NationStates Jolt Archive

Wasn't that just on the BBC news?

EDIT: Hahaha, my thread.

And I mean really mad!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI

Yelling at someone like that seems pretty fucking rude to me. I would actually think more of the guy if he hauled off and punched the person he was angry with.

Tonight the first screening of the report on The church of Scientology by the BBCs flagship programme Panorama brings up a few interesting dilemmas;

1) Should scientology be considered a religion or a cult
2) If this "religion" is so secretive how do we know that illegal brainwashing etc isn't taking place
3) Is it acceptable for respected BBC journalists to scream at people in public allowing the reputation of the BBC and Panorama to plummet?

Discuss

To see the pre-release coverage follow the link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6650000/newsid_6651700/6651721.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm

what was that even about? all i could hear was shouting.

what was that even about? all i could hear was shouting.

Probably scientologists making stupid lies and justifying brainwashing as usual.

Uh... I'm all for yelling at Scientologists, but what the hell was that? That was one hell of an amazingly loud yell - esp. since he suddenly went all quiet again and then right back to megaphone volume.

What was that even about? From the description on Youtube I gather that Scientology urged their members to sign the petition to free the BBC reporter held hostage. So did he yell at them for using his colleague's fate for their own business and public relations gain? Anybody know?

Nothing he says will make him look any better after that.

Perhaps a slightly more balanced discussion here::::


HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=526836)

This is why I stay away from Scientologists. They're creepy, their cult was founded by a bad sc-fi writer in the ninteen-fifties, and their holy books sound like something a bad sci-fi writer would write. Maybe I'm being bigoted, but Scientology scares me. I often drive by a "Church of Scientology" and it creeps me out.

since he suddenly went all quiet again and then right back to megaphone volume.


lol that was SO funny! I thought he was all calm down, but then suddenly BOOM!

He's terrible at shouting. Shouting is an artform. Just ask any italian family. :)

This is why I stay away from Scientologists. They're creepy, their cult was founded by a bad sc-fi writer in the ninteen-fifties, and their holy books sound like something a bad sci-fi writer would write. Maybe I'm being bigoted, but Scientology scares me. I often drive by a "Church of Scientology" and it creeps me out.

Shouting reporters are why you stay away from scientologists?

Scientology makes you mad... and in other news the Pope has been discovered to be Catholic, bears shit in the woods, the sky is blue, and today's word is... ni!

Tonight the first screening of the report on The church of Scientology by the BBCs flagship programme Panorama brings up a few interesting dilemmas;

1) Should scientology be considered a religion or a cult
2) If this "religion" is so secretive how do we know that illegal brainwashing etc isn't taking place
3) Is it acceptable for respected BBC journalists to scream at people in public allowing the reputation of the BBC and Panorama to plummet?

Discuss

To see the pre-release coverage follow the link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6650000/newsid_6651700/6651721.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm

This is should go together with the other thread, maybe a Mod could merge them?
As for your questions:

1) Cult, no question about it.
2) It is.
3) I still don't really know what that was all about, but if he had good reason, then hell yeah, and my regard for him and the networks would actually go up.

As always: www.xenu.net (http://www.xenu.net/)

1) Should scientology be considered a religion or a cult
2) If this "religion" is so secretive how do we know that illegal brainwashing etc isn't taking place
3) Is it acceptable for respected BBC journalists to scream at people in public allowing the reputation of the BBC and Panorama to plummet?


1. The only difference between a religion and a cult is time, and it has not been around long enough to make the crossover.

2. If you don't post under your full name and list your address and phone number, how do we know you aren't clubbing baby seals?
(Or: the burden of proof falls on the accuser.)
3. (The video won't load, so I don't know the context, but...)
Sure, what with the freedom of speech and all.

You'd probably shout at them as well if you'd been subjected to what he was... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6651231.stm)

Judging from my research, which does includes wikipedia and online testimonials of former members. Scientology is a cult based on a sci-fi book written by an unsuccessful sci-fi writer. It usually treats members like sheisse, REQUIRES large sums of money, not requests any sum of monetary donations like most religions, but demands thousands of dollars, and gives preferential treatment to its celebrity spokesmen for obvious reasons. They dislike it when members quit. So much so that they'll resort to blackmail and possibly murder to punish former members for quitting. Again, this is from my research.

oit! I posted this first!

Scientology is a business. Nothing else. For dumb people.

You'd probably shout at them as well if you'd been subjected to what he was... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6651231.stm)

He still should have been wise enough to know that his best way at getting back at them for all they'd put him through was through his documentary.

You'd probably shout at them as well if you'd been subjected to what he was... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6651231.stm)

ugh, i just fucking hate scientology.

1) A bet between science fiction writers gone too damn far. But it's a cult.
2) No smoking gun, but there was that death in Florida which is suspicious.
3) No. We expect that from Scientologists, not BBC journalists.

And name a modern-day religion where material wealth is a crucial factor in determining enlightenment or salvation.

Scientology is utter crap. Plain fabricated bullshit pulled out of the butt of a failed mind.

Personally I don't know whether it's a Religion or a Cult, and I don't really care. Either way, the ideas it espouses are ridiculous and its methodology is dangerous. I entirely empathise with the reporter's anger at the group.

1) Should scientology be considered a religion or a cult
2) If this "religion" is so secretive how do we know that illegal brainwashing etc isn't taking place
3) Is it acceptable for respected BBC journalists to scream at people in public allowing the reputation of the BBC and Panorama to plummet?


1)To me, a cult and a religion are really the same thing. However, a religion is not a culty cult that most people asociate cults with, if you catch my drift. So yes scientology is definately one of the worst cults around.

2) We know that brainwashing is taking place.

3) Look at IV Stalins link in my thread.

Yelling at someone like that seems pretty fucking rude to me. I would actually think more of the guy if he hauled off and punched the person he was angry with.

They went over this on the Today show this morning and showed a clip of Matt Laurer talking to Tom Cruise about psychiatry.
Tom Cruise was like "Don't you know that Ritalin has become a street drug?" And Matt Laurer tries to answer but Cruise gets all douchebaggy and demands a yes or no answer then says he knows more about the history of psychiatry than Matt. I would have kicked his fucking chair over. Douchebag.

You'd probably shout at them as well if you'd been subjected to what he was... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6651231.stm)Thanks, Those fuckers make me seethe just by reading about them. He came off a tad Howard Dean-ish, with that rather special brand of uber-yell, but hey, more power to him.

He still should have been wise enough to know that his best way at getting back at them for all they'd put him through was through his documentary.
Actually, I'm not even so sure. This whole thing (i.e. the tons of copies quickly shipped out by Scientology to invalidate the BBC's credibility) just might backfire . After all, most of us would never even have heard (nor probably cared) that somebody in Britain made yet another documentary/report about Scientology.

This way, we all are made aware of that - and I'd guess that most people will be so taken aback by a serious TV news reporter of the staid BBC so completely losing it that they'd kinda HAVE to assume that whatever set him off must have been pretty bad indeed...

They went over this on the Today show this morning and showed a clip of Matt Laurer talking to Tom Cruise about psychiatry.
Tom Cruise was like "Don't you know that Ritalin has become a street drug?" And Matt Laurer tries to answer but Cruise gets all douchebaggy and demands a yes or no answer then says he knows more about the history of psychiatry than Matt. I would have kicked his fucking chair over. Douchebag.
Yeah, and while I remember Lauer being very noticably upset, he was totally letting him get away with his bullcrap and was nowhere near forceful enough in his criticism.

So yeah, I guess I'd rather take the yelling Brit. ;P

Actually, I'm not even so sure. This whole thing (i.e. the tons of copies quickly shipped out by Scientology to invalidate the BBC's credibility) just might backfire . After all, most of us would never even have heard (nor probably cared) that somebody in Britain made yet another documentary/report about Scientology.

This way, we all are made aware of that - and I'd guess that most people will be so taken aback by a serious TV news reporter of the staid BBC so completely losing it that they'd kinda HAVE to assume that whatever set him off must have been pretty bad indeed...

I can only speak for myself but that makes me think the reporter wasn't looking to produce a fair documentary about Scientology. It looks like he made it with a bias in mind.

I can only speak for myself but that makes me think the reporter wasn't looking to produce a fair documentary about Scientology. It looks like he made it with a bias in mind.Hm, I didn't consider that. But of course you're right and it could have that effect on people. Damn you, people! *shakes fist* :p

I can only speak for myself but that makes me think the reporter wasn't looking to produce a fair documentary about Scientology. It looks like he made it with a bias in mind.

Seriously, how can you make a documentary about scientology without beign bias?

Why else would Scientologists condemn psychiatric therapy and medication? Because they're afraid of their converts being deprogrammed.

I'm staying in tonight so I can catch this, hopefully it will be as bad to Scientology as Battlefield Earth was to me

I can only speak for myself but that makes me think the reporter wasn't looking to produce a fair documentary about Scientology. It looks like he made it with a bias in mind.

Even so, it's pretty hard to put a spin on being followed around and spied on by Scientology hired goons. These guys are like a cult IRA.

Seriously, how can you make a documentary about scientology without beign bias?

I'm not convined that there can exist a lack of bias abot scientology. I pride myself in an ability to become reasonably objective, and I'm not sure I can for scientology. Every time I think of Xenu and the Thetans I lose it. :p

I'm not convined that there can exist a lack of bias abot scientology. I pride myself in an ability to become reasonably objective, and I'm not sure I can for scientology. Every time I think of Xenu and the Thetans I lose it. :p

I think that guy should actually be respected for only shouting, if it were me I probably would have punched him in the face.

Seriously, how can you make a documentary about scientology without beign bias?

You don't need bias in it. They make themselves look bad enough

Even so, it's pretty hard to put a spin on being followed around and spied on by Scientology hired goons. These guys are like a cult IRA.

Yeah so why didn't he just stay quiet and let them hang themselves

For me, the difference between religion and a cult is that
1) a religion freely allows its members to join and/or leave; a cult doesn't
2) a religion is free for everyone's scrutiny; a cult is very secretive
3) a religion is... uh, I forgot what to say...

But I agree, though, reporting should be unbiased as much as possible. Despite me not liking Scientology, their side should be taken too.

But I agree, though, reporting should be unbiased as much as possible. Despite me not liking Scientology, their side should be taken too.Oh, Scientology are doing just fine getting their own side out there.

Yeah so why didn't he just stay quiet and let them hang themselves

With hindsight it's easy to say that he should have done this he should have done this, but it's almost impossible for a man to act calm after being subject to what they have been doing.

With hindsight it's easy to say that he should have done this he should have done this, but it's almost impossible for a man to act calm after being subject to what they have been doing.

Its something people learn as children. If they retaliate with violence to taunting by a sibling they get punished. Surely he should remember this and how its better not to give them the satisfaction.

Yeah so why didn't he just stay quiet and let them hang themselves
They were goading him. These kind of people could make Martin Luther Ghandi Christ III lose his temper.

Its something people learn as children. If they retaliate with violence to taunting by a sibling they get punished. Surely he should remember this and how its better not to give them the satisfaction.
You lived a sheltered life during your 13 years huh?

You lived a sheltered life during your 13 years huh?

I don't understand

I don't like Panorama, there's just something about the way if presents itself and its subject material that I don't like. I've just never able to really get into watching a Panorama documentary.

And I've never got into this whole 'reporter in shot' thing that's come in recently. Reporters should not be seen and only heard if it's to clarify what question a person is answering or if they are narating themselves.

I don't understand

You seem to think you have better temper control than Jesus. That guy went off on some tax collectors. I then asserted you were rather young and lived a sheltered life and thusly not exposed to the kind of bullshit that people like the Scientology media wing run.

You seem to think you have better temper control than Jesus. That guy went off on some tax collectors. I then asserted you were rather young and lived a sheltered life and thusly not exposed to the kind of bullshit that people like the Scientology media wing run.

That would have been a better way of arguing your point rather than making a dismissive statement.

I think its because I haven't lived a sheltered life that I find it a lot easier now to deal with such situations.

That would have been a better way of arguing your point rather than making a dismissive statement.

I think its because I haven't lived a sheltered life that I find it a lot easier now to deal with such situations.

Yet you obviously have no understanding of how the situation works.

Yet you obviously have no understanding of how the situation works.

Explain it then

That would have been a better way of arguing your point rather than making a dismissive statement.

I think its because I haven't lived a sheltered life that I find it a lot easier now to deal with such situations.

How you may have been able to deal with that situation is irellavent to how most people would have been able to deal with that situation.

That video is only like, a small little bit of the argument. I would like to see what happened befor he started yelling.

You'd probably shout at them as well if you'd been subjected to what he was... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6651231.stm)

Consistent with what I've been hearing for quite some time. I would love to watch that program. But I live in canada, but hopefully I'll see it on Youtube or something.

The story seems prety beliveable to me, the fact that the video they are showing seems to have been cut short also helps me feel certient he's telling the truth.

Yet you obviously have no understanding of how the situation works.Jeez, why do you always have to be such a prick? We were having about the most civil conservation you can have on NSG outside a social thread - is that so unbearable? Are points only any good when they're driven home with a dismissively thrown poisoned dart?

How you may have been able to deal with that situation is irellavent to how most people would have been able to deal with that situation.

Thats a fair point but the question (after the threads were merged) was whether it was acceptable for a journalist to shout like that. I don't think so because he was a journalist who would have certainly researched the techniques used by Scientology. He should have been prepared for such treatment.

And again a bunch of wankers is making scientology VERY happy.
More martyrs, more cruxifiction, that's good for business.
Politicians too use that trick, It's good to look miserable for the public.
And for the insiders two words suffice to look dominant.

The scientology business has only one bad point... It does not pay taxes.
BBC just made a small point.

By the way is not the new French president an adept of scientology?
I heard some strange rumors.

Explain it then

You are tailed across two continents by either lackeys or hired goons. Spied on at weddings. Have people show up in your hotel room. Then when in an on air conversation, you are goaded into raising your voice by your opponent who raises his. It is the denouement of a whole set of shit designed to discredit some one who tries to expose them. Unless you consider yourself smarter than some one whose job is to think up this kind of thing, you would fall into the same trap.

Jeez, why do you always have to be such a prick? We were having about the most civil conservation you can have on NSG outside a social thread - is that so unbearable? Are points only any good when they're driven home with a dismissively thrown poisoned dart?

Welcome to NSG.

Thats a fair point but the question (after the threads were merged) was whether it was acceptable for a journalist to shout like that. I don't think so because he was a journalist who would have certainly researched the techniques used by Scientology. He should have been prepared for such treatment.

Well, I guess it's not acceptable. But I wont look down at him for it after what hes gone through.

You are tailed across two continents by either lackeys or hired goons. Spied on at weddings. Have people show up in your hotel room. Then when in an on air conversation, you are goaded into raising your voice by your opponent who raises his and in doing so you make everything you've gone through pointless and wasted It is the denouement of a whole set of shit designed to discredit some one who tries to expose them. Unless you consider yourself smarter than some one whose job is to think up this kind of thing, you would fall into the same trap.

Bold is mine

I don't consider it a case of smarts. I consider it a case of how much tolerance you have built up to such things.

Well, I guess it's not acceptable. But I wont look down at him for it after what hes gone through.

I wouldn't say I look down on him. I just don't think as highly of him as a journalist.

Oh and the batteries in my mouse are about to die (stupid bluetooth) so apologies if I take a while to reply

You are tailed across two continents by either lackeys or hired goons. Spied on at weddings. Have people show up in your hotel room. Then when in an on air conversation, you are goaded into raising your voice by your opponent who raises his. It is the denouement of a whole set of shit designed to discredit some one who tries to expose them. Unless you consider yourself smarter than some one whose job is to think up this kind of thing, you would fall into the same trap.Well, *I* would certainly let myself be goaded into raising my voice, and I also commend the reporter for basically being not a machine but a human being who's just pissed of at this "situation".
But that doesn't mean anyone who thinks his goals would have been better served by staying calm is automatically clueless. What the fuck do I know how the majority of people will react to that? I'd like to think like I did, but they just might all agree with Dundee-Fienn.

But that doesn't mean anyone who thinks his goals would have been better served by staying calm is automatically clueless. What the fuck do I know how the majority of people will react to that? I'd like to think like I did, but they just might all agree with Dundee-Fienn.
Sure, it would have been better to not have lost it, but no sane person would have managed it. I personally would have found it better if he grabbed the guy and drowned him in a toilet. But that's me.

Sure, it would have been better to not have lost it, but no sane person would have managed it. I personally would have found it better if he grabbed the guy and drowned him in a toilet. But that's me.I personally would have found it best if he had lost it - but not quite as much as he did. Like, maybe some more restrained yelling. Not quite so... odd.

That video is only like, a small little bit of the argument. I would like to see what happened befor he started yelling.

You'd probably shout at them as well if you'd been subjected to what he was... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6651231.stm)

Consistent with what I've been hearing for quite some time. I would love to watch that program. But I live in canada, but hopefully I'll see it on Youtube or something.

The story seems prety beliveable to me, the fact that the video they are showing seems to have been cut short also helps me feel certient he's telling the truth.

Scientology should be more careful than they are now. They are going to be their own downfall....I hope! I side with the reporter guy....heck, I would have broken down or something like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVAeL8AyYeI&NR=1

What a ridiculous apology

He shouldn't have apologized at all. Geez what is it these days, you have to apologize for everything!

He shouldn't have apologized at all. Geez what is it these days, you have to apologize for everything!

He should have apologized - apologized for Scientology being a cult full of stupid douchebags.

They were goading him. These kind of people could make Martin Luther Ghandi Christ III lose his temper.


Yeah, but MLGC the 3rd has been getting worse ever since he broke up with Linda.

We were in Vegas last weekend, and he stabbed a blackjack dealer in the face with a broken bottle of Grey Goose 'cause he thought the guy had an attitude or something.

Must've been the body thetans.

Uh... I'm all for yelling at Scientologists, but what the hell was that? That was one hell of an amazingly loud yell - esp. since he suddenly went all quiet again and then right back to megaphone volume.

What was that even about? From the description on Youtube I gather that Scientology urged their members to sign the petition to free the BBC reporter held hostage. So did he yell at them for using his colleague's fate for their own business and public relations gain? Anybody know?

It sounded as though he was yelling at the $cientologist -- who had interrupted a private interview earlier in order to do what they call "black PR" on the interviewee -- for referring to the second half of the interview out of context. Since he hadn't been there from the beginning, the $cientologist could only misrepresent what really happened.

Underlying it all was the insistence by $cientology that the BBC had no right to talk to anyone except members, and their presumption of the right to "police" the BBC people to make sure they followed $cientology policy.

Their arrogance and manipulativeness borders on the pathological.

...
Consistent with what I've been hearing for quite some time. I would love to watch that program. But I live in canada, but hopefully I'll see it on Youtube or something.

...

Go to Panorama (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/programmes/panorama/default.stm) and click on "Watch Now" anytime before the next programme.

Thats a fair point but the question (after the threads were merged) was whether it was acceptable for a journalist to shout like that. I don't think so because he was a journalist who would have certainly researched the techniques used by Scientology. He should have been prepared for such treatment.

Unfortunately, the only way to "be prepared" for such treatment is to go through the $cientology training routines (TRs). They have a whole sequence of routines to train them to be unresponsive to people. when they learn them properly it turns them into very bad actors, people who "emote by numbers": they decide which emotion they want to pretend to feel in order to have a certain effect on the viewer, then they act it. You saw this when the $cientologist got in Sweeney's face and told him how "mad" he was. He would have practised that carefully until he got it just right.

$cientologists who handle the media also have a set of exercises for baiting the reporter to become "introverted" -- to have his attention turned back on himself. One practical effect is that he becomes the story instead of reporting the real one, which is the systematically abusive nature of $cientology. The team of members handling John Sweeney were trained -- not just told, trained, drilled, carefully rehearsed -- to do this to him. The procedure is a relentless saturation of his whole life, with the sole intention of breaking him down and provoking him.

Sweeney's real problem is that there are only 2 ways to "be prepared". The first is to become a $cientologist. Sweeney chose to be a real human being instead so that was out. The second is to spend sufficient time with those ex-members and others who could have warned him in detail what he would face and what to look out for, and especially how $cientology would try to handle him and what not to do. I think he didn't know this or if he did, he didn't take it seriously enough. I bet he does now.

I wonder how many of you did read the world of the nul A.
How many did like General Semantics.
Just a fun thought.

Feel smart and pay.

I wonder how many of you did read the world of the nul A.
How many did like General Semantics.
Just a fun thought.

Feel smart and pay.

I prefer nexialism ;)

Unfortunately, the only way to "be prepared" for such treatment is to go through the $cientology training routines (TRs).

I disagree with this. It isn't a skill exclusively found in Scientologists. Anyone can pick it up. People have said that he had a choice between being a human being and a machine. How about being professional instead?

What happened in the earlier interview made me proud.

Tommy. (With a raised voice) "I’m an American citizen therefore I have the right by the first amendment to believe what I like blah blah blah."

BBC Reporter. "Well I’m not an American citizen I’m a British subject and in my country we believe in free speech, and I can interview whoever I like" he says as Tommy is walking away.

I think the clincher is you have to give the scientology cult $100 000 to get in on the inner secrets of how some one put a lot of beings in a volcano and nuked it 80 billion yrs ago and their re-incanated souls are the cause of all humanity's problems (wow I managed to type that without laughing).

I dont seem to remember any other religions putting a clause like that in their beliefs IE give us lots of money and you'll be saved.

Oh well , now I've critized scientolgy there'll be strange people following me around all the time

And for the scientolgy people reading this ITS A SCAM!

And for the scientolgy people reading this ITS A SCAM!

Yes, because large letters on the internet often convince fanatics to change their minds.

Yes, because large letters on the internet often convince fanatics to change their minds.

They might have bad eyesight. Maybe all they need is large print. You don't know.

I disagree with this. It isn't a skill exclusively found in Scientologists. Anyone can pick it up. People have said that he had a choice between being a human being and a machine. How about being professional instead?


don't take this wrong but could you tell us what you base your disagreement on? I mean, actual practical 1st hand knowledge you have about the scienos, the way they do stuff, the way they work, not just general opinion and wishful thinking. with the things you say, you don't sound like you've seen them at work on people up close, or like you've ever been on the receiving end of them. glib claims about how anybody can do it don't seem to have much to do with the things I've watched them do to people.

of course it would've been better if the reporter guy'd been "professional", nobody's saying different afaik. but I really don't think you've grasped what what $cientology does to people and how they do it.

I'd love to go through all the documentation again, but I'm getting old and I don't feel the urge to repeat myself. there was a discussion of $cientology some time back, and I posted a lot of info then, and so did a lot of other people. if you want to know more, it's at $cientology: some thoughts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458615).

and if you don't feel inclined, that's cool too. it's your life. and if you really are bullet-proof like you seem to think, lucky you. the rest of us mere mortals may not be.

PS - on how they handle the media: $cientology vs media (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11200975&postcount=124)

Scientology makes me itchy.

Have we gotten the created-within-a-day-of-posting scientology apologists yet?

Yeah so why didn't he just stay quiet and let them hang themselves

Cause too many people did stay quiet while Scientology murdered people.

To be frank, I wouldn't mourn if every single Scientologist dropped dead the next day and their HQ burned down.

Well, *I* would certainly let myself be goaded into raising my voice, and I also commend the reporter for basically being not a machine but a human being who's just pissed of at this "situation".
But that doesn't mean anyone who thinks his goals would have been better served by staying calm is automatically clueless. What the fuck do I know how the majority of people will react to that? I'd like to think like I did, but they just might all agree with Dundee-Fienn.

I don't know, but with some time and preparation, I might arrange for a boobytrap involving pies, mud and automatic wedgies on camera.

Oh, and multiple signs that go "Warning! Do not enter! This is your last warning! Really! I mean it!"

And one last one that goes "Don't say I didn't warn you"

No court on earth would convict me.

It's funny, really. Scientology is quite clearly a scam designed to rip off people and it has the coveted tax-free church status. Meanwhile, my idea for a cult that is purely nonprofit is taxable despite the fact that it makes no money and it isn't considered a church. I'm staying Christian so that the day Scientologists go militant, I'll have a gun. Believing is something that isn't a scam always makes owning a lethal weapon of death and destruction feel right instead of wrong.

I don't blame the guy from yelling. Scientology scares me. They're Xena this and DC-that. How the hell could an alien pilot a plane in space? Aliens didn't invent nukes or air planes. Americans did. Those Scientologists worship an uber-illegal alien. Bomb their hq. Send ninja-pirate assasin space marines after their leaders. No brain is safe.

note: I'm serious. Bomb their hq. Train space ninja-pirate marines to kill the leaders. Anything worth doing is worth doing in a wasteful, expensive, super awesome way.

It's funny, really. Scientology is quite clearly a scam designed to rip off people and it has the coveted tax-free church status. Meanwhile, my idea for a cult that is purely nonprofit is taxable despite the fact that it makes no money and it isn't considered a church. I'm staying Christian so that the day Scientologists go militant, I'll have a gun. Believing is something that isn't a scam always makes owning a lethal weapon of death and destruction feel right instead of wrong.

I don't blame the guy from yelling. Scientology scares me. They're Xena this and DC-that. How the hell could an alien pilot a plane in space? Aliens didn't invent nukes or air planes. Americans did. Those Scientologists worship an uber-illegal alien. Bomb their hq. Send ninja-pirate assasin space marines after their leaders. No brain is safe.

note: I'm serious. Bomb their hq. Train space ninja-pirate marines to kill the leaders. Anything worth doing is worth doing in a wasteful, expensive, super awesome way.



Hoyteca, at the grave risk of being a called spoil-sport or being told to "lighten up", I have to say this. I have serious doubts that you fully appreciate the matter. All your talk about attacking them is just playing into their hands by allowing them to point to your post and say, "See? We told you we get terrorist threats! People who hate us are always criminals and terrrorists, and this proves it! SEE?!" When you're dealing with people with induced paranoid delusions, the last thing you want to do is feed the delusions.

If they assigned person(s)s to handle this thread, and they felt particularly malevolent they might even approach NS and Jolt (legally) and demand your ID (and all of ours) so they can prosecute you as a "terrorist". At first glance it's really unlikely, but that's been said before about the kinds of things they've done to attack anyone who criticizes them. Think I'm joking? Look at their history of dealing with opponents, especially on the web. Even if they only use you as "more proof" of the "evil conspiracy" against them, you've done the work of their PR department for them. Getting goaded into ranting at them -- doing a Sweeney -- only helps them dismiss their critics as "evil oppressors of freedom" etc. and blah, blah, and obscures the real issues. Far better to stick to the facts, and refuse to be provoked.

Now, despite your protests to the contrary, I think you were joking to make a point. But that overlooks a central fact: $cientologists do not have a sense of humour, any more than they have a sense of compassion or a sense of fairness or a sense of honesty, especially in "attack-dog" mode.* They will read what you said and take it seriously. No, let me be precise: they'll pretend to take you seriously, so they also can pretend to be frightened for their safety, outraged over the "danger to human rights" you pose, and justified in the ways they abuse their critics in the future. When you feed someone's delusions of persecution with threats of violence and the like, you strengthen those delusions and amplify their responses. $cientologists won't read your witty post and say, "Heh, well, I guess we did go a bit over the top, didn't we?", they'll read it and say, "WOW! Those evil people really are as bad as Hubbard said! We have to do something!!"

Sorry to be serious about what should have been amusing as an ironic post; I just figured you and the rest of us should think about this.

----------------------------------------------
* Please note: that is not an emotive or derogatory statement, it's taken from their documented training routines and othe training materials and Hubbard statements, and reflects those human qualities which Hubbard despised and sought to train out of his followers. E.g., the "TR-L" is a training routine intended to teach someone to lie convincingly, "compassion" is a low state of being on their "Tone Scale", and "fairness" is turned into "fair game", the official policy created by Hubbard, by which they believe it's their right to 'sue, trick, lie to, or destroy' their critics.

Hoyteca, at the grave risk of being a called spoil-sport or being told to "lighten up", I have to say this. I have serious doubts that you fully appreciate the matter. All your talk about attacking them is just playing into their hands by allowing them to point to your post and say, "See? We told you we get terrorist threats! People who hate us are always criminals and terrrorists, and this proves it! SEE?!" When you're dealing with people with induced paranoid delusions, the last thing you want to do is feed the delusions.

If they assigned person(s)s to handle this thread, and they felt particularly malevolent they might even approach NS and Jolt (legally) and demand your ID (and all of ours) so they can prosecute you as a "terrorist". At first glance it's really unlikely, but that's been said before about the kinds of things they've done to attack anyone who criticizes them. Think I'm joking? Look at their history of dealing with opponents, especially on the web. Even if they only use you as "more proof" of the "evil conspiracy" against them, you've done the work of their PR department for them. Getting goaded into ranting at them -- doing a Sweeney -- only helps them dismiss their critics as "evil oppressors of freedom" etc. and blah, blah, and obscures the real issues. Far better to stick to the facts, and refuse to be provoked.

Now, despite your protests to the contrary, I think you were joking to make a point. But that overlooks a central fact: $cientologists do not have a sense of humour, any more than they have a sense of compassion or a sense of fairness or a sense of honesty, especially in "attack-dog" mode.* They will read what you said and take it seriously. No, let me be precise: they'll pretend to take you seriously, so they also can pretend to be frightened for their safety, outraged over the "danger to human rights" you pose, and justified in the ways they abuse their critics in the future. When you feed someone's delusions of persecution with threats of violence and the like, you strengthen those delusions and amplify their responses. $cientologists won't read your witty post and say, "Heh, well, I guess we did go a bit over the top, didn't we?", they'll read it and say, "WOW! Those evil people really are as bad as Hubbard said! We have to do something!!"

Sorry to be serious about what should have been amusing as an ironic post; I just figured you and the rest of us should think about this.

----------------------------------------------
* Please note: that is not an emotive or derogatory statement, it's taken from their documented training routines and othe training materials and Hubbard statements, and reflects those human qualities which Hubbard despised and sought to train out of his followers. E.g., the "TR-L" is a training routine intended to teach someone to lie convincingly, "compassion" is a low state of being on their "Tone Scale", and "fairness" is turned into "fair game", the official policy created by Hubbard, by which they believe it's their right to 'sue, trick, lie to, or destroy' their critics.

EVERYTHING plays into their hands. Attacking them makes them martyrs. Not attacking them gives them the impression that we recognize them as what they see themselves as. Throwing stuff at them gives them stuff. Not throwing stuff at them doesn't hurt them. I say we kill them off in one huge assault. They have Tom Cruise. That's worse than having Micheal Jackson or the kid who can fart the alphabet. Too bad we lack a large enough force of bombers. Carpet bombing is always a good way to destroy stuff.

Or we can assemble a team of elite robot spies. They'd infiltrate the hq, pretend to be successfully brain washed, and send us back some incriminating evidence. Better do it now because word is they're trying to infiltrate the US government, the one government that controls a quarter of the entire world. Who cares what people think. People are idiots. Even I'm an idiot. But the Scientologists are bigger idiots. If mankind wasn't hell bent on destroying natural selection and giving uber-morons the chance to breed, Scientology would be dead.

Cause too many people did stay quiet while Scientology murdered people.

To be frank, I wouldn't mourn if every single Scientologist dropped dead the next day and their HQ burned down.

Scientology has murdered people?

Scientology has murdered people?

Yep

don't take this wrong but could you tell us what you base your disagreement on? I mean, actual practical 1st hand knowledge you have about the scienos, the way they do stuff, the way they work, not just general opinion and wishful thinking. with the things you say, you don't sound like you've seen them at work on people up close, or like you've ever been on the receiving end of them. glib claims about how anybody can do it don't seem to have much to do with the things I've watched them do to people.

of course it would've been better if the reporter guy'd been "professional", nobody's saying different afaik. but I really don't think you've grasped what what $cientology does to people and how they do it.

I'd love to go through all the documentation again, but I'm getting old and I don't feel the urge to repeat myself. there was a discussion of $cientology some time back, and I posted a lot of info then, and so did a lot of other people. if you want to know more, it's at $cientology: some thoughts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458615).

and if you don't feel inclined, that's cool too. it's your life. and if you really are bullet-proof like you seem to think, lucky you. the rest of us mere mortals may not be.

PS - on how they handle the media: $cientology vs media (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11200975&postcount=124)

It's going to take me a little bit of time to read through the things you've linked to (although thankyou for putting in that effort) so I apologise if my reply takes a while. All i'll say at the moment is that I don't think i'm bulletproof but from what I saw on Panorama there was nothing to cause the journalist to react that way. I especially dislike his apology but perhaps I am wrong. I'll have to read your info first.

Yep

Do you have a link so I can read up on it?

Try googling it. I can't remember any specific links but they have been famous enough to appear on TV.

Will do

Edit : Could you be a bit more specific about the murders you were talking about. Googling brings up a lot of stuff on this but a lot seem to be claims not proven in court.

Might find it in the links which were posted though.

Do you have a link so I can read up on it?

Try googling it. I can't remember any specific links but they have been famous enough to appear on TV.

I've read your links Beach Boys and, although it has helped me understand a little better their internet tactics and use of the courts, it still doesn't change my opinion.

You asked me if I had any first hand experience of their tactics. The answer is no. Have you had first hand experience? One of your posts said you had their techniques explained by a psychologist friend which leads me to believe you haven't.

If that is the case we're both arguing from positions handicapped by our lack of first hand experience. The original question was whether I thought the journalist acted appropriately. With all the information I have on this event I still think he didn't

I've read your links Beach Boys and, although it has helped me understand a little better their internet tactics and use of the courts, it still doesn't change my opinion.

You asked me if I had any first hand experience of their tactics. The answer is no. Have you had first hand experience? One of your posts said you had their techniques explained by a psychologist friend which leads me to believe you haven't.

If that is the case we're both arguing from positions handicapped by our lack of first hand experience. The original question was whether I thought the journalist acted appropriately. With all the information I have on this event I still think he didn't


I appreciate you taking time to read all that. to get their tactics with people, you need to read more of the stuff they do to people. like the training routines, the drills of how they're expected to handle people. I know that's harder to get hold of, but it's out there too. check out xenu.net and such. you want to read the whole story of what $cientology did to Paulette Cooper, Lawrence Wollersheim and many others. also read their training programmes for how to handle media and others. and while you're at it, have a look at these the $cientology intelligence agency (http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/berlin.html) and A Piece of Blue Sky (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/atack/).

now about me. your logic is faulty. since you ask, yes I've had experience of their tactics. if you think about it a little you'll realize experiencing something and understanding how it worked are 2 different things. ever have novacaine for tooth work? that's experience. if you did, did the experience show you what novacaine does to stop the pain? I doubt it. that's understanding, and you'd get it from asking a doctor or a biochemist or somebody. I got the experience from being screwed with, and later trying to help others who were being screwed with. I got the second when I found someone who could answer questions about my experiences for me and when I got to read the stuff that old mother-* Hubbard said about destroying people who disagree with them.

I'm gonna agree with you that the reporter shouldn't have reacted like that. I think he underestimated them and didn't believe they could get him to blow his cool. he was wrong. they practice doing that stuff to people, and he was like fishbait to sharks.

but that doesn't change anything. following somebody, gate-crashing his wedding, interfering with his rights of free speech and free assembly (for example interfering with interviews with intimidating and bullying tactics), spying on someone, and harassing their friends and family as well, isn't less wrong just because they could make him lose his temper.

Brutland and Norden

1) a religion freely allows its members to join and/or leave; a cult doesn't
2) a religion is free for everyone's scrutiny; a cult is very secretive

Well, for the first criterea, Christianity and Islam don't really allow you to abandon your faith either. As for the second criterea, I'm not familiar with Christianity, but prophet Muhammad did not treat all his critics very kindly. By your definition I think Christianity and Islam can both be considered cults. I really dont see the difference between cults and religions unless taking the numerical factor into account.

I'm gonna agree with you that the reporter shouldn't have reacted like that. I think he underestimated them and didn't believe they could get him to blow his cool. he was wrong. they practice doing that stuff to people, and he was like fishbait to sharks.

but that doesn't change anything. following somebody, gate-crashing his wedding, interfering with his rights of free speech and free assembly (for example interfering with interviews with intimidating and bullying tactics), spying on someone, and harassing their friends and family as well, isn't less wrong just because they could make him lose his temper.

I'm not arguing that the reporter was wrong and the Scientologists were right. I was just giving my opinion as to the reporters conduct alone. I'll read the links you gave me and I apologise for misinterpreting your experiences. I haven't experienced Scientologists techniques so I was using my own experiences of similar intimidation. It isn't exactly the same however and i'll concede that point.

1) Should scientology be considered a religion or a cult

Why not 'new religious movement'?

'Cult' is a hate term anyway.

2) If this "religion" is so secretive how do we know that illegal brainwashing etc isn't taking place

Presumption of innocence is your friend.

3) Is it acceptable for respected BBC journalists to scream at people in public allowing the reputation of the BBC and Panorama to plummet?

It's okay if they scream at scientologists - nobody cares about them, right?

Discuss

To see the pre-release coverage follow the link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6650000/newsid_6651700/6651721.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm[/QUOTE]

P.S. Under your definition, early Christianity was a cult.

Why not 'new religious movement'?

Presumption of innocence is your friend.


Normally I would say 'new religious movement', but Scientology... well, just read this: http://www.xenu.net/archive/techniques/ and http://www.xenu.net/archive/techniques/ktl-loc.html

What is it with people and xenu.net?

And Rejis: People pay voluntarily for these courses. How is this more crazy then paying an even greater amount of money ot have your penis split?

I looked at this recently because it came up during a search.

and about this other thing: TMI! TMFI

BMEzine opens your mind greatly.

After you look at some of the pictures there, scientology, satanism, and socialism look tame by comparison.

but that doesn't change anything. following somebody, gate-crashing his wedding, interfering with his rights of free speech and free assembly (for example interfering with interviews with intimidating and bullying tactics), spying on someone, and harassing their friends and family as well, isn't less wrong just because they could make him lose his temper.

on a side note, that sounds alot like what the media does to celebrities.

I'm not saying that's what this journalist is involved in that. I think spying, gate-crashing, etc is wrong for anyone to do, and I don't think anyone should be subjected to it. It just struck me when reading that, that is what many celebrities (including Tom Cruise, etc) experience daily.

I was discussing this thread with a friend yesterday, and she said "Doesn't all religion ask you to pay alot of money" My response was "Yes, all CHURCHES ask for money, to pay expenses...heat, electricity, to pay the paster, and the janitor. No one is asked to pay for the knowledge they receive. They don't take away your Bible and kick you out the door if you don't put a 5 in the plate, or if you don't tithe." The church I belong to operates at a loss every year. I rarely give my offering, because buying food for my family is more important at the moment....they haven't kicked me out yet. That's where I, personally, see the difference. If you want the knowledge that scientologist supposedly possess, you have to pay a million dollars (that was the figure I saw most) This is on top of the money you payed for the courses PREVIOUS to becoming an "Operating Theton"

This is a very interesting thread. I feel bad for the reporter.

A religion that condemns psychiatry is like a movie that condemns movie reviewers.

on a side note, that sounds alot like what the media does to celebrities.

Brilliant point.

, They don't take away your Bible and kick you out the door if you don't put a 5 in the plate, or if you don't tithe."

Religious jews exclude people from the community entirely if they they don't keep up their various 'duties'.

P.S. Under your definition, early Christianity was a cult.

Of course it was.

Religious jews exclude people from the community entirely if they they don't keep up their various 'duties'.

I guess a better illustration would be to say...even if you don't tithe, or contribute, that you can still gain the knowledge of the various religions. You can still read the Bible, Torah, or Koran. You can still gain access to the tenets of the religion. Scientology requires you to pay to gain the knowledge. That was more my point...one of the ways I differentiate between a "legit religion" and a cult.

I'd have to agree with one of the people who commented in Youtube, I wouldn't be suprised if it has been altered, after all it's in their own rules to do WHATEVER they can to defeat those who are against them, Slander being on of them.

A religion that condemns psychiatry is like a movie that condemns movie reviewers.

Umm...no, no it really isn't.