Question For Removing Name From Scientology Completion Service Website

[Emma]

You'll have to take my word for it -- damage has been done to myself and others as a result of Kristi's site. The idea that I (or anyone) would have to prove that to you with "evidence" is too absurd to even comment on.

Actually, it's absurd that you wouldn't comment on it.

Here you are bitterly complaining about a site that for years has debunked Scientology's lies about expansion, completions, auditing hours, auditors made etc etc. You won't tell us what "damage" it's done because it's "too absurd" to give any evidence?

I know what "damage" that site has done. It helped get me out. I had a bad feeling all along that Scientology was lying about its stats & expension. When I saw it in black & white that was enough for me. "Scientology Lies" & "Truth about Scientology" were two of the first sites I ever checked out. I'm grateful they exist.

I'm sorry, but until you tell me how you've been "damaged", I can only view your butthurt as embarrassment at being labeled a Scientologist on the world wide web. In other words HTFU.

 

[justin]

^ And, I should care what you think of me because ... ?

 

[Emma]

^ And, I should care what you think of me because ... ?

You shouldn't care one little bit - I'm not sure why you even brought it up.

Now will you answer some of my questions? Or are you just going to continue to whine about this with no actual reasons given?

 

[justin]

Now will you answer some of my questions?

Why the fuck should I?

If I don't are ya' gonna gangbang sec check me, emma? Ya' gonna comm ev me?
Ya gonna ban me from this oh so lovely place for not answering up?

Oh noooooooooo -- what a loss that would be!

Or are you just going to continue to whine about this with no actual reasons given?

Mostly I've been replying to the whines of others (about my opinions) on this
thread. In fact that's what you're doing right now. Whining about me.

Nice place you have here.

Look, I got that you don't agree with me.

So, what am I supposed to do about that? Care?

Sorry, I don't.

 

[Emma]

Why the fuck should I?

If I don't are ya' gonna gangbang sec check me, emma? Ya' gonna comm ev me?
Ya gonna ban me from this oh so lovely place for not answering up?

Oh noooooooooo -- what a loss that would be!




Mostly I've been replying to the whines of others (about my opinions) on this
thread. In fact that's what you're doing right now. Whining about me.

Nice place you have here.

Look, I got that you don't agree with me.

So, what am I supposed to do about that? Care?

Sorry, I don't.

LOL! Now we are getting somewhere!

Interesting to watch aren't they.

 

[justin]

Interesting to watch aren't they.

In a way ...

 

[obiwan]

Emma, I am a longtime reader and fan of what you've done here. This will be a bit of a hit and run posting, and I apologize for that in advance. I wanted to chime in here because personal privacy is a subject I've long held dear.

That being said, I really have to side with the guy on this one, Emma. I can think of any number of valid reasons someone might want their name off such a list, some professional; many personal. Perhaps some highly personal. But in the end, the only reason anyone needs to give is a desire not to be on the list. One need not be "butt hurt or embarrassed."

How about this, as a simple example: let's say I loathe the subject of Scientology. Let's say (just for the purposes of example, of course!) that I have a deep belief in the criminality of Hubbard and all the ilk and ruin that he spawned.

In such a case, I'd object to having my name on that list because it acts as a kind of "vote of confidence" for Scientology. It's using my name to give credibility to a subject I detest (in the example). See, it doesn't matter that it's on a critical site. It still says "I once thought this was a worthwhile thing to be involved with."

I think you might want to examine the velocity of some of the responses here, and take a moment to consider this possibility: it's a pretty big button for ex-scientologists, to have control over their identity denied, in the name of "the greater good." Or to be made to justify a request that they have every right to make. Perhaps this might have something to do with him going completely batshit.

Or not - but I think it's food for at least a moment of thought. And I'm not being sarcastic.

I hope you don't take this as some attack. I watched the thread degenerate, and it was helped from all sides. I can also understand how some might suspect ulterior motives for removing content from that site. I'm not on that list. But I can still get it - because if my name was on that list, I'd want it off as a matter of principle. The principle being that I have the right to have my desire to disassociate myself from the subject respected.

I have no duty to expose anything (nor am I implying you've ever taken such a stand, Emma). The only duty I have is to get on with my life in whatever way I see fit. If that includes ending all connection to the subject in any way, shape or form, forever (as it seems to for the OP), then that should be understood - particularly by those who have been through this particular mill.

Period.

I think it's a fundamental right kind of thing.

I also acknowledge that the OP might just be SOL, as I have no idea how maintained that site is.

 

[Emma]

Emma, I am a longtime reader and fan of what you've done here. This will be a bit of a hit and run posting, and I apologize for that in advance. I wanted to chime in here because personal privacy is a subject I've long held dear.

That being said, I really have to side with the guy on this one, Emma. I can think of any number of valid reasons someone might want their name off such a list, some professional; many personal. Perhaps some highly personal. But in the end, the only reason anyone needs to give is a desire not to be on the list. One need not be "butt hurt or embarrassed."

Hi and welcome!

But the truth is that you (just for argument's sake) are on the list whether Kristie publishes it or not. The truth is you did THAT that course at THAT Org at THAT time and Scientology published the completion lists and sent the lists out to as many people as possible. When the lists go out into the public domain they are no longer private. You can blame Scientology for that - Kristie didn't do that.

How about this, as a simple example: let's say I loathe the subject of Scientology. Let's say (just for the purposes of example, of course!) that I have a deep belief in the criminality of Hubbard and all the ilk and ruin that he spawned.

In such a case, I'd object to having my name on that list because it acts as a kind of "vote of confidence" for Scientology. It's using my name to give credibility to a subject I detest (in the example). See, it doesn't matter that it's on a critical site. It still says "I once thought this was a worthwhile thing to be involved with."

But thats the ugly truth isn't it? You did once think this was a worthwhile thing to be involved with. We all did.

I think you might want to examine the velocity of some of the responses here, and take a moment to consider this possibility: it's a pretty big button for ex-scientologists, to have control over their identity denied, in the name of "the greater good." Or to be made to justify a request that they have every right to make. Perhaps this might have something to do with him going completely batshit.

I can't think of any reason it would be a bigger button for ex scientologists than for any other person on the planet. Except that making the mistake of becoming a Scientologist is perhaps the DUMBEST thing you could have done and nobody wants their big mistakes broadcast. It hurts the pride.

I'm not sure what sent this guy batshit. He didn't seem to want to answer my politely asked questions at all.

Or not - but I think it's food for at least a moment of thought. And I'm not being sarcastic.

I hope you don't take this as some attack. I watched the thread degenerate, and it was helped from all sides. I can also understand how some might suspect ulterior motives for removing content from that site. I'm not on that list. But I can still get it - because if my name was on that list, I'd want it off as a matter of principle. The principle being that I have the right to have my desire to disassociate myself from the subject respected.

Despite popular belief, I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. I enjoy exchanging ideas & viewpoints with people. "Disagree" doesn't equal "attack". They are very different things.

I guess I don't get "the matter of principle" argument. Why is it a matter of principle that you get to rewrite history because it's uncomfortable for you? The truth is you WERE a Scientologist. You DID the courses. Your name WAS published by the CoS in magazines and sent out across the world to as many addresses as they could find in their data bases. The fact that these now appear on the internet is really not surprising. If the results were better I think you'd find Scientology would have published these lists themselves, except that they can't because they are a terrible testiment to their lies & contraction.

I have no duty to expose anything (nor am I implying you've ever taken such a stand, Emma). The only duty I have is to get on with my life in whatever way I see fit. If that includes ending all connection to the subject in any way, shape or form, forever (as it seems to for the OP), then that should be understood - particularly by those who have been through this particular mill.

No you don't. Fortunately others are doing the exposing so that change can be brought about and the abuses stopped. But you are right. You are not bound by any code to do anything except live your life as you see fit. I fully respect that. However I don't think that stretches to having history rewritten to a version that suits you better.

Period.

I think it's a fundamental right kind of thing.

I also acknowledge that the OP might just be SOL, as I have no idea how maintained that site is.

 

[Panda Termint]

Just as a minor point-of-order in this discussion;

I believe that the standard Scientology Success Story Form used in Qual and at the Examiner has a little check-box line at the bottom which states that you agree to the SS being published.

It's not quite the same thing as agreeing to the Completion being published but it may be considered in that light seeing as EVERY Completion includes the writing of said Success Story.

It is not at all the same thing. Period.

I'm speaking to the issue of the CofS publishing it (see the posts preceding mine), if you can't see how that might work as tacit approval for the CofS publishing your name on their Completion Lists... well, that's OK with me.

 

[MostlyLurker]

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.

"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.

Ps:
@ lotus: If it was done what you suggest, the database would be empty.

There is a value by adding such a field. It could be a simple text like "This person wrote in saying he/she is no longer associated with Scn since 1990", or "ended his involvement in Co$ in 1990" or whatever. You let concerned people to set the record straight about their involvement and, no less important, you may get an accurate leaving rate.

There would be no use of TR-L, because people will not falsely claim to have left the cult if they didn't as it would turn in bad PR for the cult (in addition to be a 'suppressive act'). I think Co$ would fear the exposure of an accurate leaving statistic.

 

[Panda Termint]

Yes, In fact, it might well make the site that much more potent as to its purpose.

 

[Helena Handbasket]

For many, this was pre-Internet. Were all Scientologists supposed to predict the day when even the most obscure, tiny, private newsletter would become broadly published to the world? Did you? Did anyone?

In such a case, I'd object to having my name on that list because it acts as a kind of "vote of confidence" for Scientology. It's using my name to give credibility to a subject I detest (in the example). See, it doesn't matter that it's on a critical site. It still says "I once thought this was a worthwhile thing to be involved with."

I remember they were going to take a photograph of the students in the academy. I realized they were going to publish it in a magazine, and that my appearing in the photo would be an implicit endorsement of what they stood for. I did not not want my image to be used in this way, so I stood behind the camera whilst they took the photo.

As far as "damage" goes, anybody seeing someone's name on such a site is going to form an opinion---not necessarily a good one. And because freedom-of-religion issues are involved, if they decide not to hire (or whatever) that person, they will either come up with some other reason for not doing so, or just quietly not contact that person anymore.

I'm so protective of my privacy, when I google myself I only get an actress and a doctor (neither of which are me).

Helena

 

[BunnySkull]

Funny for someone so upset as being IDed as a scientologist Justin certainly still acts like one, or gives off the attitude that tends to make scientologists such beloved members of the community. Smug, condescending of any disagreement, refuses to offer any evidence to back his claims, and personally attacks anyone who doesn't share his pov or legitimize his persecution complex.

Justin the thing is you made a bad decision and got involved with an abusive UFO cult at one point in your life. You let them use your name in magazines to further their propaganda campaigns, whether you like it or not you went along with it. Now you are embarrassed your bad decision is recorded factually on a website that simply records data. You need to own your own behavior not try to hide it or attempt to rewrite what happened.

I'll agree with you to some extent on one matter. If you were involved in certain professional fields I might hold your past against you. For instance, if you were a financial advisor or stock broker I sure would think twice before using your professional services if I found out you were a Scientologist - past or present. Mostly because I would question your judgement for being involved in the first place and since I consider Scio a big money con would hesitate trusting someone with my money who didn't see Scio for what it was from the start. However, I think it's my right to have as much info about a persons past decisions and affiliations before trusting them with my financial security. I think it's only fair the public be aware of someones history before they engage certain professional services - hell people do much more invasive checks such as background, credit, etc...before hiring or engaging someones services.

On the other hand, if I was looking for other types of services where honesty and integrity were of utmost priority and I saw someone was once a Scientologist and was now someone speaking out against the cult - I would view them as honest and having the integrity to not only admit bad judgement but then damn good people for doing their utmost to spare others from the same.

From the perspective of a potential consumer I think Kristi is providing a valuable service. Unfortunately the cult has def earned a reputation for attracting shady financial scammers and I would want to know about someones Scio past before investing significant funds with them. Kristi's site might have saved some of Reed Slatkins victims some heartache had it been available back then.

Mostly I think the people that worry me certainly aren't the ones who made a bad decision, but then turned around admitted a mistake and then did their best to correct it and warn others. I have the utmost respect for them. It's the people who made a mistake and rather than owning it and doing something to rectify it, instead do whatever they can to hide it or make it disappear and then attack and villify anyone with the "audacity" of not going along with their attempts to cover it up.

I'm sorry you think it's so inconvenient or harmful for you to have your name associated with Scientology, but those are the facts.

Out of curiosity did you benefit by getting the business of fellow Scientologist when
you were in?

 

[Terril park]

Yes, In fact, it might well make the site that much more potent as to its purpose.

Good point! And it would probably help those whose name was googled
prior to possible job interviews actually being given a better chance of
being interviewed.

However its possibly a very large task to make such changes, so
someone may wish to volunteer to do the grunt work for Kristi.

 

[Panda Termint]

Right, the good news is that a good deal of the "grunt work" has already been done by the fine folks Wiki'ing The Big List 1,500+ names of Exes who have spoken out against the CofS.
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/big-list-of-over-1500-exes-who-have-spoken-out.57290/

 

[justin]

Hi and welcome!

But the truth is that you (just for argument's sake) are on the list whether Kristie publishes it or not. The truth is you did THAT that course at THAT Org at THAT time and Scientology published the completion lists and sent the lists out to as many people as possible. When the lists go out into the public domain they are no longer private. You can blame Scientology for that - Kristie didn't do that.

You are confused. Publishing something doesn't put it into the public domain. Not
in the USA anyway.

I'm speaking to the issue of the CofS publishing it (see the posts preceding mine), if you can't see how that might work as tacit approval for the CofS publishing your name on their Completion Lists... well, that's OK with me.

We're talking about Kristi publishing it, not the CoS. Kristi was not in any way given
permission to publish this information, tacit or otherwise.

Funny for someone so upset as being IDed as a scientologist Justin certainly still acts like one

I am not "upset at being IDed as a Scientologist" and I did not say that I was.

... or gives off the attitude that tends to make scientologists such beloved members of the community. Smug, condescending of any disagreement, refuses to offer any evidence to back his claims, and personally attacks anyone who doesn't share his pov or legitimize his persecution complex.

I have treated others on this thread as others have treated me. Since you've
made your less-than-complimentary opinions about me known, you shouldn't
mind my saying that you are clearly an idiot who understands nothing that
I've written here.

 

[TG1]

*tl;dr =

Camp 1 - That hurts.
Camp 2 - No, it doesn't.
Camp 1 - Fuck you!
Camp 2 - No, fuck you!

* even before any possible OSA contributions

 

[MrNobody]

You are confused. Publishing something doesn't put it into the public domain. Not
in the USA anyway.



We're talking about Kristi publishing it, not the CoS. Kristi was not in any way given
permission to publish this information, tacit or otherwise.



I am not "upset at being IDed as a Scientologist" and I did not say that I was.




I have treated others on this thread as others have treated me. Since you've
made your opinions about me known, you shouldn't mind my saying that you
are clearly an idiot who understands nothing that I've written here.

Aww, poor misunderstood puppy...

Look, I could make a database "Snippets of knowledge I found in newpapers and magazines" and put it on the net for everyone to see. Since I'd not be quoting the complete unaltered articles, it'd be "Fair Use". I'd be presenting my own processed version of such snippets, so "Fair use" applies even more.

So you're right, it's not "Public Domain", it's "Fair Use" - In Europe as well as in the USA, Australia or any other civilized country I know of. Do you feel better now?

Seriously, would it be fair to take off all Meyers from this database, just because there may have been a person named Meyer who was a murderer? How about this database?

Yay, Let's rewrite history, let's take all Meyers off of all databases, No Meyer has ever existed. If we fail to take all Meyers off of all existing and future databases, then at least let's make sure that every Meyer on this planet gets a chance to publish a statement on each and every database saying "I am not the murderer "Meyer", I just have the same name.

Yeah, makes sense. Go for it.


Geeze Louise, some people just can't deal with their own wrong decisions...

 

[TG1]

I'm gonna go ahead and say that many ESMB'ers who have posted on this thread (including me on at least one occasion) have been rude to each other.

Can't we do better than this?

TG1 / Rodney King


P.S. Except for you, OSA, you shit-stirrer, you. As always, fuck you.

 

[Lulu Belle]

There is a difference between some information that was only available in a paper magazine circulated to 50,000 people (well, maybe 50,000 copies that reached 10,000 people) 20 years ago; and the same information available with 0.05 seconds wait to 1 billion people via Google.Paul

Fortunately or unfortunately, due to today's technology, there is virtually no difference between those two. Most things in obscure publications make their way to the net these days. As a matter of fact, most publications these days, even the small ones, also have a web version.