PDA

View Full Version : Olivia Newton- John , John Travolta Reunited



freethinker
14th January 2012, 02:29 AM
Some people here still have a soft spot for Johnny. I wonder if he is doing this Qantas thing to make Scientology look good in Austrailia?


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/13/article-2086146-0F71289200000578-917_468x618.jpg

Reunited: Grease co-stars John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John last night posed up at the Qantas Airways Spirit of Australia Party


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2086146/Olivia-Newton-John-John-Travolta-reunited-.html#ixzz1jOJgUQB5

Type4_PTS
14th January 2012, 02:40 AM
Looks like she's aged better than he did. :yes:

degraded being
14th January 2012, 02:53 AM
Some people here still have a soft spot for Johnny. I wonder if he is doing this Qantas thing to make Scientology look good in Austrailia?


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/13/article-2086146-0F71289200000578-917_468x618.jpg

Reunited: Grease co-stars John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John last night posed up at the Qantas Airways Spirit of Australia Party


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2086146/Olivia-Newton-John-John-Travolta-reunited-.html#ixzz1jOJgUQB5

Qantus went very PTS to JT.

".....17 Oct 2011 – Qantas — as anyone who saw "Rainman" would know, the safest airline in the world — is proving a little accident prone on the PR front."
My bold. We all know what that means. :omg:

FoTi
14th January 2012, 03:05 AM
Looks like she's aged better than he did. :yes:

She also looks happier than he does.

Free to shine
14th January 2012, 03:10 AM
Nah... I think JT just loves his flying.

Type4_PTS
14th January 2012, 03:20 AM
She also looks happier than he does.

Yes she does.

He'll be happier as well....once he blows that money and soul sucking cult he's a member of.

thetanic
14th January 2012, 05:48 AM
Nah... I think JT just loves his flying.

He really does, and it was a way to get certified on a different aircraft, I recall.

Mark A. Baker
14th January 2012, 06:58 AM
Some people here still have a soft spot for Johnny. ...

What's weirder is that some people seem to dislike him just because he is still officially 'in'. :screwy:

He's a decent actor and apparently a pretty nice guy in real life. Moreover he is a person who doesn't seek to make life difficult for others. His personal life is his business.


Mark A. Baker

GoNuclear
14th January 2012, 08:55 AM
They were both so hot in Grease. JT had some amazing dance moves down back then. Amazingly, Olivia is 6 years older than JT.

Pete

Smurf
14th January 2012, 09:12 AM
Looks like she's aged better than he did. :yes:

This always helps. :coolwink:

http://www.plasticcelebritysurgery.com/2010/10/olivia-newton-john-plastic-surgery.html

Type4_PTS
14th January 2012, 06:03 PM
This always helps. :coolwink:


Some people just look younger than they are. With this person she was 30 years old when she was cast as a 17 year old girl in the movie Grease. Not everybody can pull that off. :no:


Unlike many stars of her generation, she is not a fan of cosmetic surgery.

“Facial surgery?” she says, eyes widening. “I haven’t done any of that. I’ve got plenty of friends who have and I don’t think it’s wrong but it scares me.”

She says her real secret weapon is swallowing “handfuls” of herbal supplements every morning and slapping on lots of face creams made from natural, rainforest ingredients.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2008/11/14/olivia-newton-john-my-secret-to-looking-young-at-60-i-m-in-love-again-115875-20892865/

Dulloldfart
14th January 2012, 06:18 PM
For a supposedly gay guy, his colour coordination sucks. Didn't he ever do the Art Course and M9 that HCOB on colours and twiddle the Grumbacher Color Wheel??

Paul

RogerB
14th January 2012, 07:12 PM
For a supposedly gay guy, his colour coordination sucks. Didn't he ever do the Art Course and M9 that HCOB on colours and twiddle the Grumbacher Color Wheel??

Paul

You are such a wonderful perfectionist! :biggrin:

But rightly so . . . who the hell with any sartorial nous would wear a blazer, collar and tie and jeans! ?

R

degraded being
15th January 2012, 01:51 AM
For a supposedly gay guy, his colour coordination sucks. Didn't he ever do the Art Course and M9 that HCOB on colours and twiddle the Grumbacher Color Wheel??

Paul

He is not Gay. He is married with kids. :biggrin:

smartone
15th January 2012, 01:58 AM
Looks like she's aged better than he did. :yes:

It's called cosmetic surgery. :yes:

Lohan2008
15th January 2012, 02:18 AM
Nah... I think JT just loves his flying.

Ditto:
What else you gonna waste Millions on unless you can buy a 707, repaint it and have corporate sponsorship $$$ ??

I wonder if JT used RPF slave-labour ??

degraded being
15th January 2012, 02:32 AM
What's weirder is that some people seem to dislike him just because he is still officially 'in'. :screwy:

He's a decent actor and apparently a pretty nice guy in real life. Moreover he is a person who doesn't seek to make life difficult for others. His personal life is his business.


Mark A. Baker


Ditto:
What else you gonna waste Millions on unless you can buy a 707, repaint it and have corporate sponsorship $$$ ??

I wonder if JT used RPF slave-labour ??

You mean slave labour from the Scientology cult that he promotes internationally by being one of the celeb member pinups?

Now that's not nice. :naughty:

FoTi
15th January 2012, 05:11 AM
You are such a wonderful perfectionist! :biggrin:

But rightly so . . . who the hell with any sartorial nous would wear a blazer, collar and tie and jeans! ?

R

Looks like the top half of him doesn't know what the bottom half is doing.

Sindy
15th January 2012, 06:00 AM
What's weirder is that some people seem to dislike him just because he is still officially 'in'. :screwy:

He's a decent actor and apparently a pretty nice guy in real life. Moreover he is a person who doesn't seek to make life difficult for others. His personal life is his business.


Mark A. Baker

Ya know what? I take issue with this sentiment. Yeah, I don't care about his personal life in terms of his sexual preference, where he lives, who he sleeps with, what he eats, blah, blah, blah. How the hell do you know if he is or is not a person who seeks to make life difficult for others? Do you know him personally?

Anyway, I'll buy that he's a nice guy. So what? He is a celebrity that allows his weight to be used for a despicable cult. I have no tolerance for that as celebrities have an even greater responsibility to understand to what kind of organization they are acting as a public front.

John Travolta and Tom Cruise, more than any other celebrities in the cult, have the ability to stop the scam, the con, the fraud and the suffering. Looking the other way detracts from the "nice guy" label, in my book.

freethinker
15th January 2012, 06:10 AM
Now that you put it that way, i would have to agree with your synopsis.

I chose to like Mr. Baker's post becsuse to me it showed an improvement in his demeanor and that he considers the feelings of others.
Ya know what? I take issue with this sentiment. Yeah, I don't care about his personal life in terms of his sexual preference, where he lives, who he sleeps with, what he eats, blah, blah, blah. How the hell do you know if he is or is not a person who seeks to make life difficult for others? Do you know him personally?

Anyway, I'll buy that he's a nice guy. So what? He is a celebrity that allows his weight to be used for a despicable cult. I have no tolerance for that as celebrities have an even greater responsibility to understand to what kind of organization that acting as a public front.

John Travolta and Tom Cruise, more than any other celebrities in the cult, have the ability to stop the scam, the con, the fraud and the suffering. Looking the other way detracts from the "nice guy" label, in my book.

degraded being
15th January 2012, 06:10 AM
Ya know what? I take issue with this sentiment. Yeah, I don't care about his personal life in terms of his sexual preference, where he lives, who he sleeps with, what he eats, blah, blah, blah. How the hell do you know if he is or is not a person who seeks to make life difficult for others? Do you know him personally?

Anyway, I'll buy that he's a nice guy. So what? He is a celebrity that allows his weight to be used for a despicable cult. I have no tolerance for that as celebrities have an even greater responsibility to understand to what kind of organization that acting as a public front.

John Travolta and Tom Cruise, more than any other celebrities in the cult, have the ability to stop the scam, the con, the fraud and the suffering. Looking the other way detracts from the "nice guy" label, in my book.



He is nice.

Tom Cruise is Yucky.

Sindy
15th January 2012, 06:28 AM
Now that you put it that way, i would have to agree with your synopsis.

I chose to like Mr. Baker's post becsuse to me it showed an improvement in his demeanor and that he considers the feelings of others.

:) Yeah, I understand.

I find his use of the :screwy: symbol for those who take issue with him because he is still "in" to be an unenlightened response and, again, done for the purpose of sounding magnanimous while throwing in a barb. Taking issue with Travolta because he is still in the death cult is not "even weirder" than having a soft spot for the guy. That's a silly statement to me.

Hey, I'm opinionated. :coolwink:

Sindy
15th January 2012, 06:29 AM
He is nice.

Tom Cruise is Yucky.

Listen, I like the guy. I'm sure he's nice. I wish he'd wake the hell up.

degraded being
15th January 2012, 07:14 AM
Listen, I like the guy. I'm sure he's nice. I wish he'd wake the hell up.

I was being facetious about the "nice" thing.

I assume JT is nice too.

I also think he is either really stupid or is being manipulated (blackmailed?) to play the game. If he's not being forced or coerced to promote the cult, and he's not stupid, then he's just plain nasty....which I don't think he is.
It is one thing not to wake up when there is no noise, but when they are shaking the whole building and you still insist on staying asleep.........??????????

The longer he sleeps the worse names he will be called for promoting the cult of scientology, and the more irrelevant his niceness will become.

programmer_guy
15th January 2012, 08:01 AM
John Travolta movies that I like:
Grease
Phenomenon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3woaPZowmM


Olivia Newton-John movies that I like:
Xanadu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m1UWSD-FaA


Olivia with Gene Kelly in "Xanadu"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vsfpw3qKKc&feature=related



Neither one are great versatile actors (like, for example, Dustin Hoffman) but they can be entertaining given the right roles to play that fit their personalities.

On "Rain Man", my understanding is that Tom Cruise could not do the role of the Dyslexic brother but Dustin Hoffman could, so they reversed roles for that movie. Correct me if I am wrong.

Smurf
15th January 2012, 08:06 AM
Some people just look younger than they are. With this person she was 30 years old when she was cast as a 17 year old girl in the movie Grease. Not everybody can pull that off.

She certainly didn't look 17 in the movie, nor did any of the other actors & actresses look to be in their teens. Unless they're casting for Nickelodean or the Disney Channel, they cast adults in their early to mid-20s to portray teens in TV & movies.

Other course finding one that is a major singing artist that would draw a big fanbase to see the movie is another - Olivia was a natural for the part.

programmer_guy
15th January 2012, 08:49 AM
Although Tom Cruise could not fill the part of the dyslexic brother on "Rain Man" (and switched roles with Dustin Hoffman) I think that he did a pretty good job on "Top Gun".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGb-XQccwaM&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE277VNyilo&feature=related

Okay, I digressed. I'll stop now.

programmer_guy
15th January 2012, 09:50 AM
BTW, women have fantastically developed peripheral vision when they see an attractive man (they won't look directly).
It's amazing!
This is something that men don't do. Men just look if they want to look.

I'll be damned! This is incredible. (Why am I so slow?) :duh:

RogerB
15th January 2012, 04:42 PM
Looks like the top half of him doesn't know what the bottom half is doing.

Ain't that the truth! :thumbsup:

R

Type4_PTS
15th January 2012, 06:53 PM
"She certainly didn't look 17 in the movie......"

I think in parts of it she could have passed for 17. Not too far off in this pic imo:

http://www.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/30030798-30030801-large.jpg

Challenge
15th January 2012, 07:27 PM
Listen, I like the guy. I'm sure he's nice. I wish he'd wake the hell up.

I think that his Scn wife, Kelly Preston, is a true believing Churchie and that she threatens John with divorce and maybe worse if he defects from the cult.
She could threaten him with a messy costly divorce, maybe write stories for the tabloids about his infidelities and accuse him of harming Jett, and threaten to take his remaining children away from him.
John is most likely doing the best he can under burdensome circumstances.

challenge

Type4_PTS
15th January 2012, 07:50 PM
I think that his Scn wife, Kelly Preston, is a true believing Churchie and that she threatens John with divorce and maybe worse if he defects from the cult.


She can threaten him with the loss of his eternity! :omg:

Mark A. Baker
16th January 2012, 03:50 AM
... Anyway, I'll buy that he's a nice guy. So what? He is a celebrity that allows his weight to be used for a despicable cult. I have no tolerance for that as celebrities have an even greater responsibility to understand to what kind of organization they are acting as a public front. ...

Be as intolerant as you like. :yawn:

Celebrities have no more or less responsibility for the cult than do other 'public' members of the church. Most scientologists 'promote' scientology. They do so because, at least for a time, they have found something about the subject which has helped them and which they wish to share with their friends and family. That is not an inherent 'evil action'.

Celebrities aren't staff. They aren't typically all that aware of the gross inconsistencies between church management's promises versus their actual practices.

I see no reasonable justification for self-righteous indignation over the continuing allegiance of any scientologist who is not himself directly responsible for enacting, enabling, or supporting the abuses of the church.

Travolta isn't. He isn't Sea Org. He's not even staff. He's not 'guilty'. He's just a famous guy who as a member of the church is accorded special treatment by church management out of its own cynical attempts at church-promotion.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Most of the celebrity scientologists are not themselves responsible for the abuses of the church. Worth a moments consideration though is how many ordinary scientologists, both staff & public, have been active contributors to the abusive practices of the church. Many of these individuals have since left the church, e.g. Marty Rathbun. Many haven't, e.g. John Alexander.

Be 'out' doesn't magically make personal responsibility for past actions disappear, anymore than being in 'good standing' or promoting the subject of scientology automatically makes a person responsible for the horrors of the rpf.


Mark A. Baker

degraded being
16th January 2012, 04:08 AM
Be as intolerant as you like. :yawn:

Celebrities have no more or less responsibility for the cult than do other 'public' members of the church. Most scientologists 'promote' scientology. They do so because, at least for a time, they have found something about the subject which has helped them and which they wish to share with their friends and family. That is not an inherent 'evil action'.

Celebrities aren't staff. They aren't typically all that aware of the gross inconsistencies between church management's promises versus their actual practices.

I see no reasonable justification for self-righteous indignation over the continuing allegiance of any scientologist who is not himself directly responsible for enacting, enabling, or supporting the abuses of the church.

Travolta isn't. He isn't Sea Org. He's not even staff. He's not 'guilty'. He's just a famous guy who as a member of the church is accorded special treatment by church management out of its own cynical attempts at church-promotion.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Most of the celebrity scientologists are not themselves responsible for the abuses of the church. Worth a moments consideration though is how many ordinary scientologists, both staff & public, have been active contributors to the abusive practices of the church. Many of these individuals have since left the church, e.g. Marty Rathbun. Many haven't, e.g. John Alexander.

Be 'out' doesn't magically make personal responsibility for past actions disappear, anymore than being in 'good standing' or promoting the subject of scientology automatically makes a person responsible for the horrors of the rpf.


Mark A. Baker

I think celebs probably get extensive "hatting" from OSA. IMO they have a lot more responsibility for anything they sell through their celeb status than someone who is not a celeb, who makes recommendations to friends. Ordinary people do not have world wide audiences and are not part of huge promo camapigns.
The world has woken up to scientology but JT is still snoring or at least pretends to be. He promotes the koolaid. Has he bothered to find out what the fuss is all about?
Casting him as simply a nice guy who is spreading good news is silly.
At least Tom cruise has enough sense to keep a low profile these days......but then that is most likely by order of his Scientology cult puppet masters. The puppet masters know that Travolta has a bit more to be squeezed out of him with his "nice guy" image. The worse scientology is found out to be by everybody except JT, the worse JT appears. And it is a game of appearances.

Type4_PTS
16th January 2012, 04:19 AM
Travolta isn't. He isn't Sea Org. He's not even staff.

He may not be Sea Org but he's worked with them and did programs for them.

Back around 1987 when I was at Social Coordination Int (Now ABLE) he was working closely with us on at least one program when I was there. As part of that he met with President Reagan (and Nancy Reagan) and worked with her on her anti-drug "just say NO" campaign.




I think celebs probably get extensive "hatting" from OSA.

SOCO INT (Social Coordination) that JT worked with used to be part of the Guardians Office but was removed at some point prior to my working there)

Mark A. Baker
16th January 2012, 04:25 AM
He may not be Sea Org but he's worked with them and did programs for them.

Back around 1987 when I was at Social Coordination Int (Now ABLE) he was working closely with us on at least one program when I was there. As part of that he met with President Reagan (and Nancy Reagan) and worked with her on her anti-drug "just say NO" campaign.

Oh My! He worked on the 'Just Say No' campaign on behalf of the church? :omg:

Yeah! He must be a real 'sp'! Break out the tar & feathers! :melodramatic:


Mark A. Baker :eyeroll:

degraded being
16th January 2012, 04:46 AM
Oh My! He worked on the 'Just Say No' campaign on behalf of the church? :omg:

Yeah! He must be a real 'sp'! Break out the tar & feathers! :melodramatic:


Mark A. Baker :eyeroll:


Stop BSing Mark. :melodramatic:

Type4_PTS
16th January 2012, 04:48 AM
Yeah! He must be a real 'sp'! Break out the tar & feathers! :melodramatic:


I didn't say he was an SP or even that he's a bad guy.

But he was meeting with the sitting President of the U.S. as a representative of the Co$.

He used his celebrity to promote the CoS. I'm not going to just give him a free pass because he isn't aware of all the abuses and criminal activity of the CoS. It's HIS responsibility to learn about the organization he's promoting.



He isn't Sea Org. He's not even staff.

Yes he IS staff.
http://www.ocala.com/article/20110530/ARTICLES/110539996

freethinker
16th January 2012, 05:02 AM
She blew, flew to Florida, Mark Yeager and Marty Rathbun were waiting for her in John Travolta's personal plane, they were there before her commercial flight landed




http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/jesse_tape3e.html



Be as intolerant as you like. :yawn:

Celebrities have no more or less responsibility for the cult than do other 'public' members of the church. Most scientologists 'promote' scientology. They do so because, at least for a time, they have found something about the subject which has helped them and which they wish to share with their friends and family. That is not an inherent 'evil action'.

Celebrities aren't staff. They aren't typically all that aware of the gross inconsistencies between church management's promises versus their actual practices.

I see no reasonable justification for self-righteous indignation over the continuing allegiance of any scientologist who is not himself directly responsible for enacting, enabling, or supporting the abuses of the church.

Travolta isn't. He isn't Sea Org. He's not even staff. He's not 'guilty'. He's just a famous guy who as a member of the church is accorded special treatment by church management out of its own cynical attempts at church-promotion.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Most of the celebrity scientologists are not themselves responsible for the abuses of the church. Worth a moments consideration though is how many ordinary scientologists, both staff & public, have been active contributors to the abusive practices of the church. Many of these individuals have since left the church, e.g. Marty Rathbun. Many haven't, e.g. John Alexander.

Be 'out' doesn't magically make personal responsibility for past actions disappear, anymore than being in 'good standing' or promoting the subject of scientology automatically makes a person responsible for the horrors of the rpf.


Mark A. Baker

Boomima
16th January 2012, 05:09 AM
I don't know if it's really intellectually honest to absolve Travolta of any and all responsibility for the practices of the Church of Scientology when he is willing to serve as a spokesperson for the Church and is willing to donate large sums of cash to the Church.

He's responsible for knowing what sort of organization he is lending his name and celebrity to, regardless of whether it's a church or a chess club.

Arthur Dent
16th January 2012, 06:47 AM
Responsibility is drummed and regged into every scientologist according to their status and level of perceived ability and usefulness as an "asset." Given the policies on celebs, management grooms them to do their duty. Once they have their secrets, that is. The control may be more covert with celebs so as not to appear as control but, big or small, the game is to control them all.

We all bought into our "responsibility" and sense of duty. We chose to ignore the warning signs and the insanity to an extent. So do the celebs. We didn't fully face the insanity til we left. Neither will they.

Travolta is between a rock and a hard place. So is Cruise. They are very much
responsible not knowing the crimes of the cult...at least from 2008 and forward!
The cult may have hid a lot from them before and shielded them but who can escape all the wonderful press over the past couple years?

They should come out and fess up. And do interviews. The cult would fold in a heartbeat!

Sindy
16th January 2012, 07:58 AM
Be as intolerant as you like. :yawn:

Celebrities have no more or less responsibility for the cult than do other 'public' members of the church. Most scientologists 'promote' scientology. They do so because, at least for a time, they have found something about the subject which has helped them and which they wish to share with their friends and family. That is not an inherent 'evil action'.

Celebrities aren't staff. They aren't typically all that aware of the gross inconsistencies between church management's promises versus their actual practices.

I see no reasonable justification for self-righteous indignation over the continuing allegiance of any scientologist who is not himself directly responsible for enacting, enabling, or supporting the abuses of the church.

Travolta isn't. He isn't Sea Org. He's not even staff. He's not 'guilty'. He's just a famous guy who as a member of the church is accorded special treatment by church management out of its own cynical attempts at church-promotion.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Most of the celebrity scientologists are not themselves responsible for the abuses of the church. Worth a moments consideration though is how many ordinary scientologists, both staff & public, have been active contributors to the abusive practices of the church. Many of these individuals have since left the church, e.g. Marty Rathbun. Many haven't, e.g. John Alexander.

Be 'out' doesn't magically make personal responsibility for past actions disappear, anymore than being in 'good standing' or promoting the subject of scientology automatically makes a person responsible for the horrors of the rpf.


Mark A. Baker

Mark, thank you for the yawn and dissertation.

Here's the thing, I got your point and I believe the point to be naive.

Being the ED CC Chicago and then, doing a short stint as the CC City Office I/C at CC Int, I was privileged to read through all the confidential advices written specifically for Celebrity Centre on how to use the Celebs. These advices were very elaborate and definitive as to what the Celebrity's purpose was in terms of the expansion of Scientology, all they way down to their specific stats.

Why do you think there even is a Celebrity Centre? The reason? Believe it or not, people listen to these people. Hello? That's our culture, it's all around us.

Every celeb MUST, MUST, get PR trained. They know exactly what their role is and how they are supposed to influence others to get into Scientology.

I think every single person in Scientology has the responsibility to know what they are promoting. I wish I had found out sooner. I regret contributing and am now speaking out for that very reason. Ya know what? When Travolta finally finds out what he's been promoting, if he ever chooses to take his blinders off, I hope he speaks out too.

By my stating that Travolta or other celebs have a greater responsibility is not to diminish anyone else's responsibility but to think that Travolta is just some innocent dupe that doesn't know any better because he's "only a public", not staff or SO, is misguided thinking. I'm sorry.

When I was on staff this last time, before Tom Cruise blew his PR so badly with his various stupid interviews and couch antics, so, so, so, very many people came into the org because of Tom Cruise. He used to be very, very loved. John Travolta too.

When new people came in they had to fill out a form stating how they found out about Scientology and what made them come in and I cannot tell you how many times people wrote down the names "Tom Cruise" and "John Travolta" and not because they were being facetious but because they looked up to these people.

These people have a great responsibility because they can affect large masses of people at a time. They give the cult credibility. As I am writing this out I almost can't believe I even have to explain this as it seems so obvious.

I do appreciate your commentary, but I beg to differ. It's not about being intolerant of John Travolta as an individual. It's about intolerance of evil, early death, ruined lives, child abuse, etc. and those who effectively contribute to that. Dig?

Sindy
16th January 2012, 09:20 PM
Oh My! He worked on the 'Just Say No' campaign on behalf of the church? :omg:

Yeah! He must be a real 'sp'! Break out the tar & feathers! :melodramatic:


Mark A. Baker :eyeroll:

Oh please.

Now, you have made three posts with these:

:screwy: :yawn: :eyeroll: :omg: :melodramatic: to try to make your point.

Either make a proper argument showing how your point of view is superior or stop the "ad-hominem-through-emoticon" strategy. It's not an intelligent way to argue.

Moosejewels
17th January 2012, 01:51 AM
:confused2: Didn't ON-J's husband disappear himself a few years back, only to be discovered living the beach boy lifestyle at a later date. I'm not trying to turn this thread into an edition of "Extra". Just thought I remembered something about that. :confused2:

HelluvaHoax!
17th January 2012, 02:47 AM
Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker

I see no reasonable justification for self-righteous indignation over the continuing allegiance of any scientologist who is not himself directly responsible for enacting, enabling, or supporting the abuses of the church.

What a wonderfully dizzy blend of COS Scientology, Indie Scientology, Squirrel Scientology and Bakerology.

The sentence bears a vague resemblance to rational thought if before reading it you don a pair of Baker's-Blinders™ and fail to notice that he quietly tried to sneak in the word "directly".

By using a bit of WordClown (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wordclown) tech, Mark would have others believe that persons like Travolta and Cruise are not "enabling or supporting" the abusive Church of Scientology, even though:


* They donate tens of millions of dollars to the CoS; money the church uses to commit human rights atrocities and crimes.

* They donate hundreds of millions of dollars in free publicity, advertising and marketing to the CoS by endorsing their product in all media.

* They personally review hard eyewitness testimony about the their church imprisoning, terrorizing and physically beating staff members and either nod their quietly passive consent or issue media statements that it didn't happen. (see Tom Cruise's public statement issued by his attorney denying that COB beats staff).

It is incontestable that Travolta and Cruise directly "enable and support" the fraudulent con game known as Scientology. They also push others to donate billions of dollars to Scientology accounts, knowing full well that their "church" will use that money to destroy its enemies, critics and whistleblowers.

The only hope of an argument that apologists like Baker might cling to is that Travolta and Cruise "didn't know".

That would be equally absurd because these media savvy movie stars are infinitely more sophisticated about what is playing across the media and internet than Mark Baker imagines himself to be. These individuals are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and they employ large teams of media savvy agents, managers, business attorneys, personal attorneys, publicists, press agents, marketing consultants and others to carefully craft the public's perception of them.

This is an army of expert professionals who literally comb thru every detail of each day's newspapers, magazines, television and internet coverage for their client.

They scour the media for anything negative that requires action.

They quickly respond to pr flaps with spin, propaganda, denial, lies and worse.

Anyone who has worked professionally in the celebrity-driven television or motion picture industry is painfully aware of how careful celebrities are with how their name and image is used, enhanced or diminished. These folks did not earn a billion dollars from being stupid and unaware. They are brilliantly aware of what is going on in the media and that is why and how they accumulated such wealth and power.

Travolta and Cruise absolutely know about the media shitstorm that has hit Scientology. Is anyone naive enough to believe that they did not read what happened to their friend, Academy Award Winning Scientologist film writer/director Paul Haggis?

Baker at least has the intelligence to not claim the Nuremberg defense favored by Nazi's on trial who "did not know" what was going on in their cult. He applies an oily bit of WordClown lubricant and tries to slip in the word "directly" but it sticks out like a grungy boilersuit-wearing RPF member at a black tie IAS fundraiser.

Travolta, for whatever reasons, of course knows, supports, and enables the cult to do what it does. Whether he justifies it or pretends it is not happening is another matter.

These people know what they are doing.

They can read.

They have computers.

They have teams of professionals advising them of these matters.

And......if they have chosen to instruct their army of advisors to not speak to them about the abuses of Scientology that appear in the media daily, they are fully corrupted.

I've met Travolta and he is a nice enough fellow. But anyone who lets their airplane be used to hunt down and re-capture escaping Sea Org members is a co-conspirator. If he "didn't know" then, he does now.

Where's Travolta's contrite apology?

Apologists like Baker need not apply again as a celebrity spokesman.

Sindy
17th January 2012, 03:35 AM
What a wonderfully dizzy blend of COS Scientology, Indie Scientology, Squirrel Scientology and Bakerology.

The sentence bears a vague resemblance to rational thought if before reading it you don a pair of Baker's-Blinders™ and fail to notice that he quietly tried to sneak in the word "directly".

By using a bit of WordClown (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wordclown) tech, Mark would have others believe that persons like Travolta and Cruise are not "enabling or supporting" the abusive Church of Scientology, even though:


* They donate tens of millions of dollars to the CoS; money the church uses to commit human rights atrocities and crimes.

* They donate hundreds of millions of dollars in free publicity, advertising and marketing to the CoS by endorsing their product in all media.

* They personally review hard eyewitness testimony about the their church imprisoning, terrorizing and physically beating staff members and either nod their quietly passive consent or issue media statements that it didn't happen. (see Tom Cruise's public statement issued by his attorney denying that COB beats staff).

It is incontestable that Travolta and Cruise directly "enable and support" the fraudulent con game known as Scientology. They also push others to donate billions of dollars to Scientology accounts, knowing full well that their "church" will use that money to destroy its enemies, critics and whistleblowers.

The only hope of an argument that apologists like Baker might cling to is that Travolta and Cruise "didn't know".

That would be equally absurd because these media savvy movie stars are infinitely more sophisticated about what is playing across the media and internet than Mark Baker imagines himself to be. These individuals are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and they employ large teams of media savvy agents, managers, business attorneys, personal attorneys, publicists, press agents, marketing consultants and others to carefully craft the public's perception of them.

This is an army of expert professionals who literally comb thru every detail of each day's newspapers, magazines, television and internet coverage for their client.

They scour the media for anything negative that requires action.

They quickly respond to pr flaps with spin, propaganda, denial, lies and worse.

Anyone who has worked professionally in the celebrity-driven television or motion picture industry is painfully aware of how careful celebrities are with how their name and image is used, enhanced or diminished. These folks did not earn a billion dollars from being stupid and unaware. They are brilliantly aware of what is going on in the media and that is why and how they accumulated such wealth and power.

Travolta and Cruise absolutely know about the media shitstorm that has hit Scientology. Is anyone naive enough to believe that they did not read what happened to their friend, Academy Award Winning Scientologist film writer/director Paul Haggis?

Baker at least has the intelligence to not claim the Nuremberg defense favored by Nazi's on trial who "did not know" what was going on in their cult. He applies an oily bit of WordClown lubricant and tries to slip in the word "directly" but it sticks out like a grungy boilersuit-wearing RPF member at a black tie IAS fundraiser.

Travolta, for whatever reasons, of course knows, supports, and enables the cult to do what it does. Whether he justifies it or pretends it is not happening is another matter.

These people know what they are doing.

They can read.

They have computers.

They have teams of professionals advising them of these matters.

And......if they have chosen to instruct their army of advisors to not speak to them about the abuses of Scientology that appear in the media daily, they are fully corrupted.

I've met Travolta and he is a nice enough fellow. But anyone who lets their airplane be used to hunt down and re-capture escaping Sea Org members is a co-conspirator. If he "didn't know" then, he does now.

Where's Travolta's contrite apology?

Apologists like Baker need not apply again as a celebrity spokesman.

What a great post. Thank you.

Though none of us have dox, it's hard to imagine that one would just give one's personal jet over to another without a good explanation.

Here is my opinion, clearly stated as such. My opinion is that celebrities (just like multi-million dollar, attorney supported cult leaders) are used to seeing themselves above the law or at least, somehow, isolated from bad things happening to them. I am not calling Travolta or Cruise criminals, but hear me out.

I hold this opinion because I have seen it so many times in my 50 years on the planet and I often have the same thought, "how did he/she think they were going to get away with that?" and yet they do. Think about it, why on earth did Tom Cruise think he could get away with SO members pimping out his vehicles, creating airplane hangars for him, etc., without anyone finding out? This is the way that many of them think. Those people who did all that stuff for him were WAY below him.

My prediction is that before this whole thing is over, we are going to hear some very appalling things that have happened in the celebrity arena due to a sense of entitlement and superiority. I wish I could say more.

We think that the average public buries his or her head in the sand but what must a celeb do? Think about the enormous amount of data they get that has to be ignored. Their entourage has the world of information at their fingertips, just like the rest of the world not beholden to a paranoid cult. They have not agreed to ignore the media or the reports of former members, the way the Scientologist has.

At this point, with all the atrocities, not one single Scientologist has the right not to know everything. There is no longer any defense and there really never was. When the first person had a psychotic break, committed suicide, killed another, abused a child, abandoned family, etc., etc., etc. that should have been enough to get everyone involved to question that involvement.

Now there are reams and reams of recorded abuses, crimes, murders, suicides, mysterious deaths, premature deaths, etc.. This list goes on and on. The amount of negative information is LEGION and is not met with the appropriate response and there is simply no excuse for it.

Mark Baker, you can call that righteous indignation. I would call your lack of like response inappropriate (euphemistically speaking).

HelluvaHoax!
17th January 2012, 06:33 AM
...

Can you imagine the horrific buzz Scientology now has in Hollywood amongst talent agents, actor managers, entertainment attorneys, publicists, PR agents, movie/tv producers, production executives and the movie actors themselves?

They are already in a very nervous, unstable profession where the slightest breeze of bad publicity can lose a major movie role or derail a career entirely. Now, picture them opening up the LA Times, Internet or daily industry trade papers (e.g. Variety, Hollywood Reporter, et al) and seeing such things as:


* Academy Award winning writer/director Paul Haggis is viciously attacked by Scientology because he dared to disagree with management; and the campaign is so vindictive that they publish special media products and hateful videos that denigrate his films, his films and his very career.

* Scn celebrity Isaac Hayes career and income destroyed when Scientology's secret police order him to disconnect from his highly lucrative role in tv show Southpark.

* Movie star Tom Cruise is spied upon for a decade by a Scientology agent (fellow Scientologist Michael Doven on Cruise's payroll) who is his executive assistant with confidential and private information about his work and his marriage being covertly phoned in to Church secret police.

* The co-creators of hit television show Southpark,Trey Parker and Matt Stone, are the target of a Scientology black ops campaign to destroy them, by church goons gathering "intelligence" information that can be used against them from their personal trash.

These are just a few examples of the madness that Scientology's leadership exerts on a daily basis over Scientologists in the entertainment industry. After reading about this kind of cult mind-control and manipulation, what are the chances that a film director, producer or studio would want a Scientologist to be part of their show or movie if they had any other actors qualified to take the part?

What talent agent or manager would want to be involved with Scientologists if it was avoidable?

What industry executive, studio head or financier would risk having Scientologists in their business ventures when they know that Scientologists are being "run" by a cult leader who imprisons and beats people?

I think there is a hidden collapse of Scientology's celebrity recruit market that cannot yet be seen on a graph other than the obvious fact that today, in 2012, Scientology is hawking the very same celebrities they used for the past two decades.

What ACTOR in his/her right mind would be willing to be recruited to go into a Scientology center when they know that Scientology is hated, feared and ridiculed throughout the industry?

When all this shakes out, I think the word on the street is a loud and resounding "DO NOT TRUST SCIENTOLOGISTS!"

That's an appropriate piece of wisdom that wogs have figured out long before those knowing-how-to-know Scientologists.

Lohan2008
17th January 2012, 06:46 AM
:confused2: Didn't ON-J's husband disappear himself a few years back, only to be discovered living the beach boy lifestyle at a later date. I'm not trying to turn this thread into an edition of "Extra". Just thought I remembered something about that. :confused2:

While the post is off topic
:offtopic:

Oliver Newton-John has made contact with former husband Matt Lattanzi who is now living in Mexico but he has nothing to do with CofS.

Lohan2008
17th January 2012, 06:55 AM
Actually I have not heard of JT promoting Scientology when he represents Qantas.

Airport Journal:
http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0712038&cr=IssueBanner&kw=Flash

HelluvaHoax!
17th January 2012, 07:01 AM
...

Just moments after I posted that last mention of how entertainment industry professionals are being fed a daily diet of scary stuff about what Scientology is doing to covertly infiltrate & manipulate the world of tv and movies, I see new articles being posted on Google News.

Within the last hour several media sources ran headlines about how Paul Haggis has Scientologists going thru his garbage. Here are a couple of them with headlines:

Director says scientologists are trying to discredit him
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/director-says-scientologists-are-trying-to-discredit-him-6290582.html

Crash Director Says Scientologists Are Rooting Thru His Trash
http://www.queerty.com/crash-director-says-scientologists-are-rooting-through-his-trash-20120115/

Sindy
17th January 2012, 07:10 AM
...

Just moments after I posted that last mention of how entertainment industry professionals are being fed a daily diet of scary stuff about what Scientology is doing to covertly infiltrate & manipulate the world of tv and movies, I see new articles being posted on Google News.

Within the last hour several media sources ran headlines about how Paul Haggis has Scientologists going thru his garbage. Here are a couple of them with headlines:

Director says scientologists are trying to discredit him
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/director-says-scientologists-are-trying-to-discredit-him-6290582.html

Crash Director Says Scientologists Are Rooting Thru His Trash
http://www.queerty.com/crash-director-says-scientologists-are-rooting-through-his-trash-20120115/



http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x3091965/A_group_of_young_people_praying_together_1785721.j pg

"Dear God, please help our family through these tough economic times. Help our son heal from his recent accident. Please, send someone to stalk us and go through our trash. We love you God. Amen."

freethinker
17th January 2012, 07:11 AM
He doesn't have to say anything, his face is the promotion.
Actually I have not heard of JT promoting Scientology when he represents Qantas.

Airport Journal:
http://www.airportjournals.com/Display.cfm?varID=0712038&cr=IssueBanner&kw=Flash

Mark A. Baker
17th January 2012, 08:24 AM
... Either make a proper argument showing how your point of view is superior or stop the "ad-hominem-through-emoticon" strategy. It's not an intelligent way to argue.

It's not an 'ad hominem'. :no: {clear the phrase if you don't understand it.}

It is an expression of an emotional reaction, something which you have recommended as therapeutic. :yes: Or is that only for those emotions which you like? :eyeroll:

The fact is that neither Travolta, nor Cruise is responsible for the abuses of the church. Neither has it been shown by anyone on the board that either one of them is engaging in promotional actions dishonestly or while themselves having direct personal knowledge of the abuses of church management. Neither is really guilty of anything except possibly 'being a scientologist'. Of course, for some on the board that alone seems to be sufficient cause for ... :violent:

Both T & C are celebrities. They are apparently content to remain 'in'. They are NOT directly & personally responsible for the abuses of the church. They are not inhuman monsters, even if Cruise is Miscavige's pal.

Being a celebrity scientologist does not equate with criminal co-conspirator. If you want to complain about criminal abuses then focus on those who have actually perpetrated them.

Many non-celebrity ex's have committed far worse ethical lapses than anything that can be attributed to Travolta or Cruise. Yet you aren't seen to be hammering all those who may have so transgressed for their past actions no matter how unprincipled or destructive they may have been. Nor does having left the church suffice to 'clean the slate' completely.

Targeting celebrity scientologists just because of their social prominence simply comes across as sour grapes, disgruntlement, & envy. It is not an indication of having taken a principled & moral stand on church abuses. :eyeroll:.

Gut yontiff. :)


Mark A. Baker

Sindy
17th January 2012, 08:51 AM
It's not an 'ad hominem'. :no: {clear the phrase if you don't understand it.}

It is an expression of an emotional reaction, something which you have recommended as therapeutic. :yes: Or is that only for those emotions which you like? :eyeroll:

The fact is that neither Travolta, nor Cruise is responsible for the abuses of the church. Neither has it been shown by anyone on the board that either one of them is engaging in promotional actions dishonestly or while themselves having direct personal knowledge of the abuses of church management. Neither is really guilty of anything except possibly 'being a scientologist'. Of course, for some on the board that alone seems to be sufficient cause for ... :violent:

Both T & C are celebrities. They are apparently content to remain 'in'. They are NOT directly & personally responsible for the abuses of the church. They are not inhuman monsters, even if Cruise is Miscavige's pal.

Being a celebrity scientologist does not equate with criminal co-conspirator. If you want to complain about criminal abuses then focus on those who have actually perpetrated them.

Many non-celebrity ex's have committed far worse ethical lapses than anything that can be attributed to Travolta or Cruise. Yet you aren't seen to be hammering all those who may have so transgressed for their past actions no matter how unprincipled or destructive they may have been. Nor does having left the church suffice to 'clean the slate' completely.

Targeting celebrity scientologists just because of their social prominence simply comes across as sour grapes, disgruntlement, & envy. It is not an indication of having taken a principled & moral stand on church abuses. :eyeroll:.

Gut yontiff. :)


Mark A. Baker

When you say, that when someone asserts something, that they are :screwy: I don't care if you use a cute little computer character to assert your point, you are making a comment about them personally and not using good argumentation to take up the actual issue -- thus, ad hominem. You clear that, okay?

Secondly, because I don't have time to cover all that you said, the fact that you think that I sound like I am envious of anyone trapped inside a cold, calculating, mind numbing psychotic cult makes me wonder where your head is at. I really don't know what else to say.

Good night Mark. I learned long ago that arguing with you is like running around chasing my tail. I'm too tired to do that right now.

Synthia E Fagen :eyeroll:

HelluvaHoax!
17th January 2012, 09:45 AM
The fact is that neither Travolta, nor Cruise is responsible for the abuses of the church. Neither has it been shown by anyone on the board that either one of them is engaging in promotional actions dishonestly or while themselves having direct personal knowledge of the abuses of church management. Neither is really guilty of anything except possibly 'being a scientologist'. Of course, for some on the board that alone seems to be sufficient cause for ...


Neither has "direct personal knowledge of the abuses of church management"?

LOLOL. OMG. Bravo!!!

You have just been awarded the WordClown Medal of Mendacity.

More than a dozen top level CoS Senior Management Executives come forward with corroborative and consistent testimony that COB engaged in a long term campaign of psychological terrorism, imprisonment and physical beatings.

It's all over the newspapers and internet.

Scientologists are pulled into Ethics to "handle" and dead agent the facts.

Tom Cruise even issues a formal statement thru his attorney denying that it happened.

And here we are in 2012 with Mark Baker pathetically trying to sell the idea that Cruise and Travolta have nothing to do with it.

Remarkable deception, self and otherwise.

SchwimmelPuckel
17th January 2012, 12:34 PM
<snip> The fact is that neither Travolta, nor Cruise is responsible for the abuses of the church. </snip>Those two putknuckers have a moral responsibility to warn people OFF The Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology!


Neither has it been shown by anyone on the board that either one of them is engaging in promotional actions dishonestly or while themselves having direct personal knowledge of the abuses of church management. </snip>Well, how much does it take then? - There are a LOT of respectable 'scientologists' telling of the abuses.. It's been amply reported in the media.. But your idea that we all need to have personal and direct knowledge before we can know about it.. Well, that's what any mafia gang needs to protect the leaders and continue the scam.

Those two putknuckers do know! - Thus they ARE dishonest!

Arguably they don't know, in which case they are both stupid and willfully ignorant. Both attributes, incidently, are important parts of Scientology doctrine... If that is the case they are still dishonest.

A lie is still a lie, even if you believe it. Telling lies you believe in doesn't make you honest, it just illustrates your stupidity.

:yes:

Mark A. Baker
18th January 2012, 09:11 AM
Those two putknuckers have a moral responsibility to warn people OFF The Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology! ...

ONLY should either decide for himself that is what he needs to do.

NOT because someone else thinks that they should.

The complaint with so many on the board is how they did things while they were 'in' NOT because they thought it was a good idea but because they were told by others in the chain of command that they MUST do so in order to conform to expectations of ethical behavior. .

Coerced or conformist ethics are inherently unethical.

Morality is conforming to what others expect. Ethics entails action based on an individual's OWN views of right & wrong.

You don't like scientology. Evidently they do. They are under no moral or ethical compulsion to adopt your views as their own.

If you expect the right to choose for yourself then you have to be willing to grant the same right to others; celebrities not excluded.




Mark A. Baker

freethinker
19th January 2012, 12:00 AM
This is ad hominem.
It's not an 'ad hominem'. :no: {clear the phrase if you don't understand it.}

It is an expression of an emotional reaction, something which you have recommended as therapeutic. :yes: Or is that only for those emotions which you like? :eyeroll:


This is not a fact.

The fact is that neither Travolta, nor Cruise is responsible for the abuses of the church.

This is not a fact.

Neither is really guilty of anything except possibly 'being a scientologist'.


This is a fact.

Both T & C are celebrities.


This is not a fact.

They are NOT directly & personally responsible for the abuses of the church.

It's done a lot here. Marty for example.

If you want to complain about criminal abuses then focus on those who have actually perpetrated them.


This is not a fact.

Many non-celebrity ex's have committed far worse ethical lapses than anything that can be attributed to Travolta or Cruise.


This is not a fact. Marty et al.

Yet you aren't seen to be hammering all those who may have so transgressed for their past actions no matter how unprincipled or destructive they may have been.


This is not a fact.

It is not an indication of having taken a principled & moral stand on church abuses.




This is not a fact.

The complaint with so many on the board is how they did things while they were 'in' NOT because they thought it was a good idea but because they were told by others in the chain of command that they MUST do so in order to conform to expectations of ethical behavior. .


This is a fact.

Coerced or conformist ethics are inherently unethical.


This is not a fact.

Morality is conforming to what others expect. Ethics entails action based on an individual's OWN views of right & wrong.

This is not a fact.
They are under a moral, ethical and legal obligation to report any form of abuse

You don't like scientology. Evidently they do. They are under no moral or ethical compulsion to adopt your views as their own.

Mark A. Baker
19th January 2012, 05:14 AM
This is ad hominem.

This is not a fact. ...

If you have dox to show that either one is knowingly a participant in criminal or abusive practices of the church then put up.

If not .... :whistling:

And no "working on 'just say no' for the church" and other imaginary imputed crimes don't count as such things are neither abusive nor criminal. :eyeroll:

The fact is the only 'crime' either one is guilty of is actually liking & promoting scientology. That is neither inherently abusive or criminal. It is something you just "can't have" or allow.

Mark A. Baker

HelluvaHoax!
19th January 2012, 05:53 AM
The fact is the only 'crime' either one is guilty of is actually liking & promoting scientology. That is neither inherently abusive or criminal. It is something you just "can't have" or allow.




***** WORDCLOWN ALERT! *****


When Tom Cruise gives tens of millions of dollars to Miscavige and hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity to the Church of Scientology and then publicly denies that Miscavige and the Church are imprisoning and beating people, that is inherently abusive and criminal.

No one can claim that these celebrities "don't know" when they are issuing lies and propaganda to the media to protect Scientology's crimes.

It doesn't matter whether you use Scientology's delusional "tech" to pretend that other's "can't have" case-condition is the real problem. That is a feeble lie, even for you Baker.

By defending their amorality you, yourself, likewise become an amoral facilitator and enabler.

freethinker
19th January 2012, 06:05 AM
http://www.forum.exscn.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=4596&d=1326949064
If you have dox to show that either one is knowingly a participant in criminal or abusive practices of the church then put up.

If not .... :whistling:

And no "working on 'just say no' for the church" and other imaginary imputed crimes don't count as such things are neither abusive nor criminal. :eyeroll:

The fact is the only 'crime' either one is guilty of is actually liking & promoting scientology. That is neither inherently abusive or criminal. It is something you just "can't have" or allow.

Mark A. Baker

Mark A. Baker
19th January 2012, 06:11 AM
***** WORDCLOWN ALERT! *****


When Tom Cruise gives tens of millions of dollars to Miscavige and hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity to the Church of Scientology and then publicly denies that Miscavige and the Church are imprisoning and beating people, that is inherently abusive and criminal. ...

No. It may be well indicate a trusting or incurious nature bordering on the stupid, but only in the views of the unreasonably prejudiced can such actions be interpreted as knowingly abusive or criminal acts in themselves. But then, one doesn't expect reason from the unreasonable. :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker

HelluvaHoax!
19th January 2012, 06:53 AM
No. It may be well indicate a trusting or incurious nature bordering on the stupid, but only in the views of the unreasonably prejudiced can such actions be interpreted as knowingly abusive or criminal acts in themselves. But then, one doesn't expect reason from the unreasonable. :eyeroll:
Mark A. Baker


Like Scientology, you have many theories about life that sound great on paper but are an utter disaster in the real world.

Were Lisa McPherson's caretakers "trusting or incurious" when they let her go completely insane and die a horrific and slow death right in front of their eyes?

Was Marty Rathbun "trusting or incurious" when he ordered Lisa's incriminating worksheets to be destroyed?

Is David Miscavich "trusting or incurious" when he applies Ron Hubbard's Fair Game policy on people who disagree with the church?

Is Tom Cruise "trusting or incurious" when more than a dozen eyewitnesses come forward to testify about imprisonment, terrorism and beatings within the CoS---and he laughs it off with a denial?

Your theories, Mark, are lofty and wonderful sounding, much like the welfare programs were that utterly destroyed the inner cities of America with drugs and criminality. They sound so good in theory.

But, an honest person in Tom Cruise's position would simply say:

"I am really shocked and concerned about the allegations of torture and physical abuse within my church. I honestly don't know if they are true or not. I certainly hope they are not true, but I promise I am going to really look into it and get to the bottom of it and find the truth."

That's what an honest, moral man does.

But, when Cruise uses one of the highest powered lawyers in the US and releases multi-media statements that deny the criminal actions being conducted by organized Scientology, that makes him a supporter and facilitator of those criminal acts.

There is no way around it.

Mark, you are smart. Figure it out and use an example in your own life. Let's say you had a brother or sister or child that was being held prisoner and beaten by David Miscavich. What would you think if Tom Cruise got on national TV and reassured everyone that David Miscavich was not beating your sister. You "can have" that?

I don't think so, unless there is something terribly wrong with you.

Mark A. Baker
19th January 2012, 09:20 AM
Like Scientology, you have many theories about life that sound great on paper but are an utter disaster in the real world.

Were Lisa McPherson's caretakers "trusting or incurious" when they let her go completely insane and die a horrific and slow death right in front of their eyes?

Was Marty Rathbun "trusting or incurious" when he ordered Lisa's incriminating worksheets to be destroyed?

Is David Miscavich "trusting or incurious" when he applies Ron Hubbard's Fair Game policy on people who disagree with the church?

Is Tom Cruise "trusting or incurious" when more than a dozen eyewitnesses come forward to testify about imprisonment, terrorism and beatings within the CoS---and he laughs it off with a denial?

Your theories, Mark, are lofty and wonderful sounding, much like the welfare programs were that utterly destroyed the inner cities of America with drugs and criminality. They sound so good in theory.

But, an honest person in Tom Cruise's position would simply say:

"I am really shocked and concerned about the allegations of torture and physical abuse within my church. I honestly don't know if they are true or not. I certainly hope they are not true, but I promise I am going to really look into it and get to the bottom of it and find the truth."

That's what an honest, moral man does.

But, when Cruise uses one of the highest powered lawyers in the US and releases multi-media statements that deny the criminal actions being conducted by organized Scientology, that makes him a supporter and facilitator of those criminal acts. ...


None of which demonstrates any actual direct knowledge or abuse performed by either Travolta or Cruise, only your own supposition that somehow they 'must know'. Given the ability of members of the church who remain in 'good standing' to remain ignorant in the presence of the obvious such a perspective is not justified. Both remain supporters of the church of scientology as were almost all of the members of this board at some time and for varying durations. Support for scientology alone does not implicate them or other members past or present directly in the abuses of church management.

Many of the members of this board have had far more direct responsibility for church abuses than either of these two celebrities. A focus of so much ire on the imaginary transgressions of scientology celebrities is simply not a rational action and is accordingly unjustifiable.

Cruise may be a dweeb for his stupidly misplaced loyalty but there is nothing to implicate him for responsibility in the criminal malfeasance of the church leadership despite his close association with the highest echelons of the church. He's being played, more fool him. That does not make him a criminal or co-conspirator.


Mark A. Baker

HelluvaHoax!
19th January 2012, 10:00 AM
None of which demonstrates any actual direct knowledge or abuse performed by either Travolta or Cruise, only your own supposition that somehow they 'must know'. Given the ability of members of the church who remain in 'good standing' to remain ignorant in the presence of the obvious such a perspective is not justified. Both remain supporters of the church of scientology as were almost all of the members of this board at some time and for varying durations. Support for scientology alone does not implicate them or other members past or present directly in the abuses of church management.

Many of the members of this board have had far more direct responsibility for church abuses than either of these two celebrities. A focus of so much ire on the imaginary transgressions of scientology celebrities is simply not a rational action and is accordingly unjustifiable.

Cruise may be a dweeb for his stupidly misplaced loyalty but there is nothing to implicate him for responsibility in the criminal malfeasance of the church leadership despite his close association with the highest echelons of the church. He's being played, more fool him. That does not make him a criminal or co-conspirator.

Mark A. Baker


By your tortured logic, a woman who leaves their baby unattended inside the car on a scorching hot day while they go shopping is not responsible for what happens.

And if someone tells the mother: "Hey your baby is sweating and unconscious in the car" they are still not guilty of anything as long as they "didn't know" that it is harmful for a baby to be in 110 degree heat.

And a store employee who overheard that conversation is also "not guilty" of anything by your standards because they didn't have "direct" knowledge of the baby in the car--because they didn't actually see it dying. So they are off the hook, right Mark? They have no obligation to do anything about it, right? If they baby dies, they didn't commit any act of criminal negligence, have I got it now?

I cannot even imagine by what circuitously perverse reasoning you can say that Tom Cruise should not be held responsible for his role in the conspiracy to imprison, torture and beat Int Sea Org members--when after being unceremoniously informed of this criminal activity via the internet and newspapers, he came out and publicly denied that it was happening.

That is called a coverup. He didn't say he didn't know. He co-conspired.

It doesn't make any difference if he saw the beatings, personally.

Your Scientology shore story is showing. It doesn't play at all with ex-Scientologists who know what you are doing.

Sindy
19th January 2012, 10:00 AM
None of which demonstrates any actual direct knowledge or abuse performed by either Travolta or Cruise, only your own supposition that somehow they 'must know'. Given the ability of members of the church who remain in 'good standing' to remain ignorant in the presence of the obvious such a perspective is not justified. Both remain supporters of the church of scientology as were almost all of the members of this board at some time and for varying durations. Support for scientology alone does not implicate them or other members past or present directly in the abuses of church management.

Many of the members of this board have had far more direct responsibility for church abuses than either of these two celebrities. A focus of so much ire on the imaginary transgressions of scientology celebrities is simply not a rational action and is accordingly unjustifiable.

Cruise may be a dweeb for his stupidly misplaced loyalty but there is nothing to implicate him for responsibility in the criminal malfeasance of the church leadership despite his close association with the highest echelons of the church. He's being played, more fool him. That does not make him a criminal or co-conspirator.


Mark A. Baker

Mark,

If you would be so kind, please ask the IAS for a grant to come pimp my van, my motorcycle and my airplane hangar. Also, please, ask them for another grant to find me a husband.

Please also ask the C of S to send its best staff to my home to care for my needs. I especially need someone who knows how to install high-end stereo systems. I do so appreciate it but, please, don't tell anyone. This will be our little secret.

Oh, and thanks so much for that great party on the Freewinds. You shouldn't have.

ML,

Synthia E Fagen

Rene Descartes
19th January 2012, 04:29 PM
She can threaten him with the loss of his eternity! :omg:

If he is man in the truest sense of the word he would say "You can take away my eternity but I'll be damned if I left you take away my children"

Rd000

Rene Descartes
19th January 2012, 04:36 PM
What a wonderfully dizzy blend of COS Scientology, Indie Scientology, Squirrel Scientology and Bakerology.

The sentence bears a vague resemblance to rational thought if before reading it you don a pair of Baker's-Blinders™ and fail to notice that he quietly tried to sneak in the word "directly".

By using a bit of WordClown (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wordclown) tech, Mark would have others believe that persons like Travolta and Cruise are not "enabling or supporting" the abusive Church of Scientology, even though:


* They donate tens of millions of dollars to the CoS; money the church uses to commit human rights atrocities and crimes.

* They donate hundreds of millions of dollars in free publicity, advertising and marketing to the CoS by endorsing their product in all media.

* They personally review hard eyewitness testimony about the their church imprisoning, terrorizing and physically beating staff members and either nod their quietly passive consent or issue media statements that it didn't happen. (see Tom Cruise's public statement issued by his attorney denying that COB beats staff).

It is incontestable that Travolta and Cruise directly "enable and support" the fraudulent con game known as Scientology. They also push others to donate billions of dollars to Scientology accounts, knowing full well that their "church" will use that money to destroy its enemies, critics and whistleblowers.

The only hope of an argument that apologists like Baker might cling to is that Travolta and Cruise "didn't know".

That would be equally absurd because these media savvy movie stars are infinitely more sophisticated about what is playing across the media and internet than Mark Baker imagines himself to be. These individuals are worth hundreds of millions of dollars and they employ large teams of media savvy agents, managers, business attorneys, personal attorneys, publicists, press agents, marketing consultants and others to carefully craft the public's perception of them.

This is an army of expert professionals who literally comb thru every detail of each day's newspapers, magazines, television and internet coverage for their client.

They scour the media for anything negative that requires action.

They quickly respond to pr flaps with spin, propaganda, denial, lies and worse.

Anyone who has worked professionally in the celebrity-driven television or motion picture industry is painfully aware of how careful celebrities are with how their name and image is used, enhanced or diminished. These folks did not earn a billion dollars from being stupid and unaware. They are brilliantly aware of what is going on in the media and that is why and how they accumulated such wealth and power.

Travolta and Cruise absolutely know about the media shitstorm that has hit Scientology. Is anyone naive enough to believe that they did not read what happened to their friend, Academy Award Winning Scientologist film writer/director Paul Haggis?

Baker at least has the intelligence to not claim the Nuremberg defense favored by Nazi's on trial who "did not know" what was going on in their cult. He applies an oily bit of WordClown lubricant and tries to slip in the word "directly" but it sticks out like a grungy boilersuit-wearing RPF member at a black tie IAS fundraiser.

Travolta, for whatever reasons, of course knows, supports, and enables the cult to do what it does. Whether he justifies it or pretends it is not happening is another matter.

These people know what they are doing.

They can read.

They have computers.

They have teams of professionals advising them of these matters.

And......if they have chosen to instruct their army of advisors to not speak to them about the abuses of Scientology that appear in the media daily, they are fully corrupted.

I've met Travolta and he is a nice enough fellow. But anyone who lets their airplane be used to hunt down and re-capture escaping Sea Org members is a co-conspirator. If he "didn't know" then, he does now.

Where's Travolta's contrite apology?

Apologists like Baker need not apply again as a celebrity spokesman.

Okay HH, the kid gloves are off!

How dare you even attempt an A=A=A=A=A by placing Tom Cruise and John Travolta at the same location of the alphabet?

I am calling you out on this one. Game on!

I demand documentation.

Show me one freekin' picture of John and Davey Boy on motorcycles together and I will take back everything I said above.

Don't let me down there fella. :biggrin:

Rd00

Rene Descartes
19th January 2012, 04:46 PM
It's not an 'ad hominem'. :no: {clear the phrase if you don't understand it.}

It is an expression of an emotional reaction, something which you have recommended as therapeutic. :yes: Or is that only for those emotions which you like? :eyeroll:

The fact is that neither Travolta, nor Cruise is responsible for the abuses of the church. Neither has it been shown by anyone on the board that either one of them is engaging in promotional actions dishonestly or while themselves having direct personal knowledge of the abuses of church management. Neither is really guilty of anything except possibly 'being a scientologist'. Of course, for some on the board that alone seems to be sufficient cause for ... :violent:

Both T & C are celebrities. They are apparently content to remain 'in'. They are NOT directly & personally responsible for the abuses of the church. They are not inhuman monsters, even if Cruise is Miscavige's pal.

Being a celebrity scientologist does not equate with criminal co-conspirator. If you want to complain about criminal abuses then focus on those who have actually perpetrated them.

Many non-celebrity ex's have committed far worse ethical lapses than anything that can be attributed to Travolta or Cruise. Yet you aren't seen to be hammering all those who may have so transgressed for their past actions no matter how unprincipled or destructive they may have been. Nor does having left the church suffice to 'clean the slate' completely.

Targeting celebrity scientologists just because of their social prominence simply comes across as sour grapes, disgruntlement, & envy. It is not an indication of having taken a principled & moral stand on church abuses. :eyeroll:.

Gut yontiff. :)


Mark A. Baker

But Mark,

Tom Cruise is responsible for some abuses of the church. I mean afterall he is the most dedicated Sicentologist there is.

Tom Cruise is so dedicated he somehow convinced former president Bill Clinton to call countries in Europe and let them know in no uncertain terms that they better let Scientology into their country, or else..."

Rd00

Rene Descartes
19th January 2012, 04:53 PM
If you have dox to show that either one is knowingly a participant in criminal or abusive practices of the church then put up.

If not .... :whistling:

Mark A. Baker

In the case of Tom Cruise...
I think the IRS would think otherwise if they got a good glimpse of the photos of those nice motorcycle pipes, pipes and more pipes and those wonderfully embroidered embellisments in that travel cruiser.


Rd00

Rene Descartes
19th January 2012, 05:03 PM
Kirk: Why Spock? Why would Tom Cruise act in such a way? Why would he deny that it is even possible that something bad could happen within the confines of his organized religion? Why?

Spock: His logic is impeccable.

Kirk: Spock, is that all you can say? Surely he has a responsibility to the world. Someone at the loft that he has attained must feel some slight urge to step forward and state that he has concerns that someone has been abused.

Spock: He has unbending intent Captain.

Kirk: God Spock, Why? What is this logic that he is operating on? What are the guidleines that he is using in his mind to justify all of this Spock? What are they? Spock, I need to know? What is his fundamental thought that drives him to this Spock. Tell me!

Spock: The needs of Scientology outweigh the needs of everything else.



Rd00

HelluvaHoax!
19th January 2012, 07:17 PM
:whistling:
In the case of Tom Cruise...
I think the IRS would think otherwise if they got a good glimpse of the photos of those nice motorcycle pipes, pipes and more pipes and those wonderfully embroidered embellisments in that travel cruiser.Rd00


Mark A. Baker is unavailable at this time while he is solo auditing out wholetrack Markabian charge; however, this message was successfully channeled from the theta universe.


Originally Posted by Markab aker
No. :duh:

You are wrong. :whistling:

Your post says more about your inability to know what i know :coolwink: than it does about me knowing what i know, you know? :eyeroll:

Notwithstanding the fact that I deal in facts :yes: and it is a fact that I have had case gain, in fact, from the fact of Ron's workable tech while your factual failure:confused2: to find fact is a fact of life. :no:

Mark A. Baker
20th January 2012, 07:31 AM
Mark,

If you would be so kind, please ask the IAS for a grant to come pimp my van, my motorcycle and my airplane hangar. Also, please, ask them for another grant to find me a husband.

Please also ask the C of S to send its best staff to my home to care for my needs. I especially need someone who knows how to install high-end stereo systems. I do so appreciate it but, please, don't tell anyone. This will be our little secret.

Oh, and thanks so much for that great party on the Freewinds. You shouldn't have.

ML,

Synthia E Fagen

Better ask them yourself. You have a much better relationship with them than I.


Mark A. Baker

Sindy
20th January 2012, 07:39 AM
Better ask them yourself. You have a much better relationship with them than I.


Mark A. Baker

I have a better relationship with the IAS and C of S? No, I don't think so. :) :ohmy: Not on the top of their list (at least not for anything good).

I hope you got the point though.

Rene Descartes
20th January 2012, 03:23 PM
:whistling:


Mark A. Baker is unavailable at this time while he is solo auditing out wholetrack Markabian charge; however, this message was successfully channeled from the theta universe.

HH, not that I am trying to make excuses for JT, but I tend to sympathize with him sometimes because I am in the same boat he was where I have a son that has Autism issues. So please forgive me. I guess that LRH would classify me as being reasonable per that well written HPL where he explains why some people will allow other people to get away with slapping others at Executive Staff Meetings or something along those lines.

I just want to remind you that we all know how the Church lies and tells acceptable truths or maybe even non-acceptable truths or maybe even truths that fall into the category of infinite logic quasi-truths.

I suspect that JT had no idea of the true purpose of that flight to Florida. Maybe he was told that a blown lofty member was already recovered (a lie, but accepted as truth by JT) and they felt it best to fly there and bring them back to the west coast via a theta environment (a truth in their eyes) and this would look good when the report goes into his Ethics and PC folder which will also look good on his next 6 month sec check and further OT commitments (another truth from their perspective)

So we have combined together
1. a lie, but accepted as truth by JT
2. a truth in their eyes
3. another truth from their perspective

Therefore your honor I request that the charges against my client be dropped. I further request your honor that the court recognize that JT does not get together with Davey Boy for motorcycle rides and furthermore I request that the court recognize that the true culprit in this crime is not here in the courtroom today. That individual that I refer to is none other than the most dedicated Scientologist on the planet and is off spreading theta all over the universe.

That individual was off involved in the doingness that goes with the beingness of being the most dedicated Scientologist on the planet and since he was not available to ensure that a round trip flight could be made from the west coast to Florida and back my client was swindled into believing that what he was doing was for the betterment of mankind and hoodwinked into believing that this act represented the end product of the greates good for the greatest number of dynamics.

I request that the bailiff release my client and that a warrant be put out for the most dedicated individual that I referred to earlier.

I rest my case.

Rd00

HelluvaHoax!
21st January 2012, 01:48 AM
HH, not that I am trying to make excuses for JT, but I tend to sympathize with him sometimes because I am in the same boat he was where I have a son that has Autism issues. So please forgive me. I guess that LRH would classify me as being reasonable per that well written HPL where he explains why some people will allow other people to get away with slapping others at Executive Staff Meetings or something along those lines.

I just want to remind you that we all know how the Church lies and tells acceptable truths or maybe even non-acceptable truths or maybe even truths that fall into the category of infinite logic quasi-truths.

I suspect that JT had no idea of the true purpose of that flight to Florida. Maybe he was told that a blown lofty member was already recovered (a lie, but accepted as truth by JT) and they felt it best to fly there and bring them back to the west coast via a theta environment (a truth in their eyes) and this would look good when the report goes into his Ethics and PC folder which will also look good on his next 6 month sec check and further OT commitments (another truth from their perspective)

So we have combined together
1. a lie, but accepted as truth by JT
2. a truth in their eyes
3. another truth from their perspective

Therefore your honor I request that the charges against my client be dropped. I further request your honor that the court recognize that JT does not get together with Davey Boy for motorcycle rides and furthermore I request that the court recognize that the true culprit in this crime is not here in the courtroom today. That individual that I refer to is none other than the most dedicated Scientologist on the planet and is off spreading theta all over the universe.

That individual was off involved in the doingness that goes with the beingness of being the most dedicated Scientologist on the planet and since he was not available to ensure that a round trip flight could be made from the west coast to Florida and back my client was swindled into believing that what he was doing was for the betterment of mankind and hoodwinked into believing that this act represented the end product of the greates good for the greatest number of dynamics.

I request that the bailiff release my client and that a warrant be put out for the most dedicated individual that I referred to earlier.

I rest my case.

Rd00



http://www.motivationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Judge.jpg

Thank you counselor. The court rules that Mr. Travolta was duped.
However, after your client was royally scammed, lied to, conned,
tricked, deceived, defrauded and hoaxed--he was notified of this
by television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books and the Internet--
after which he chose to ignore the overwhelmingly incriminating evidence
against Scientology and its management. Therefore, all charges shall
be dismissed save the criminal negligence for having willfully ignored
numerous and piercing warning sirens and continuing to promote the
cult's con game or, at least, do nothing whatsoever to lift even a finger
to help the slaves, prisoners and persons being physically being beaten
within the Scientology compounds. Mr. Travolta is in the peculiar and
awful position many people in history have unfortunately found themselves
in--a complicit cog and accomplice in an evil organization. Scientology
celebrities are much the same as the train engineers and security guards
in Nazi Germany who herded up millions of persons and transported them
to their death--who "didn't know" what their own organization was doing.
A defense of "ignorance" has its place in jurisprudence but only to the extent
that one had no reasonable means by which to know what one was doing.I find
that Mr. Travolta, a movie star and celebrity that has earned hundreds of millions
of dollars in entertainment, to be an extremely savvy media expert who has a large
and extensive entourage of professional advisors who certainly informed him of
the grotesque negative publicity that he was receiving by reason of being a member of
Scientology. If he chose to ignore their warnings he is guilty. And if he, in the alternative,
chose to order them to not inform him, he is equally negligent. I therefore sentence
Mr. Travolta to 5 years supervised probation and 1000 hours of community service where he will
be required to spend 250 hours reading the Internet and books about his "church" and 750 hours
making public service announcements, speeches or press conferences where he speaks honestly about
the information he has discovered about L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. Court dismissed.

Sindy
21st January 2012, 02:07 AM
http://www.motivationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Judge.jpg

Thank you counselor. The court rules that Mr. Travolta was duped.
However, after your client was royally scammed, lied to, conned,
tricked, deceived, defrauded and hoaxed--he was notified of this
by television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books and the Internet--
after which he chose to ignore the overwhelmingly incriminating evidence
against Scientology and its management. Therefore, all charges shall
be dismissed save the criminal negligence for having willfully ignored
numerous and piercing warning sirens and continuing to promote the
cult's con game or, at least, do nothing whatsoever to lift even a finger
to help the slaves, prisoners and persons being physically being beaten
within the Scientology compounds. Mr. Travolta is in the peculiar and
awful position many people in history have unfortunately found themselves
in--a complicit cog and accomplice in an evil organization. Scientology
celebrities are much the same as the train engineers and security guards
in Nazi Germany who herded up millions of persons and transported them
to their death--who "didn't know" what their own organization was doing.
A defense of "ignorance" has its place in jurisprudence but only to the extent
that one had no reasonable means by which to know what one was doing.I find
that Mr. Travolta, a movie star and celebrity that has earned hundreds of millions
of dollars in entertainment, to be an extremely savvy media expert who has a large
and extensive entourage of professional advisors who certainly informed him of
the grotesque negative publicity that he was receiving by reason of being a member of
Scientology. If he chose to ignore their warnings he is guilty. And if he, in the alternative,
chose to order them to not inform him, he is equally negligent. I therefore sentence
Mr. Travolta to 5 years supervised probation and 1000 hours of community service where he will
be required to spend 250 hours reading the Internet and books about his "church" and 750 hours
making public service announcements, speeches or press conferences where he speaks honestly about
the information he has discovered about L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. Court dismissed.



If there were a thousand like and thank you buttons, I would have pushed them all and it wouldn't have been enough. :biggrin:

Rene Descartes
21st January 2012, 03:29 AM
http://www.motivationalmemo.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Judge.jpg

Thank you counselor. The court rules that Mr. Travolta was duped.
However, after your client was royally scammed, lied to, conned,
tricked, deceived, defrauded and hoaxed--he was notified of this
by television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books and the Internet--
after which he chose to ignore the overwhelmingly incriminating evidence
against Scientology and its management. Therefore, all charges shall
be dismissed save the criminal negligence for having willfully ignored
numerous and piercing warning sirens and continuing to promote the
cult's con game or, at least, do nothing whatsoever to lift even a finger
to help the slaves, prisoners and persons being physically being beaten
within the Scientology compounds. Mr. Travolta is in the peculiar and
awful position many people in history have unfortunately found themselves
in--a complicit cog and accomplice in an evil organization. Scientology
celebrities are much the same as the train engineers and security guards
in Nazi Germany who herded up millions of persons and transported them
to their death--who "didn't know" what their own organization was doing.
A defense of "ignorance" has its place in jurisprudence but only to the extent
that one had no reasonable means by which to know what one was doing.I find
that Mr. Travolta, a movie star and celebrity that has earned hundreds of millions
of dollars in entertainment, to be an extremely savvy media expert who has a large
and extensive entourage of professional advisors who certainly informed him of
the grotesque negative publicity that he was receiving by reason of being a member of
Scientology. If he chose to ignore their warnings he is guilty. And if he, in the alternative,
chose to order them to not inform him, he is equally negligent. I therefore sentence
Mr. Travolta to 5 years supervised probation and 1000 hours of community service where he will
be required to spend 250 hours reading the Internet and books about his "church" and 750 hours
making public service announcements, speeches or press conferences where he speaks honestly about
the information he has discovered about L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. Court dismissed.



Your honor,

I thank you for your Solomnic wisdom in the matter and I was going to have my client thank you as well for your leniency regarding the other charges but my assistant has informed me that my client was escorted from the courtroom by someone with the initials CMO embroidered on a uniform. I sent my assistant out to retrieve my clent but upon his return my client was not with him. I was informed that two men dressed in Village People leather motorcycle attire were insisting that my client come with them as there was some urgent work to attend to. Apparently my client hopped into his limosine and followed these gents down the road on their chrome embroidered motorcycles.

So your honor I humbly apologize that my client is not here to also thank you. He left so fast that I did not have time to notify him about the community service. If it pleases the court I will send him copies of your Judicial Decree. I have one more request your honor and that is to allow me to remove myself from future represention of this inidividual. Although he may not be the most dedicated Scientologist on the planet I suspect that something else is amiss with him and I can't quite place my finger on it.

Still I will keep an eye out just in case my former client comes to his senses but I will not hold my breath expecting that to happen.

Rd00

HelluvaHoax!
21st January 2012, 03:36 AM
Your honor,

I thank you for your Solomnic wisdom in the matter and I was going to have my client thank you as well for your leniency regarding the other charges but my assistant has informed me that my client was escorted from the courtroom by someone with the initials CMO embroidered on a uniform. I sent my assistant out to retrieve my clent but upon his return my client was not with him. I was informed that two men dressed in Village People leather motorcycle attire were insisting that my client come with them as there was some urgent work to attend to. Apparently my client hopped into his limosine and followed these gents down the road on their chrome embroidered motorcycles.

So your honor I humbly apologize that my client is not here to also thank you. He left so fast that I did not have time to notify him about the community service. If it pleases the court I will send him copies of your Judicial Decree. I have one more request your honor and that is to allow me to remove myself from future represention of this inidividual. Although he may not be the most dedicated Scientologist on the planet I suspect that something else is amiss with him and I can't quite place my finger on it.

Still I will keep an eye out just in case my former client comes to his senses but I will not hold my breath expecting that to happen.

Rd00


Motion granted. The record shall reflect that counsel's representation of Mr. Travolta has been terminated and it is so stipulated. The court wishes to thank counsel for his efforts to afford his client human and civil rights that his own church denies him. Court adjourned.

Rene Descartes
21st January 2012, 07:31 PM
The idea of ill treatment in the Church by anyone and the sweeping under the rug reminds me of a recent occurence in southeast Pennsylvania. A good many of you Americans probably heard of the Penn State fiasco.

They and the individuals from other countries who have followed it might be able to see some sort of similarities. Granted there are big differences since the Penn State fiasco involved an individual raping young boys and this is much different than abuse of the physical nature. However both involve human rights and both involve the fact that people have at some time either turned their sight away from what was happening and did not act accordingly to prevent the abuse from continuing.

When it came to light that there were individuals at Penn State who were aware of what had happened and were also in a position where they could act and prevent it from occurring and did not those individuals were fired. They were cut loose. There is still an investigation going on now and we shall see what it uncovers.

One of the most famous college football coaches in the country who rumor has it held so much power that he could pull strings and people would do as the strings were pulled and who had built the program to a loftiness where respect by the entire USA football community was earned lost all that respect and was terminated from his position. Granted he was old and held that spot for somewhere around 50 years and was likely to retire soon but he is now regarded with disgrace to many in the country.

Also for those unfamiliar, the coach is not the one who was involved in the activity of raping the young boys but he did not use the power of his position to do the proper thing. After the indiviual was caught raping the young boys he was merely set aside in the campus and was still given access to use the campus to continue his crimes and he was not arrested because nobody did the right thing. The coach was an enabler.

I pray that the neighborhood watch is becoming more and more alert these days and that somehow someway things are brought to light regarding the abuses we have heard about withint the confines of the mose executive facility of this religous organization.

Rd00