Worldclass actress Anne Archer to BBB's John Sweeney: Do I look brainwashed to you? How dare you!

25 views
Skip to first unread message

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
May 23, 2007, 4:28:46 PM5/23/07
to

Check the film clips out. He didn't knew what to answer. This guys is
so sleezy, hysterical and unprofessional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag

barbz

unread,
May 23, 2007, 5:05:31 PM5/23/07
to

"World-famous," maybe.
"World-class," not even close.

Dustin Hoffman is a world-class actor. Anne Archer isn't fit to shine
his shoes.

--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."

Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net

Skipper

unread,
May 23, 2007, 5:23:53 PM5/23/07
to
In article <1179952126.4...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Barbara Schwarz <BarbaraSc...@excite.com> wrote:

Having met her (you haven't), I'd say YES.

Zoidberg

unread,
May 23, 2007, 5:31:24 PM5/23/07
to
"Barbara Schwarz" <BarbaraSc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1179952126.4...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Pull the other one, love.

Anne Archer (we'll gloss over the "worldclass" part) thinking you need to
"look" brainwashed in order to be brainwashed just highlights how out of
touch with reality she is. This comic book opinion she has of brainwashing,
presumably thinking that you need to look pale with dead, staring eyes and
no expression on your face and muttering monotonous hypnotic sentences only
makes her look...well, a bit thick really.

The reality of brainwashing is simply installing a mindset, a particular way
of thinking that is then futher reinforced with selective information and
feedback.

--
Zoidberg.


The Founding Church

unread,
May 23, 2007, 5:48:35 PM5/23/07
to
Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.


Zoidberg

unread,
May 23, 2007, 6:13:39 PM5/23/07
to
"The Founding Church" <PBe...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qld953573jfgn76ui...@4ax.com...

> Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.
>
>

Try none. It's a more accurate figure.
--
Zoidberg.


John

unread,
May 23, 2007, 7:00:35 PM5/23/07
to

"Zoidberg" <zoidber...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:f32eas$qo$1...@energise.enta.net...

Zero is like 6. They're both numbers.


Tony Van Owen

unread,
May 23, 2007, 7:59:59 PM5/23/07
to

"The Founding Church" <PBe...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qld953573jfgn76ui...@4ax.com...
> Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.
>
>

Let us look at the FACTS shall we:

1988 - NOMINATED for an Oscar for Best Actress in a supporting role - Fatal
Attraction - She Lost

As a matter of fact, the only awards she won were for Ensemble Cast for
"Short Cuts" that award was shared by almost 40 people.

Reference: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000271/awards


Funky Donny

unread,
May 23, 2007, 8:09:42 PM5/23/07
to
On 24 May, 00:59, "Tony Van Owen" <tvano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "The Founding Church" <PBen...@Yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:qld953573jfgn76ui...@4ax.com...

>
> > Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.
>
> Let us look at the FACTS shall we:
>
> 1988 - NOMINATED for an Oscar for Best Actress in a supporting role - Fatal
> Attraction - She Lost
>
> As a matter of fact, the only awards she won were for Ensemble Cast for
> "Short Cuts" that award was shared by almost 40 people.

Yep. So world class that she's been stuck in TV hell for twenty years.

barbz

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:24:40 PM5/23/07
to
The Founding Church wrote:
> Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.
>
>
Yeah well like, duh, no she didn't.
She was NOMINATED for Best Supporting Actress for her role in 'Fatal
Attraction' with Michael Douglas.

But that's it. Why do you even bother to lie about shit people can
easily look up?

barbz

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:28:20 PM5/23/07
to
Zero isn't a number.

barbz

unread,
May 23, 2007, 9:31:03 PM5/23/07
to

See, this is the thing...Scientologists will lie, even when they don't
have to or it's easy to look up something.

Like you and I did. Looks like a nomination is as close as she'll ever
get to old Oscar...

Stephen Von Hatten

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:09:58 PM5/23/07
to
This is unfortunate. I would've thought that how good Anne Archer was
beside the point. The point is that Sweeney violated BBC rule but the
BBC defended him. Is there something wrong here? If Scientology is so
bad, then why stage everything to make them bad if they already are?
Yes, methinks something is wrong with that, and I think it's the BBC.

Let's not distract from the issues, "critics." Let's get back on
topic.

Somebody's hiding something here, and I don't think it's the Church of
Scientology.

Are you a critic? Did you watch it? Did you dismiss it as "heresay?"
If this is true, what's the big deal with a Scientologist doing the
same thing?

Remember to ask these three simple questions. Who is the source? Is it
observable? Now is it true? 2 out of 3 isn't too bad.

-Steve

Tony Van Owen

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:30:36 PM5/23/07
to

"Stephen Von Hatten" <stephen....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179972597....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

I was just correcting false data.
I'm not the one who brought it up.

Tony Van Owen


Stephen Von Hatten

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:39:04 PM5/23/07
to
On May 23, 7:30 pm, "Tony Van Owen" <tvano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Stephen Von Hatten" <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179972597....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Tony Van Owen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That doesn't matter. I don't care who started it and crap. The point
is that the topic was diverted. Let's try again, ok?

Any thoughts (on topic)?

-Steve

Funky Donny

unread,
May 23, 2007, 10:42:07 PM5/23/07
to
On 24 May, 03:09, Stephen Von Hatten <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Somebody's hiding something here, and I don't think it's the Church of
> Scientology.

Okay, so who, and what?


John

unread,
May 23, 2007, 11:16:01 PM5/23/07
to

"barbz" <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:TS55i.397329$6P2.3...@newsfe16.phx...

> John wrote:
>> "Zoidberg" <zoidber...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f32eas$qo$1...@energise.enta.net...
>>> "The Founding Church" <PBe...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:qld953573jfgn76ui...@4ax.com...
>>>> Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Try none. It's a more accurate figure.
>>> --
>>
>> Zero is like 6. They're both numbers.
>>
>>
> Zero isn't a number.
>

mathematically I think it is.


butterflygrrrl

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:21:33 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 7:39 pm, Stephen Von Hatten <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I liked you better when you said you weren't coming back.

You're just a cultie.

You were always a cultie.

You just pretended that you weren't for awhile.

Too bad.

How sad.

Stephen Von Hatten

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:27:02 AM5/24/07
to

I like how you use ad hominem attacks. It reminds me of... oh...
nevermind. You wouldn't get it, because you've lost your sense of
humor... and your brain.

Everyone! The post by butterflygrrrl is a perfect example of the
critics that SHOULDN'T be critics. Go ahead and consider me a
"cultie." I'm a Mormon, though, if you ever even knew something.

The critics defending the BBC in this is sickening to me. And I only
came back because I took an interest in Barbara Schwarz's post as I
had referred her to it.

C'mon... hate me... I'm a "cultie." Swamp me with your insults and
personal attacks and "I can't reason because I can't reference a
critic website." C'mon... prove me right, you freaks!

Love,

-Steve

Wyatt....@gmail.com

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:36:37 AM5/24/07
to
Come come my lady, you're my butterfly, suger, baby.

So, this one time, L. Ron and I were sitting in a boat, and L. Ron (I
called him Elwood, like the Keebler Elf cookie), said 'Hey, Wyatt, do
you know what the difference between an apple and a dead baby is?"
"No?"
"I don't ejaculate on an apple before I eat it." Elwood responded.
"Oh my God, that is disgusting!" I retorted.
Then his fucking head turned into an emoticon, and it was the :$, and
I asked what that was, and he said it was all about the money. I
aasked what money, then he told me. Scientology is about money.
Then he raped me. He jammed hsi penis so far in my ass crack that
about ten gallons of Semen burst from inside and out my ears. I could
not see a fucking thing. I was drowning in his mighty Thetan. But
then, then he made me rape him back.
And holy shit, sperm flew everywhere. Then we ate some dead babies.
Then Tom Cruis got in our boat (which we named SeaOrg), and he started
touching my balls. It felt could, so I stuck my errection in his eye.
So much pressure having his face in front of my cock, that I blew the
back of his fucking head off with my ejaculation. I said I was dirty
dancing, but I never thought I would see John Trovolta giving me a
blow job.
Then we started a fire, and 'Ethnic Cleansing' of sorts agains tthe
Jews. Did you know that they won't let us Scientologist adopt babies?


FUCK YOU.

-Wyatt.

Wyatt....@gmail.com

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:39:51 AM5/24/07
to
................... .. ... /´ /)
.................... ..,../¯ ..//
.................... ..../... ./ /
.................... ..,/¯ ..//
.................... ./... ./ /
............./´¯/' ...'/´¯`·¸
........../'/.../... ./... ..../¨¯\
........('(...´(... ....... ,~/'...')
.........\.......... ..... ..\/..../
..........''...\.... ..... . _.·´
............\....... ..... ..(
..............\..... ..... ...\

Wyatt....@gmail.com

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:46:22 AM5/24/07
to
History of L. Ron Hubbard:
Pure Ron, Unadulterated

Dear Diary,
It is my again, L. Ron. Not my Theatan Spirit Zoonex. I have a story
about my time at the bath house and it is so kinky.

I went around to see my friend and when I got there he was in his
bedroom jackin himself off. We had done it before and as soon as I saw
him I dropped my pants and joined him.
After a couple of minutes of jackin he asked me if I would like to
fuck him. I had never seen it done or even thought about it before,
jackin off was our favourite sport.
I said you mean fuck you up the bum and he said yeah - I really feel
like I want to, I have this real urge to have it done to me.
As we talked we continued to wank ourselves.
I said if you like I will, but I don't know if I want to have it done
to me. He said that's ok I just want to try it. I watched some porn
last night and saw a couple of girls get it done and one guy actually
had it done to him by one of them with a plastic strap on cock by one
of the girls.
I said Ok if you really want me to, what happens if I cum. He said I
want you to cum in my bum I want to see what it feels like.
We stopped wanking and got completely undressed like him. He had a
bottle of baby oil which he told me to rub over my cock and around his
ass hole.
Once he was all oily and my cock was covered in it he bent over and
put his bum in the air for me to shove my cock into.
I got behind him and got my hands on the cheeks of his ass and pulled
them apart and put my cock at the opening of his bum.
He said this is fantastic, I can feel your cock right where its going
to go in. I got one hand and I held my cock and guided it right onto
his bum hole and I pushed it in. The head of my cock slipped in easily
with all the oil but then he closed his bum hole and sort of locked me
in. Oh hell he said that was a bit painful but it feels awesome now so
push harder and get it all in.
I pushed harder and my cock went in a bit further and I felt him
shudder a bit and asked him if he was ok. He said your cock hit
something and it made me sort of cum and there was stuff leaking out
of his cock. Then he said now fuck me.
I began o fuck his bum with my cock and I really liked the feeling of
my cock inside his warm tight bum and it felt good sliding in and out
of his bum hole with all the oil. It made a few slurping noises with
all the oil I put on me and him but it felt good. I had never fucked
anybody before so I wondered if it was like fucking a girl. I said to
him I wondered if it was the same and he said wait a minute and and we
can try it like that. I just like the feeling of my cock and balls
swinging about as you fuck me at the moment , so I fucked him for a
few minutes like that as it did feel good. My balls swung about as I
fucked him too until thy hit his ass each time I went in deeply.
As I kept going I felt my cock get all hard and I knew I was nearly
cumming, it felt really different like this with my cock up his bum to
when I wank myself or he wanks me like we have done a few times. It
really felt good and I said I think I am nearly cumming I can feel it
building up and my cock is getting all sensitive on the head. He said
great let me know when you are going to blow it into me, I want to see
what it feels like. Then I said shit its happening and I am cumming
and I have never felt an orgasm feel so good. His warm tight bum was
making it feel great and I shot my cum out of my cock into his ass and
as it blew I said its happening I am cumming and my cum is going up
your bum. I could feel his bum get even wetter with my cum in it and
my cock was sliding a lot easier. He said I can feel it - its
absolutely wonderful, I want to do this again and again, it feels
awesome. Keep fucking me for as long as you can. My cock was almost
soft by then and it slipped out of his bum and dropped beteen my legs,
all covered in cum. I looked at my cock and thought there might be
some shit on it but there wasn't just cum and baby oil. It swelled
nice.
He stood up and came to me and hugged me, at one stage I though he
wanted to kiss me. He said that was the best thing I have ever done.
Then he did something I didn't think he would. As I stood there he
took a tissue and wiped my cock clean of the oil and stuff and then he
got down and put my cock in his mouth and sucked it.
It was pretty soft when he did but it got hard immediately and he
slipped his mouth up and down and held it with his hand and stroked it
and I have never had a sensation like that ever before. He held my
balls and played with them as he sucked me and I thought I was in
heaven.
He sucked me for about 4 or 5 minutes and I kept telling him how good
it felt. Then I wanted to cum and pulled it out of his mouth and said
I am cumming and without a word he put it back into his mouth as the
first spurt came out and splashed on his face.
Then he sucked and swallowed all my cum as it spurted out into his
mouth and I could tell he was really enjoying it. When I was empty and
going soft again he took it out and said there you are thats for
fucking me. I said if you do that every time I will fuck you any time
you like. He said OK now - I want you to fuck me again.
This time he lay on his back and put his legs up on my shoulders and I
shoved my cock into his bum that way. His bum was all covered in oil
still and my cum was beginning to leak out of it as I slipped my cock
in easily this time.
I fucked him like that and he played with his cock as I did it to him
and it was fantastic. I didn't think fucking another boy could be this
good. I kept fucking him and he kept wanking himself and then he said
go hard and fast quick, do it hard and fast and I did and I could see
him starting to cum wanking himself and his cum began to spurt out all
over his tummy and then I came again and spurted up his bam again.
He was singing out like he was really enjoying it. Oh god he said this
is unbelievable, cumming while getting fucked at the same time and
feeling you cumming in me too.
My cock slipped out and he just lay here with a pool of cum running
out of his bum onto the floor, he had two full loads out of my cock in
him. My cock hung down and I still had some cum leaking out. There
were strings of cum leaking out of my cock and dripping down on him.
He lay there and mixed the two lots of cum together and he put his
finger in his mouth and said this is wonderful- try some. I didn't
really want to but I was so sexed up I did and it tasted pretty
horrible to me. Little did I know that the next day I would swallow
his cum twice, and by then it tasted better.
That was my first gay experience - he became a real homosexual and
while I enjoyed having sex with him, I still wanted to do it with a
girl. He and I continued to have sex together for a few months before
he started to get other boys to do it with him and when he did that I
stopped. The guys he went with were older and real gays and he loved
it, and told me all the things they did together.
He told me his initiation was being fucked by one guy, having another
guys cock in his mouth the third guy sucking him and wanking a fourth
guy off all at the same time. Then they all took turns in fucking him
and he said at the end of the night 10 guys had cum in his ass and he
had sucked 5 guys off and he was really sore.
I eventually found a girl and we had sex, which I liked. Even though
my first time with her was good it wasn't as good as the first day I
fucked my friend, that was awesome.

AWESOME.

-L. Ron :)

Wyatt....@gmail.com

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:51:07 AM5/24/07
to
THE ORIENTAL EXPRESS
A SEX ADVENTURE, IN THE ORIENT!
-With L. Ron Hubbard.

I had learned a lot of things about Japan. There were lots of
brochures on it: the land of the rising sun, filled with verdant and
peaceful gardens. Serene, quiet, disciplined - a different world that
was foreign to my British world. It was six months since I looked at
that brochure, and I had been in Japan for two months already. The
first thing that stood out in my mind when I arrived was my
appearance. Being easily over six feet tall, I towered easily over
most of the people. My blonde hair and blue eyes also set me apart, to
the point where people would pay noticeable attention to it, as if it
were completely alien. I guess I couldn't blame them, my friends in
America always said I looked like "Legolas" from the Lord of the Rings
movies. I guess I'd have to agree, my figure was pretty lithe with a
nice muscular contour, and I did have long blonde hair.

One of the many advantages of living in Japan is the great hygiene.
They have bathhouses everywhere. The Japanese, although a bit more
timid than Westerners, have no problem disrobing for a communal bath.
Being only 20, I was a bit timid at nearly everything, but the moment
when I walked inside the bathing room, with the hot steam immersing my
bare body, I knew the initial embarrassment was worth it. It was
around noon, and the place was filled with younger men. I remembered
some of the clients walking in, dressed in expensive business suits
and sleek sunglasses - young urban professionals. They took care of
themselves with, and without, clothes: their bodies were completely
shaved to a perfect smoothness, from what I could see, and their
bodies were well-toned. All of the men were already showered, and were
relaxing in the baths.

I walked to the line of showers in the secluded showering room, and
turned on the water. It was pretty cold, but luckily, it also gave out
heated water. I stood there, with my eyes closed, relaxing at the
initial delight of a dry body being immersed in refreshing water.

"Could you pass soap, please?"

I looked to my right, and there was the most spectacular looking boy
I'd ever seen. I guess high school got out early, because he looked
about sixteen years of age. He had a perfect muscular tone, yet not
too well-built, with amazingly supple ivory skin; it was like he was a
perfect marble statue of a Greek god. He was strikingly attractive.

"Yes, here it is."

I passed him the soap, for which he nodded in thanks. He held the soap
in his hand, but he didn't do anything with it. He just stood there,
still looking at me, as if expecting something more. His lips, a dark
red, and engorged by the steamy-hot room, smiled slightly.

"Wash, please?"

Was it customary in Japan for people to wash each other? Either way, I
was definitely up for it. I stood right behind him, and took the soap.
A bit apprehensive about his intentions, I decided to take it easy. I
began to rub his arms. As they lathered with soap, his soft skin
became shiny and slick, allowing my hands to glide effortlessly along
his hot body. I began to feel blood rush to my cock as I felt with my
hands his developing muscles. He lightly moaned, and he backed up
against me. His backside was pressed firmly against the front of my
body. The first sensation that came up was the sensation of his soft
and firm butt pressed against my loins, my cock resting in-between its
cheeks. It felt intimate, and I knew now that he wanted to fuck. I
instantly fantasized about filling his sweet young body full of my hot
cum. My hands began to run down his chest, admiring his pubescent
pecks and abdomen, where my fingers contoured his six-pack. His arms
reached behind me, and his hands gripped desperately at my butt
cheeks, firmly grasping each in his two hands. My cock, now rock-hard,
was bent upwards, nestled and bound by the fold of his ass. Using the
soap, I lathered his cock, and began to stroke all six inches of it
firmly. Not only was it being... cleaned, my hands were gliding up and
down it with the soap as my aid.

"You wash very good..." he managed to say between his hoarse breaths
and moans

I began to kiss his ear, sucking gently on the lobe, then moving down
to suck and kiss heavily on the side of his neck, my long and unusual
blonde hair falling on his shoulder and pecks as I continued to stroke
his hard cock. His head surrendered on my left shoulder, and I felt
his legs begin to buckle from the overwhelming pleasure. My left arm
wrapped around his waist and my legs intertwined with his own, as my
right hand began to stroke more vigorously than ever. His cock began
to twitch and throb, as streams of cum, more than I ever had seen
before, began to spray forcefully on the shower wall in front of him,
in wave after countless wave, that by its end, covered the wall with
sticky and ivory-white cum.

"You made a very big mess." I whispered sensually in his ear, giving
him shivers.

I realized that my hand was covered in cum, and that his shaft and
balls were covered in it as well.

"Turn around"

He leant against the shower wall, even though it was covered in his
essence, as I knelt down and began to lick greedily at his scrotum,
each testicle like a lollipop, with his cum mixed with a delectable
taste of saltiness and sweetness combined. More strongly, it tasted
like pure sex. I moved up, licking the underside of his cock from its
base to its tip. At the tip, my lips covered the tip of his cock,
swirling my tongue around it. It felt naughty to suck a sixteen year
old's cock, but I loved knowing I was probably the first man to have
him like this. I possessed him entirely. I've tasted him. Now, I had
to completely have him.

I got up, and looked at him, as he continued to lean against the dirty
wall, his young gaze staring directly into my blue eyes. He smiled so
innocently. It made me want to fuck him, hard. I took his hand, and
led him to the steam-room. He did not object.

We went in, and nobody was there. I guess they all were really at the
baths. I locked the door behind us, and immediately shoved him against
the door, my muscled body against his young body. His cock was already
getting hard again; I could feel it growing against me. I began to
kiss him with all desire coursing through me, my tongue and his deeply
mingled in unquenchable lust. Saliva and cum mixed in mouths, and
hands searched and explored as passions collided.

I turned him around, and wrapped both my arms around him tightly,
slamming his body between the wall and my sweat-drenched body. My
shaft ran between the cheeks of his ass smoothly, and entered his body
with slowness. His unbroken ass was incredibly tight; he whimpered and
his legs buckled again, as I entered him.

"I want you cum deep inside me." He managed to get out.

Entering him fully, I withdrew equally slowly, savoring that initial
and virginal entry. I began to thrust forcefully, my body slamming
against his pure and fragile young body with lust. His ass could
barely handle my seven inch cock, but it made it all the more sweet,
as his body gripped my cock as I rammed deep inside.

"Do you want to feel my hot cum shoot up inside of you?" I asked.

"Yes, please... please." He begged, instinctually.

I began to pound him with all my might, my cock throbbing and red. I
came with an unmatched forcefulness. Steams upon streams entered his
body with hot cum, until it had no choice but to drip down his legs
and cover my cock, and drip down my own scrotum and legs. We both
stood there for a few minutes in bliss, my cock still hard inside of
him. The possession was mine. Intimately, I kissed him delicately on
his shoulder and neck. I pulled out of his ass, and sat down on the
bench in the room. He turned around, and slowly approached me. He
looked at me for a few moments, then stared at my cock with desire. He
walked toward me, as I admired his body, with my cum visibly covering
his legs. He knelt between my legs, and began to suck on my cock. I
put my hands on his head.

"Look up at me."

His eyes looked up, as he sucked my cock with an amateur's effort.
Being sixteen, I guess he didn't suck very many cocks. I bet I was his
first.

"How do you like the taste?"

"Delicious. I love your cock. It is so long."

His lips were so tender and soft, too. His tongue swirled around my
shaft as he sucked up and down. Every once in awhile, he'd stop, to
kiss the tip of my cock, his tongue complimenting the kiss with a slow
swirl along the glands. I couldn't help but blow a load into his
mouth, the cum gushing into his mouth, as he swallowed eagerly
following each wave. I guided my cock along his lips, now closed. I
covered them with a bit of cum, massaging the tip of my cock against
his soft, soft lips, which were smiling naughtily. A drop went down
his chin.

"Will you be tomorrow?" He asked, with his broken English.

"Every tomorrow, as long as you cum." I added, with a double-meaning
that he probably didn't grasp.

Dutifully, he came every day in the bathhouse. We've been fucking ever
since, and he's still as adorably fuckable as ever.

Wyatt....@gmail.com

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:53:44 AM5/24/07
to
SHAFTED!
-By L. Ron Hubbard

'm just a normal guy. I grew up in a small town in a neighborhood
where everybody knows everybody. My best friend lived across the
alley in a house just down the street. We used to take some of his
granddads penthouse magazines and go to a gully not far from the
neighbor, but definitely out of sight. We used to take the
opportunity to sit and jerk off to the pictures in the magazines.

On more than one occasion I would watch my friend jerking off and
wonder what it would be like to have his meat in my mouth, but neither
of us ever did anything to that end. But growing up and moving away
never got rid of my curiosity.

As an adult, I would go online and chat with other "curious" men. I
was 28 years old when a man and I started chatting. He lived in a
town close to me and on this day I was feeling particularly horny.
Although I was nervous, I decided to ask if he wanted to get
together. He agreed and we decided to meet at a convenience store.

I got to the store and sat in my car waiting for him to show up. I
saw his car pull into the parking lot and my heart started to race.
He parked next to me and I said I'd follow him.

We left the convenience store and headed toward his how. My heart was
racing. Was I really going to go through with it?

We pulled into his driveway and got out of our cars. I followed him
into his house. There wasn't much conversation. All I can remember
saying for sure was, "I better start or I'm going to lose my nerve."
He said okay and I knelt down in front of him.

I could see the bulge in his pants growing as I undid his belt and
pants. I unzipped his zipper and pulled his pants to the floor. I
then reach around his waist and pulled his underwear down and his cock
popped out right in front of my face.

I reach up and grabbed his cock in my hand and stretched my tongue out
to lick the tip. It tasted kind of salty, but not bad. I closed my
eyes and leaned forward taking the entire length of his cock in my
mouth. I started sucking his cock like I would want mine sucked. He
started moaning and put his hand on the back of my head. After a few
minutes, I found I was really enjoying it and could feel my own cock
growing inside my jeans.

Suddenly, he stopped me and pulled out of my mouth saying, "not yet."
I can only assume he didn't want to cum just yet.

He led me to the bedroom where he sat me on the bed and started
undressing me. I lifted my hips from the bed to help get my pants
off. My cock sprung up from excitement.

I watched him as he dropped his head down around my shaft. It felt
wonderful. But he didn't suck me very long. He lifted off of my
shaft and pushed me further up on the bed and told me to lie back.

I did and he began licking the length of my cock. I was in ecstacy.
He was doing everything I wanted done. Then he surprised me.

I felt him lick my balls and he continued to my ass. His tongue
pressed into my tight little hole. He started forcing his tongue into
my ass and I could feel his mustache rubbing against the skin between
my balls and ass. My cock was jumping from the stimulation.

He continued licking my ass and without warning he shoved a finger
deep inside me. He started thrusting and all I could do was moan.
What a wonderful feeling. Before I knew it, I couldn't hold back any
longer and shot after shot of my cum landed on my chest. I had just
cum without him touching my cock. I came from his finger inside my
ass.

He could feel my ass tight around his finger and he knew I shot my
load. I just laid there still. He stood up between my legs and began
jerking off. It took mere seconds and his cum was landing on mine on
my chest.

I sat up and dropped on my knees in front of him again and took his
cock into my mouth and sucked the remaining cum out.

He went and got a towel and wiped off the results from my chest. I
got dressed and left and never talked to him after that, but I had
gotten my first taste and fulfilled my curiosity.

Eldon

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:56:30 AM5/24/07
to
On May 24, 5:16 am, "John" <j...@junk.com> wrote:
> "barbz" <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:TS55i.397329$6P2.3...@newsfe16.phx...
>
>
>
> > John wrote:
> >> "Zoidberg" <zoidbergwhy...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:f32eas$qo$1...@energise.enta.net...
> >>> "The Founding Church" <PBen...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >>>news:qld953573jfgn76ui...@4ax.com...
> >>>> Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.
>
> >>> Try none. It's a more accurate figure.
> >>> --
>
> >> Zero is like 6. They're both numbers.
>
> > Zero isn't a number.
>
> mathematically I think it is.

Strictly speaking, 0 and 8 are ~numerals~ that designate quantity. In
the case of zero, a non-quantity. The number six is the cans of beer
you bring home when you buy a six-pack. The "number" zero is how many
you see in the fridge after you drank all of them.

butterflygrrrl

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:58:42 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 9:27 pm, Stephen Von Hatten <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com>

So, calling you a cultie is an insult, but calling critics freaks
isn't?

The cult ate your brain.

butterflygrrrl

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:00:11 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 9:27 pm, Stephen Von Hatten <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> critics that SHOULDN'T be critics.

Excuse me? So, we can only expose the crimes and abuses of your cult
if we have your permission?

LOL!

Eldon

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:01:49 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 11:31 pm, "Zoidberg" <zoidbergwhy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "Barbara Schwarz" <BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com> wrote in message

True, there really aren't specific overt signs that can be recognized,
and I suspect different people are affected in various ways. In Tom
Cruise's case, however, it seems to induced manic behavior.
>
> --
> Zoidberg.


Victo...@gmail.com

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:03:11 AM5/24/07
to
Hey, bitch, the only ignoring going on is you. Did you read those
fucking stories? WHAT THE FUCK WERE THOSE THINGS?
And yes, Scientology is a cult that you pay for. Help isn't free Fuck
humanity. Charge them to get better.

HA HA!

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:07:53 AM5/24/07
to
On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:31:24 +0100, "Zoidberg"
<zoidber...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>Anne Archer (we'll gloss over the "worldclass" part) thinking you need to

Considering that people only remember her for a small supporting role
from about 20 years ago...

--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainment
http://www.xenu.de

Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.

Find broken links on your web site: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
The Xenu bookstore: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/bookstore.html

Stephen Von Hatten

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:15:21 AM5/24/07
to
> The cult ate your brain.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Try this on for size:

You alienate other "critics" who don't agree with your perspective.
Sounds like the critics have been infiltrated, or the critics are just
some closed circut making you a cult. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=mnNSe5XYp6E) I posted my opinion (BBC is full of shit) and you come
back saying "oh you were always a Scientologist" which is weird
because on the opposite spectrum (OSA), they are telling me I never
was a Scientologist.

So don't tell me if I was or wasn't. I think I can make up my own
mind. In the meantime,

http://www.xenu.net/
http://www.torymagoo.org/
http://www.shuttingthedoor.zoomshare.com/

-Steve

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:24:42 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 3:05 pm, barbz <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:

> Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> > Check the film clips out. He didn't knew what to answer. This guys is
> > so sleezy, hysterical and unprofessional.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_g
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYM
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag
>
> "World-famous," maybe.
> "World-class," not even close.
>
> Dustin Hoffman is a world-class actor. Anne Archer isn't fit to shine
> his shoes.

Dustin Hoffman is a guy, Anne Archer is a lady. You can't compare a
man with a woman.
Anyway, I would not allow you to shine my shoes, Barbzzzzzzzzzzz
Babbles.


Exposing p$ychiatric agents and trolls:
if you are intelligent and think for yourself, they defame, libel, and
abuse you as being mentally ill. If you are not intelligent and don't
think for yourself but adopt their mentally retarded, narrow, false,
insecure, and hate filled opinions, they call you sane. - Thanks, I
rather be my own thinking person. -- Barbara Schwarz

And by the way: Wikipedia (Wikipiggi) lies.


butterflygrrrl

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:26:16 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 10:15 pm, Stephen Von Hatten <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com>
> -Steve- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

According to whom?

You?

LOL!

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:27:07 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 3:23 pm, Skipper <skipspaml...@charter.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1179952126.433288.311...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Barbara Schwarz <BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com> wrote:
> > Check the film clips out. He didn't knew what to answer. This guys is
> > so sleezy, hysterical and unprofessional.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_g
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYM
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag
>
> Having met her (you haven't), I'd say YES.

I think she conducts herself very gracefully. I never read that she
was involved in any scandals.

What makes you think that a screaming reporter isn't brainwashed?

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:33:38 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 3:31 pm, "Zoidberg" <zoidbergwhy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "Barbara Schwarz" <BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179952126.4...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Check the film clips out. He didn't knew what to answer. This guys is
> > so sleezy, hysterical and unprofessional.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_g
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYM
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag
>
> Pull the other one, love.
>
> Anne Archer

You should watch the clips. The only one who looks like he has washing
powder and foam in his head is Sweeney.


>
> The reality of brainwashing is simply installing a mindset, a particular way
> of thinking that is then futher reinforced with selective information and
> feedback.
>

> --
> Zoidberg.

Anybody has his/her way of thinking. If that was you define as
brainwashed is indeed brainwashing, what makes you think that you are
not brainwashed? You hate religion and you push p$ychatric lines.
Sounds brain-dirty to me.

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:41:59 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 3:48 pm, The Founding Church <PBen...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.

You don't need to win adacemy awards to be a good actress. Moreover, p
$ychs control who gets academy awards. That's why I didn't win any
academy award for the movies, in which I played the leading female
role, e.g. the great dramas: "Heaven and hell and nothing in between"
or "The child that was left behind".

I blame the p$ychs because I gave star performances.

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:46:04 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 5:59 pm, "Tony Van Owen" <tvano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "The Founding Church" <PBen...@Yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:qld953573jfgn76ui...@4ax.com...

>
> > Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.
>
> Let us look at the FACTS shall we:
>
> 1988 - NOMINATED for an Oscar for Best Actress in a supporting role - Fatal
> Attraction - She Lost
>
> As a matter of fact, the only awards she won were for Ensemble Cast for
> "Short Cuts" that award was shared by almost 40 people.
>
> Reference:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000271/awards

As I said, p$ychs make the decision secretly. They tell the academy
voters what votes to cast.

I starred in thew comedy: "Xenu wants to date me - but I don't want
this old mouldy SP." I didn't win an academy award either. I should
but I didn't. You don't believe me? Well, then check the academy award
records and see for yourself.

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:49:54 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 8:09 pm, Stephen Von Hatten <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is unfortunate. I would've thought that how good Anne Archer was
> beside the point.

I agree. That was the point of the posting in the first place.

> The point is that Sweeney violated BBC rule but the
> BBC defended him. Is there something wrong here? If Scientology is so
> bad, then why stage everything to make them bad if they already are?
> Yes, methinks something is wrong with that, and I think it's the BBC.

That is true, there is something awfully wrong with reporters who act
like Sweeney. No wonder that he then goes crazy and screams when all
his OWs fall in his face.

>
> Let's not distract from the issues, "critics." Let's get back on
> topic.
>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_ghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag


>
> Somebody's hiding something here, and I don't think it's the Church of
> Scientology.
>
> Are you a critic? Did you watch it? Did you dismiss it as "heresay?"
> If this is true, what's the big deal with a Scientologist doing the
> same thing?
>
> Remember to ask these three simple questions. Who is the source? Is it
> observable? Now is it true? 2 out of 3 isn't too bad.
>
> -Steve

Instead of watching the clips, many posters just bad mouthed Anne
Archer who had all rights to tell Sweeney what she did. And she didn't
scream at him.

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:51:50 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 10:27 pm, Stephen Von Hatten <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com>

Butterlie could be Sweeneys daughter, Steve. She is hysterical (in a
bad sense) too.

Barbara Schwarz

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:55:27 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 10:56 pm, Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote:
> On

Anyway, take a look at the clips:


Is that professional journalism? Sweeney is a disgrace to his
profession.

butterflygrrrl

unread,
May 24, 2007, 1:57:14 AM5/24/07
to
On May 23, 10:41 pm, Barbara Schwarz <barbara.schw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>p$ychs control who gets academy awards.

You are even crazier than I thought.

Eldon

unread,
May 24, 2007, 2:33:12 AM5/24/07
to
On May 24, 7:07 am, Tilman Hausherr <tilman-use...@snafu.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:31:24 +0100, "Zoidberg"
>
> <zoidbergwhy...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >Anne Archer (we'll gloss over the "worldclass" part) thinking you need to
>
> Considering that people only remember her for a small supporting role
> from about 20 years ago...

Just to save time, Archer's bit part appears in the second video just
after midway if you let it load and then drag the thingie to fast
forward, you can avoid the rest.

Interesting editing, with numerous quick cuts of Sweeney uttering the
word "brainwashed" like a mantra. Oh, the magic of non-linear
editing!

Interesting that Babbles posted three links for the entire smear piece
in order to reference a few seconds of video. "Check the clips out. He
didn't know what to answer." Well, actually, his answer (if any) was
cut. Bwahaha.

Interesting also that Anne Archer and the other "world class" celebs
demanded to have their interviews removed from the BBC show. Yet she
obviously consented to appear in this "documentary."

Pretty lame, even pathetic. Poor cult. But hey, here's a thought. What
if Tom C. and Tommy D. did a "separated twins" movie? Anne could play
mom.

> Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP5.55] Entheta * Enturbulation * Entertainmenthttp://www.xenu.de

Zoidberg

unread,
May 24, 2007, 5:59:17 AM5/24/07
to

"Barbara Schwarz" <barbara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179984818.3...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

You quite clearly have not understood what it is that I said in my post. Or
do you choose not to understand it on principle?

--
Zoidberg.


Rev. Norle Enturbulata, COD

unread,
May 24, 2007, 6:43:16 AM5/24/07
to

"Stephen Von Hatten" <stephen....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179972597....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

> This is unfortunate. I would've thought that how good Anne Archer was
> beside the point.

Well, it's the subject of this thread, so stick with the subject, unless of
course Scientology processing has so degraded your ability to discern
reality that you don't understand what a "thread" is.

--
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/panorama-scientology-and-me/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2535187,00.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology
http://xenu.com-it.net/txt/ildikoe.htm
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.scientology-lies.com
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
http://www.scientology-kills.org

Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
* " You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way
you can control anybody is to lie to them."
* -- L. Ron Hubbard, "Technique 88"
*
* "...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her
crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes
exist...."
* L. Ron Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", November 5, 1967
*
* "All men shall be my slaves! All women shall succumb to my charms! All
mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!"
- L. Ron Hubbard, "Personal Affirmations"


Rev. Norle Enturbulata, COD

unread,
May 24, 2007, 6:47:44 AM5/24/07
to

"Funky Donny" <eddie.s...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1179974527.1...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 May, 03:09, Stephen Von Hatten <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>> Somebody's hiding something here, and I don't think it's the Church of
>> Scientology.
>
> Okay, so who, and what?

"Hatten" - Interesting handle, that, isn't it, considering Scientology's
practice of "hatting" someone to go forth and spam the newsgroup, for
instance.

The "somebody's hiding" bit is sooo awfully clammy, in the "What are your
crimes" section, under ad-hominem attacks.

barbz

unread,
May 24, 2007, 9:27:36 AM5/24/07
to
Stephen Von Hatten wrote:
> On May 23, 7:30 pm, "Tony Van Owen" <tvano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Stephen Von Hatten" <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179972597....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is unfortunate. I would've thought that how good Anne Archer was
>>> beside the point. The point is that Sweeney violated BBC rule but the

>>> BBC defended him. Is there something wrong here? If Scientology is so
>>> bad, then why stage everything to make them bad if they already are?
>>> Yes, methinks something is wrong with that, and I think it's the BBC.
>>> Let's not distract from the issues, "critics." Let's get back on
>>> topic.
>>> Somebody's hiding something here, and I don't think it's the Church of
>>> Scientology.
>>> Are you a critic? Did you watch it? Did you dismiss it as "heresay?"
>>> If this is true, what's the big deal with a Scientologist doing the
>>> same thing?
>>> Remember to ask these three simple questions. Who is the source? Is it
>>> observable? Now is it true? 2 out of 3 isn't too bad.
>>> -Steve
>> I was just correcting false data.
>> I'm not the one who brought it up.
>>
>> Tony Van Owen- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That doesn't matter. I don't care who started it and crap. The point
> is that the topic was diverted. Let's try again, ok?> Any thoughts (on topic)?
>
> -Steve
>

Thoughts? Sure. Like I think how curious it is that the cult version has
a totally different slant than the same footage presented by BBC.
Like, what led up to Sweeney's exasperated meltdown, for instance.
Like how Davis' voice is muted in the cult version so you can't hear his
nasty little commentary.

Like how some people are so stupid and gullible, they fall for the
cult's version, which is a vignette of the whole episode.

Like how PT Barnum was right...

--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."

Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net

barbz

unread,
May 24, 2007, 9:36:33 AM5/24/07
to
Stephen Von Hatten wrote:
> On May 23, 9:21 pm, butterflygrrrl <butterflygrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 23, 7:39 pm, Stephen Von Hatten <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I liked you better when you said you weren't coming back.
>>
>> You're just a cultie.
>>
>> You were always a cultie.
>>
>> You just pretended that you weren't for awhile.
>>
>> Too bad.
>>
>> How sad.
>
> I like how you use ad hominem attacks. It reminds me of... oh...
> nevermind. You wouldn't get it, because you've lost your sense of
> humor... and your brain.
>
> Everyone! The post by butterflygrrrl is a perfect example of the
> critics that SHOULDN'T be critics. Go ahead and consider me a
> "cultie." I'm a Mormon, though, if you ever even knew something.
>
> The critics defending the BBC in this is sickening to me. And I only
> came back because I took an interest in Barbara Schwarz's post as I
> had referred her to it.
>
> C'mon... hate me... I'm a "cultie." Swamp me with your insults and
> personal attacks and "I can't reason because I can't reference a
> critic website." C'mon... prove me right, you freaks!
>
> Love,
>
> -Steve
>

Yawn. Ta ta, Steve. Smell you later.

Kilia

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:47:54 PM5/24/07
to
I'm really surprised and saddened to see that Steve is defending the CoS
here.
Why, Steve??

Kilia

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:52:12 PM5/24/07
to
Yes, Steve....please give us your interpretation of who's hiding and
specifically WHAT they are hiding.
Thank you!

Funky Donny wrote:
> On 24 May, 03:09, Stephen Von Hatten <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com>


> wrote:
>
>> Somebody's hiding something here, and I don't think it's the Church
>> of Scientology.
>

jerald

unread,
May 24, 2007, 12:09:08 PM5/24/07
to
> xenub...@netscape.net- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I noticed the same things Barbz did Steve. Watch both videos and you
will see the same thing also. When scientology messes with the sound
and edits the tape its hard for you to defend them. But yet here you
are trying.
What about the action's of scientology here? Showing up in the middle
of the night at a hotel they shouldn't have even known about. Showing
up on the street with Shawns info during his interview, just how did
they know?
Are we even seeing the same clips here? I see time and time again
Davis getting right up into Sweeny's face and yelling. This is how a
church spokesman acts?

This is part of what confuses me at times about scientology. Davis I
bet got a huge pat on the back for how he handled all this. But
everyone I have talked to that has seen the BBC show thinks he is a
ass in the way he acted. Most think Sweeny should have decked him.
The world just doesn't see things the way the members of scientology
have been taught to.

What scientology thinks of as a win the world looks at and say's WTF?
How could they be so stupid. This is one of those times.


jerald

Tony Van Owen

unread,
May 24, 2007, 9:58:43 PM5/24/07
to
In the prior message:

--

Okay, we will go back to the orginal post, which btw is missing from this
message, so I'll repost it below:

From: Barbara Schwarz <BarbaraSc...@excite.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

Subject: Worldclass actress Anne Archer to BBB's John Sweeney: Do I look
brainwashed to you?
How dare you!

Check the film clips out. He didn't knew what to answer. This guys is
so sleezy, hysterical and unprofessional.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag


The first thing that came to my mind, and this might seem off topic, was:
"Is this how a church spends the money of it's members?"

Now, on to the original question posed in the original post.
We are talking about a small part of the entire video.

There are so many cuts and camera angles going on there and the context is completely lost.
The montage is *Probably* Mr. Sweeney asking the same question of a bunch of different people to see how each one would
answer the question.

It's just like the yelling portion of the video that was released before the program aired. It is devoid of proper context.

How many other questions were *not* shown being asked? I guess we won't know that since all we get to see is highly edited
video that was purposely put together to make it appear that the reporter was biased against the church.

And since the church had lawyers send out letters to stop the interviews from being shown on the BBC report, all we get to
see is the churches version of events.

My *guess*, going by the history of the church trying to control anything said about it, is that this was planned.
I don't think that they intended to let the interviews go on the air from the get go. I think they were trying to accomplish
a couple of things:
1 was to waste time and money of the BBC.
2 was so that they could do exactly what they did, edit the whole thing and show it out of context so that the viewer gets a
biased view of the reporter.

In respect to the non response to Anne Archer, the cut away shot to Mr. Sweeney could have been him listening to an answer
from one of the people he was interviewing. He could have been listening to Tommy Davis or someone else in the room ranting
about something. He could have been asked a question about what his crimes were. I don't know because we don't see the thing
without a bunch of camera cuts.

Give me enough raw footage and I could make the kindest, nicest person in the world seem like an insane lunatic.

It's like taking a movie trailer and changing the sound. voice overs, and text displayed to make it into the exact opposite
of what it is.

Some of my favorite reworked movie trailers below:

The Shining re-edited into a trailer for a romantic drama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPMnnDsnxFI

THE ORIGINAL Scary 'Mary Poppins' Recut Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T5_0AGdFic

A Christmas Story Recut to a Horror Movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsGkK77f06g

Now, on the other hand, Tommy Davis showing up at the hotel,
showing up and interupting the interview with Shawn and reading
off his history, which Shawn himself admitted to prior to Tommy showing up,
shows that the chruch is still the same as it was and has always been.
It's this kind of thing that does them the most damage.

This is just my personal opinion, YMMV.

~~ Tony Van Owen ~~


Barbara Schwarz

unread,
May 25, 2007, 7:01:14 PM5/25/07
to
On May 24, 7:58 pm, "Tony Van Owen" <tvano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In the prior message:
> From:BarbaraSchwarz<BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>
> Subject: Worldclass actress Anne Archer to BBB's John Sweeney: Do I look
> brainwashed to you?
> How dare you!
>
> Check the film clips out. He didn't knew what to answer. This guys is
> so sleezy, hysterical and unprofessional.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_ghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag

>
> The first thing that came to my mind, and this might seem off topic, was:
> "Is this how a church spends the money of it's members?"

Why should they allow sleezy reporters step all over them? As more
lies are out on Scientology, as more individual Scientologists have to
suffer in society or also their families, if not all are Scios.


>
> Now, on to the original question posed in the original post.
> We are talking about a small part of the entire video.
>
> There are so many cuts and camera angles going on there and the context is completely lost.
> The montage is *Probably* Mr. Sweeney asking the same question of a bunch of different people to see how each one would
> answer the question.

Isn't that how Sweeney and other reporters report?


>
> It's just like the yelling portion of the video that was released before the program aired. It is devoid of proper context.

It doesn't matter what happened. Why is he allowed to scream? If Tom
Cruise would have done it, you all would have said that he is crazy.
If Sweeney does it, it is sane.


>
> How many other questions were *not* shown being asked? I guess we won't know that since all we get to see is highly edited
> video that was purposely put together to make it appear that the reporter was biased against the church.

He asked constantly the same insulting question: are you brainwashed,
by not even knowing what he was talking about.


>
> And since the church had lawyers send out letters to stop the interviews from being shown on the BBC report, all we get to
> see is the churches version of events.

All you saw on BBC was Sweeney's version of events.


>
> My *guess*, going by the history of the church trying to control anything said about it, is that this was planned.

Isn't that rather what the critics of Scientology are doing?

> I don't think that they intended to let the interviews go on the air from the get go. I think they were trying to accomplish
> a couple of things:
> 1 was to waste time and money of the BBC.

Your posting is one of the weirdest I have read. BBC makes money with
reporting. It was their business decision to attract more viewers with
a report about SCN. C of S didn't ask the BBC to send Sweeney.

> 2 was so that they could do exactly what they did, edit the whole thing and show it out of context so that the viewer gets a
> biased view of the reporter.

Sweeney is anything but a qualified reporter. He is baised and his
questions and hysterical behavior shows that he has lose screws.

>
> In respect to the non response to Anne Archer, the cut away shot to Mr. Sweeney could have been him listening to an answer
> from one of the people he was interviewing.

You should see that clip again. Your idol screaming Sweeney DID NOT
KNOW WHAT TO ANSWER. He just smirked. How dare that man insulting any
Scientologist he talked to asking him: are you brainwashed? Imagine
somebody would go to the BBC and ask the reporters there constantly:
Are you brainwashed? Would they appreciate it?


>He could have been listening to Tommy Davis or someone else in the room ranting
> about something. He could have been asked a question about what his crimes were. I don't know because we don't see the thing
> without a bunch of camera cuts.
>
> Give me enough raw footage and I could make the kindest, nicest person in the world seem like an insane lunatic.

Like what you guys do with me on Wikipedia?


Exposing p$ychiatric agents and trolls:
if you are intelligent and think for yourself, they defame, libel, and
abuse you as being mentally ill. If you are not intelligent and don't
think for yourself but adopt their mentally retarded, narrow, false,
insecure, and hate filled opinions, they call you sane. - Thanks, I
rather be my own thinking person. -- Barbara Schwarz

And by the way: Wikipedia (Wikipiggi) lies.

There is another hysterical anti-religious spammer, hate monger and
defamer who calls herself Butterflygrrrl, (also called the "Outhouse-
fly") from Sheridan, Oregon,
(butterfly_grrl...@yahoo.com).

She posts like a drunk or psychiatric drugged fruitcake and forged my
posting on Usenet.
She's asking to be sued without providing her address for service. She
is defaming, libeling, harassing, and abusing numerous people and
thinks that there is no legal way to hold her accountable for her
unlawful behavior. (She also posts on alt.gossip.celebrities, which
figures as gossiping is all she can.)

She is stupid, hateful and uneducated but thinks she is superior to
just about anyone. What else does she has to hide by concealing her
true ID?


IP address: 12.108.17.174
Reverse DNS: host-12-108-17-174.wbcable.net.
Reverse DNS authenticity: [Verified]
ASN: 7018
ASN Name: ATT-INTERNET4
IP range connectivity: 1
Registrar (per ASN): ARIN
Country (per IP registrar): US [United States]
Country Currency: USD [United States Dollars]
Country IP Range: 12.0.0.0 to 13.255.255.255
Country fraud profile: Normal
City (per outside source): Sheridan, Oregon
Country (per outside source): US [United States]
Private (internal) IP? No
IP address registrar: whois.arin.net
Known Proxy? No
Link for WHOIS: 12.108.17.174

>

Stephen Von Hatten

unread,
May 25, 2007, 9:52:13 PM5/25/07
to
> > How sad.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

It's ad-hominem. Not everything the CoS does is bad, just like not all
the things it does is good. I give them credit where it is deserved.
I'm not going to just dismiss them just because they do some bad
things here and there. We can talk about those, but the CoS has won
the battle on this one... at least in my opinion.

-Steve

Stephen Von Hatten

unread,
May 25, 2007, 9:55:04 PM5/25/07
to
> > Okay, so who, and what?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I think Sweeney was very disrespectful (keep in mind, there's a
difference between a journalist and a critic) and was doing the
interview for the wrong reasons. Although it showed some truth (like
CoS harrassing or following him around) I don't think that exploding
at Davis and his obsession with "brainwashing" was very ethical.
Especially when *HE* begins harrassing on the other end... as a
journalist during the making of the documentary.

-Steve

Stephen Von Hatten

unread,
May 25, 2007, 9:57:55 PM5/25/07
to
> jerald- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I guess after seeing Sweeney with his interviews of people whom *I*
respect, I guess I just tend to lose respect for the heckler. And when
critics defend his biased aggressive behavior (inspite of the policy
of BBC which he knowingly disobeyed) and BBC defends him, I guess I
just begin to lose respect for critics, Sweeney, and the BBC.

-Steve

Zinj

unread,
May 25, 2007, 10:26:51 PM5/25/07
to
In article <1180144333....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
stephen....@gmail.com says...

<snip>



> It's ad-hominem. Not everything the CoS does is bad, just like not all
> the things it does is good. I give them credit where it is deserved.
> I'm not going to just dismiss them just because they do some bad
> things here and there. We can talk about those, but the CoS has won
> the battle on this one... at least in my opinion.
>
> -Steve

Wrong. 'Everything' the 'Church' of Scientology does is 'bad'
because *everything* serves a single 'evil' purpose.

It's seldom as bad as the 'Church' would wish it, but, that's only
because Scientology *doesn't work*

If it did; it would be much worse.

"Therefore, we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon
is produced. Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's 1984?
Yes,yes, that's wonderful. That would be--- could be the palest
imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the
secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence."

L. Ron Hubbard Library altered version of PDC tape 20 (before the
alteration)

Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think

barbz

unread,
May 26, 2007, 2:57:07 AM5/26/07
to
How fascinating that you see nothing wrong with the cult's stalking him
throughout this broadcast. Or did you even bother to notice?
I wonder how well you'd hold your temper after two weeks of being
followed, surprised and interrupted while trying to do your job by a
cheap Tom Cruise knock-off?

That was bad enough. But then, the cult simply can't help going over the
top and lying about the Beeb arranging for a picket. And if comments on
NPR and other blogs are any indication, the dumb culties have just
lapped up that lie, along with all the others. It's simultaneously sad
and infuriating. One is tempted to smack the wide-eyed gullibility right
off their faces.

--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."

Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net

Eldon

unread,
May 26, 2007, 8:02:28 AM5/26/07
to

Oh, there you go nitpicking again! In fact, the picket was arranged
and staged by some nasty SPs. Furthermore, they must have told the
BBC the picket would occur. So obviously the Beeb conspired with them
to film their evil picket.

How's that for spin? Not so good, huh? Well, it was the best I could
do ;-).

> And if comments on
> NPR and other blogs are any indication, the dumb culties have just
> lapped up that lie, along with all the others. It's simultaneously sad
> and infuriating. One is tempted to smack the wide-eyed gullibility right
> off their faces.
>
> --
> "I'm for the separation of church and hate."
>
> Barb
> Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)

> xenub...@netscape.net


Tony Van Owen

unread,
May 26, 2007, 8:32:53 AM5/26/07
to
In the prior message:
|| The first thing that came to my mind, and this might seem off topic, was:
|| "Is this how a church spends the money of it's members?"
|
| Why should they allow sleezy reporters step all over them? As more
| lies are out on Scientology, as more individual Scientologists have to
| suffer in society or also their families, if not all are Scios.
||
|| Now, on to the original question posed in the original post.
|| We are talking about a small part of the entire video.
||
|| There are so many cuts and camera angles going on there and the context is completely lost.
|| The montage is *Probably* Mr. Sweeney asking the same question of a bunch of different people to see how each one would
|| answer the question.
|
| Isn't that how Sweeney and other reporters report?

I don't know about his history of reporting, this is the first I have seen of him.
Do some reporters do smear jobs? Yes.
But we are not talking about reporters here, are we?
We are talking about a church, right?
The "most ethical people on the planet", right?
The clips in question *are* from *their* video.

||
|| It's just like the yelling portion of the video that was released before the program aired. It is devoid of proper
|| context.
|
| It doesn't matter what happened. Why is he allowed to scream? If Tom
| Cruise would have done it, you all would have said that he is crazy.
| If Sweeney does it, it is sane.

If you saw the original, non chruch version of the incident, you would notice theat Tommy
was going back to a prior incident (hmmm, I did not see the irony in that until I proof read this.)
that had nothing to do with the subject of the day.

Not only that, Tommy started yelling first, and if you noticed, Mr. Sweeney stopped in the middle
of the yelling and went back to a normal tone and asked Tommy rather calmly if he understood what he was saying.
Tommy just kept *nattering* away so Sweeney went back to trying to get the point through to Tommy.

If someone had hounded Tom Cruise like the church hounded Sweeney, and Tom was in Sweeney's place,
I would not have a problem with him yelling at the guy to get his point across. But that's me.

||
|| How many other questions were *not* shown being asked? I guess we won't know that since all we get to see is highly edited
|| video that was purposely put together to make it appear that the reporter was biased against the church.
|
| He asked constantly the same insulting question: are you brainwashed,
| by not even knowing what he was talking about.

We saw countless repeats and cuts. Maybe he had to keep asking the question
because no one really gave a straight answer.
I personally don't think that modern reporters push hard enough sometimes, especially
when it comes to politicians sidetracking issues and giving non answers.
I like to see a reporter get straight answers to questions, it's something you don't see enough of these days.
I respect people who give straight and honest answers.

Was it professional of him, not really, I think he slipped up a bit, but I can understand it.
Who in this world has never slipped up in life or at their job at some point or another?

Of course his questions were not even shown in their entirity, so we don't have complete context on this either, do we?

Now, what I would *like* to see is all of the interviews he did, complete and uncut.
I think then and only then will we know what really happened in that room that day.
I'd like to see everything, not just the interviews, but what went on in between.
I bet that in itself is hours of video though, and we probably won't get the chance to see it.

So what we have is an interview session that probably went on for hours all boiled down into 1 minute 57 seconds
of being shown Sweeney asking a specific set of questions and not a whole lot of answers being given in return.
It's purposely edited like that to make him look like he is hounding someone relentlessly.
I don't like those kind of tactics from the press, documentary film makers or chruches.

We still do not know what other questions he may have asked, or was not allowed to ask, of the celebs in question.
And as I stated above, we don't even hear the questions that *are* included in the clips in their entirity.

||
|| And since the church had lawyers send out letters to stop the interviews from being shown on the BBC report, all we get to
|| see is the churches version of events.
|
| All you saw on BBC was Sweeney's version of events.

Yes, this is in fact true.

But did the BBC, Sweeney and anyone eles involved on the other (non church side) get lawyers
to send out letters to stop the chruch from including them in their video?

||
|| My *guess*, going by the history of the church trying to control anything said about it, is that this was planned.
|
| Isn't that rather what the critics of Scientology are doing?

I believe that the intent of the Panorama video was to see if the church had changed it's ways as they have claimed.
They had the power to make the chruch look respectable, and they failed at it.
Tommy Davis really blew it on this one.
I have *never* seen any other chruch offical,
other than one from the chruch of scientology, act like that...*ever*.

If they had acted respectably, any percieved attack on them would have made
the BBC video look like a plain, mean attack piece.

|
|| I don't think that they intended to let the interviews go on the air from the get go. I think they were trying to
|| accomplish a couple of things:
|| 1 was to waste time and money of the BBC.
|
| Your posting is one of the weirdest I have read. BBC makes money with
| reporting. It was their business decision to attract more viewers with
| a report about SCN. C of S didn't ask the BBC to send Sweeney.

Like I said, it's a theory. I could be completely wrong, but the chruch likes to attack, distract, and generally make
things as difficult as possible to anyone they preceive as a threat.

Unfortunatly, because the chruch could not get the BBC to agree to doing
the show the exact way they wanted, Sweeney and the BBC *immediately*
are assumed to be (in the terms of the church) *suppressive*.
At that point the chruch goes into attack mode, after all it's policy right? Aattack *never* defend.

At least the show contacted the chruch to try and get it's side and work something out to that end.
When was the last time the church contacted someone to get their side of the story before investigating them?

|
|| 2 was so that they could do exactly what they did, edit the whole thing and show it out of context so that the viewer
|| gets a biased view of the reporter.
|
| Sweeney is anything but a qualified reporter. He is baised and his
| questions and hysterical behavior shows that he has lose screws.
|

First, what qualifications would it take to make Mr. Sweeney qualified?
What makes you think he went into the filming of the show biased?
Does he have a history doing reports on the church?
He may have gone in at the start impartial, and become biased because of what he found and what was happening to him.
I'm not saying that is fact, but we won't know since the chruch decided to go the route it did.

||
|| In respect to the non response to Anne Archer, the cut away shot to Mr. Sweeney could have been him listening to an answer
|| from one of the people he was interviewing.
|
| You should see that clip again. Your idol screaming Sweeney DID NOT
| KNOW WHAT TO ANSWER. He just smirked. How dare that man insulting any
| Scientologist he talked to asking him: are you brainwashed? Imagine
| somebody would go to the BBC and ask the reporters there constantly:
| Are you brainwashed? Would they appreciate it?
|

First off, I have never said thaat Mr. Sweeney is my idol. I don't have any idols, thank you very much.
Second, there was only one place in that video where he was screaming, and it was in no way related to the celeb interviews.
As I said before, that reaction shot could have been taken at anytime he was sitting in that chair.
It's called editing, and it allows one to take a clip and insert it where you want to show it.
You are making the assumption that the shot was in reaction to Anne Archer, because that was where it was shown.
As I said before, there was a *lot* of editing going on there.
I see alot of film before and after editing, and in my opinion, something about that shot is not right.
It's nothing I can prove, but I do trust my gut when it comes to these things.
If you can show me the unedited footage of it, and it proves I'm wrong, I'll be the first person to adimit it.

As to the question of the BBC reports being asked if they are brainwashed:
If someone was filming a documentary on the BBC and they were asked, I'm sure that they would answer the question.
Would they appreciate it? Probably not.

But the question in relationship to the chruch is valid. Why?
Because it is something that critics and other media have said for years
and the reporters are trying to get the churches side of the story.

|
|| He could have been listening to Tommy Davis or someone else in the room ranting
|| about something. He could have been asked a question about what his crimes were. I don't know because we don't see the
|| thing without a bunch of camera cuts.
||
|| Give me enough raw footage and I could make the kindest, nicest person in the world seem like an insane lunatic.
|
| Like what you guys do with me on Wikipedia?
|

I don't even use Wikipedia all that much. Just an occasional look here and there.
As a matter of fact I don't think that I've ever looked at the page on you.

--


"If you leave this room after seeing this film, and walk out and never
mention Scientology again, you are perfectly free to do so.
It would be stupid, but you can do it.
You can also dive off a bridge or blow your brains out.
That is your choice." - The Orientation Film