowing he is blocked and knowing he cannot answer, she writes:""you deny it? SAY IT HERE".
In 1989 a 15 year old kid ("ETHICS") told me:
"YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED ON THE FLAG LAND BASE".
That began another fight. In 1990's I went to the Freewinds to see my husband, again treated like a leper, not allowed on the ship until they "Checked" re my medication. Try as you may, the truth is quite simple:Medical Abuse.
T

This is what Tory calls "Medical Abuse": her perception that people checking to make sure there will not be problem with her medication is treating her like leper.

ToryMagoo44 (2 hours ago)

I was ORDERED To stop taking my medication in 1972, when I was old I had to before I could be in the Sea Org.
(My comments are here indented)

Magoo still forgets to say that this order was canceled by Hubbard himself. From her affidavit:

"I was writing Hubbard. He wrote me back and informed me I was not a Freeloader and that was incorrect. I needed to pay for the 2 courses I had then taken and "continue getting auditing in the HGC and we will see you up the line""
In 1979, after finishing OT 3, I was again, given a "Program" to get off of my medication.
I ended up nearly dead in Morton Plant Hospital, with Status Epileptus (multiple seizures).
Magoo forgets to say that is was her own decision. The CoS may have given her a program to help her in what was her own decision to try and get off her med. You read the above without knowing this fact and you think the CoS again ordered her to get off her medication. She is telling the truth while lying because she omits vital facts. From her affidavit:

"So if I were to achieve OT, I would be done with Seizures, one would think. [...] After attesting to OT 3, I once again tried to get off of my medication"
In 1989, I paid via my Mother-in-law $100,000 to do OT 4-8 (this was my "Inheritance".
She was OT 8, and wanted to "See your wins while alive".
On my routing form to get onto OT 4, I was sent to "Ethics".
There, a 16 year old Italian Kid (possibly 18 but VERY young), looked into my "Ethics folder", looked at me like I was disgusting, and said:
"YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED ON THE FLAG LAND BASE".
I knew it had to do with my medication, and this began my fight. My memory is just fine re all of this.
Yes, I fought ALL Of the Top Tech Executive.
Originally the Director of Processing said:
"All of your earlier handles of your medication have been suppressive. We will fix it".
However, after hours of "Set ups"
They AGAIN told me, "You have to get off of all medication". I insisted they send my folders up to RTC, as I KNEW they were wrong. Finally, after one month, the Senior C/S wrote a "Policy" saying IF someone had tried to get off of their medication, and their Dr. Still said they should take it (as mine had), they should be Ok'd. This was a 30 year fight, and ALL those who are d e a d are proof that your "Tech" doesn't work!
My best,
Tory/Magoo
Magoo finally slowly and painfully coming up with the truth, after being prodded on her channel by posters which initially she just deleted and banned without addressing the question and after coming up with "explanations" that are just more lies.

Even though she continues to give the impression that she had to fight until 1989 before being allowed to take her medication.

So she finally admits: "the Senior C/S wrote a "Policy" saying IF someone had tried to get off of their medication, and their Dr. Still said they should take it (as mine had), they should be Ok'd"

Is Magoo saying anything about this policy in her video or in the press? A policy that says people are OK to be online even if they are under medication? No! She tells the press that the CoS prevents people to take their medication and suggest there are hundreds or thousands of victims, which is a total twisting of the facts knowing that such a policy exist.

The policy dates back to 1989! That's exactly 20 years ago! Magoo knows first hand that this policy exists. And yet, she present her case as if this policy did not exist at all!

Something else you may find interesting. The Doctor who insisted that she should not be taken off her meds was a Scientologist himself!

Censorship at WhyWeProtest.net?

You will remember that, among many other things, enturbulation.org admins were involved in editing posts against the knowledge and consent of the posters, and that they also had an SP list of people towards whom they would run a "miserable user" script.

Now I find something fishy at WhyWeProtest.net too.

Some time ago, a poster there made a post asking if anybody knew about the high ranking ex-member who let a commentary on my blog, and which I blogged about here.

The URL for that post used to be "http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/high-ranking-defector-speaks-out-36057/"

However, if you now click on that URl, you will get to another post.

The original post can still be found with a different URL:

"http://forums.whyweprotest.net/291-scientology-activism/high-ranking-defector-speaks-out-36345/"

The claim made in the original post, that "It's a repost of Ask the Scientologist: Scientology's Leader, Miscavige, Is a Failure from August 2nd. " is false. These are two different posts, even if the style is similar.

Apparently, the two threads were "merged", whatever this means.

A poster pointed quite rightly :"This is a new story/blog and has nothing to do with the OP of the thread it was merged with. Unmerge plox? "

But the admin disagrees: "Disregard plox. Thread was reported for merging, didn't read it thoroughly but the OPs are similar. Unmerged."

I too found the post of August 2 and mentioned it in my post, but Thoughful, the author of the comment, claimed the post he made as a comment on my blog in December was the first one.

Even if the August 2 post was from him also, why merge the two just because they are similar? Why prevent people from reading the second one and redirect to the first one instead?

It's illogical, and it also is a form of censorship. They are preventing people to read the two posts, that, even though the style is similar, contain different information.

Critics are also notorious for not liking to link to my web site, and this may also be a further form of disguised censorship.

There is no reason to "merge" the two posts just because the style is similar, especially since this is not a merge but simply redirecting the original URL to the other post.

Anonymous should really "unmerge" them.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Traffic Analysis



Traffic raises a bit for xenu.net in January, but considerably more so for scientology.org!