If critics look "nutty" "frumpy" or "moonstruck" does it distract from the message?

[Pitbull]

In light of all the new critical activity over the last year, it seems
a useful topic of discussion.

Most folks who have a bone to pick with the Church of Scientology seem
to relish any and all activities that express a disgruntled view of the organizaton. No matter who, what, when or where: If it slams Scientology then its good.

But is it really good? Or does it just express a disgruntled view without
really communicating the issues or effecting real change?

We forget that the average Joe (or Jane) who are not familiar with the Scientology issue may also respond to the antics of critics in a negative way.

Why do you think the News Broadcasts hire attractive well spoken people?
Or advertisers use specific "types" of people in their commercials to communicate a message?

We might get a certain buzz or thrill when we see someone talk about Scientology, but all too often the vehicle for delivery is a total embarrassment.

All the public sees is a well established "church" with nice buildings, well dressed individuals, celebrities, etc. on one side,

And then a bunch of rebellious teens (not to be taken all that seriously) or damaged frumpy people talking about how bad it all is.

My guess is that many people DO leave scientology and just go on the get their act together and live happy (or reasonably happy) and successfull lives.
We rarely hear from THOSE people. Seems like we generally here or see from the fringy elements when it comes to the Internet and Public events.

I'm just not sure how much that is helping.

 

[byte301]

I get what you're saying Pitbull and you have a good point. I, myself, would rather see just regular people like WBM, Chuck, Arnie, etc. That's real to me.
I think a lot of younger people, the one's more likely to get into a cult, see anons as people like themselves.

If we were to get some Barbie and Ken types to speak for the movement I think it would look more like an infomercial then just real people speaking the truth. If people are turned off by our critics and anon then I think it just means they are a little on the shallow side maybe?

The newscasters I watch are older. They may not be wiser but I relate to them.

I fit in the frumpy catagory. I think there's only one or two critics who fit in the nutty (kinda) catagory. Don't know who you mean on the moonstruck one.

 

[asagai]

Tommy Davis with his fresh-from-the-RPF look on CBS and Tom Cruise with his manic stare and sofa-bouncing must put thousands off the CofS.

So yes, I agree Pitbull, nutty looks, tired haggered RPF looks and the like distract terribly from the CofS message!

I remember a few years ago when Heber was still in good standing, him being verbally destroyed by David Mellor (UK cabinet minister) on the BBC for his smarmy smile and weasly words. His look and manner totally destroyed his message when he was trying to get the CofS to be recognised as a charity.

 

[Escalus]

I'm just not sure how much that is helping.

Watch.

 

[Alanzo]

In light of all the new critical activity over the last year, it seems
a useful topic of discussion.

Most folks who have a bone to pick with the Church of Scientology seem
to relish any and all activities that express a disgruntled view of the organizaton. No matter who, what, when or where: If it slams Scientology then its good.

But is it really good? Or does it just express a disgruntled view without
really communicating the issues or effecting real change?

We forget that the average Joe (or Jane) who are not familiar with the Scientology issue may also respond to the antics of critics in a negative way.

Why do you think the News Broadcasts hire attractive well spoken people?
Or advertisers use specific "types" of people in their commercials to communicate a message?

We might get a certain buzz or thrill when we see someone talk about Scientology, but all too often the vehicle for delivery is a total embarrassment.

All the public sees is a well established "church" with nice buildings, well dressed individuals, celebrities, etc. on one side,

And then a bunch of rebellious teens (not to be taken all that seriously) or damaged frumpy people talking about how bad it all is.

My guess is that many people DO leave scientology and just go on the get their act together and live happy (or reasonably happy) and successfull lives.
We rarely hear from THOSE people. Seems like we generally here or see from the fringy elements when it comes to the Internet and Public events.

I'm just not sure how much that is helping.

Let's see, who are some other "nutty", "frumpy" or "moonstruck" spokespeople in other areas, and how did they do, based on their looks:

Henry Kissinger
Madelyn Albright
Noam Chomski
Winston Churchill

Now, let's look at some good looking people, and see how they did as speakers for a cause:

Dan Quayle
Milli Vanilli
Tom Cruise
Any given Miss America

Sorry - looks like your criteria for "making critics and anon more effective" is full of shit, pitbull.

Once again.

 

[byte301]

Let's see, who are some other "nutty", "frumpy" or "moonstruck" spokespeople in other areas, and how did they do, based on their looks:

Henry Kissinger
Madelyn Albright
Noam Chomski
Adolph Hitler

Now, let's look at some good looking people, and see how they did as speakers for a cause:

Dan Quayle
Milli Vanilli
Tom Cruise
Any given Miss America

Sorry - looks like your criteria for "making critics and anon more effective" is full of shit, pitbull.

Once again.

 

[Neo]

Let's see, who are some other "nutty", "frumpy" or "moonstruck" spokespeople in other areas, and how did they do, based on their looks:

Henry Kissinger
Madelyn Albright
Noam Chomski
Adolph Hitler

Now, let's look at some good looking people, and see how they did as speakers for a cause:

Dan Quayle
Milli Vanilli
Tom Cruise
Any given Miss America

Sorry - looks like your criteria for "making critics and anon more effective" is full of shit, pitbull.

Once again.

Very well said Alanzo

(Milli Vanilli, LOL - now there's an act I haven't thought of in a while)

Neo

 

[gomorrhan]

Guess you didn't see Jason Beghe's video, or meet him at the protests. Rather than picking at the people who do oppose human rights violators and RICO statute bait, why not point out the people who ARE good spokespersons? There's ugly on both sides, trust me, you should meet the old HAS at Boston Day, Mitra Ghobadi. That was one frumpy lady.

 

[denvanon]

I can think of certain ex-members that, to outsiders like me, seem a little un-hinged. I don't know how it goes with the press but I can't imagine someone looking the very picture of PTSD with a thousand-yard stare talking about their time in Scientology sends a good message about what they do to people's heads.

(Of course I've met totally functional human beings who adjusted to the real world after they got out and did so admirably. It's nice to have them around to give an eloquent word or two about what Scientology is really all about when the "recovering crazy person" angle doesn't play well.

 

[klidov]

In light of all the new critical activity over the last year, it seems
a useful topic of discussion.

Most folks who have a bone to pick with the Church of Scientology seem
to relish any and all activities that express a disgruntled view of the organization. No matter who, what, when or where: If it slams Scientology then its good.

But is it really good? Or does it just express a disgruntled view without
really communicating the issues or effecting real change?

We forget that the average Joe (or Jane) who are not familiar with the Scientology issue may also respond to the antics of critics in a negative way.

Why do you think the News Broadcasts hire attractive well spoken people?
Or advertisers use specific "types" of people in their commercials to communicate a message?

We might get a certain buzz or thrill when we see someone talk about Scientology, but all too often the vehicle for delivery is a total embarrassment.

All the public sees is a well established "church" with nice buildings, well dressed individuals, celebrities, etc. on one side,

And then a bunch of rebellious teens (not to be taken all that seriously) or damaged frumpy people talking about how bad it all is.

My guess is that many people DO leave scientology and just go on the get their act together and live happy (or reasonably happy) and successfull lives.
We rarely hear from THOSE people. Seems like we generally here or see from the fringy elements when it comes to the Internet and Public events.

I'm just not sure how much that is helping.

Hmmmm.....

Very Psych 101 (Freshman Year Collage). Place a seed of doubt & pick at it.

The only problem is, there are people like me who are not "nutty", "frumpy", or "moonstruck". I am no where NEAR a teenager either.

But you know what I DO have in common with former members & Anons?

I get it. When it comes to the Co$, I get it. And you know what? This is a cause I am more than willing to throw myself behind.

What you forget Pitbull?

There are a LOT of people like me. We are paying attention. We are not put off by Anons demonstrations. And, maybe because the Cult is so judgemental, you don't realize that "out here", yeah, we have some that will look at a former Scientologist's hair, or clothes....but I am going to bet that a good 87% of the people that hear the message, are going to really HEAR it.

And remember it. And tell their friends about it. The "real" danger to the Cult, is not Anon & Former Members, it is the people like me.

Those "Average" Joes & Janes.

You under estimate us.

 

[namaste]

Does that answer your question?

 

[MLWilde]

But is it really good? Or does it just express a disgruntled view without really communicating the issues or effecting real change?

I think the critical movement would loooove to sit down with a panel of Scns and COMMUNICATE. (I know I would) A real debate on the abuses (excluding the tech) - ask anything - both sides. But it could never happen.

Or advertisers use specific "types" of people in their commercials to communicate a message?

Scientology sure does like to recruit those pretty people, don't they.

We might get a certain buzz or thrill when we see someone talk about Scientology, but all too often the vehicle for delivery is a total embarrassment.

The public is not in the limited world view that you are so they can see through any bull. As an example, I've seen Tory's videotaped talks and she's is funny but it comes from the heart. I'd say she's a little kooky sometimes but when she talks about Scientology, I find her credible. And the girls at ESK. Astra Woodcraft has been speaking out for years! Kendra - she's a writer, eloquent. These are the faces/voices of dissent, Pitbull. And the Anon movement, with all its faults, is bringing attention. And any attention counts because once a person googles Scientology - it's all over, for Scientology that is.

We'll leave the character assassination to the Scientologists. The kids may be unruly but they know who is telling the truth. My god, anyone new to Scientology, presented with both sides could not turn away from the truth.

All the public sees is a well established "church" with nice buildings, well dressed individuals, celebrities, etc. on one side,

Um, no they don't.

We rarely hear from THOSE people. Seems like we generally here or see from the fringy elements when it comes to the Internet and Public events.

Do you hear the people in here? This website is not fringy. And neither is the ESK site.

I'm just not sure how much that is helping.

Time to put down the cult pipe and find out.

 

[byte301]

Very well said Alanzo

(Milli Vanilli, LOL - now there's an act I haven't thought of in a while)

Neo

That's why I was laughing...Milli Vanilli! How Alanzo even remembered them!

 

[Björkist]

That's why I was laughing...Milli Vanilli! How Alanzo even remembered them!

Girl you know it's true....ooh, ooh, ooh....

 

[Neo]

Girl you know it's true....ooh, ooh, ooh....

Personally, I blame it on the rain

 

[byte301]

Pitbull,

I don't think most people feel that the $cilons are well dressed. They think the SO uniforms are weird.

Maybe some $cilons are well dressed but that is usually public. The staffers can't afford to dress well in a lot of cases. But that's neither here nor there.
More and more "wogs" are talking about how strange and creepy $cilons are...especially the celebs.

 

[Rene Descartes]

Besides anyone critical of Scientology has MUs on Scientology, maybe even worse they might have overts.

On the other side one could say that Scientologists have MUs on critics and maybe even worse, maybe overts.

Rd00

 

[Björkist]

Personally, I blame it on the rain

I thought you blamed it on "the Ron".

 

[Neo]

I thought you blamed it on "the Ron".

Touché

 

[Tanstaafl]

(Milli Vanilli, LOL - now there's an act I haven't thought of in a while)

Does lip-synching consitute an "act" now?
Bring back prog rock!