CNN Anderson Cooper Scn program!

Tiger Lily

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think he wanted to stay away from the beliefs of Scientologists, even though they are lying about their beliefs, and stick with the "who beat up whom?" question. And show how there is this cult that beats each other up, and with this going on - no matter who is lying - can they really be the road to enlightenment for anyone?

His programs have been extremely narrowly focused on that question, and for that reason he has unfortunately left out ALOT.

But, as has been said by others, I think Scientologists are now extremely entertaining for news shows to report on, and report on, and report on, because they look and act so frikking crazy. And people are starting to get the idea that it might be dangerous to have a bunch of pinheaded totalitarian fanatics running around in a free society.

It is like a freak show. :thumbsup:

Newsroom: "Our ratings are down. Who's got an idea?"

Newsguy: "I know! Let's get some Scientologists on the set! People love to watch those idiots make fools of themselves! They NEVER disappoint!"

Result: Ratings rise whenever you get Scientologists on camera.

Overall effect: Huge win for the exposure of the crimes and abuses of the Number 1 Cult in America!!

Yeah that's probably it -- staying away from the beliefs . . . that's something people can find out for themselves pretty easily and I'm sure there's been a lot of legal counsel for AC et. al. prior to this.

Wonder what's happening to the stats on ESMB this week.

And YES, they are entertaining to watch!! Though it is kind of embarrassing to watch it with my hubby (who tried to point that out to me numerous times when I was in, and I told him he just didn't know what "good comm" was ha ha).

-TL
 

zorzetta

Patron
It's great to hear that your kin has seen a bit of the truth that goes on in Scn management!

As far as your comment ''I'm not that impressed with the coverage thus far'.... perhaps you could give us a link to your pgm that has spread this news to millions of viewers this week, so that we could judge whether we are at all 'impressed' with your offering....:whistling:

Hi Knight Vision,

Sorry I wasn't more clear. When I referred to "a program", I was speaking about the AC 360 coverage. Since this is the thread about said program, I didn't think I had to be more specific....:)
 

Div6

Crusader
I think he wanted to stay away from the beliefs of Scientologists, even though they are lying about their beliefs, and stick with the "who beat up whom?" question. And show how there is this cult that beats each other up, and with this going on - no matter who is lying - can they really be the road to enlightenment for anyone?

His programs have been extremely narrowly focused on that question, and for that reason he has unfortunately left out ALOT.

But, as has been said by others, I think Scientologists are now extremely entertaining for news shows to report on, and report on, and report on, because they look and act so frikking crazy. And people are starting to get the idea that it might be dangerous to have a bunch of pinheaded totalitarian fanatics running around in a free society.

It is like a freak show. :thumbsup:

Newsroom: "Our ratings are down. Who's got an idea?"

Newsguy: "I know! Let's get some Scientologists on the set! People love to watch those idiots make fools of themselves! They NEVER disappoint!"

Result: Ratings rise whenever you get Scientologists on camera.

Overall effect: Huge win for the exposure of the crimes and abuses of the Number 1 Cult in America!!

Anonymous as the vanguard recognized that Lulz factor years ago.....what has started as local lulz has now gone mainstream.....

Oh my god! Davey can't go..... He is in a condition of Lulz power!
 

Terril park

Sponsor
]Yes, it's called the SUPPRESSIVE ACTS PL, first published in 1965 by LRH, wherein he makes it a HIGH CRIME to remain connected to anyone who has been declared a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON by the Church of Scientology. Still in force, never cancelled, and applied every day by Tommy Davis, David Miscavige, and every single one of them up there on that show.

They are LYING.

Scientologists lying.

Imagine that.

Just to dot the I's and cross the T's. New green vol 1, page 873.


HCOPL 23 dec dec 1965 RB

SUPPRESSIVE ACTS SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS.

Suppressive acts include:-

" Continued adherence to a person or group pronounced a
suppressive person or group by HCO."
 

Consensus

Patron with Honors
Anonymous as the vanguard recognized that Lulz factor years ago.....what has started as local lulz has now gone mainstream.....

Oh my god! Davey can't go..... He is in a condition of Lulz power!

The internet - I won't say 'Anonymous', but in this context they're synonymous - has one cardinal sin: Unwarranted Self-Importance.

But that same culture/audience (it's not a 'group' with any definable traits or boundaries) is amoral; everyone has their own ethical rules, beliefs, and so on, but they (generally) act for amusement rather than moral reasons.

The sin of Unwarranted Self-Importance becomes very significant here as a result. If you target only those with USI, and do so to full effect, two things happen: 1) people either end their USI behavior and become good, thoughtful people, 2) we get to see blow-hards make failed attempts at bullying, we see them come face to face with their own impotence, and we laugh while they break down in tears as a result of their own hubris.

If you look at the sort of person to exhibit USI, there's a strong parallel to things many traditional moral codes regard as 'immoral.' So in this way, the amoral troll approach actually works as a force for good.

Of course, it can go awry in the hands of children, where many kids have USI (ask any teacher), and many other kids have learned the techniques of trolling, but are more vicious with it. I'll take amusement in DM or TD having a nervous breakdown, but I wouldn't get the same pleasure out of seeing someone my age who just wants to live a normal life break down. If they go beyond 'wanting to live a normal life' and become d-bags, all the sudden the amusement value of seeing them fall apart ramps way up.

To illustrate my USI point, look at how the internet has handled furries. They're weird. They're as weird as 'mainstream' fetishes can get. And they get trolled all over the internet. But there are 'out' furries all over the internet who aren't harassed and run out on the rails. How do they manage that? They avoid USI. They say 'Hey, I'm not tellin' you to do it, but yiffing turns me on. If that makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem, but I make no apologies for who I am.' That's not USI, that's a healthy, positive attitude that everyone should take with respect to their own sexual orientations, fetishes, and for all recreational activities (not everyone likes star wars toys, or hang gliding, or fighting scientology, etc...). If fans of ANYTHING end up organized, and demonstrating USI, they WILL become a target. How far the war goes depends directly upon whether the person with USI backs down, ceases to make demands upon others, admits that they're really just like all of us (plus their own subjective preferences for particular recreational activities), and so on.

And that's one thing Scientology will never, ever do.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
The internet - I won't say 'Anonymous', but in this context they're synonymous - has one cardinal sin: Unwarranted Self-Importance.

But that same culture/audience (it's not a 'group' with any definable traits or boundaries) is amoral; everyone has their own ethical rules, beliefs, and so on, but they (generally) act for amusement rather than moral reasons.

The sin of Unwarranted Self-Importance becomes very significant here as a result. If you target only those with USI, and do so to full effect, two things happen: 1) people either end their USI behavior and become good, thoughtful people, 2) we get to see blow-hards make failed attempts at bullying, we see them come face to face with their own impotence, and we laugh while they break down in tears as a result of their own hubris.

If you look at the sort of person to exhibit USI, there's a strong parallel to things many traditional moral codes regard as 'immoral.' So in this way, the amoral troll approach actually works as a force for good.

Of course, it can go awry in the hands of children, where many kids have USI (ask any teacher), and many other kids have learned the techniques of trolling, but are more vicious with it. I'll take amusement in DM or TD having a nervous breakdown, but I wouldn't get the same pleasure out of seeing someone my age who just wants to live a normal life break down. If they go beyond 'wanting to live a normal life' and become d-bags, all the sudden the amusement value of seeing them fall apart ramps way up.

To illustrate my USI point, look at how the internet has handled furries. They're weird. They're as weird as 'mainstream' fetishes can get. And they get trolled all over the internet. But there are 'out' furries all over the internet who aren't harassed and run out on the rails. How do they manage that? They avoid USI. They say 'Hey, I'm not tellin' you to do it, but yiffing turns me on. If that makes you uncomfortable, that's your problem, but I make no apologies for who I am.' That's not USI, that's a healthy, positive attitude that everyone should take with respect to their own sexual orientations, fetishes, and for all recreational activities (not everyone likes star wars toys, or hang gliding, or fighting scientology, etc...). If fans of ANYTHING end up organized, and demonstrating USI, they WILL become a target. How far the war goes depends directly upon whether the person with USI backs down, ceases to make demands upon others, admits that they're really just like all of us (plus their own subjective preferences for particular recreational activities), and so on.

And that's one thing Scientology will never, ever do.

Yes, but what about when the self-importance is warranted?
 

Consensus

Patron with Honors
Yes, but what about when the self-importance is warranted?

Self-Importance isn't a toggle switch that's either 'on' or 'off.'

To almost every person on the planet, they are the most important person in their own lives*. And that makes sense - you spend more time with yourself than with any other person, and the decisions you make effect you more than the decisions any other person makes. After you, there are people like your mother, your husband, your children and your close friends who rank very high. Then there's your countrymen, or members of your church, or people you know at your favorite bar, and so on. A rank ordering merely illustrates this point, I don't mean to suggest that people actually rank-order others in terms of their importance to themselves.

Unwarranted self-importance is when you demand others rank you higher than they do. 'You should put more emphasis on meeting my needs and following my wishes than you do other people!' Now, because my father is more important to me than some random person in australia, my father can get away with acting towards me in ways that would upset me, if the random person behaved the same. So behavior that would demonstrate unwarranted self-importance in one person might not in another. I (along with members of the media) shouldn't be influenced by the whims of DM, because we are not members of his church. His followers, well... if there were any legitimacy to the church's teachings, then they should be.

The thing is, it's possible for well-meaning people to step on toes. I've demonstrated unwarranted self-importance before, to various individuals. But if I make a habit of it, and thousands of people across the globe feel I'm imposing upon them, they might organize (since the internet makes it so much easier to do so now) and work to troll me. Even then, they can only affect me insofar as I give a shit what they think about me. Unwarranted self-importance goes hand-in-hand with giving a shit what others think. DM cares that I type on this site and WWP about how short, ugly, stupid, and tyrannical he is. I don't give a shit if he talks shit about me personally. In fact, it would be USI to assume he does. That doesn't mean it would be USI for Marty, for example, to assume DM talks shit about him.

So USI isn't a toggle switch. It's a ratio of how important you really are to a given person or group, and how important you feel you are to them. If you overestimate your importance**, they'll notice and get uncomfortable with that. If you consistently do that to people across the board, you create an organized enemy group that will undermine you.

*There are organizations that will try to make you feel guilty and selfish about this, convince you to make THEM the most important thing in your life (and reward you with praise for doing so), and then exploit you. I can't think of any examples of such organizations off the top of my head though. The flaw, of course, is that self-interest and selfishness are not the same thing. I can also imagine individuals and organizations that are fiercely selfish, but act in ways that are not at all in their own self interest. Again, sadly, I can't think of an example of such an organization....

**and all there are are estimates; we don't have access to any objective measurements of how important one person is to another; for person X and Y, we have the importance X puts on Y, the importance Y puts on X, the importance X wants Y to put on them, and the importance Y wants X to put on them. Look at any relationship that just ended, any stalker relationship, any politician-constituent relationship, you'll see a variety of balances. Some work, some don't. If you are in a relationship where those numbers don't balance, you feel unhappy and may act out. If you've ever had someone point a gun at you and demand your wallet, you know what I mean - they seem awfully invested in what you think about them, and you'd rather pay them no mind at all.

edit - the popular theory that the press is evicerating the cult as a result of their investigation into the SPTimes fits with this explanation. The press knows that Scientology is small potatos. While many journalists avoid Scientology out of fear, most avoid them because it isn't as relevent to their audience's lives as, say, the health care debate. But after Scientology made it clear that they'll pursue journalists who take them on, journalists recognized the USI and attacked. If journalists are avoiding coverage of scientology out of fear, that *IS* relevent to the lives of any given journalist's audience. So they're taking them out.

But that doesn't mean the theory is true; and the fact that it's the prominent theory amongst Anons illustrates the mindset - that USI is the cardinal sin of the internet. When an organization is confronted like this, the only explanation that satisfies anons is that one side or the other has USI.
 
Last edited:

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
CNN.com has the episode 1 video right at the top center of their home page.

Scientology under Scrutiny

http://www.cnn.com

Do you realize how much traffic cnn.com gets?

I'll tell you:

Lots!

I can only imagine how relations between Fox News and their resident Scientologist Greta Van Susteren must be at this point.

If Fox mentions any of this stuff in any negative way, Greta would be forced to disconnect from Fox.
 

smartone

My Own Boss
What gets me in this whole tirade is that no-one is asking the question what do these exes have to gain by telling lies :duh:

I liked it when Anderson asked why no police reports were submitted regarding the beatings done by Rathbun and Co. That it would make sense if no police reports were ever done on the church leader - ooops! The babbling answers/excuses from TD and Co. were not convincing at all. They are hanging themselves more and more.

Also, Jeff's wife screaming that he's a liar was SOOO not convincing. Some of my family and friends have been watching this. Their comments got me laughing so much I just about made it to the loo.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
That interviewer is stupid and has no grounding on basic rhetoric. The CoS idiots on that video look sooo suppressed and PTS, Starkey is a sad fag OMG!

All this useless reporter needs to do is wave the Code of a Scientologist in their face to destroy any validity of their blabs... This code forbids them to put the CoS or SCNists in trouble ie tell the truth about DM's abusive valence.

:clap:

Or better yet, wave the "Suppressive Acts" HCOPL in front of them:
Such Suppressive Acts include public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology Organizations; public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened;

and ask them about the likelihood of their remaining Scientologists if they publicly confirmed crimes committed by the COB of Scn, in such a way as to bring disrepute upon Scientology.
 

Div6

Crusader
Or better yet, wave the "Suppressive Acts" HCOPL in front of them:


and ask them about the likelihood of their remaining Scientologists if they publicly confirmed crimes committed by the COB of Scn, in such a way as to bring disrepute upon Scientology.

The minute you do that you allow them to baww and get butthurt about the "religious bigot" card.

I think what was exposed is plain enough to most sentient beings....
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
While questioning TD on why the authorities were never called or charges filed against Rathbun, TD said they wanted to handle the matter internally and it was quickly dealt with once DM found out.

Assault and battery is a crime.

Conspiracy to conceal a crime is itself a crime.

For example United States Code Title 18 § 4
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
 

fnx3

Patron with Honors
What gets me in this whole tirade is that no-one is asking the question what do these exes have to gain by telling lies :duh:

...

Me too! I haven't watched since AC so glaringly missed that chance on the 2nd day ... :no: (the "exes" being the "ex-wives" club).

But it is encouraging to see that "they" (the CofS) are being revealed so publicly as just another "cult" to the public mind.
 

Boojuum

Silver Meritorious Patron
Random thoughts re Anderson's show

1. It's not as damning as most of us would like to see.
2. It's PR mega disaster for the cos.
3. The show is keeping the topic simple. Is David Miscavage beating his staff? Is David Miscavage beating his staff?
4. What happens to people who leave? I mean is there a disconnection policy? Is there a disconnection policy?
5. The high emotional level of the ex-wives is a guarantee that we'll see these clips again and again.
6. This is certainly a test pilot. As long as the ratings are high, we'll see more and more. I can think of another five or six weeks of shows off the top of my head: Where does the money go? How come 12 year old kids are working 18 hours a day? What was the power struggle in '82. What's the RPF like? I don't think the beatings are as interesting as the expense of getting to OT. The Cadet Org and nursery would really be interesting.

Stay tuned.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
As long as the ratings are high, we'll see more and more.

This is extremely important. If the ratings are high and CNN see's that it can make money at the expense of the CoS we will see more coverage.
And there is really enough material to do hundreds of shows.
 

WildKat

Gold Meritorious Patron
Tonight was the slam dunk!

I'm so glad AC had a follow-up night with Marty, Jeff & Tom. They were AWESOME! I think they put to rest the pathetic stories from the ex-wives, who came off looking like deluded culties. Ya almost feel sorry for them!

Great wrap-up guys - you did GREAT!!!!!

We want MOAR!!
 

Mest Lover

Not Sea Org Qualified
I can only imagine how relations between Fox News and their resident Scientologist Greta Van Susteren must be at this point.

If Fox mentions any of this stuff in any negative way, Greta would be forced to disconnect from Fox.

Ah yes she would, but their leaders have said there is no disconnection policy.
 
Top