ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Question For Removing Name From Scientology Completion Service Website

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Out-Ethics, Jun 28, 2011.

  1. Out-Ethics

    Out-Ethics Patron Meritorious

    I'm asking for my spouse. My spouse 's would like to get their name taken off of the website that puts out the names for the Scientology Completion. The reason is because my spouse does business on the internet and doesn't want people googling the name and associating it with Scientology. Spouse has written to the website but never received a response. Does anybody know how to contact this website to get the name removed? Very much appreciated.
  2. TheRealNoUser

    TheRealNoUser Patron with Honors

    They replied to me many years ago after I made a similar request. They refused to remove my name.
  3. Petey C

    Petey C Silver Meritorious Patron

    Good luck with that. My name has been on the internet as a declared SP for years, with no way of getting it removed. Back in the early days (when I was not fully Out) it used to bother me that people would google my name and see my past connection with scientology. Over the years I've come not to care.

    I think your spouse is just gonna have to live with it, though in the future s/he could simply not do any more scientology courses or auditing, and that will mean no more completion listings.

  4. TG1

    TG1 Angelic Poster

    Anonymity on the Internet is a precious thing.

  5. TheRealNoUser

    TheRealNoUser Patron with Honors

    I regard the people who run that website with as little respect as I have for the Church of Scientology. They are ruining people's lives.

    There are many who, once they see a Scientology connection with your name, will never do business with you.

    What if there was a website that published all the names of rape victims? Could anything be done about it? Sick as that might be, probably not - if the facts were correct.

    Myself and others can do nothing about it now.

  6. Natalie

    Natalie Patron with Honors

    Mine wasn't taken down after I asked. Nor was it taken down after I left the C of S, or even when I was declared. It was still up after I spoke to the media about coerced abortions in the Sea Org. I do think it is down now. Others who have been declared still have a cookie cutter site up. The C of S has sites up for a few people who went psychotic. Their admin is so out :duh:.
  7. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    If your name is not common, copyright it.
  8. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    Natalie, I think you're talking about the CofS-run Online Scientologists site. The OP is referring to Kirsti Watchter's site, methinks.

    But, yes, one day someone ought to do a breakdown of "Who's still a scientologist?" based on the CofS' Online Scientologists site, that'd be a very interesting exercise.
  9. MrNobody

    MrNobody Who needs merits?

    Yup, that's what it looks like to me.

    Basically a great idea, but it opens another can of worms: What is the definition of "Scientologist"? Cof$, Indie, people not affiliated with any group but still using some of the "tech"?

    What about "service completions" in the FZ?

    Anyway, Kirstie's website is what it is, and I find it very useful. For people who aren't happy with being on there, I say: Your list of service completions IS part of your past, so either live with it or go down with it.

    Oh, and about the "rape victim" comparison: There are quite a few newspapers who still have the names of such victims online and their name will come up in a Google search, but the same sentence can be applied here: It IS part of their past.

    Jus' my €0.02
  10. Infinite

    Infinite Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller

  11. lotus

    lotus stubborn rebel sheep!

    I am in the same situation.

    I've write her to explain that I was out for longggggggg years and that exposing publicly my religious past life available was dammaging with my business when my clients make a google search. This is a wrong target - she shoud expose the CULT but not the one who left and exposed the abuses.

    To me, Kristie Watcher Has no respect for people as she never reply to you and is not concerned that she might dammage you present life by bringning back into present your past life publicly . TO me, she isn't showing respect of privacy and should better concentrate with people that are still in as executives as she appears to have been scientologist and had problem with the cult.


    I'will consult of how she can be brought to willing to delete names of ex- who ask.
    I am considering to make a post - so we can tell AGAIN the dammage she is making to people (our business) who have, in many case, been dammaged in a greater or lesser extend, by this cult and and are not contributing to it's abuse as they are speaking against it.

    I personnaly consider I never made public my religious beleifs nor what I completed within the CO$ and never gave her\CO$ permission to publish such datas.
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2011
  12. MrNobody

    MrNobody Who needs merits?

    As far as I know, all of Kirstie's information comes from cult publications - so I think you'd have to take it up with them 1st. I may be wrong, though. Can someone please enlighten me?
  13. MostlyLurker

    MostlyLurker Patron Meritorious

    I think Kirstie could actually improve the site by adding the info that a person is no longer associated with Scientology, or a similar note, if the person tells her so.
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2011
  14. lotus

    lotus stubborn rebel sheep!

    This is what Kristie Watcher write on her site:

    Here are some things I'd like you to know:

    I don't hate Scientologists.
    I'm genuinely fond of most of the Scientologists I've met, and - believe it or not - one of my biggest motivations for speaking out is because I don't want to see you get hurt. (You may believe you are in no danger from Scientology, and I sincerely hope that's true.) I want to make sure no one else suffers what Lisa McPherson suffered.

    I don't hate Scientology, and I don't want to destroy it.
    There are people practicing Scientology outside the official structure (Scientology probably refers to them as "squirrels," even if they aren't deviating from the tech in any way). These people are often called FreeZone Scientologists. As far as I can tell, they are practicing Scientology without any of its illegal or clearly harmful elements. I have no quarrel with them. I don't want to stop Scientology - I only want to stop its illegal and harmful actions.
    I believe most Scientologists would want that, too, if they could confront the evidence of Scientology's unethical acts.

    If she really wants to help us - one easy way to do so
    would be to respect people that requested for remooving their name of $cientology completion
    and to whom she never replied.

    What about leaving these people have a better life without negative interference from their personnal info logged on her site???
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2011
  15. MrNobody

    MrNobody Who needs merits?

    "According to what this person says, he/she is no longer 'in' ".

    This (checkbox-like Boolean field) could easily be added to the database, but what for? Use your knowledge about TR-L to determine the usefulness of such an endeavor.

    @ lotus: If it was done what you suggest, the database would be empty.
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2011
  16. lotus

    lotus stubborn rebel sheep!

    I understand

    But to me - the respect of human lives and people who have suffered and are trying to make a new living is really really really more important than create a data base that is old, not accurate anymore, and is just leading to more discrimination to people who left and did not support any abuse.

    In short

    She is hurting more people
    than she is doing something valuable for this data base
    and she had the chance to COGNITE so - but was not interested in these COMM about the dammages with their business.

    Why not concentrate on exposing and present executives????

    * this is something a appreciate with some anons - some are very sensitive to these issues, really more than her , even though they never experienced the harassement of the cult.


    It makes me mad that she refused to understand and to reply to these people and I hope she will read that it is not an ethical or caring conduct for helping these people to make a new life.

    I think people should see a lawyer and sent her a letter .

    Again - WRONG TARGET
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2011
  17. MrNobody

    MrNobody Who needs merits?

    Again: As far as I know, all information in Kirstie's database comes from official publications from Scientology. So if I'm not mistaken, Kirstie is the wrong target here, since she only stores, processes and re-publishes what has been already out.

    BTW: The database is still accurate IMO, since the people listed still have completed the services they are listed for. The fact that some people no longer hold the same views they had at that time they were 'in', doesn't change that.
  18. TheRealNoUser

    TheRealNoUser Patron with Honors

    Her name is Kristi not Kirstie.

    So, using your logic in defending her, if the Church Of Scientology were to find out about some embarassing event in your past - such as a petty crime, serious crime, sexual act, financial information, etc etc it would be ok to make a website and publish the information simply because it is true? I don't think so.

    What she is doing serves no public interest. It is simply harming people. At least the Church of Scientology removes ex-members.

    I would never have thought that I could rate any of their actions above that of another person.
  19. Infinite

    Infinite Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller

    Whatever inaccuracy there is on Kristi's site is a duplication of Scientology's own inaccuracy. Your concerns are, rather, a case of making Kristi the WRONG TARGET. The people who should get a letter from a lawyer are those who discriminate based on a person's involvement with Scientology. It is those people who are unethical and uncaring. Kristi cannot be held responsible for what others do with the information. In fact, Kristi states on her site:

    Emphasis mine.
  20. MrNobody

    MrNobody Who needs merits?

    Yup, thanks for that correction.

    Which is exactly what the cult does, with their RFW website, as you well know. The point is: IF the cult ever re-publishes anything I initially had agreed to be published, I might bite myself in the ass for my own stupidity, but then I would accept the fact that it has been my own personal stupidity and then I'd leave it at that.

    So let's see, the cult has published the information 1st. How could they do that? Because they had a written and signed agreement from their members that says "It's OK to publish this."

    So it wasn't Kristie, it were exactly these persons that are complaining today, who originally agreed that this information should be published. Trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube after having personally squeezed it out, may be a valid and understandable endeavor, although it seems a little futile to me.

    So why make Kirstie the culprit for mistakes she has nothing to do with?

    Really? Every time? As far as I know, quite a few Ex-Members still have their "I'm a Scientologist" website up and running, against their current will, according to what a few posts here on ESMB say.

    See above. The people complaining today, have only themselves to blame, just as I have only myself to blame for mistakes I made in the past.