PirateAndBum

Originally Posted by Mark A. Baker

Actually this guy makes some very good points that it would do well for a few of the more strident critics to consider.

First, arguably the vast majority of people on the planet are not terribly interested in waging a war against scientology. An attitude which requires 'you are either with us or against us' is no more attractive coming from a critic of scientology than it is coming from a member in good standing of the church. There is in fact no difference between such appeals except the justifications used by the individuals involved.

Crusaders always believe their cause is holy, unbelievers are infidels, and such must either be converted or else they lie beyond hope of redemption. Same piffle, different causes.

Second, information is not inherently polemical. In fact those sources serve best which simply present the available information without resorting to emotional suasion. Attempting to coopt information sources as a propaganda channel for private wars simply alienates those who are not naturally opposed. They quite rightly see their efforts thus being diverted to serve some purpose extraneous to their own. That is not a way to win friends or influence people. At least not in a 'positive' way.

When offering information to an independent source it is best to offer simple facts without including stridently partisan material and don't boast about how they are being used to 'get the word out'. Of course, all that is simply good manners.


Mark A. Baker

No, sorry Mark. He DOES NOT make any good points AT ALL. The only thing that can be said about poor Markus is that he is being used by one side (Scientology) to damage one of its critics - Gerry.

What many people don't seem to really see clearly:

Mark Rathbun and Mike Rinder are critics of David Miscavige

They are not Scientology critics. So there is NO critic war. That just furthers a lie and in a way that favors Scientology.

This is not critic vs critic. It is Critic vs Scientologists.

Mark, what if your simple facts ARE stridently partisan material?

You think film makers have no emotion invested in their projects? You think Markus made this film just to make some money? I think he has an interest in getting out a message.

Gerry is ardent about his message. I would be too if I'd had as much shit piled on me by the criminal cult as he. Does he hurt his own cause by his stridency? Some, I'd say he can overdo it at times. No one is perfect.

How did Gerry try to co-opt Markus as an information source? He posted a less than 90 second video of Rinder, that he had permission to post. How do you read co-opt of information source into this?

Markus is clearly interested in bringing out the truth about the cult. There are far less risky things to make films about.

Maybe he is not aware that he is now a target for fair gaming by the Co$. OSA is not going to sit around and do nothing about this film-maker. You can be sure that they are running an OP on him already. Maybe this bullshit is part of it.

Whether he wanted to be or not, he has involved himself in this ongoing conflict between those that want the lies and criminality of Scientology exposed and stopped and those that do not.

To claim, "I am just a film maker." leave me out of this. Sorry, Markus chose to step into this and bring some truth to light. He shouldn't wimp-out. It takes strength to keep going in the face of opposition. It takes clear thinking to see manipulation.

I do not see the lessons you see Mark.