New Article Needs Attention

[Sindy]

Of course, the OSA puppet takes it out of context:
Here's the full paragraph on the AOL article:


And the actual, original quote from Wright is


The comment I made (St. Pete Times) was:


As usual, Scientologists' "proof" just doesn't hold up.

Excellent! Thanks.

 

[Sassy]

I just posted the following comment.

"I am a member of the Church of Scientology and I can say without any doubts that the article in the New Yorker was completly factual. It's time for us as members to recognize that we have participated in a mind-control CULT and it's our obligation to end the abuse ASAP. Potential future victims can be spared our fate."

Hows that?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Whilst the full article is interesting and full of truths, the second item of major importance is the "Tommy says if LRH isn't a War Hero then $cientology is false" issue. A Google-News search will show the NYorker write-up on this, including scans of the original LRH Naval Records. (I'm tempted to ask the question: Is this Tommy's way of trying to end his miserable connection with the cult?... Let the media decide for him?... Not even the most dedicated $cientologist can mistakenly shoot all ten toes off in one comment)

HellYeah!!

Tommy did that once before in 2010. I think it was when he was being questioned about the validity of the e-meter.

There were two points he made (sort of) that were brutal footbullets against what he was trying to prove.

It never dawned on me until just now that the media has caught on to how to get a ratings-booster meltdown from him. All they need to do is back him into a corner and he will invariably (in a moment of sheer terror and desperation) say or do the first thing he thinks of and it is an unmitigated disaster. Like the Martin Bashir "volcano" question on Nightline where he blew up and stormed off.

So...in that e-meter demo he was completely thrown off by the journalists challenges that the meter could be entirely unscientific and Tommy was caught in the headlights--not a clue what to say--and thus responded: "What's your point?" OMG!

He even conceded (quite stupidly) that it was NOT science but religion. Right after trying to prove that it was science.

Madness!

Love you tone40-ten-toe footbullet imagery!

 

[paradox]

"The author cites two sources in the FBI who 'assured me that the case remains open.' However, a federal law enforcement source told AOL News the investigation has fallen short and no criminal charges are expected to be filed."

And the actual, original quote from Wright is

"I recently spoke with two sources in the F.B.I. who are close to the investigation.They assured me that the case remains open."

The comment I made (St. Pete Times) was:

Who do you believe has the best data, "a federal law enforcement source" or "two sources in the F.B.I. who are close to the investigation"?

Let's see, this "federal law enforcement source" doesn't even seem to be in the FBI or the AOL article would have said so, instead of the vague description used.

As usual, Scientologists' "proof" just doesn't hold up.

My thought exactly. "Federal law enforcement source" could have been a BLM officer (Bureau of Land Management i.e. federal agency with uniformed law enforcement/police powers on federal lands), office manager, or administrator fer xenu's sake.

 

[Freeminds]

... Not even the most dedicated $cientologist can mistakenly shoot all ten toes off in one comment ...

They can, if armed with a blunderbuss.

Tommy Davis: we <3 you! Please... handle things some more. You're doing a great job.

 

[TG1]

Bill, good post earlier.