Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Leaving Scientology' started by Chris Shelton, Dec 6, 2016.
Thank you Caroline, that cleared things up quite nicely for me.
Gerry didn't imply you were a psychopath. That would be as illogical as implying all Scientologists are psychopaths because they accept and follow the psychopathic logic of L. Ron Hubbard. Which they do.
Anyway, here's Gerry's reply:
I hope Mike will tell the truth of what he knows of the fair gaming of Gerry.
I believe his mindset regarding Gerry is still stuck in the past back when Gerry was the enemy and he has not yet cleaned out his bias regarding him (given the fruitcake comment on video from a few years ago.)
Gerry published a substantive response to your idea, here: On meeting Rinder
Here’s a brief excerpt:
Read rest of Gerry's response, with links, here.
I read that with real interest. Thanks!
I will read the rest of Gerry's response in the next couple days.
I would agree with you and Jerry--that a "short attention span" media-driven forum (e.g. filmed meeting for broadcast, footage for a documentary, et al) is not long enough to allow the discovery of sufficient details to satisfy all of Jerry's desires. However, my thought was that all of that material could be captured with just portions of it ending up in the media-driven product.
If that was the case, both purposes could theoretically be satisfied and the entire event memorialized on film by a top flight documentarian--who would also bring the material out in a documentary like "KNOWLEDGE REPORT" that Mark Bunker has been working on for some years.
In other words, let the cameras roll and allow all questions to be answered. But also allow a benefit to the party that undertakes the time/cost of filming it--so that this additional driving force might help bring the parties together and to moderate the discussions.
It's just a theory. But, the vast time-worn sea of frustrated efforts to get some real answers from Mike or Mark, this might unstick the stalemate and allow something fascinating to evolve out of it.
A couple moments into my daydream about this provocative never-tried-before airing of Fair Game, I wondered why Mike Rinder would ever consider exposing himself on such a video. That's why I began to think of their being a cathartic media component to it--much like we see in his collaboration with Leah Remini--or we saw with Mark Rathbun in Theroux's documentary. Admittedly, those filmed platforms are rather volatile recipes that can emotionally move viewers/participants to a sunny redemptive place or just as easily to darkness and denial. Or just plain weirdness, as we saw with Rathbun's storming off the set when Theroux asked him (along with the actors) to stand and salute Hubbard's photo. lol.
In every sense, I would think that capturing such a volume of credible detail about the practice and implementation of Fair Game would be a historically important archive. But, that alone is apparently insufficient to gain participation of all parties. This is where the introduction of a "3rd party" (media) could be extremely helpful, perhaps, to get the parties moving in the direction of having a conversation.....