Is Amazon.com Censoring Negative Reviews Of Scientology Books? Sure Looks Like It
When will they ever learn? You just can’t mess with the interbutts. First it was YouTube, who cowered in fear, when it suppressed free speech and fair use by pulling the leaked Tom Cruise Video, then it was Ebay allowing the Church of Scientology to yank post-consumer e-meters off its website, now it’s Amazon pulling negative reviews of Dianetics.
These are enormous, multi-million dollar companies acquiescing to a so-called religion, which has the structure of a pyramid scheme with a rich history of illegal and collusive activities to defraud and manipulate its members and the public at large.
The perceived threat which has caused Ebay, YouTube, Amazon and even social network sites like Digg to cow-tow to the CoS is litigious. The Church of Scientology has a history of socking individuals and corporations alike with spurious lawsuits which they either don’t intend to pursue, have no hope of winning and use simply to frighten people into doing what they want.
This author documented his interaction with AMAZON.COM on his reviews of Dianetics being deleted repeatedly, this is only an excerpt, I suggest you read the whole thing:
On February 21, someone posted on Reddit that Amazon had deleted (virtually) all negative reviews of the book again. Mine was included again. This time I was sincerely surprised and disappointed, because I think my review was completely legitimate and I restricted my comments to the substance of the book itself, rather than any attack on the author or speculation on how this was an elaborate ruse to become rich. So, I wrote them again.
A review I recently wrote of Dianetics and it was deleted. I was told this was because I discussed authors and their intentions in the review. I re-wrote it focusing exclusively on the content of the book and the style of writing and this review has been deleted as well, even though over 150 users and 99% found it useful. Please explain to me why this review was deleted.
Response (paraphrased):
I’ve checked both the reviews for “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” and see that they doesn’t follow our guidelines.
Your latest review of “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” was removed because your comments in large part focused on your personal opinions of the subject matter, rather than reviewing this item.
We provide our customer reviews section for you to comment on the merits of the item and its style. We ask that you not use it as a place for a discussion of the subject matter…What I can suggest is that you resubmit your review, restricting your comments to critically analyzing the content of the item.
Is this not the United States? Are we not living in the land which birthed modern democracy, where the will of the people decide the outcome? The will of the people is clear. The hierarchal head of Scientology’s sole purpose is to control its members thoughts, words and deeds, manipulate its image and extract as much money out of those individuals too emotionally weak or vulnerable to see past its false guises.
If this were Microsoft, Exxon, Google, Enron or any other powerful entity, would we allow a systematic aversion of the truth and fairness to continue unchecked simply because of a “perceived” threat? And have we forgotten the most apparent element in all this? THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A RELIGION FOR GOD’S SAKE. Religions by their nature shouldn’t frighten people into silence regardless of their actions. Therefore I conclude this ISN’T A RELIGION. I think we know what the CoS is, and with history as our teacher, we will be ashamed we allowed this shadow of darkness and depravity to lurk in the corners of our society for too long.
Since when are religions allowed to run rough-shod over our legal system?
Enough is enough, wake up mainstream media, wake up federal government, WAKE UP CLEARWATER AND HOLLYWOOD, you are being taken over by people who believe in aliens and want to “clear the planet” of non-Scientologists and obliterate psychiatry. Now that should frighten you.
(via Toads and Enturbulation.org)
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
[…] Scientology Media Round Up 4/10 GlossLip Is Amazon.com Censoring Negative Reviews Of Scientology Books? Sure Looks Like It Is Amazon.com Censoring Negative Reviews Of Scientology Books? Sure Looks Like It … When will […]
Pingback by Scientology Media Round Up 4/10 - Enturbulation.org Activism Forums — April 10, 2008 @ 9:25 am
Hi Dawn, just for correctness, the CoS does not have a pyramid scheme structure. It DOES have an organization chart which shows who reports to who. This is common for most large businesses- they have similar organization charts, and although these have the appearance of a “pyramid”, it does not constitute a pyramid scheme - definition is here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid scheme). Other than that, glad you spotted this with Amazon, hope this gets handled. Thanks.
Comment by lazy sue — April 10, 2008 @ 9:48 am
Thankfully, they haven’t been able to eliminate the top tags associated with the book. These include “cult (434), fraud (402), junk science (342), avoid at all costs (324), evil (323), insane (312), crazy (303), snake oil (269), quackery (180), scientology (130), and dangerous (79).:”
-NYCanonNYC
Comment by NYCanonNYC — April 10, 2008 @ 9:54 am
[…] Pro-Sciion? GlossLip Is Amazon.com Censoring Negative Reviews Of Scientology Books? Sure Looks Like It __________________ […]
Pingback by Amazon Pro-Sciion? - Enturbulation.org Activism Forums — April 10, 2008 @ 10:06 am
from your link, lazy sue:
“A pyramid scheme is a non-sustainable business model that involves the exchange of money primarily for enrolling other people into the scheme, usually without any product or service being delivered.”
scientology staffers get commission/equivalent services for signing up new members. not to mention the cosmic pat on the head, boosting their stats, etc.
Comment by hrmmm... — April 10, 2008 @ 10:08 am
“Your latest review of “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” was removed because your comments in large part focused on your personal opinions of the subject matter, rather than reviewing this item.”
So to get this straight, a review of a book is not supposed to cover “personal opinions of the subject matter” of the book????
I imagine Amazon only accepts “personal opinions” when they are someone else’s opinions and those opinions are favorable? Of course, this is insulting circular sophestry.
I’m going to run a little test of my own, and upon confirmation of this, Amazon will be dead to me.
Comment by AnonymousNow — April 10, 2008 @ 10:31 am
Now Now AnonymousNow, “Amazon will be dead to me.” What is that supposed to mean?
Comment by AnonymousThen — April 10, 2008 @ 10:48 am
I believe it means they will have to change their name to Ban-azon, since many people will likely put them on the DO NOT WANT list of online storefronts.
Comment by Anon1376 — April 10, 2008 @ 11:20 am
“Now Now AnonymousNow, “Amazon will be dead to me.” What is that supposed to mean?
Comment by AnonymousThen — April 10, 2008 @ 10:48 am”
In light of the fact that Amazon is a corporate entity, rather than a human being, the meaning was an obvious call for a boycott. As is your attempt to troll, OSA.
Comment by AnonymousNow — April 10, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Somehow the threat of litigation doesn’t quite explain Amazon’s behavior…..I really can’t envision what kind of meritorious litigation they could face for user reviews…………something else may be at play here….like $cilos infiltrating/blackmailing….it just doesn’t add up….
Comment by marcab — April 10, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
Dianetics, without question, was the most fumbling, bumbling, mumbling, unscientific piece of shite I’ve ever read in 30 yrs. **This is an unbiased review.
Comment by Gary — April 10, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Well duh, what does Amazon say? Don’t use amazon com as a sounding board for your personal vendetta. Review the book. Review the book. Review the book. What does that mean? Well, it means, review the book. The Book. The Book. Am I repeating myself here? That is, specifically, the content of the book. Hell, even the binding of the book, the picture on the cover of the book, the quality of its pages. The book. Book reviews are intended to be a review of the book.
Comment by Terryeo — April 10, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
There’s a poster on the amazon discussion thread about dianetics’ reviews being deleted who claims he reported the reviews and got them deleted himself. His ‘name’ is scotch-brite. It’s an interesting discussion — about 2 months old.
Comment by anonymous — April 10, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Unfortunate as it is these companies are privately owned and frankly, can do whatever they want.
I am an avid supporter of free speech and I am against scientology, nevertheless YouTube, Ebay, and Amazon don’t HAVE to allow free speech.
A better way to make your point would be for you and others who agree with you to write letters to these companies and boycott their services. If there are enough it might make an impression.
Chances are not many people will stop using these companies because of this. It’s messed up that this cult has it’s hands in so many things.
Comment by MP — April 10, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
“I’ve checked both the reviews for “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health” and see that they doesn’t follow our guidelines.”
“They doesn’t follow our guidelines?” This is a person whose job it is to check reviews???? Good grief.
Amazon, you are dead to me as well…until you get your act together and behave like a professional company rather than a whipped dog being beaten by a vicious, yet dentally challenged cult!
Comment by imominous — April 10, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
“Well duh, what does Amazon say? Don’t use amazon com as a sounding board for your personal vendetta. Review the book. Review the book. Review the book. What does that mean? Well, it means, review the book. The Book. The Book. Am I repeating myself here? That is, specifically, the content of the book. Hell, even the binding of the book, the picture on the cover of the book, the quality of its pages. The book. Book reviews are intended to be a review of the book.”
LRH Study Tech does not include reading comprehension, I see.
Let me point out the real damning phrase in the quotation for you Terryeo.
” I re-wrote it focusing exclusively on the content of the book and the style of writing and this review has been deleted as well, even though over 150 users and 99% found it useful. Please explain to me why this review was deleted.”
That sounds like a review of the book. The book. The book. The book. The content of the book.
And it was deleted.
Is that sufficiently translated into crazy for you?
Comment by Anonymous — April 10, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
“Well duh, what does Amazon say? Don’t use amazon com as a sounding board for your personal vendetta. Review the book. Review the book. Review the book. What does that mean? Well, it means, review the book. The Book. The Book. Am I repeating myself here? That is, specifically, the content of the book. Hell, even the binding of the book, the picture on the cover of the book, the quality of its pages. The book. Book reviews are intended to be a review of the book.”
unlike my calm and collected counterpart above, i’d like to address this by stating one FACT:
terryeo is BATSHIT INSANE.
kthxbye
Comment by hrmmm... — April 10, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
Amazon is indeed silencing critiques of Dianetics. I’ve seen this too.
How can you review something without a personal opinion.
“It’s a book. That teaches stuff. Stuff declared by the FDA and AMA to be bullshit, so they turned it into a religion, otherwise L Ron was gonna go to Club Fed.”
Like that? Even that would get yanked. Test it. Even though its factually and historically true.
Comment by Guy Falkes — April 10, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Hi Dawn, just for correctness, the CoS does not have a pyramid scheme structure. It DOES have an organization chart which shows who reports to who. This is common for most large businesses- they have similar organization charts, and although these have the appearance of a “pyramid”, it does not constitute a pyramid scheme - definition is here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid scheme).”
Actually, it is you that miscontrues either the meaning of pyramid scheme or what the CoS is and does.
This is the classic pyramid scheme applied to the product of a false religion. Germany is right that this is not so much a religion, as a financial scheme.
The product the CoS sells is false promises, brainwashing, and family disconnection. There is no real product when all the incidents of the “product” seek to dictate continued “purchases” of the product.
Further, the CoS requires its recruites to bring in more recruites to purchase its “product” to keep the financial pyramid from crumbling.
This is a classic pyramid scheme.
Comment by AnonymousNow — April 10, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Opps, that first paragraph should have been in quotes, of course.
Comment by AnonymousNow — April 10, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
According to Amazon’s final email, a review is improper if it discusses personal opinions regarding the “subject matter” of the book.
Of course, its written policy does not support even this position.
Moreover, Amazon ignores that Dianetics is a book which actually creates its own subject matter, i.e. “Dianetics.” Thus, this not an instances where, for example, someone reviews a book on WWII and spends the whole time discussing that they hate WWII. Here, the “subject matter” and the book are one in the same.
Thus, Amazon’s position is not only incorrect under its own written policy. It is also dishonest at its core– it can be applied to all meaningful reviews of Dianetics, or any other self help book.
This turns the concept of the book “review” on its head.
Contary to the above post, I see the possibility of a deceptive trade practices act– I would gather that Amazon is removing negative reviews, but not positive, thereby creating a false positive impression for a book that they seek for profit through sales. If someone can punch holes in my position, I would like to hear it.
Comment by AnonymousNow — April 10, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
How many of the “positive” reviews of dianetics cover the subject matter of the book?
All the “oh it helped me see how great I can be” etc are exactly “personal opinions of the subject matter” they are just positive ones.
So positive personal opinions of the subject matter are fine, negative personal opinions of the subject matter are not allowed. I see.
My personal opinion of the subject matter contained within dianetics is that it is horseshit.
156 of 156 people thought the above review was helpful.
Comment by Jefferson B. Clark — April 10, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Here’s the united states’ review of scientology e-meter, I wonder if this would get removed from amazon reviews:
United States v. Article or Device, Etc., 333 F.Supp. 357 (D.D.C. 1971) [regarding Scientology’s “E-Meter”]:
“The bulk of the material is replete with false medical and scientific claims devoid of any religious overlay or reference.” (333 F.Supp. at 361)
Comment by United States Federal Court — April 10, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Did Doyle have anything to do with this? Maybe a letter writing campaign did in the negative review? Methinks CCHR et al may have had a hand in it.
Damn Dawn, you’re good! You have my utmost respect!
Comment by Optimisticate — April 10, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Hmm maybe the FBI could chime in and review scientology (note “guardian’s office” now operates as “Office of Special Affairs” (OSA) and what hubbard states is followed to this day:
“Guardian Order 060971″ seized in FBI authorized search of Scientology headquarters:
“The vital targets on which we must invest most of our time are:
(T1) Depopularizing the enemy to the point of obliteration.
(T2) Taking over the control or allegiance of the heads or proprietors of all news media.
(T3) Taking over the control or allegiance of key political figures.
(T4) Taking over the control or allegiance of those who monitor international finance…”
Comment by FBI search of Scientology HQ — April 10, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Here, the supreme court of victoria, australia, reviews scientology for amazon.co.au:
Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, Justice Brookings, 1982:
” …the teaching of Scientology and the practice of Scientology will result in the commission of many offenses and may well result in the commission of many others.”
Comment by Supreme Court of Victoria (australia) — April 10, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
Dawn, I am very concerned about this. I discovered your blog entry this morning (April 10 ‘08) over the possibility of censorship at the hands of Amazon.com doing a Google News using the keyword “scientology” and sorting by date. Now this blog entry is not even brought up in search results as pointed as using the keywords “scientology, amazon, and censorship.” I think there might be censorship of your blog entries being perpetrated by Google. Can anyone else confirm this?
Comment by Dutch — April 10, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
I just looked up those key words and found this link twice as well as others talking about this topic.
Comment by MP — April 10, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
It takes time for the google bots to log everything on the interwebz and for the databases to reflect that. Way to early to cry foul on google. So far, it appears google may be the only one resisting CoS’s censorship demands, but we will have to keep an eye on everything.
Comment by AnonymousNow — April 10, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
#29, I said that exact thing earlier on the radio show. So far Google has remained the last big dog standing in this epic fight over the internets. I am proud of them for it!
Comment by D — April 10, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Aptly named Lazy Sue, do some research:
I personally observed Miscavige take over this position of ultimate power over all of Scientology after Hubbard died. I observed Miscavige when he was COB RTC ordering into Golden Era Studios (”Gold”) , a CSI division, and ordering into the Commodore’s Messenger Organization International (”CMO Int”) , another CSI division planetary dissemination organization, etc. Both of these Sea Org units are corporately part of CSI. RTC, CMO Int and Gold are all located at a large compound outside of Hemet, California. It is called Gold. As I learned, the Scientology corporate structure was only for the benefit of the outside “wog” world. It didn’t have any bearing on how Scientology operated.
ANDRE TABAYOYON AFFIDAVIT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. CV 91 6426 HLH (Tx)
Comment by BHX — April 10, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
I would like to state that Amazon’s removal of negative reviews on Dianetics isn’t new. As an extremely lurking critic who found about Scientology from William Zellner’s Counter Cultures (which was my first glimpse at Xenu back in 95), I have been keeping tabs on The Church’s activities.
This includes checking out Amazon every once in a while on Dianetics’ reviews. They’ve been doing this for years. I know there’s a lot of people seeing this for the first time, but I want to be clear that I’ve been seeing this trend at Amazon in regards to Scientology books again and again.
Sadly, it’s par for the course.
Comment by Non-non-anon — April 10, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
Dawn,
You seem to be mistaken. The USA is not the Birthplace of modern democracy. The US version of Democracy was borrowed from the french. Most other countries have based their democracy on the Westminster system.
The US has bastardised it’s version of democracy beyond any recognition. The politics in the USA is run by big business and not the voting public.
Democracy in the USA is a joke. Massive corporate purchasing of politicians, candidates from the same party spending millions campaigning against eachother, little or no oversight in the voting process, voting fraud in Florida and Ohio, voting machines that are not secure or accurate.
I laugh at your so called democracy.
Comment by Anonymous — April 10, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
My daily Google news alert on keyword “Scientology” is what brought me to Glosslip, a blog I’d never heard of before then. So I’m a big Google fan.
Comment by Ron Newman — April 10, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
Anybody know what this is on “why are they dead?”
It looks like some court document thing about the church.
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/affi_stacy2_04_29.htm
Comment by anonymous — April 11, 2008 @ 12:00 am
“L. Ron Hubbard, you’ve done it again!”
(Four Stars out of Five)
This is an excellent book. It has durable binding, good firm covers, and many pages in-between. I was especially impressed by the sequential numbering and generous quanity of these pages. These days, there are a lot of anemic, skimpy books on the shelves of your local bookstore. Call me old-fashioned, but I need a book with girth! In this respect, Dianetics became a personal favorite the minute I pulled it from the bargain bin.
The typeface was crisp and pleasant to look at, with words arranged into rows for easy reading. I had to remove one star because many of them were not in English, which did detract from the experience somewhat.
All in all, Hubbard clearly took a great deal of time and care in putting this thing together. I cannot recommend Dianetics enough.
If you’re like me and enjoy slowly paging through sheaves of paper bound into book format and printed with words, Dianetics might be just what you’re looking for.
Comment by Lukadia — April 11, 2008 @ 12:06 am
Lukadia - I found your book review most helpful. Masterpiece!
Comment by Trillian — April 11, 2008 @ 1:24 am
i know it probably won’t help much, but i dropped amazon an email saying that i won’t be buying anything until they remove the censorship on reviews on Scientology books…
Comment by ben — April 11, 2008 @ 6:20 am
# 35 above. That would be one of Stacy Brooks afidavits where she admitted lying right? Here is the judges ruling on the matter of Minton and Brooks recanting, Dandar’s role in the matter and CoS pressure tactics.
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/legal/oddomtsor030112.html
In a nutshell the judge basically ruled that the motives for Minton and Brooks recanting are questionable and more likely as a result of Bob Minton’s possible tax evasions on offshore money and the CoS relentless pressure tactics to get the case dismissed but in the end the case of wrongful death at this point was not dismissed nor invalidated by Minton’s and Brooks actions, the lawyer for the estate Dandar was not taken off the case and the CoS claims of a “sham” litigation by the Estate and Ken Dandar were not valid.
“For all of the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant’s Omnibus Motion for Terminating Sanctions, and all of the relief requested therein, including (1) striking of plaintiffs complaint; (2) precluding plaintiff from answering the counterclaim and defaulting plaintiff on the counterclaim; (3) dismissal of plaintiffs claims with prejudice; (4) disqualifying plaintiffs counsel from representing plaintiff on any matter in these proceedings; and (5) awarding sanctions, in an amount to be determined against plaintiff and her counsel is denied. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs suggestion in her closing argument that sanctions should be awarded to her is denied. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that no Motion for Reconsideration will be entertained.
DONE AND ORDERED in St. Petersburg, Pinellas this 12th day of January, 2003.
___________________________
Susan F.Schaeffer, Circuit Judge”
This is massive reading for anybody. My understanding so far (still researching) is that CoS later settled with the estate but not sure that they have actually paid anything to the estate as of yet.
Comment by Mitsu Too — April 11, 2008 @ 7:58 am
#35.
Why do I continuously have to repeat myself on this subject. Nobody gives a shit about any of the drama involving the LMT. It keeps coming up in discussions that have absolutely NOTHING to do about the LMT as Scientology’s way of trying to make all critics look bad.
The LMT were specifically instructed to NOT attend Clearwater anon protests as nobody wants to be a part of their drama.
Anything invovling the LMT is inconsiquential. It doesn’t take away from the fact that Scientologists removed Lisa McPherson from medical care and she died as a result of it. Had they left her in the hospital she could have recieved proper medical care but Scientologists didn’t allow her that.
Please someone tell me what the LMT has to do with the discussion of Amazon removing book reviews? That being said, Mitsu Too good job of shooting it down.
D - Is it possible to delete comments regarding the LMT (including this one)? They have zero baring on anything anonymous related and are just there to try and get people to think all critics are bad based on guilt by association.
Comment by David — April 11, 2008 @ 8:58 am
“I laugh at your so called democracy.”
I think John Locke would be rolling in his grave at your assertion that we have a bastardized “French Democracy”
Your position that the USA national elections are all dictated by fraud is also a cartoonesque simplistic version of Chompsky reality. In other words, drivil.
But before I get into the nitty gritty of your assertions, and to balance the playing field, “Anonymous”, pre tell, what country do you hail from?
Comment by AnonymousNow — April 11, 2008 @ 9:55 am
Keep up the good work, Dawn.
Your partner in arms,
Ron
Comment by Ron Brown — April 11, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
to search blogs, i suggest
http://www.technorati.com
it is not uncommon for search engines to not turn up blog entries, blog-spots are entities unto themselves for now. this may be good for some, as comments are buried much deeper. there are other mini-search engines at the homepages of the various blog providers.
Comment by LaNon — April 11, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Besides Technorati, there’s also Google blog search - http://blogsearch.google.com/ - which is separate from regular Google web search.
Comment by Ron Newman — April 11, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
On a side note, if you check out the Amazon page for the latest Andrew Morton book you’ll
notice that the Scientolgists have been active there trying to to talk the book down.
The one guy Morgie, who recently changed to name to Nick_Cardy_fan or something seems to be leading the charge, he’s attacked people who’ve made positive comments, bad-mouthed the
book, and nym-shifted or deleted his posts if people called him out.
Comment by bob dobbs — April 11, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
# 40 David. My apologies for getting off track. I merely responded to #35 which again was an obvious attempt to divert attention away from the topic and another CoS foot bullet. I wanted to put on the record as to despite the latest tactic of “Minton/Brooks/Prince diversionary tactic 101″ the case for wrongful death of Lisa McPherson was never dismissed. The CoS settle. What I also found interesting was that the Estate of LM with Dandar had filed such case long before the LMT was even formed and Minton was not even in the picture and this case was not initiated by anti scientology critics despite the various CoS trolls latest attempts to make it appear so. I concur with you re: LMT have nothing to do with the anonymous movement and find it rather ludicrous to even suggest it. I also concur with you that the comments are off topic of the Amazon censorship issue so D I have no problem you deleting my comments in this regards. I must say no one responded after I did post the judgement though. :o)
Comment by Mitsu Too — April 11, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
Any chance the actual review that actually covered the actual contents of DMSMH could be posted in a comment so that all could see how impartial a review it actually was.
Comment by curiouser — April 11, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
To Mitsu Too @46
No worries, I’m actually glad you shot it down. It just really annoys me seeing the LMT brought up as that appears to be Scientology’s tactic du jour. “Hey look, someone might have lied sometime, so anonymous people are lying”. It’s come up on at least 4 articles on Glosslip in the past couple weeks and on other news sites as well. Just cheeses me off.
Comment by David — April 12, 2008 @ 11:54 am
# 48 David I concur. I guess they got tired of the nazi/psych arguement eh? I think they also know that the LMT Minton affair does drive a wedge in the old guard critics even though Minto and Brooks have absolutely nothing to do with the anons. I wonder what they now will do with the Belgian affair?
Comment by Mitsu Too — April 12, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
“It just really annoys me seeing the LMT brought up as that appears to be Scientology’s tactic du jour. “Hey look, someone might have lied sometime, so anonymous people are lying”.”
There’s a word for that, it’s called “a cult operating in a glass house being stupid enough to throw stones.” My God, in the McPherson case itself Scientology lied by insisting over and over and over that they had not put Lisa on the Introspection Rundown — and then turned around and made it a cornerstone of their case. As for Hubbard, my God, what DIDN’T Hubbard lie about: lied about being a nuclear physicist instead of a college dropout, lied about being a war hero instead of a malingerer and bungler removed from duty for incompetence more than once, lied about healing himself from war wounds that he never suffered and from athritis and bursitis that he continued to draw disability pay for for years afterwards. As for the CoS, let’s not forget the Big Lie they told, trying to frame Paulette Cooper for bomb threats. The minute they bring up the issue of “who’s credible” they have painted a big fat bullseye right on their own vulnerability. Hit them hard.
Comment by AF — April 13, 2008 @ 11:16 am
[…] long as we are on the subject, Amazon is deleting negative reviews of Scientology books. AGAIN. GlossLip Is Amazon.com Censoring Negative Reviews Of Scientology Books? Sure Looks Like It Josh wrote an open letter about this a few months back. It’s looking like the story is starting to […]
Pingback by Moar Scientology: In the News! - SLUniverse Forums — April 13, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
http://scientologyanon.blogspot.com/
“Open Letter to Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos”
Comment by Anonymous — April 14, 2008 @ 12:03 am
[…] long as we are on the subject, Amazon is deleting negative reviews of Scientology books. AGAIN. GlossLip Is Amazon.com Censoring Negative Reviews Of Scientology Books? Sure Looks Like It Josh linked to an open letter about this a few months back. It’s looking like the story is […]
Pingback by Moar Scientology: In the News! - SLUniverse Forums — April 14, 2008 @ 1:01 am
sluniverse is shit. If you post there your rl info will be passed around in private messages. The owner is a scammer.
Comment by Ingrid — May 14, 2008 @ 2:10 am