Well my disappoint is not total. People say Reitman's book has a lot of well organized info about Scientology that many people will read, so I give her props for that. Maybe Reitman avoided fraternizing with Anonymous --which admittedly does have its crazy and embarrassing bits-- in her effort to appear academic and impartial toward Scientology. Maybe that's why she doesn't know about Dr. Lilly. Maybe that's why she doesn't appreciate that some would lose their job, family, and friends, were they open about their identities while protesting Scientology.
Agreed. I always like to meet in the middle. Thanks for the perspective. I'm just still bewildered that we received these words from her, with such resemblance to hostility and disdain.
Second time I've been surprised by disdain toward Anonymous. The first was when I questioned Brian Denning (Skeptoid producer) about some of his "no big deal" comments regarding Scientology. As soon as the word "Anonymous" passed my lips, Denning rolled his eyes and said, "Oh those obsessives. The ones I've met need serious psychological help. Their entire lives revolve around protesting Scientology..." Didn't take me long to realize that Denning was actually talking about AGP and AnonOrange, lol. I assume that Reitman has not had any private investigators knocking on her door trying to deliver a pizza. Nor is it likely that strangers have approached her to make vague, almost threatening comments like, "I can't believe Rolling Stone lets someone like you work there." Those little things, they leave an impression.
I think the best part of it was talking with Bill in the atrium. He didn't say anything unexpected, but it might have been very revealing for those who listened in. Saying the rapist should have been jailed was only PR. If it happened again tomorrow, scilons would cover it up again and never notice the contradiction. And I had a good talk with two couples in the line to have the books signed, and one of the staff came over about another matter, and she stayed for several minutes to hear why I was protesting. All five people appeared interested, asked some good questions. While I was disappointed in Janet's reception of us, the bigger picture is that 120 people listened to the talk, heard about the fair game, listened to Bill make a fool of himself to Janet, and to us in the atrium afterwards. It points out again how tone deaf scientologists are. They have their talking points and nothing else.
One of the shocking things I found about Janet's behavior was her abuse of power. She had all the power in the room. Attendees were strictly limited to asking questions by standing in a line. She addressed the anons directly and insulted them. She said, "I know why you were masks" - she didn't explain to the audience what she understood were anons' reasons. She had the power so the audience unless they were extremely skeptical and sharp in the critical reasoning skills had no basis to do anything but believe she was correct. The only means of defending against her attack was to stand in line and ask her a question. This would have involved making a scene, and SFfags are way too polite to do that. What made this doubly dismaying is that after the HMH marketing department, no one but no one has done as much to promote and publicize her book as Anonymous. Her behavior was not only ungracious but ungrateful. This is not to take anything away from her book. It is essential reading and fills a 40-year gap in books by investigative reporters since Paulette Cooper's 1971 The Scandal of Scientology. Janet brings a superb narrative gift of an investigative reporter to her account. She falls short imo in bringing an equally necessary critical and analytical perspective. Pick any chapter in Paulette's book and you will understand what a really good investigative reporter can do with the subject of Scientology. One of Janet's weakenesses is that she is not religious and has only a 8th grade understanding of religion. Her religious education consisted solely of listening to Shabat sermons in a Reform synagogue - o Hebrew school and no bat mitzvah. This leaves her with a curious combination of ignorance and naivete. Paulette on the other hand was raised in an Orthodox home and was a student at Brandeis and had a rabbi who was a counselor in her crisis. She no longer considers herself a religious Jew, but she knows a great deal about her own religion and religion in general. After next week Janet's tour will be finished in LA and she will recede in importance. I rather imagine after six years she probably wants to move on to other things. I think it useful to air things here but note worth turning into a drama. What actually interests me more about the JCC reading is the reaction of the audience to Anon. One woman said, "The most memorable thing about this evening I will take away is the people in masks." I made a mental note to talk with her but didn't get a chance. However, I had a long conversation with a psychiatrist and his wife. They didn't have a problem with Anon and were interested in what we are doing. Adhocrat has given an excellent account of his conversations with audience members, and I would be interested to hear from the other anons of any conversations they had with them.
Well, the accounts of Reitman's disdain for anonymous are pretty disappointing to me having defended and supported her book so vehemently. Now that her opinion is known, I think SoCal has an opportunity to educate her in person and help her learn more about what we are doing and why. Her book remains excellent (moarxenu said it well above); we don't have to like her or her like us to win this.
Friday will be: CULT WATCH DAY 1,979 Xander asked Six and myself if we were going to Tampa to see Reitman in person for her book signing. We both said no. Neither of us is fans of someone who equates Rathbun with Martin Luther. We don't like to waste gas in these hard economic times. I'm sorry to hear that Reitman is perhaps an even bigger bitch than previously thought.
My butt hurtz too much to put up with her low-quality prose. (before I met her, I was willing to give her a pass, but not anymoar) ***was that something she said in the book, or in an interview? (not trying to call you out = just curious! )
I'm also disappointed in Ms Reitman. I am enjoying the book but unfortunately this will take a little bit of luster away from it. I can understand remaining neutral but it's surprising with all the research she'd be so clueless about anonymous.
I comm'd with Mark Ebner about these concerns and sent him the links to this thread & the similar one on OCMB. Mark will be interviewing Janet on Sunday at the CFI. I asked Mark to correct any mis-assumptions Janet has of Anonymous and that this would be a perfect forum for her to be educated on the positive impact that Anonymous has had on it's issues with the cult. If any SoCal anons have issues with this, I'd suggest you be proactive & address them to Janet at CFI, for everyone concerned. I don't believe she had any ill-intent against Anonymous.
Has anyone here bothered to communicate with Ms. Reitman before mocking and attacking her? She's on Facebook. It seems ironic that so much effort spent on promoting her & her book, and because of a misunderstanding, you're all lining up & attacking her. This crap only makes mask-wearing anons look more ridiculous to the general public.
"Take off your mask you won't be arrested" to a handful of anons who regularly protest outside the SF org, in front of an audience that includes OSA agents, that is... disturbing. Though you have fallen Dr. Lilly, ten moar Anons are here to fight in your name.
Bill Goatse was there. Close enough. If he's not OSA, he reports to them. Bill has been trying to get our masked faces on his camera for a while now. he even accused me of assault once when we were playing around one day. All because he was trying to get pix of anons unmasked. You can see him lunge at me then claim I assaulted him. Gotta love a guy like that. Also gotta be careful around a guy like that. Plus, he told the crowd in the atrium what good friends (?!) he and i are, but got my IRL name wrong. Gotta love it. We had been told to turn off our recording devices off during the introduction. But when we were talking with Bill after we noticed he had a recording device hanging from his shirt pocket, red light shining in our faces.
Though we can't prove, so far, that OSA was in attendance, I can verify that at least one Scilon, OTVIII Staffer at SF mOrg, was secretly recording the talk and the audience with a spy pen. And really, would you expect anything less?
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/scientologys_ma.php From the article: "Inside Scientology author Janet Reitman compared Rathbun to Martin Luther for leading the schism of Independents. She said that the threat of Miscavige's movement was so serious, Miscavige's Scientology would need to 'change or die.'"
IMO it doesn't matter if it's ill-intent or not. She obviously doesn't understand why we wear masks and doesn't care to take the three minutes of explanation it would require to understand. We simply don't matter to what she's doing right now. That's fine. She won't be the first person to quasi align themselves with us and then shove us to the side when they're done with us or don't get what they want from us. She's going to cash in on the impending demise of scientology and the literary world will pat her on the back for "seeing" it before anyone else.
Outing yourself to OSA is like losing your virginity. There's no going back. So if you're going to do it, do it for a good reason. Once OSA identified Dr. Lilly they began threatening her job and she fell silent. The investigative process took two years and so we have two years of her wonderful research and writing floating about the web. Too bad it didn't take just a little bit longer.
Yes. A human who has "investigated" the Cult for how many years? Listening to how many fair game stories? Witnessing how much harrassment of its critics? After all that, she steadfastly demands removal of masks in front of Scilons. Honest mistake?
one data point does not a stat make, or something like that. Let's see what happens over the next few days. She's got several talks starting tomorrow. Speculating here, but I'm thinking she may have been annoyed at the extra security, and the security may have been because the scilons called to tell them what a nasty bunch of people we were. Billy was making the point that the anons in the audience were criminal hackers. He's been trying to sell that theory to the police for months now. Janet didn't buy it any more than the police have. I feel she should have done better, but I ain't ready to dismiss her. She is making an impact, people are hearing her talk. I hope Mark E does ask her about it.
I would like to believe this is applicable but cannot. This was not an honest mistake. This was arrogance and contempt involving remarks addressed to the audience and then to an anon as she was signing her. Her basic argument was that she is not afraid and anons ought not to be. It was condescending. Janet has the entire might of Rolling Stone and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt behind her. Anons who have just graduated and are looking for jobs have no such backing
Didn't have a chance. As Moarxenu mentioned, Reitman controlled the mics, with queues and a limited period to talk.
Janet is aware that she pissed off some anons in SF (I PM'd her the links via FB earlier today).. she mentioned that she would talk about it on Sunday in the public forum. The moderator for Sunday's forum, Mark Ebner, who's a big supporter of Anonymous is also aware of the issue. Maybe Janet will apologize; maybe she won't. Guess will have to wait until Sunday to see.
I'm trying to remember all the Anons seriously hassled by OSA. Off the top of my head: Gregg Housh, Boston CameraAnon, Las Vegas Dr. Lilly, not sure AnonSparrow, DC Anon44, Nashville AnonMomAnon, Clearwater
Sounds good. Let's all take a deep breath, better make that MANY deep breaths. Until the forum, I, for one, will be disseminating love and truth at 701 Montgomery St, SF. I encourage anyone who can to join us. Let's get back to the lulz
