Customize

26 Page New Yorker article about Paul Haggis and scientology Possible FBI investigation

Discussion in 'Media' started by Anonymous, Nov 26, 2010.

  1. Anonymous Member

    same here. however i found this while looking for more article and now i wonder who Deepthroat is really working for, The New Yorker or AOL News.

    http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/07/church-of-scientology-faces-controversy-over-latest-abuse-allega/

  2. Anonymous Member

    Of course the FBI won't publicly comment either way. That's the smartest move in the book. No point in going all-in unless you know you're sitting with the nuts and got your opponent by the hairs.
  3. Ike Drifter Member

    So he's a landlubber as well, aye?
  4. OTBT Member

    Nice tl;dr

    Screencaps of article in UAE. Photo by newspaper was included "for illustrative purposes only"

    http://www.emirates247.com/entertai...nto-church-of-scientology-2011-02-08-1.353314

    scientologyhumantraffic.jpg

  5. Sponge Member

  6. Sponge Member

    You must rescue him, Smurf!
    smurftommywedding.jpg
    Whilst he's still punchdrunk.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Anonymous Member

    I like this whole scenario. Now this is a story. I can just picture Miscavige in his office gripping his copper grounding wires and saying, "well no reads the New Yorker anyways, so we got no worries". HA HA HA.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  9. Anonymous Member

  10. conatus Member

    SWEET JESUS IN A CHICKEN BASKET
  11. Etain Member

  12. Terry Gross asks:
    terrygrossX390.jpg
    Wot tiem u want caek?

    srsly, what time does Fresh Air blow up scientology's skirt?
  13. Bipolart Member

    Tick-tock, tick-tock.
  14. subgenius Member

  15. Scilons trying to cover the PR flap:
    This morning, they issued a statement branding the Oscar-winning screenwriter and director Paul Haggis (left), the source of much of the 25,000-word piece, a “disaffected former member” making “sensationalist” claims.

    I'm curious.... just how many former members AREN'T "Disaffected Former Members" Are there any members how left the church in good standing? Why is it so many leave and are branded as making sensationalist claims?
  16. Lol! I was trolling him earlier.... too bad he only responded to me once. Oh well,,, it was fun while it lasted
  17. subgenius Member

    Now lets see. He's disaffected, and the claims are sensational.
    I fail to see the point.
    What do those facts have to do with the truth of the article?
    Any reasonable person would be disaffected.
    And the fact that a crime is sensational doesn't make it untrue.

    They appear to be agreeing with Paul Haggis and the article.
    • Like Like x 3
  18. subgenius Member

    Attacking an admired, well-liked, talented, money-making mover and shaker is perhaps not the best approach.
    But when your only weapon is a hammer, the whole world's a nail.
    This will marginalize Tom, John, Kirstie, and the others (are there really any others?).
    Have we heard from their camps yet (other than Cruise's lawyer denying he received money....which wasn't even an issue)?
    They won't know whether to shit or go blind. Bad mouth Paul Haggis? Or, not. Heads 'sploding.
    At some point they have to say to themselves "Hmmmm, $cientology, sucking my money, making me a laughing stock. My career, the only thing I have in this world. Hmmmmm, choices, choices."
    Good luck, you're fucked. Its too late. You're all tainted goods. Ed Wood (RIP) wouldn't hire you. (Nice reference if I do say so myself.)
    You'll never work in that town again.
  19. exOT8Michael Member

    That is absolutely fab - ian.

    [IMG]

    Uploaded with ImageShack.us
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Ann O'Nymous Member

  21. Anonymous Member

    I would be surprised. The FBI does not usually talk about their business. They're not idiots. Which do you think more likely?
    1) The FBI has already pretty much finished it's investigations and is preparing to dump on Scientology.
    2) The FBI has tipped Scientology off and ruined their investigation.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. TinyDancer Member

    It's more likely that, if they don't prosecute, it'll be because the facts don't quite fit human trafficking in some technical way than that they'll find the claims are false or exaggerated, IMO.
  23. TinyDancer Member

    They began investigating in July 2009 - immediately after they met with the witnesses who approached the human trafficking agents to speak with them.
  24. Miranda Member

    I'd like to think that as the poster boys and girls see their credibility and "star power" vanishing, the costs will so heavily outweigh the benefits that some of them will, like Haggis and Jason Beghe, come to their senses, take a principled stand against CoS and reclaim their dignity and integrity in the process. It would be better if they'd done so before now, but--whatever works.
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Anonymous Member

    Not bringing their A game and regurgitating it at the same time. Here's a near direct copypasta of that comment in the St. Pete Times article http://www.tampabay.com/news/fbi-investigating-scientology-defectors-say/1150248
  26. Orson Member

  27. Jesseanon Member

    Hmmmn, I seem to remember a rather controversial "sport" called "Australian Dwarf Tossing"....
    • Like Like x 1
  28. I don't think anyone said tom cruise received money(although I do have to read it again more thoroughly). They intimated that tom had sea org's working for him for less than $50.00 per week. On his motorcycle. On his cars and on his airplane hangar. If that turns out to have any truth to it then it is a very big issue.
  29. Ersatz Global Moderator

    Scientology sekrit smear word of the day is tabloid. Say it with me kids. TABLOID

    Serius anon's twitter
    Yeah, that will work. Call one of the most established and respected magazines in the US a tabloid. Great PR move and I am certain it will be very effective. LOLOLOLOLOL
    • Like Like x 2
  30. Anonymous Member

    You mean "corroborating".
    • Like Like x 1
  31. xenubarb Member

    Whoah...
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Anonymous Member

  33. Anonymous Member

  34. Anonymous Member

    Howard Stern Show's Robin is talking about this on her news segment!
  35. Anonymous Member

  36. grebe Member

    And I agree that "brainwashing" is not a useful legal concept. But in joining an organization that keeps so many secrets, who can be said to have freely consented to the organization's programs?

    A Scientology spin-off called "Landmark," sometimes branded as "leadership seminars," has invaded many business schools, large corporations, Federal agencies, and even many Christian churches. It's not as nasty as Scientology, in that it has no single dictator and isn't rabid about maintaining "standard tech." But it promotes the idea that spiritual levels exist. At higher levels people allegedly uncover secrets that give them mind-over-matter super powers, but at a price of course. Maybe the biggest price is the overly-vague variant of English the program participants start speaking, causing everyone around them to want to punch them in the face.

    Scientology and the other New Age pay-for-secrets groups have to go. Information that affects all of us must be kept reasonably easy to obtain and review, without a membership commitment.
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Anonymous Member

  38. I'm loving it!!!!! OSA will have a hard time putting up comments all day to try to rebuke this. This story is on so many sites now!
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Sponge Member

    From OCMB....
    http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=390558#p390558
    *edit
    See article:
    The Church Of Scientology, Fact-Checked
    NPR.ORG 8th Feb 2011
    http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133561256/the-church-of-scientology-fact-checked?sc=fb&cc=fp
    Audio for this story from Fresh Air from WHYY will be available at approx. 5:00 p.m. ET
  40. Probably the most carefully researched, impartially presented article about $cientology ever published. Lawrence Wright deserves the Pulitzer Prize for his brilliant, courageous work.
    As someone who was 'sucked into' the vortex that is LRH's megalomanical philosophy/religion in 1965, completed the Clearing Course (sic) at St. Hill in 1967, helped establish the original Celebrity Centre at Los Angeles - from DAY ONE, then struggled for two decades to wrest myself from the self-induced brainwashing that is the result of all solo auditing, I was thrilled to learn that Paul Haggis shared my opinion of OT III ("If I'd been shown those material at the beginning, I never would have joined in." - slightly paraphrased.)
    Go ahead, Mr. Davis - call me 'just another disaffected apostate.' I can handle it. While LRH expressed contempt for the idea of sympathy, I'm offering you mine for having to walk the road of the pathological liar. Believe it or not, there is life after shedding the snake-skin of $cientology. Many of us would gladly offer to share with you our shedding techniques.
    • Like Like x 4

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins