Olivia Newton- John , John Travolta Reunited

[Sindy]

...

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/wo...m-6290582.html

Crash Director Says Scientologists Are Rooting Thru His Trash
http://www.queerty.com/crash-directo...rash-20120115/

"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]

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/Displ...anner&kw=Flash

[Mark A. Baker]

... 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'. {clear the phrase if you don't understand it.}

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

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 ...

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. .

Gut yontiff.


Mark A. Baker

[Sindy]

It's not an 'ad hominem'. {clear the phrase if you don't understand it.}

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

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 ...

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. .

Gut yontiff.


Mark A. Baker

When you say, that when someone asserts something, that they are 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

[HelluvaHoax!]

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]

<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.

[Mark A. Baker]

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]

This is ad hominem.

It's not an 'ad hominem'. {clear the phrase if you don't understand it.}

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

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]

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 ....

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.

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!]

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.