What's new

Paul Haggis vs. Co$ commentary at slashdot.org

R2-45

Silver Meritorious Patron
idrizomare, you are right. I should have done it this way:

From an article posted to slashdot on Monday February 14, 2011 link here:

http://slashdot.org/story/11/02/14/2043250/Paul-Haggis-vs-the-Church-of-Scientology

<Quote (links disabled below, read the comments on slashdot, this is likely to be on fire! but note the obvious OSA shilling):>

Posted by Soulskill  on Monday February 14, @04:02PM
from the gloves-are-off dept.

eldavojohn writes "It's a lengthy read, but Lawrence Wright at The New Yorker has released a 26 page expose on Scientology. In a world where such innocuous sounding words as 'squirrels,' 'security-checked,' 'disconnection,' 'contra-survival,' 'suppressive persons,' 'clear' and 'open season' carry very serious and heavy baggage, director Paul Haggis has exited after thirty four years of membership and massive funding. Now he speaks at length of Scientology's controversies. From how celebrities were recruited with a 10% commission by a worker at Beverly Hills Playhouse to the current investigation by the FBI of physical abuse and human trafficking, Wright draws surrounding histories and accounts of the Church including Anonymous' crusade. The length of this article reflects the unusually large number of individuals (12 cases of physical abuse) cited as testimony of Scientology Leader David Miscavige's inurement and physical violence. The case remains open as the FBI collects data and testimony — especially in relation to Sea Org. Most disturbing are the disappearances of people that the New Yorker piece enumerates. The piece concludes with the author's interaction with the Church that results in several conflicting foundational statements from its stance on homosexuality (Haggis'original reason for publicly leaving it) to almost all details of L. Ron Hubbard's naval service and discharge. The article ends with Haggis' quote: 'I was in a cult for thirty-four years. Everyone else could see it. I don't know why I couldn't.' You can find summaries of the lengthy article and its suspected results along with corresponding reports listing politicians involved with the Church. Copyrighted work, leaked government documents, PS3 encryption keys and everything else has been posted on Slashdot but only the Church of Scientology has forced comments out of existence."

<end of quoted>

I linked to the wrong article, though it is apropos, it is indeed 10 yrs old and therefore not breaking news. I wanted to link to this one, so, thanks to idrizomare, I am fixing it and will edit my OP to reflect this very quickly...


Also of note is the 'comments historically suppressed at slashdot':

http://slashdot.org/story/01/03/16/1256226/Scientologists-Force-Comment-Off-Slashdot

Also, today at slashdot.org there are a few more co$ related items and some interesting Co$ related linkage. Worth a visit? I think so.

Note the "from the gloves-are-off department"

Very slow velocity and massively damaging foot bullet?

:yes:
 
Last edited:

idrizomare

Patron with Honors
I feel old

I didn't realize that Slashdot article was from 10 years ago ... until I saw a reference to searching with AltaVista.
 

R2-45

Silver Meritorious Patron
Fixing my original post right now...

I didn't realize that Slashdot article was from 10 years ago ... until I saw a reference to searching with AltaVista.

idrizomare, you are right. I just fixed my original post. Thanks. Sorry for any confusion.

:duh:
 
Last edited:

idrizomare

Patron with Honors
I do thank you for the link to the older slashdot posting about the DMCA takedown order regarding the OT III materials. I had not seen that previously.

I always find the comments to general interest articles about Scientology to be disappointing. I've become accustomed to the level of knowledge at places like ESMB, rather than the inevitable, "Scientology is no more of a cult than any other religion," people getting hung up on the OT3 story, or people saying they'd never fall for something like Scientology.

And while I enjoyed the recent article in the New Yorker, I would also like to see the depth of detail you get reading the stories of everyday people who have left the CofS. There's so much variation because everyone's experience is unique, yet there are so many similarities.

When people read about celebrity experiences with Scientology, I don't think they connect. Celebrities are wealthy and famous. If they get taken for a ride, people figure that's the price they have to pay for fame.

Maybe no single story of a regular person's experience with Scientology would capture the public's interest, but weave a story around 20 people and I'll bet it would have real impact.
 

Natalie

Patron with Honors
My daughter did it at Flag in 2009 as an outer org trainee. She says it indoctrinates you to not to let people put counter intention on your lines or influence you, in or out of the org. It is a two day course that is supposed to be done at the end of the students training line up, but many did it earlier as a stat push to get a completion.

The students also had to do the STCC (Success Through Communication Course), even though most had done Pro Trs, so that they could learn how to not answer a question and beat around the bush. The students were told they were doing it because the call-in for sales of the Basics wasn't going well and they needed to get their TRs in. Students who were on Pro TRs would finish and then do STCC, totally ass backwards. The whole evolution was run by RTC.

Probably students were doing call-in and being asked questions about out-points regarding the Basics and things they were seeing about Scn in the press at the time, and RTC wanted to make sure they knew how to not answer these questions.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Natalie, that's good info.

For those who care to engage younger cult-telephone-callers in serious conversation about the cult's failings, we might enquire as to whether the caller is a student, an outer-org trainee, etc. And then get into "Have you been recently trained to not answer my questions so as to avoid getting into REAL communication with those you're calling?"

But only if you care to have this conversation, of course. Could be helpful or, at the least, entertaining.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
My daughter did it at Flag in 2009 as an outer org trainee. She says it indoctrinates you to not to let people put counter intention on your lines or influence you, in or out of the org. It is a two day course that is supposed to be done at the end of the students training line up, but many did it earlier as a stat push to get a completion.

The students also had to do the STCC (Success Through Communication Course), even though most had done Pro Trs, so that they could learn how to not answer a question and beat around the bush. The students were told they were doing it because the call-in for sales of the Basics wasn't going well and they needed to get their TRs in. Students who were on Pro TRs would finish and then do STCC, totally ass backwards. The whole evolution was run by RTC.

Probably students were doing call-in and being asked questions about out-points regarding the Basics and things they were seeing about Scn in the press at the time, and RTC wanted to make sure they knew how to not answer these questions.

STCC??? wow The old course is still going? Thought it was a piece of crap when we designed it in 1978. Kind of surprised it is still around.
 

LA SCN

NOT drinking the kool-aid
Yes!

STCC??? wow The old course is still going? Thought it was a piece of crap when we designed it in 1978. Kind of surprised it is still around.

It was / is a piece of crap! If anything it trains people to be disingenuous and phony.

You were in on its design? You've got to tell the tale on that evolution!

In the mid 80's RTC was busy busy surveying folks around CCI to see what first course Scn vets had taken that got them 'in' - the majority by far had done the HAS or Comm Course with hard TRs.

So of course the midget made sure that the HAS was NOT in the Div 6 lineup and instead put in the STCC.
 
Top