Customize

May 14 Clearwater Flashraid: So I herd u liek fire?

Discussion in 'Flash Raids' started by anonymous612, May 14, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. subgenius Member

    There's, perhaps, a difference between having an internal system in addition to being able to call 911 for any emergency (not just fires), and not being able to call 911 at all.
    (All systems fail sometimes.)

    BTW fucking awesome raid.
  2. subgenius Member

    And btw "That's not a happy face"
    Nice
    Very usable.
  3. Anonymous Member

    This all got me wondering if the police and firefighters are aware of sci's "internal" system. And are they aware that in fact sci staff Will be sent to buildings on fire of if there is something happen that would require a policeman, they'll be sent there too, Before calling 911? Reasons are because they don't want embarrassing materials to be seen, and perhaps not so legal, and want to try and remove them first? There have always been specific detailed policies for staff and drills as to who goes where, does what and when in emergencies.

    Other reasons are to keep staff from leaving that want to leave. Do they know passports are taken away and locked up, another key deterrent for staff to leave, because they don't know they can get help with that?
    Staff not allowed cars, much money, passports, cellphones, they can't call for help?

    Do they know if these buildings are insured? Do they know that staff are not and never have been insured, no health insurance? (which reminds me, I derail here, do staff know if there's life insurance taken out on them or not?) Do they know if a staff got hurt, they'd be dumped on the street with nothing, no insurance, if their medical bills would be too much and/or they would have to be not working for too long? And yet, sci has billions, real estate and perhaps insurance on buildings?

    Property insurance in Florida is sky high, but on the water or within a mile of the Gulf, is astronomical.
    So I'm just wondering with police and firefighters actually know.
  4. RightOn Member

    most employees will have access to their own cell phones too or if they don't own their own, perhaps someone else does
  5. subgenius Member

    $cilons?
    That's what we're talking about here.
    Not theoretical normals.
    No Way they let their bots have/use their own cell phones.
    Someone correct me on this.
  6. anonymous612 Member

    Didn't make it into the video, but there was also "You're too pretty to be that miserable."
  7. RightOn Member

    no not scilons
    I was commenting on the fact that many places of business have internal phone systems, as well as Flag, but the DIFFERENCE is that many employees that work in a place that has an internal phone system will also have employees that own their own cell phones. So they can call 911 if the need to.
  8. Scatman Member

    Hey! You Anons have forgotten that Sea Ogres can confront anything and they are OTeez, at total cause over matter, energy, space and time (MEST). The reason for the long delay in calling the "wog" fire department is that scilons don't have considerations on MEST like the wog world does. What the sea ogres did was in-ethics, on purpose, in-tech, on-policy, and on-Source. So, get with it!
  9. amaX Member

    Yes, they're aware. Flag has their own security monitoring system that's centrally located in Ft. Homicide. It's legal.
    I have no idea. I will say that the police and the cult are in verycloseproximity to each other.


    The Clearwater Police Department really are a great police force. They're actually highly respected and liked by the whole city. The city came out in force when Pinellas Co. Sheriff Jim Coates tried to take over the CPD. But if no Sea Org goes to the police station to complain about their passport or visa being confiscated there's nothing that the CPD can do about that. The police don't make the laws and they also can't storm into Flag demanding visas and passports without something or someone to back it up. DON'T ASK ME WHY IN THE HELL OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HASN'T STEPPED INTO THIS MESS WITH ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUBMITTED INFO ABOUT THE HELL OF THE SEA ORG.


    Some CPD officers are very educated about Scientology. Others don't bother. Honestly, if I were a cop I wouldn't want to know because it would grate on me that I couldn't do a damned thing about the shit that goes on. Blame the Feds, the IRS, and the INS for not having the balls to stop this hell. Don't blame the cops who don't make the laws, but only enforce what they legally can.

    • Like Like x 1
  10. Anonymous Member

    Tks, AMA, yeah I'm from here, was just wonderin' because that Fire Chief seemed to me to be pissed that sci didn't call them right away and he used the BayNews9 interview to make it known, although "carefully worded".
    lol I know the cops can't do much about the human rights thing, but just wondered if they knew. I was thinking if the FBI ever Did raid, it would be helpful if all emergency response type of authorities in the area could help as needed, plus They would have their own reports to give the FBI.

    Now, I can't say how things are right now. I just know that in the past, I wouldn't want to be in a scientology building when a fire or burglary took place. Human life is sooooo expendable in scientology.
    Voodoo books and manuscripts are more important. Above all, hide the illegal crap, then the voodoo, then the building, people last.
  11. Scatman Member

    Remember what the cult guru L. Ron Hubbard uttered: "Never fear to hurt another in a just cause."
  12. Natter Bored Member

    Ex-staff here. Scientology does not "believe" in insurance. LRH said insurance only rewards downstats, and penalizes upstats, since sick people receive insurance money, while healthy people only pay out insurance premiums.

    No, staff are not covered by life insurance.
  13. anonymous612 Member

    Interesting extension of the logic I hadn't thought of before, thank you. By that logic Scientologists are also anti-welfare programs etc, then.
  14. Herro Member




    612 is out there being a dick. How do you expect them to react?

    Edit: Also note that 612 herself doesn't seem to be playing the martyr because of what this guy said. I don't think she's all upset about it like some others in this thread are. She might be a bitch, but at least she's not a hypocrite.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Natter Bored Member

    Correct. LRH basically said welfare is a bid no-no, rewarding downstats, and is suppressive to upstats who have to pay for others receiving welfare benefits. The concept of charity and helping others in need and helping others in a tough situation is not really part of Scientology dogma, except for PR purposes, like Volunteer Ministers.

    VMs pay their own way to disaster sites, and pretty much foot their own bill. Scientology organization doesn't pay for this stuff, the money is reged from scilons. Scientology supposedly gets good PR in the media, without it actually costing the organization money.

    The VMs get an ethics chit - an "attaboy, good work" put in their ethics folder.
  16. anonymous612 Member

    Are you kidding? It was fucking hilarious. I didn't even bother passing it along to the cop that came up after to tell off the security guy.

    Alright, here's a question, then. Do they consider pensions etc post-retirement charity?
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Natter Bored Member

    Scientology does not provide pensions to staff, because technically, Scientology claims their staff are religious volunteers in a religious order, not employees, and are not entitled to secular benefits such as Minimum Wage.

    As far as any retirement benefits, read this

    LETS all go SHOPPING FOR A NEW BODY. New Era Seniors Int. (OCMB thread)
  18. anonymous612 Member

    I was referring more to public Scientologist business owners and their treatment of non-Scientologist employees.
  19. Natter Bored Member

    Sorry, don't really know about non-scilon employee treatment by scilons.

    Generally, scilons do not agree with insurance or welfare or retirement. Scilons tend to view retirement as unproductive, and a short road to death, since in retirement, you aren't doing anything useful. Again, sorry, no dox on that, just my opinions, after being in the cult for many years.
  20. another123 Member

    Well.... back to the fire, kinda':
    Babz "May The Schwartz Be With You " Schwarz has her lulzy moonbat take on the whole event :D
    Hhhhhokey-dokey, Babz.
  21. RightOn Member

    holy canoli!
  22. You do have a valid point, Herro. It's obvious that 612 isn't any kind of shrinking violet, and takes such insults as part of the deal, but I absolutely cringed at what he said. It is a disgusting thing to say, and I think he should have spent a night in jail if that cop heard him say it - but I'll settle for him getting lots of attention from the global moralfag audience for a few years, just like John Carmichael did.

    I shudder to think what 612 senior would make of it.
  23. Herro Member

    I don't think I would agree with sending someone to jail for saying mean things.
  24. Anonymous Member

    Lucky for him 612 isn't my daughter - he'll have been postulating from a fucking wheelchair.
  25. It's hard for me to get my head around this free speech thing that Americans hold so dear, try as I might.

    In the UK, ISTM we're so used to the notion of the crossing of an invisble line - an arbitrary fudge, if you like, much like that notorious legal fiction, the 'reasonable person' clause in most UK law - that prevents people from committing a 'breach of the peace' (a catch-all law for preventing public disorder). It wouldn't be unusual for the guy in question to be locked up for a few hours and given a nominal fine, totally at the discretion of the police. The guy would probably be too embarrased to contest the charge.

    As a consequence, you might be less likely to hear people say such things out on the street like that, and the 'reasonable person' would agree that it is a Good Thing.

    As an aside, where I live, there is a new law being mooted, that would make it illegal to make sectarian tweets, after some ugly threats, or even just sick jokes, were made on Twitter against a football manager - by virtue of his being Catholic, as I understand it. This could be a dangerous curtailment of our (notional) rights, or it could be just another fudge that is only used to curb the activities of a few nutjobs. That is what the govt. will claim, anyway.

    But again, you make a very valid point, Herro. Thanks for that. I'd be interested to hear what you think of the Great British Fudge, though.
  26. anonymous612 Member

    I think I'd rather be called a stinking cunt every single day than have that law enacted in the States.
    • Like Like x 5
  27. Herro Member

    I think you're right that our difference of opinion on this is most likely due to the cultural differences between the UK and the US regarding the line between freedom of speech and verbal harassment. I prefer the somewhat "extreme" position that US law takes on freedom of speech, but it obviously means we have to deal with the downsides, such as allowing morons like the WBC or the KKK to hold public demonstrations. I definitely understand the "Great British Fudge" though. As you pointed out, legally sanctioning the act of making such foul statements in public most likely promotes civil behavior in public, which is a collective good.

    I've noticed that there are similiar differences between the US and UK on other matters of speech, such as libel and slander laws. And again, the good aspect of more strict laws on speech is that they promote civil discourse, once again providing a public good. The downside is that such laws provide legal avenues for the suppression of unpopular speech. It's all a balancing act between pros and cons. Personally, I am willing to accept the "costs" of having lenient attitudes towards what constitutes acceptable public discourse in exchange for the benefit of having relatively few legal restrictions placed upon speech. However I can easily see why some might be willing to accept the cost of greater restrictions on speech in exchange for the benefit of more civil discourse.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Scatman Member

    FYI:
    Sea Org members and org staff learn to swear and use foul language, if they don't already know it. That is a practice you will not find in any written policy, directive, or order, but is very much part of the scientology org culture. You minimally have to tolerate it if you are on staff, but most staff conform and become trash talkers.
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Anonymous Member

    It's also been historically true that the UK has had a much more homogenous population than the US (this is changing but still holds true) and maybe this has allowed for more ease in assuming that what is offensive to one is offensive to all... even if it makes the Fudge a little less chocolaty.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Yes, 612 - hope you got from my post that I'm not being dogmatic about this, and I can see the inherent dangers in most laws that impinge on our right to free speech (which is only notional in the UK anyway, since we don't have that First Amendment to rely on). It may be so that in fact we have no right whatsoever to free speech, since it can be restricted time and again by some new law.

    But there is another point to be considered. Such extreme, inflammatory language tends to lead to violence (as demonstrated by the above post). Is it not better, in the long run, to enact laws that are an infringement on our right to speak as we please, if that reduces violent crime as a consequence?

    Or conversely, do these laws make us less than free human beings, afraid to say anything controversial for fear of punishment?

    At this point, I really don't know. I have no doubt the vast majority of Americans would agree with you, and I'm not at all sure that I disagree. I am sure that I detest gratuitously offensive remarks such as these, but general opprobrium is probably a more effective sanction than restrictive laws.

    Phew!
  31. anonymous612 Member

    No. Who decides what is appropriate speech? A Democrat politician? A Republican politician? The pope? If I call someone a faggot, for example, and he punches me, great. Punching me is a crime. Arrest him. The idea of punishing me because "bawww I called him a mean name" and someone decided faggot was an unacceptable word is ridiculous. Where is the line between that and punishing me because I called someone a cultist and he decided it was offensive and punched me? If you can't find the specific line between what is and isn't acceptable, and it can't be agreed upon, you have to err on the side of caution and protect free speech, even unpopular speech. Because the same law that lets unpopular speech like the WBC happen also lets unpopular speech like "Hey, that miscellaneous thing the government did was blatantly unconstitutional, we should protest that!" happen.

    And yes, I got that from your post, no worries.

    On the other hand, his remark didn't harm me in the slightest. If I was a 10 year old kid, sure, that'd be a different issue. But I'm not, I'm an adult with my big girl panties on, and I certainly wasn't physically hurt or emotionally traumatized. No blood, no foul, as far as I'm concerned with it. There's a whole lot of things people can't or won't say because it's considered inappropriate where the person receiving the comment should just get the fuck over it.
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Sethdood Member

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA 2:00 in the video:

    "Really? But, so, you get paid five bucks an hour...?...why can't nobody see your face?"

    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHA fuckin retard. And then you herbed him about super powers and he walked away in shame.

    Love it. I really really do.
  33. Anonymous Member

    LOL! Some balls. Nothing but props to clearwater. Props.
  34. anonymous612 Member

    The pause in my response? That's because I WASN'T MASKED. -slow headshake-
    • Like Like x 2
  35. Sethdood Member

    HAHAHAHAHA sorry I know double post but I gotta comment on that ninja turtle looking guy again. I can't stop laughing at his nervous awful slow stumble of words.

    It's like "Where'd you get those pants, the...toilet...store?"
  36. Sethdood Member

    HAHAHAHAH nooooo waaaaaaayyyy
  37. anonymous612 Member

    I usually wear my mask pushed up on the top of my head as a sun visor during the summer. Too hot, and with my mask's padding it muffles my voice when I'm talking to people and I get tired of repeating myself. So unless he has a fetish for my forehead...he's just fucktarded.

    Reminds me of the time one went batshit on one of our femanon cameranons screaming at her to take her mask off. She NEVER wears a mask, it interferes with the camera. Fucking weird.
  38. Sethdood Member

    It must be crazy to raid in a sea of assholes. So the cop got on that guy for calling you a cunt? I guess that kinda rules out calling guys faggots or the scilon girls emaciated whores?
  39. anonymous612 Member

    I've gotten away with calling them gay before. And I regularly compliment them on their asses. That's about the limit though.
    • Like Like x 2
  40. Anonymous Member

    Sooo something along the lines of this would be not ok?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins