Reader responses to FACTNet's rejection of $12 million

"First off, glad to see you're back! Secondly, kudos to Mr. Wollersheim (anybody who goes toe-to-toe with the monster clams from Mars AND spits $12 million in their faces deserves to be called mister) and the other FACTNet principals for not selling out." -DC

"I just read about your refusal towards the scientologists trying to buy silence in my local web magazine. The proclimation of free speech, no mind control and the fight against religious groups sounds great. Keep up the fight." dc

"Congratulations!!!" G

"I will do what I can to help, but I am currently unemployed due to the fact that I left a VP position with a solid reputable company to join what was sold to me as an exciting high tech start up. After four months I had to resign (to preserve my integrity) as the company turned out to be owned and run by $cientologists. I saw first hand their bizarre, unethical and mindless pursuit of the next dollar as they ruin many good peoples careers. The good news is that in the long run they can't be successful as they see customers as someone else to exploit (not a very sound approach in a business that relies on repeat business). It nice to find others in the world that are willing to take a stand against a truly evil and corrupt organization. If anyone ever doubted your true intent and morals, after turning down $12M they now know the truth!" B

"FACTNet, you people are my heros." Z

"Y'all are tougher than nails. My hat's off to you."

"Thanks for this powerful message and thanks to all hands with FACTNet for the courage and perserverence they have displayed. Let's all get behind them."

"12 million bucks? 12 *million* bucks? This is amazing. If, as the FACTNet bashers & Scientology claim, FACTNet is nothing more than a load of rubbish, why go to these lengths to shut it down? This confirms what I already personally know - that Scientology want FACTNet wiped out of existence....
"How many gag orders have been signed, I wonder? How many? What kind of *religion* requires its former members to sign gag orders? Again, if these former members are talking horse manure, people are quite capabable of detecting it for themselves... Why the gag orders? Unless...just *maybe*, just *maybe*, there might be an element of Truth in what they are saying?...
"Most people think of settlement as a compromise, a reasonable agreement reached, with give and take on both sides. This is how bloodshed was averted in South Africa, with all sides giving a bit. For Scientology, however, it is *completely* one-sided. The parties opposing them are required to sell their very souls, give in to their terms, and they think the money is a sufficient compensation, but the money is often merely a *recouping* of what an individual has suffered from Scientology, and so the playing field is not level at all.
"Scientology need to turn a settlement into a "Victory", need to parade it as a "Defeat of the enemy", need to show that they have CRUSHED their opponents, and most importantly - that THEY WERE RIGHT. "Settlement" *has* to show that they were "right", per their policy, there is just no other way....
"Now *this* is what needs to be tested. Those copyrights. I have spoken to former members who were there in the old days, but not willing to come forward, and they damn well KNOW that many of the bulletins were often written by others, etc. I have only their word on it, but they are from different countries, and their accounts have enough of a common pattern to convince me, personally, that there is definitely something not right, here.
"It needs to be addressed, and I cannot refrain from displaying my absolute relief that FACTNet will be going forward, in spite of what must have been a VERY tempting offer. I shall do everything in my power (off this forum) to support FACTNet in this." KB