Worldclass actress Anne Archer to BBB's John Sweeney: Do I look brainwashed to you? How dare you!
Barbara Schwarz
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
"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
Barbara Schwarz <BarbaraSc...@excite.com> wrote:
Having met her (you haven't), I'd say YES.
Zoidberg
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
Zoidberg
news:qld953573jfgn76ui...@4ax.com...
> Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.
>
>
Try none. It's a more accurate figure.
--
Zoidberg.
John
"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
"The Founding Church" <PBe...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qld953573jfgn76ui...@4ax.com...
>
>
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
> "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
> Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.
>
>
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
barbz
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
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYM
http://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
Tony Van Owen
"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
> "Stephen Von Hatten" <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1179972597....@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> - 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?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag
Any thoughts (on topic)?
-Steve
Funky Donny
wrote:
> Somebody's hiding something here, and I don't think it's the Church of
> Scientology.
Okay, so who, and what?
John
"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$1...@energise.enta.net...
>>> "The Founding Church" <PBe...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:qld953573jfgn76ui...@4ax.com...
>>>> Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Try none. It's a more accurate figure.
>>> --
>>
>> Zero is like 6. They're both numbers.
>>
>>
> Zero isn't a number.
>
mathematically I think it is.
butterflygrrrl
wrote:
I liked you better when you said you weren't coming back.
You're just a cultie.
You were always a cultie.
You just pretended that you weren't for awhile.
Too bad.
How sad.
Stephen Von Hatten
I like how you use ad hominem attacks. It reminds me of... oh...
nevermind. You wouldn't get it, because you've lost your sense of
humor... and your brain.
Everyone! The post by butterflygrrrl is a perfect example of the
critics that SHOULDN'T be critics. Go ahead and consider me a
"cultie." I'm a Mormon, though, if you ever even knew something.
The critics defending the BBC in this is sickening to me. And I only
came back because I took an interest in Barbara Schwarz's post as I
had referred her to it.
C'mon... hate me... I'm a "cultie." Swamp me with your insults and
personal attacks and "I can't reason because I can't reference a
critic website." C'mon... prove me right, you freaks!
Love,
-Steve
Wyatt....@gmail.com
So, this one time, L. Ron and I were sitting in a boat, and L. Ron (I
called him Elwood, like the Keebler Elf cookie), said 'Hey, Wyatt, do
you know what the difference between an apple and a dead baby is?"
"No?"
"I don't ejaculate on an apple before I eat it." Elwood responded.
"Oh my God, that is disgusting!" I retorted.
Then his fucking head turned into an emoticon, and it was the :$, 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
.................... ..,../¯ ..//
.................... ..../... ./ /
.................... ..,/¯ ..//
.................... ./... ./ /
............./´¯/' ...'/´¯`·¸
........../'/.../... ./... ..../¨¯\
........('(...´(... ....... ,~/'...')
.........\.......... ..... ..\/..../
..........''...\.... ..... . _.·´
............\....... ..... ..(
..............\..... ..... ...\
Wyatt....@gmail.com
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
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
-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
> "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
So, calling you a cultie is an insult, but calling critics freaks
isn't?
The cult ate your brain.
butterflygrrrl
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
> "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
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
<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
>
> - 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
> 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-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
>
> - Show quoted text -
According to whom?
You?
LOL!
Barbara Schwarz
> 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
>
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
> "Barbara Schwarz" <BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1179952126.4...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > 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
>
>
> 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
> 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
> "The Founding Church" <PBen...@Yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:qld953573jfgn76ui...@4ax.com...
>
> > Yeah, Anne Archer won like 6 Academy Awards.
>
>
> 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.
>
As I said, p$ychs make the decision secretly. They tell the academy
voters what votes to cast.
I starred in thew comedy: "Xenu wants to date me - but I don't want
this old mouldy SP." I didn't win an academy award either. I should
but I didn't. You don't believe me? Well, then check the academy award
records and see for yourself.
Barbara Schwarz
wrote:
> This is unfortunate. I would've thought that how good Anne Archer was
> beside the point.
I agree. That was the point of the posting in the first place.
> The point is that Sweeney violated BBC rule but the
> BBC defended him. Is there something wrong here? If Scientology is so
> bad, then why stage everything to make them bad if they already are?
> Yes, methinks something is wrong with that, and I think it's the BBC.
That is true, there is something awfully wrong with reporters who act
like Sweeney. No wonder that he then goes crazy and screams when all
his OWs fall in his face.
>
> Let's not distract from the issues, "critics." Let's get back on
> topic.
>
>
> Somebody's hiding something here, and I don't think it's the Church of
> Scientology.
>
> Are you a critic? Did you watch it? Did you dismiss it as "heresay?"
> If this is true, what's the big deal with a Scientologist doing the
> same thing?
>
> Remember to ask these three simple questions. Who is the source? Is it
> observable? Now is it true? 2 out of 3 isn't too bad.
>
> -Steve
Instead of watching the clips, many posters just bad mouthed Anne
Archer who had all rights to tell Sweeney what she did. And she didn't
scream at him.
Barbara Schwarz
Butterlie could be Sweeneys daughter, Steve. She is hysterical (in a
bad sense) too.
Barbara Schwarz
> On
Anyway, take a look at the clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag
Is that professional journalism? Sweeney is a disgrace to his
profession.
butterflygrrrl
wrote:
>p$ychs control who gets academy awards.
You are even crazier than I thought.
Eldon
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:31:24 +0100, "Zoidberg"
>
> >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
"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
"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
"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.
>
"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
> 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
>>> 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.
>>> topic.
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYM
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag
>>> Scientology.
>>> 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'm not the one who brought it up.
>>
>> Tony Van Owen- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> is that the topic was diverted. Let's try again, ok?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9psX5SlXb_g
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1iCI3iykYM
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtp1y_IkLag
>
>
> -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
> 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
here.
Why, Steve??
Kilia
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
>
> - 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
--
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
> 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.
>
>
> 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
>
> - 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
>
> - 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
>
> - 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
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
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
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)
Tony Van Owen
|| "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
Skipper
Ever heard the term "pissing in the wind"?
Time to wipe off your face and drop the argument.
Barbara Schwarz
> In the prior message:BarbaraSchwarz<barbara.schw...@gmail.com> said:
> | On May 24, 7:58 pm, "Tony Van Owen" <tvano...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> || In the prior message:
> || Stephen Von Hatten <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> said:
> ||| 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...
People don't know what brainwashing is. The term is used for just
about anything. Look at the word. It says that a brain is washed.
Usually, it would be good if something is being washed, right? Dirt
gets out and it is clean afterwards. There is no doubt that the term
should describe something bad but whoever invented that word was no
fan of cleanliness as he/they try to make the word washing look bad.
Think about the expression "brainwashing" for a brief moment. It seems
to me that the person or group who created that word rather wants dirt
in people's mind and are afraid of cleanliness and perhaps clean
thoughts?
I am a Scientologist since decades. There is no brainwashing in the C
of S. If studying SCN is brainwashing then studying medicine, law,
architecture, ect. is brainwashing too. People stay Scientologists
after they applied L. Ron Hubbard's technology and found that it is
WORKING. That is the entire "secret".
Sweeney and all the others who scream brainwashing (and can't explain
what it is) miss that point completely.
The person (Tommy?) who Sweeney was talking to spoke with a very calm
voice. He mentioned "brainwashing", the word that Sweeney through in
just about anybody's face. And then Sweeney screamed. (If a
Scientogist would scream, people would say that he is brainwashed but
Sweeney gets away with it, how typical.) Many Scientologists
(including myself) are hounted a lot more than Sweeney was for a brief
period of his life, in which he tried to smear Scientology.
Sweeney insulted just about any Scientologist with his brainwash
garbage.
Stephen Von Hatten
I said the complete opposite of what you are accusing me of saying. I
said that the BBC documentary did a good job in the fact that it
showed the CoS stalking, and YES! There is something wrong with that.
Quit putting words in my mouth. I have my own opinions and they aren't
the church's or your peoples' opinions.
Plus, I don't care if he exploded. I just hated that fact that he was
heckling people and provoking people like Anne Archer and the others
without someone provoking him to "defend" himself in that sense. AND
YES I WATCHED THE BBC AND SCIENTOLOGY DOCUMENTARIES. THAT'S BOTH OF
THEM! NOT ONE. TWO.
You all assume that just because I defended the Church of Scientology
on this that I've all the sudden turned into a "cultie." I just see
what I see and I make a decision. I like to think of myself as someone
who can look at both sides, contemplate, and make up my own mind
instead of one of you or the church telling me what to believe. If you
guys are really *REALLY* desperate for someone to represent the CoS
here just to fight with loaded words, etc. then I guess I could do
that. What would be the point though... we're *sorta* on the same
side. Yet, I guess because I don't think the CoS is *ALL* bad, then
I'm also on the CoS's side. They helped me with a lot, and they've
hurt a lot of people.
Butterflygrrrl is an idiot... although I was actually starting to like
her posts for a short time until she started using personal attacks
and namecallings.
Barbz, you're putting words in my mouth, as are you Eldon.
And if you ask me, I think that you folks are pathetic in doing so.
And that's all I've got to say right now.
-Steve
Zinj
stephen....@gmail.com says...
<snip>
> You all assume that just because I defended the Church of Scientology
> on this that I've all the sudden turned into a "cultie."
It wasn't 'sudden' Steve :)
I think any review of your whole 'body of work' says all that's
necessary.
Barbara Schwarz
> In article <1180293943.021074.62...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com says...
>
> <snip>
>
> > You all assume that just because I defended the Church of Scientology
> > on this that I've all the sudden turned into a "cultie."
>
> It wasn't 'sudden' Steve :)
>
> I think any review of your whole 'body of work' says all that's
> necessary.
>
> Zinj
I am just thinking what we would find if we would examine your body,
Joe, besides some rusty ear implants.
Barbara Schwarz
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't take Barbzzzzzz Babbles Graham, Eldon Braun, Jerald, Owens,
Joe, or the Butterlie seriously. They defame anybody who does not HATE
Scientology. It is as easy as that.
To make a documentary on Sweeney, a biased reporter and to follow him
around and to document what he is up to, was a great idea. It was such
a great idea that it could have been mine. :)
Barbara Schwarz
Barbara Schwarz
uncontrolled emotions. Once again, Tom Cruise jumps on a couch to make
fun for an audience who expects fun and Sweeney screams uncontrolled
on a BBC assignment.
So, who is the crazy one?
Skipper
Barbara Schwarz <barbara...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, who is the crazy one?
My notes say you, Babbles.
Stephen Von Hatten
Yeah... I never understood what the big deal about Tom Cruise was.
He's in love... so what? Must be a world full of a bunch of people
that don't believe in love. Too bad...
-Steve
Stephen Von Hatten
> In article <1180293943.021074.62...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <snip>
>
> > You all assume that just because I defended the Church of Scientology
> > on this that I've all the sudden turned into a "cultie."
>
> It wasn't 'sudden' Steve :)
>
> I think any review of your whole 'body of work' says all that's
> necessary.
>
> Zinj
> --
> You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
But you don't deny the accusation that I'm a "cultie?" Great! So maybe
you can tell me what a cult is... Maybe you ought to do a little self-
reflection too. My scorecard says that critics are cultic in their
thinking.
-Steve
Stephen Von Hatten
Well, I would say that they have some interesting things to say, but
you are correct. They will libel and mock members who don't hate
Scientology.
Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader. (taken from
RickRoss.com of all places: http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html)
1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses
such as an independently audited financial statement.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending
catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are
always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and
reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs
that document the abuses of the group/leader.
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
9. The group/leader is always right.
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or
receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really
acceptable or credible.
I wonder how many of these critics fall under. Critical inquiry in the
CoS is okay, but inquire about them and BOOM! There's an explosion of
"you must be crazy" or "CULTIE" or my favorite... "Clam." I would
check out numbers 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10. Wow... that's 5/10. Hmm... I can
understand 1 or 2, but 5 is pushing it... at least for me. No... I'd
rather accept all people of ALL faiths however far out or flat out
wrong they may be. Does that mean you can't dialogue with them? Of
course not, but let's refrain from the name calling, personal attacks,
and slander, ok?
Just because Sweeney's a nut, does that mean we shouldn't listen to
ANYTHING he says? No. Just because the CoS published a documentary
about Sweeney means that we should ignore everything it says? I don't
think so. Errrrrr! Wrong again. Just because anti-Scientologists are
citical of Scientology means that we should ignore them or not listen
to some of the things they have to say? Wrongo. What about pro-
Scientology/ists... should we discount them as "clams" or other
derogatory names or just not listen to them? Bamo! Wrong again.
Measure both sides openly, and maybe we can come to a better
understanding... as they say... knowledge is power.
-Steve
-Steve
Jommy Cross
<stephen....@gmail.com> wrote in msg
<1180940943.5...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Well, I would say that they have some interesting things to say, but
>you are correct. They will libel and mock members who don't hate
>Scientology.
Members of what? Lots of posters here don't hate $cientology and they don't
get libelled or mocked.
Perhaps you think being called a $cientologist is mockery or libel? I can
see your point, but you did identify yourself as a $cientologist,
On 20 Feb 2007 23:07:31 -0800, "Stephen Von Hatten"
<stephen....@gmail.com> wrote in msg
<1172041651.7...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
> Even though I am not a very active
>Scientologist, I am still one that holds the organization and RELIGION
>in somewhat high regard. Maybe I'm acting out of ignorance; maybe I'm
>not. As a Scientologist though, I have a few comments that turn to
>questions.
<snip>
though you now claim you're a Mormon. And you got your questions civilly
answered, until you started acting like a troll while denying you wanted to
be one.
Perhaps you can remember you behavior in February of this year?
>
>Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader. (taken from
>RickRoss.com of all places: http://www.rickross.com/warningsigns.html)
>
> 1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
>
> 2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
>
> 3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses
>such as an independently audited financial statement.
>
> 4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending
>catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
>
> 5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are
>always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
>
> 6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and
>reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
>
> 7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs
>that document the abuses of the group/leader.
>
> 8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
>
> 9. The group/leader is always right.
>
> 10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or
>receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really
>acceptable or credible.
Good advice from Rick Ross.
>
>I wonder how many of these critics fall under. Critical inquiry in the
>CoS is okay, but inquire about them and BOOM! There's an explosion of
>"you must be crazy" or "CULTIE" or my favorite... "Clam." I would
>check out numbers 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10. Wow... that's 5/10. Hmm... I can
>understand 1 or 2, but 5 is pushing it... at least for me.
Yeah, maybe that's because you seem to see things that don't exist from my
perspective.
First, there is no identifiable group of critics, so it's hard to build a
cult. But let's pretend all the critics posting to ars *are* a group, huh?
Warning 2: Questions are answered and critical enquiry carried out by a
large section of this group. Even of other critics.
Warning 5: Please name ex-critics who been identified as wrong, negative or
evil. I can name a huge number of critics who don't post here any more.
Only a tiny fraction are seen by anybody in a negative light, except by
people they criticized.
Warning 7: Please name the titles of books, records, news articles and
television programs warning of the dangers of the "critic cult", excluding
stuff like Freedom Magazine and RFW.
Warning 9: Critics disagree with each other on a variety of issues,
regularly and at length. Don't you read ars?
Warning 10: Critics disagree with each other on a variety of issues,
regularly and at length.
Given your apparent criteria, you might as well have added warning 3, no
financial disclosure. Why not? The only critic whose finances are a matter
of public record is Keith Henson. What about the rest of them?
>No... I'd
>rather accept all people of ALL faiths however far out or flat out
>wrong they may be. Does that mean you can't dialogue with them? Of
>course not, but let's refrain from the name calling, personal attacks,
>and slander, ok?
I observe you're replying to Barbara Schwarz a lot. I hope you'll be
passing that advice on to her.
As for you,
On 25 Feb 2007 23:54:58 -0800, "Stephen Von Hatten"
<stephen....@gmail.com> wrote in msg
<1172476498....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>STFU!!! QUIT POSTING ON THIS FORUM!!! YOU'RE ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING!!!
so you might try looking in the mirror sometimes.
And why, when in February you posted
On 20 Feb 2007 23:07:31 -0800, "Stephen Von Hatten"
<stephen....@gmail.com> wrote in msg
<1172041651.7...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Wow! After reading over this particular topic with Krystal at my side,
>I've come to a few conclusions. After reading this, you will probably
>do the following, just as I did what Barbz said I would do. You will
>either:
>
>1. Tell me what a liar and one-sided bafoon I am.
>2. Think that I'm a liar and/or an idiot and not tell me.
>3. You will ignore this post altogether.
>
>Either one is fine with me.
<snip>
have you got so sensitive?
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Stephen Von Hatten
Church of Scientology, my gf and I had broken up, and a whole host of
other problems sprang up. I was under quite a bit of pressure. I was
coming to the conclusion that my $5000 didn't earn me anything, and I
had wasted a good 1/3rd or 1/4th of my life just in Scientology or
learning about it, etc.
On Jun 4, 7:08 am, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 07:09:03 -0000, Stephen Von Hatten
> <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> wrote in msg
> <1180940943.585512.225...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
> <snip>
>
> >Well, I would say that they have some interesting things to say, but
> >you are correct. They will libel and mock members who don't hate
> >Scientology.
>
> Members of what? Lots of posters here don't hate $cientology and they don't
> get libelled or mocked.
Do they say "a job well done" when it's deserved? No matter what side
it may be (CoS or Critics)?
> Perhaps you think being called a $cientologist is mockery or libel? I can
> see your point, but you did identify yourself as a $cientologist,
Yes I did. That was a while back. I'm now a Mormon.
> On 20 Feb 2007 23:07:31 -0800, "Stephen Von Hatten"
> <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> wrote in msg
> <1172041651.733302.204...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
> <snip>> Even though I am not a very active
> >Scientologist, I am still one that holds the organization and RELIGION
> >in somewhat high regard. Maybe I'm acting out of ignorance; maybe I'm
> >not. As a Scientologist though, I have a few comments that turn to
> >questions.
>
> <snip>
>
> though you now claim you're a Mormon. And you got your questions civilly
> answered, until you started acting like a troll while denying you wanted to
> be one.
Like I said. I was leaving the Church of Scientology, my gf and I
broke up, and my sis was diagnosed with MS. Which she is doing better,
I'm happy to say, thanks to some info given to me by Keith Hensen.
> Perhaps you can remember you behavior in February of this year?
I honestly can't remember. Could you please remind me. This is moot
point anyway, because I don't consider myself THAT hostile anymore.
You could say I was learning...
Wrong, but the mentality is enough for me to understand. Referring to
organizations again, what about the Lisa McPherson Trust?
> Warning 2: Questions are answered and critical enquiry carried out by a
> large section of this group. Even of other critics.
>
> Warning 5: Please name ex-critics who been identified as wrong, negative or
> evil. I can name a huge number of critics who don't post here any more.
> Only a tiny fraction are seen by anybody in a negative light, except by
> people they criticized.
>
> Warning 7: Please name the titles of books, records, news articles and
> television programs warning of the dangers of the "critic cult", excluding
> stuff like Freedom Magazine and RFW.
>
> Warning 9: Critics disagree with each other on a variety of issues,
> regularly and at length. Don't you read ars?
>
> Warning 10: Critics disagree with each other on a variety of issues,
> regularly and at length.
>
> Given your apparent criteria, you might as well have added warning 3, no
> financial disclosure. Why not? The only critic whose finances are a matter
> of public record is Keith Henson. What about the rest of them?
Check this out. As long as we can be "unbiased."
Is the Church of Scientology a Cult?
Let's take a look and you can make up your own mind. According to cult
expert Rick Ross, there are 10 warning signs that are generally common
for an unsafe group or leader. We'll be looking at them in depth for
the Church of Scientology as we go along.
1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
This can be easily observed through confessions and what is done with
those confessions if a person turns against the church. It might also
be noted that "squrrils" or people who practice the Scientology
technology outside of the church, are considered out of harmony. Thus,
this makes the the CoS authoritarian; not to mention that they are the
ONLY church that have any truth to them whatsoever.
2. No tolerence for questions or critical inquiry.
When I was in the Church of Scientology, my questions were welcomed.
However, as I started learning more and questioning those ideas, I
have received little or no contact from the Church concerning that. Of
course, it would depend on if your questions make the church look good
or bad.
3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such
as an independently audited financial statement.
The Church of Scientology has NEVER done this. The only time that the
church came even CLOSE to that was when the IRS was investigating the
church's tax-exempt status which was met with an upheaval of
harrassment by the Church of Scientology and Scientologists, as well.
4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending
catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
P$ychiatry. That's all I've got to say. Some are more militant than
others, but for the most part this was kept out of the ears and mind
of a newer member like me... until I started posting to a newsgroup
known as ARS.
5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always
wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
If one looks at the E-Meter course booklets published by LRH, you'll
see that the reasons why people leave are listed and instructed to be
audited with the solution listed underneath. Apostasized members are
labeled SPs and may even be prone to a "fair game" attacked where they
may be deprived of property, dignity, or even destroyed. When someone
looks at Scientology, they'll notice an awful lot of suing going on.
The Church of Scientology attacks it's attackers. LRH said to attack.
Never defend. This is why sites like http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/
exist. The Church of Scientology attacks... never defends.
Many people have also claimed that after leaving the CoS, their most
intimate secrets are disclosed to members of the Church of Scientology
or even members of the public whether it's press, family, friends,
neighbors, etc. Picketting individual's homes is also another practice
practiced by the Church of Scientology. Usually it's done when the
person isn't home so as to avoid a confrontation.
6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a
similar pattern of grievances.
Well bankruptcy or being mistreated is a big one.
7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs
that document the abuses of the group/leader.
While there is no real hard evidence for LRH himself, there is one
excellent production of 60 minutes about 15 and a half minutes
detailing the organization called CAN or Cult Awareness Network, which
was taken over by Scientologists as the "New Cult Awareness Network."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoASMyv9Cek
8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough."
This one is a bit more fuzzy. I felt this way. The more money I had,
the better I felt I stood in the eyes of the organization. This is
really an individual response, though.
9. The group/leader is always right.
Well this is definitely said about LRH. Also definitely true about the
Church of Scientology. Once again, squirrel groups are seen as wrong
or that the people don't know anything, etc. Media that is critical is
also avoided because of this.
10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or
recieving validation, no other process of discovery is really
acceptable or credible.
Well, once again... "squirrel groups." Others are the OT levels. By
paying to go through the OT levels, one learns the nature of the
universe and the nature of the creator... or so they say... then
you'll reach OT-III. If you'd like, you may google the information as
it is now public domain and may be found on several places on the
Internet.
Bottom line is that there is no stress in a belief of a diety. While
there is nothing wrong with believing there is no diety or that the
diety isn't important, it would be wrong to say otherwise if you
church did not say so. This would be lying and sending mixed signals
to outsiders giving them the wrong impression of the church.
>
> >No... I'd
> >rather accept all people of ALL faiths however far out or flat out
> >wrong they may be. Does that mean you can't dialogue with them? Of
> >course not, but let's refrain from the name calling, personal attacks,
> >and slander, ok?
>
> I observe you're replying to Barbara Schwarz a lot. I hope you'll be
> passing that advice on to her.
>
> As for you,
> On 25 Feb 2007 23:54:58 -0800, "Stephen Von Hatten"
> <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> wrote in msg
> <1172476498.059596.67...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
> <snip>
>
> >STFU!!! QUIT POSTING ON THIS FORUM!!! YOU'RE ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING!!!
>
> so you might try looking in the mirror sometimes.
I believe that post was addressed toward Butterflygrrrl. She was
alienating me calling me a Scientologist instead of an unbiased critic
who looks at both sides and posts my opinions. Am I correct? It wasn't
until recently that I realized that I shouldn't be associating myself
as a "critic."
> And why, when in February you posted
>
> On 20 Feb 2007 23:07:31 -0800, "Stephen Von Hatten"
> <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> wrote in msg
> <1172041651.733302.204...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>:
> <snip>>Wow! After reading over this particular topic with Krystal at my side,
> >I've come to a few conclusions. After reading this, you will probably
> >do the following, just as I did what Barbz said I would do. You will
> >either:
>
> >1. Tell me what a liar and one-sided bafoon I am.
> >2. Think that I'm a liar and/or an idiot and not tell me.
> >3. You will ignore this post altogether.
>
> >Either one is fine with me.
>
> <snip>
>
> have you got so sensitive?
That's what I've been saying... yup. I've gotten sensitive because
I've gotten over some issues, and I still have seen some of LRH's
technology do good in my life. Not that I consider myself a
Scientologist anymore, though. I'm a Mormon.
> Incident zero: Ron trolled you
>
> Ever yours in fandom,
> Jommy Cross
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
> before you hallucinate
> --------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the response and I look forward to another one very soon.
-Steve
brotherb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
> read more »
This is all very strange and broken. It's almost like reading hiccups.
The Panorama documentary was even and fair. John Sweeney is an
excellent investigative reporter. Besides it could have been any
journalist from the BBC and the same thing would have happened. The
fact remains that CO$ will not allow anyone the freedom to come and
report on them the same way that the BBC or any news group could
report on, and do report on, any other world religion. Why? Because
it's not a religion. It's not one just because the US say it is. It's
not one because Hubturd said it was. What person in their right mind
declares some sci-fi mumbo-jumbo that they've made up is a religion?
Fine, maybe there's some nice "self-help" techniques in there, but
they are just bastardised from psychology text books from that time
and before. Hence the need to criticise the people Hubturn needed the
most: psychologists.
Whatever your view of "mental health" issues, the need for proper,
open discussion on how to help(medication, counselling, friends,
family) is not for us to decide. We're not the professionals.
AS for CO$...it is not a religion and don't let anyone kid you in to
thinking otherwise.
Viva La Panorama!!!!
Stephen Von Hatten
Alright... let's define a religion. What do you think it is?
I don't believe the Church of Scientology to be a "Church." But
Scientology is a religion.
-Steve
brotherb...@yahoo.com
Particualr system of faith and worship.
What do CO$ "worship"?
Stephen Von Hatten
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a
community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and
study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and
mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term
"religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal
faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared
conviction.
All patriarchal religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of
patriarchal religious thought": the division of the world in two
comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane. [1] Religion is
often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief
focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that
is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest
truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition,
rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the
core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular
philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life".
The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures.
"Organized religion" generally refers to an organization of people
supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of
beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-
supporting organization). Other religions believe in personal
revelation and responsibility. "Religion" is sometimes used
interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"[2] but is more
socially defined than that of personal convictions."
I'm fairly sure that Scientology fits this discription.
-Steve
brotherb...@yahoo.com
What do CO$ worship?
It's not a religion. Nor is it fast growing. It is an organisation
that feeds on the weak to the benefit of one person. The egotistical
and narssacistic David Mindbraingone.
Christianity. Islam. Russian Orthodox.
These are religions. They are religions that have caused much
suffering and given much solice. But they work within a modern
framework. They are open and free to all. They make no stress on
"money" but instead seek to give comfort to those who need it.
They accept their failing, albeit seeing themselves as the one true
religion. But at the end of the day you can see what they worship and
you can get this information for free, worship for free, and you are
free to come and go as you choose.
CO$ hides behind lies and deceit. It is worse than any organised
crime, because at least the Mafia has give us the Godfather and the
Sopranos.
What has CO$ given the world? Baaaaaad science fiction.
So anyway, if you could enlighten me can you please tell me what CO$
worship?
Stephen Von Hatten
I didn't accept your definition. I'm unaware of anything that
Scientology worships... unless it's art, but that's sorta pushing it.
I'm not talking about the Church of Scientology either. I'm talking
about Scientology... and there is a difference. Just because someone
is a Christian doesn't mean they are a member or attend church. Same
with a Scientologist and the Church of Scientology. Does that make
sense?
-Steve
brotherb...@yahoo.com
Not very open minded of you is it?
Okay. Cancel out what I say about CO$ and replace it with just the $.
It's still the same deal.
It's not a religion it's a life choice. And it's not a very good one
as it is insular, and very biggoted in it's views...well it's founder
was certainly a biggot and a sexist.
It's also against Freewill.
The Christian God accepts freewill as being a major part of it's faith
and freedom to criticise and doubt.
$ does not allow that kind of freewill.
Stephen Von Hatten
I would say most religions have some sort of worship, but there isn't
worship in Scientology. What's the big deal? It falls under everything
else defined as religion on wikipedia.
You obviously don't know the difference between the CHURCH of
Scientology and Scientology. So what do you think of Freezone? Do you
bash them too?
Most religious leaders were sexist or biggoted at one point or
another. Does that mean they have to be now? I don't think so. Maybe
you shouldn't live so much in the past. L. Ron was a product of the
1910's and 20's.
> $ does not allow that kind of freewill.
Where is your evidence on this? I haven't seen that. I've seen it from
the CHURCH of Scientology, but not Scientologists outside of the
Church of Scientology. Can you give me an example?
-Steve
barbz
But, what do they worship?
--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net
barbz
Next time, try leaving in the text you're responding to. Context, get it?
--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net
Stephen Von Hatten
I said, "NOTHING." But is that a REQUIREMENT to be a religion? Like I
said, wikipedia's definition of a RELIGION makes more sense. You
could, in any respect, turn ANYTHING into a religion... couldn't you?
That doesn't mean you worship something. It's a way of life, and like
it or not, Scientology can be appied as one.
-Steve
jerald
wrote:
> On May 24, 9:09 am,jerald<jerald-ja...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "I'm for the separation of church and hate."
>
> > > Barb
> > > Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
>
> - Show quoted text -
And just how was he biased Steven? The questions about if scientology
is a cutt or not? That was part of what the show examined and waa a
valid question. As was how members feel about the fact that most the
world, right or wrong see scientology as a cult. I think the problem
you are having is you can't see the difference between someone being
unbiased and someone who over the course of a story sees things that
are not normal.
Can you think of any other story thats been done by any other
newspaper to tv show where the reporter and his crew are followed and
confronted before the story is even shown? Can you name any other
story where someone barges in on someone elses interview when they
shouldn't even know when or where that interview is? The reporter
lost his temper, not a good thing but it does happen. Like you and
I he is human and lets try to remember the extra stress scientology
heaped on him to get him to lose his temper.
Right or wrong it doesn't make the story as a whole invalid. The
story can and does stand on its own. Only scientology is trying to
shife it from the story to a story about the reporter.
jerald
Stephen Von Hatten
It starts out like that, but if you watch the interviews with the
movie stars, he's throwing the term brainwashed and cult around in a
very disrespectful manner. It's not him "asking" the celebreties why
people think Scientology is a cult. It turned into name-calling and
bashing.
Not to say that Sweeney did have some interesting points to share, as
well. I just re-watched the documentary from Sweeney. The Church of
Scientology destroys families (if you let them) and follows him around
a lot. Both sides have a story to tell, but I'm not sure I trust
Sweeney's motives.
Sweeney never lost his temper... at least according to him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVAeL8AyYeI
-Steve
jerald
Thats part of the problem, we don't get to see the interviews.
Scientology demanded they not be shown. If it had been an American
news show they would have laughed and shown them. But yes I can
agree he pushed the points in a way I wouldn't have. That may be his
style. You know as well as i do that everyone being interviewed knew
far in advance everything about the reporter. They choose to speak
and I can't for the life of me understand why they just didn't answer
his question and tell the man why they think scientology is a
religion. It was a great chance to speak their minds and get their
points across.
But everyone who watched the show got to see Davis instead. And after
watching Davis most seem to have an understanding on why Sweeny lost
it. I think he lost his temper but at the same time if you watch it
you will see the level of his voice went from loud to calm without
loseing a beat. So he may have just been trying to get his point
across that if Davis can do it so can he. And Davis was very in your
face.
In the long run this was a huge black eye for scientology. And no
number of edited videos can change that fact.
jerald
jerald
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
But Steve,
The church of scientology says unless you do it with them scientology
doesn't work right. So you really can't split the two up. I can rent
a space right now and call myself a Bapist Chuch and I won't be
sued. scientology won't alow the same thing and the reason they use
is one can not work without the other.
jerald
Jommy Cross
<stephen....@gmail.com> wrote in msg
<1181001702....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:<snip>
>>
>> But, what do they worship?
>I said, "NOTHING." But is that a REQUIREMENT to be a religion?
So which is the God referred to in the Creed of a Scientologist and why
should I take anything He or She says seriously?
>Like I
>said, wikipedia's definition of a RELIGION makes more sense. You
>could, in any respect, turn ANYTHING into a religion... couldn't you?
d00d, in that case, we're doomed.
>That doesn't mean you worship something. It's a way of life, and like
>it or not, Scientology can be appied as one.
So stamp collecting can be a religion? As a "way of life"? How about crazed
marketing? Ever wonder what they spent your five grand on?
Stephen Von Hatten
That's an interesting point you've got there. I don't believe I
thought of it that way. However, I'm likely to think that Davis
thought Sweeney was beginning to come around and maybe would do well
interviewing some Scientologists to find out what Scientology was
according to them.
-Steve
Stephen Von Hatten
Sounds like the early Catholic church. I'm more likely to disagree
with the CoS on this point, though... just for the record. So there
isn't a whole lot of discussion to do because of that. But you are
right. Scientology is the only trademarked religion that I'm aware of.
-Steve
Stephen Von Hatten
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 00:01:42 -0000, Stephen Von Hatten
> <1181001702.815026.91...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Jun 4, 5:51 pm, barbz <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> Stephen Von Hatten wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> But, what do they worship?
> <snip>
> >I said, "NOTHING." But is that a REQUIREMENT to be a religion?
>
> So which is the God referred to in the Creed of a Scientologist and why
> should I take anything He or She says seriously?
Bah... that's a load of crap. Scientology doesn't believe in a god...
which is perfectly fine if they'd start stating it.
> >Like I
> >said, wikipedia's definition of a RELIGION makes more sense. You
> >could, in any respect, turn ANYTHING into a religion... couldn't you?
>
> d00d, in that case, we're doomed.
How so? That doesn't mean they get tax-exempt status. My dad thinks
music is a religion... or treats it as such. That fits all the
requirements for religion. There's a difference between religion and
organized religion... just for clarification so we're on the same page
here.
> >That doesn't mean you worship something. It's a way of life, and like
> >it or not, Scientology can be appied as one.
>
> So stamp collecting can be a religion? As a "way of life"? How about crazed
> marketing? Ever wonder what they spent your five grand on?
>
> Incident zero: Ron trolled you
>
> Ever yours in fandom,
> Jommy Cross
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
> before you hallucinate
> --------------------------------------------------
If someone feels a strong emotional attachment to stamp collecting and/
or treats it as such, then yes. I do believe stamp collecting could be
considered a religion. If you really look at religion... it can really
be.... whatever you want it to be. Couldn't it? Again... tax exempt
status is another issue altogether.
-Steve
Jommy Cross
<stephen....@gmail.com> wrote in msg
<1180976825.2...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jun 4, 7:08 am, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 07:09:03 -0000, Stephen Von Hatten
>> Perhaps you can remember you behavior in February of this year?
>
>I honestly can't remember. Could you please remind me. This is moot
>point anyway, because I don't consider myself THAT hostile anymore.
>You could say I was learning...
So you're no longer hostile? Great. You went round doing a bunch of dumb
stuff, replying to every anti psych poster like Skip does now, and you
picked up some flamage, like Skip does now. You didn't take it well.
You also changed your story so many times now I'm having difficulty keeping
up.
<snip>
>> First, there is no identifiable group of critics, so it's hard to build a
>> cult. But let's pretend all the critics posting to ars *are* a group, huh?
>
>Wrong, but the mentality is enough for me to understand. Referring to
>organizations again, what about the Lisa McPherson Trust?
The Trust is dust. It's you and me now. And everyone who saw South Park.
<snip>
>Bottom line is that there is no stress in a belief of a diety. While
>there is nothing wrong with believing there is no diety or that the
>diety isn't important, it would be wrong to say otherwise if you
>church did not say so. This would be lying and sending mixed signals
>to outsiders giving them the wrong impression of the church.
Yeah, mixed signals can be confusing. You've supplied nothing but mixed
signals, for instance. Troll? Op? Clueless newb? Who knows?
<snip>
>> As for you,
>> On 25 Feb 2007 23:54:58 -0800, "Stephen Von Hatten"
>> <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> wrote in msg
>> <1172476498.059596.67...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >STFU!!! QUIT POSTING ON THIS FORUM!!! YOU'RE ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING!!!
>>
>> so you might try looking in the mirror sometimes.
>
>I believe that post was addressed toward Butterflygrrrl. She was
>alienating me calling me a Scientologist instead of an unbiased critic
>who looks at both sides and posts my opinions. Am I correct?
No, you were yelling at a 'bot. That was another one of your dumb ideas.
>It wasn't
>until recently that I realized that I shouldn't be associating myself
>as a "critic."
And what did you stop doing, when you stopped associating yourself as a
"critic", exactly? Put your reasoning powers in your locker and swallow the
key?
>That's what I've been saying... yup. I've gotten sensitive because
>I've gotten over some issues, and I still have seen some of LRH's
>technology do good in my life. Not that I consider myself a
>Scientologist anymore, though. I'm a Mormon.
How did the Holy Tech help you, Stephen? You say below your five grand got
you nothing.
>I appreciate the response. I was a different person. I was leaving the
>Church of Scientology, my gf and I had broken up, and a whole host of
>other problems sprang up. I was under quite a bit of pressure. I was
>coming to the conclusion that my $5000 didn't earn me anything, and I
>had wasted a good 1/3rd or 1/4th of my life just in Scientology or
>learning about it, etc.
<snip>
Riiiiiiight. But despite your confusion, you have strong and slightly
delusional opinions about a "cult of critics"? d00d, why is that?
And if there's going to be a "cult of critics", I want to be the Leader. Or
maybe Lifetime President? No, that always sounds a little ominous to me.
Supreme Grokker of the Holy Gnosis? It's hard to choose...
Stephen Von Hatten
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:07:05 -0000, Stephen Von Hatten
> <1180976825.228123.204...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >On Jun 4, 7:08 am, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 07:09:03 -0000, Stephen Von Hatten
> <snip>
> >> Perhaps you can remember you behavior in February of this year?
>
> >I honestly can't remember. Could you please remind me. This is moot
> >point anyway, because I don't consider myself THAT hostile anymore.
> >You could say I was learning...
>
> So you're no longer hostile? Great. You went round doing a bunch of dumb
> stuff, replying to every anti psych poster like Skip does now, and you
> picked up some flamage, like Skip does now. You didn't take it well.
Yes, I made the mistake of thinking they were real people. Silly me.
> You also changed your story so many times now I'm having difficulty keeping
> up.
>
> <snip>
Interesting... the only thing that changed was the amount of years. 2
years if you count the application of Scientology. 5 if you count the
first purchase. Does that clear things up? I said 6 before, but that
was mistaken, which I've already pointed out a few times on this
forum.
> >> First, there is no identifiable group of critics, so it's hard to build a
> >> cult. But let's pretend all the critics posting to ars *are* a group, huh?
>
> >Wrong, but the mentality is enough for me to understand. Referring to
> >organizations again, what about the Lisa McPherson Trust?
>
> The Trust is dust. It's you and me now. And everyone who saw South Park.
>
> <snip>
There was an LMT episode?
> >Bottom line is that there is no stress in a belief of a diety. While
> >there is nothing wrong with believing there is no diety or that the
> >diety isn't important, it would be wrong to say otherwise if you
> >church did not say so. This would be lying and sending mixed signals
> >to outsiders giving them the wrong impression of the church.
>
> Yeah, mixed signals can be confusing. You've supplied nothing but mixed
> signals, for instance. Troll? Op? Clueless newb? Who knows?
>
> <snip>
I stand up for myself when I am attacked. Go ahead and call me an op.
I was a "clueless newb" but I don't think I am now. Tory was right.
People in cults tend to shift from one cult to another. It doesn't
have to be organized to be cultic. Did that ever occur to you? Critics
have a filter on info just like I had one on critics when I was a
Scientologist until the light popped on.
> >> As for you,
> >> On 25 Feb 2007 23:54:58 -0800, "Stephen Von Hatten"
> >> <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> wrote in msg
> >> <1172476498.059596.67...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >STFU!!! QUIT POSTING ON THIS FORUM!!! YOU'RE ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING!!!
>
> >> so you might try looking in the mirror sometimes.
>
> >I believe that post was addressed toward Butterflygrrrl. She was
> >alienating me calling me a Scientologist instead of an unbiased critic
> >who looks at both sides and posts my opinions. Am I correct?
>
> No, you were yelling at a 'bot. That was another one of your dumb ideas.
Thanks. You just turned this conversation from respectable discussion
to personal attack... no matter how idiotic that may look. Thank you.
You must've gotten flustered and had to do an ad-hominem. You're
SOOOOOOO much better than OSA, though. You held out longer. Good job!
> >It wasn't
> >until recently that I realized that I shouldn't be associating myself
> >as a "critic."
>
> And what did you stop doing, when you stopped associating yourself as a
> "critic", exactly? Put your reasoning powers in your locker and swallow the
> key?
It actually took the realization that critics and Scientologists alike
have a filter. Critics are just as guilty as Scientologists. And to
your future response to this, I'd like to quote Mr. Sweeney. "But if
you were brainwashed, you'd say something like that wouldn't you?"
> >That's what I've been saying... yup. I've gotten sensitive because
> >I've gotten over some issues, and I still have seen some of LRH's
> >technology do good in my life. Not that I consider myself a
> >Scientologist anymore, though. I'm a Mormon.
>
> How did the Holy Tech help you, Stephen? You say below your five grand got
> you nothing.
I don't think I got my money's worth. Is that a satisfactory answer
for you?
> >I appreciate the response. I was a different person. I was leaving the
> >Church of Scientology, my gf and I had broken up, and a whole host of
> >other problems sprang up. I was under quite a bit of pressure. I was
> >coming to the conclusion that my $5000 didn't earn me anything, and I
> >had wasted a good 1/3rd or 1/4th of my life just in Scientology or
> >learning about it, etc.
>
> <snip>
>
> Riiiiiiight. But despite your confusion, you have strong and slightly
> delusional opinions about a "cult of critics"? d00d, why is that?
AHA! There IS something wrong with me! I'm delusional!!! Thank you for
pointing this out. Yes, I'll be in my local psychiatric ward for a
little while now, thank yew very much. You only continue to confirm.
Have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E
While Scientology is guilty, I believe you critics can be just as
guilty.
Critics aren't any worse than Scientologists are. However,
Scientologists have an organized structure... critics don't, which
make them lesser cultic, but still cultic. Make sense?
> And if there's going to be a "cult of critics", I want to be the Leader. Or
> maybe Lifetime President? No, that always sounds a little ominous to me.
> Supreme Grokker of the Holy Gnosis? It's hard to choose...
>
> Incident zero: Ron trolled you
>
> Ever yours in fandom,
> Jommy Cross
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
> before you hallucinate
> --------------------------------------------------
Haha! Your sarcasm lacks something to be desired.
-Steve
barbz
Haha! I don't think that came out the way you wanted it to.
--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net
brotherb...@yahoo.com
over your toe and let go, not only can I predict accurately that you
will soon be in pain, but I can calculate precisely when your misery
will commence. No matter what you believe, or how much I wish it
weren't so, gravity is, and always will be.
The converse is also true: a faith requires no science. The very
definition of faith is firm belief in something for which there is no
proof. People of faith don't need "evidence". "-Quote from a clever
person on OMCB
This pretty much says to me why $ is not a religion. It has it's basis
in something that by it's very nature must be put to independent
scrutiny to be accepted as truth.
$ by it's very nature is based in science and therefore falls under
Falsification Theory just like all other sciences.
It is kept secret and hidden as Hubturd knew that the merest scrutiny
would see it collapse as the work of a science-fiction writer with a
huge ego...oh, wait a minute it was!
It may be a (bad) self-help regime. But it sure aint a religion!
Freezone is just $ light. Half the calories but still as bad for you!
The freewill point is that you are not allowed to be critical and
think out of the $ box. You can waffle all you want about "oh but you
can" because we all know that if an OT whatever suddenly said:"
Actually I think when I die i don't go anywhere. That's it. I'm just
dead. I really believe that"...he may have read a large amount of
existentialism for example...are you telling me he would be free to
think that way?
Nope...he's be out on his erchie...(scottish for arse).
Zinj
stephen....@gmail.com says...
<snip>
> I stand up for myself when I am attacked. Go ahead and call me an op.
OK; you're an op.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Jommy Cross
<stephen....@gmail.com> wrote in msg
<1181025127....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jun 4, 11:55 pm, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:07:05 -0000, Stephen Von Hatten
>> <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> wrote in msg
>> <1180976825.228123.204...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >On Jun 4, 7:08 am, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 07:09:03 -0000, Stephen Von Hatten
>> <snip>
>> >> Perhaps you can remember you behavior in February of this year?
>>
>> >I honestly can't remember. Could you please remind me. This is moot
>> >point anyway, because I don't consider myself THAT hostile anymore.
>> >You could say I was learning...
>>
>> So you're no longer hostile? Great. You went round doing a bunch of dumb
>> stuff, replying to every anti psych poster like Skip does now, and you
>> picked up some flamage, like Skip does now. You didn't take it well.
>
>Yes, I made the mistake of thinking they were real people. Silly me.
>
>> You also changed your story so many times now I'm having difficulty keeping
>> up.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>Interesting... the only thing that changed was the amount of years. 2
>years if you count the application of Scientology. 5 if you count the
>first purchase. Does that clear things up? I said 6 before, but that
>was mistaken, which I've already pointed out a few times on this
>forum.
And being a $cieno, and not being a $cieno, and being a Mormon but still
thinking Hubbard's kewl. That's all changed too. And being a critic of
critics now. It's all new and different.
>
>> >> First, there is no identifiable group of critics, so it's hard to build a
>> >> cult. But let's pretend all the critics posting to ars *are* a group, huh?
>>
>> >Wrong, but the mentality is enough for me to understand. Referring to
>> >organizations again, what about the Lisa McPherson Trust?
>>
>> The Trust is dust. It's you and me now. And everyone who saw South Park.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>There was an LMT episode?
I'm talking about the current state of the critic cabal imho. arscc still
does not exist, but a lot of people know about the religion flavored
product called $cientology.
>
>> >Bottom line is that there is no stress in a belief of a diety. While
>> >there is nothing wrong with believing there is no diety or that the
>> >diety isn't important, it would be wrong to say otherwise if you
>> >church did not say so. This would be lying and sending mixed signals
>> >to outsiders giving them the wrong impression of the church.
>>
>> Yeah, mixed signals can be confusing. You've supplied nothing but mixed
>> signals, for instance. Troll? Op? Clueless newb? Who knows?
>>
>> <snip>
>
>I stand up for myself when I am attacked. Go ahead and call me an op.
>I was a "clueless newb" but I don't think I am now. Tory was right.
>People in cults tend to shift from one cult to another. It doesn't
>have to be organized to be cultic. Did that ever occur to you? Critics
>have a filter on info just like I had one on critics when I was a
>Scientologist until the light popped on.
Oh rilly? What have I been ignoring? What has been filtered out? Hit me
with it.
>
>> >> As for you,
>> >> On 25 Feb 2007 23:54:58 -0800, "Stephen Von Hatten"
>> >> <stephen.vonhat...@gmail.com> wrote in msg
>> >> <1172476498.059596.67...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>:
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> >STFU!!! QUIT POSTING ON THIS FORUM!!! YOU'RE ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING!!!
>>
>> >> so you might try looking in the mirror sometimes.
>>
>> >I believe that post was addressed toward Butterflygrrrl. She was
>> >alienating me calling me a Scientologist instead of an unbiased critic
>> >who looks at both sides and posts my opinions. Am I correct?
>>
>> No, you were yelling at a 'bot. That was another one of your dumb ideas.
>
>Thanks. You just turned this conversation from respectable discussion
>to personal attack... no matter how idiotic that may look.
What? Yelling at a bot is a good idea? What should I say?
>Thank you.
>You must've gotten flustered and had to do an ad-hominem. You're
>SOOOOOOO much better than OSA, though. You held out longer. Good job!
d00d, so sorry your dumb ideas are dumb ideas. If you think pointing it
out's a personal attack, you've signed up for Victimology, imho.
Now *why* was it okay for you to scream abuse in February? At anyone?
>
>> >It wasn't
>> >until recently that I realized that I shouldn't be associating myself
>> >as a "critic."
>>
>> And what did you stop doing, when you stopped associating yourself as a
>> "critic", exactly? Put your reasoning powers in your locker and swallow the
>> key?
>
>It actually took the realization that critics and Scientologists alike
>have a filter. Critics are just as guilty as Scientologists. And to
>your future response to this, I'd like to quote Mr. Sweeney. "But if
>you were brainwashed, you'd say something like that wouldn't you?"
So you have a single answer to anything I reply, but I'm the one with a
"filter". Outstanding logic there.
>
>> >That's what I've been saying... yup. I've gotten sensitive because
>> >I've gotten over some issues, and I still have seen some of LRH's
>> >technology do good in my life. Not that I consider myself a
>> >Scientologist anymore, though. I'm a Mormon.
>>
>> How did the Holy Tech help you, Stephen? You say below your five grand got
>> you nothing.
>
>I don't think I got my money's worth. Is that a satisfactory answer
>for you?
I'm interested in what good did it do for you that wasn't quite worth five
grand?
>
>> >I appreciate the response. I was a different person. I was leaving the
>> >Church of Scientology, my gf and I had broken up, and a whole host of
>> >other problems sprang up. I was under quite a bit of pressure. I was
>> >coming to the conclusion that my $5000 didn't earn me anything, and I
>> >had wasted a good 1/3rd or 1/4th of my life just in Scientology or
>> >learning about it, etc.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Riiiiiiight. But despite your confusion, you have strong and slightly
>> delusional opinions about a "cult of critics"? d00d, why is that?
>
>AHA! There IS something wrong with me! I'm delusional!!! Thank you for
>pointing this out. Yes, I'll be in my local psychiatric ward for a
>little while now, thank yew very much. You only continue to confirm.
You were unable to substantiate any of the cultic attributes you claimed
were those of a group of critics, yet you still cling to the idea "critics
are a cult". So far, so delusional.
>Have you seen this video?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E
Nope.
>
>While Scientology is guilty, I believe you critics can be just as
>guilty.
>
>Critics aren't any worse than Scientologists are.
Well, that's good to know. But it's a low bar to reach. You're saying
critics are just as free as Co$ to lie to, swindle and poison their marks.
> However,
>Scientologists have an organized structure... critics don't, which
>make them lesser cultic, but still cultic. Make sense?
Only if you're Koos.
<snip>
>Haha! Your sarcasm lacks something to be desired.
Yeah, I often think that.
renedes...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Some of the most amazing things about it.
It's workable. It works. Even Ron said so. Yet it is the only one that
works.
Auditing works so well that it even works on imaginary incidents.
The OT3 materials will work well for a person on OT3 and they don't
even have to believe that the incident happened for the process to
work.
And the mathematics is plain and simple and it works, really.
Here I'll show you.
Joe, a member of the Church of Scientology, can do X amount of work
with Y amount of dollars. If Joe spent Y dollars for course ABC on the
Freewinds ship, Joe now has the ability do an infinite amount of work
with zero dollars and the Church now has Y dollars and can save the
universe from the evil Psychiatric Empire that has been destroying
each and every civilization that has ever existed.
See? Scientology works!
QED
Rd00
barbz
Barbara Schwarz
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 07:09:03 -0000, Stephen Von Hatten
> <1180940943.585512.225...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
> <snip>
Cross is another Griffin sock puppet, I heard.
I don't have to take advice of any one. Unlike you, I am a responsible
adult who makes her own decisions.
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
By the way: Wikipedia (Wikipiggi) lies.
And I am no cultist but a cooltist!