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

Truth about Scientology website

Discussion in 'Completions Lists' started by mow, May 15, 2008.

  1. GreyLensman

    GreyLensman Silver Meritorious Patron

    I do. They aren't. You can't get an individual's tax return on the internet. Except illegally, and it would be actionable.

    You can't get an individual's census information, his individual response, on the internet,

    SS#'s would be criminally available on the internet and as I said, actionable.

    The rest I leave as an exercise for the student.
  2. cantsay

    cantsay Patron Meritorious

    Its a violation of privacy. These people have not given their permission to be listed on that site. If my name was there (thankfully Class V org completions dont seem to be) I would be moving heaven and earth to get it erased. Its not fair on people who are trying to move on in life and put their Scn past behind them.

    If I wish people to know I was a Scnist, I want to have the option of telling them myself so I can explain why I was so stupid. This site removes the option for people, and that isnt fair.
  3. GreyLensman

    GreyLensman Silver Meritorious Patron

  4. DCAnon

    DCAnon Silver Meritorious Patron

    Records aren't about fairness, they're about history. Records don't care about what you want, they only provide historical data and fact. You're not being discriminated against. You're not being slandered. There's nothing listed that isn't true and isn't public information. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it violates your privacy. :grouch:
  5. GreyLensman

    GreyLensman Silver Meritorious Patron

    You didn't try, actually. I'm not embarrassed at all. I protect my public person on the web because it has become a source of information about me, and affects my professional presence. Any past connection to Scientology showing up to an employer is possibly detrimental. And I would like to be able to communicate about that in context, at my choice, rather than simply not getting a call back for a job interview. Which in my case, I've already handled by burying it behind positive information. Lots of positive information.

    And, frankly, I didn't agree to have my name published on that website. Ever. It wasn't in a public record, per ce. It was in a magazine a very long time ago, an available record, but not necessarily public at all.

    No persecution complex, but you are quite welcome to find one if it makes you uncomfortable.
  6. GreyLensman

    GreyLensman Silver Meritorious Patron

    Same reasoning as in previous posts. Sigh.
  7. cantsay

    cantsay Patron Meritorious

    The courses and/or auditing I have done were NEVER PUBLIC INFORMATION. I have never once agreed to have my name published in a magazine, and I doubt anyone on that site ever did.

    That site can be interpreted by people reading it that the names listed are CURRENT scientologists. To me, that is tantamount to slander as I bet most people on that list hate Scientology by now.

    Anything that lists a persons religion/views/political persuasion/sexual orientation etc without their prior consent is opening the door for descrimination against that person. That is common sense, as well as common manners.
  8. DCAnon

    DCAnon Silver Meritorious Patron

    And I guess here lies the fundamental differences between us. If you had actually been persecuted against, I'd be right there with you. You haven't. You believe that it's okay to censor records and change history to suit your needs and prevent embarrassment and some fictional persecution that has never happened. I believe information and fact should be protected and made accessible as knowledge is free. Rewriting history is inherently wrong. Factual information isn't wrong, discrimination is. I suppose we'll never see eye to eye. If it bothers you that much, try to take the site to court and see what happens. :)
  9. byte301

    byte301 Crusader

    No, I am not labeling every completion as a criminal. Someone said to just leave the criminals on the list. That was my point. Some might consider them criminals until they get out. I don't, except for one, DM. Oh and the paedophiles and actual convicted criminals or the criminals the CoS covered for because they were upstat. The rest are in the same boat we all were at one point.

    And the list HAS helped figure out all the front groups and affiliations.

    I doubt if your average Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc. would mind being on such a list. Now the Moonies, CoG's, polyamist groups, etc. might. Why is that? Because they are all crazy cults just as is scientology.

    Like Zinj said your outrage at the CoS not at this website. Without the CoS this list would have never come into existance.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2009
  10. byte301

    byte301 Crusader

    The only reason the CoS doesn't publish it's declarations is because it would be bad pr. They have no problem sending Advance to people who bought a book but never did any services.

    The information is out there. It won't go away.

    And my intentions are to help take down the CoS in it's present form. NOT to witch hunt, no matter what you think.
  11. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    "A matter of public record" is not black and white. If the public record is available only in person at a courthouse or library or church register or whatever, that is not the same as having it available 24/7 worldwide via a one minute Google search by anyone.

  12. GreyLensman

    GreyLensman Silver Meritorious Patron

    Specious, again. Same argument. That persecution, that turning away of an applicant has happened. It's exampled by the stories in this thread. I know for a fact it was a considered piece of information in my last job cycle, and the positive information I placed there that stood next to it offset that impact. My boss indicated that was the case, after I'd been around for a bit. He used to be married to a scientologist, and is a declared SP himself. But he did consider it as a factor. I know that some persons haven't made those provisions to put positive information alongside and eventually in front of your crap, and they will and they are getting harmed by this site.

    You deny this and yet it is so plain that of course it is happening. And it is not acceptable, really, is it? This isn't rewriting anything at all. This is basic privacy in an age where there is less and less of it. Where violation of it is less and less acceptable.

    Eye to eye hell, we don't even occupy the same human plane of existence. And no I don't mean that Scientologically at all. You don't see harm. You blind yourself to it. In the name of an ideal that violates basic caring for another. Exactly what Scientologists castigate themselves bitterly for doing after the fact. But you haven't learned that yet at all.