Marty: An Open Letter to Tony Ortega

Terril park

Sponsor
What constitutes a 'meaningful' number is subject to difference of opinion. BB cited several different sources for his estimate. However I strongly suspect that BB made absolutely no allowance for overlapping memberships in his estimate.

Tried.

My own 2 forums number 1000. There are at least 3 other major FZ forums.
There is much overlap.

And note that Marty's people are mostly not included.

Then there is 2-3000 Russian FZers.

Its thousands not hundreds.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
O course LRH is # 1 on the list. Yes, he created and furthered Scn. Built it into a wealthy entity and all that.

But he also is the one who built the problems into it and those problems are the things causing CofS to fail.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I've been contacted by another scholar.

That implies that you'll be talking to him in future.

He got trashed by CO$ because he mentioned the OT3 stuff in his book.

Your comment about my TR -L being in is your usual black PR.

This all happened before we communicated.

You now have to revise your weirdo conspiracy theory.

You need word clearing just ask.

There's no conspiracy theory, just a description of standard operating procedure for both the CofS and outside the CofS Scientology.

What happened before you "were contacted" is irrelevant.

But I can't navigate through your muddled thought processes.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
That implies that you'll be talking to him in future.



There's no conspiracy theory, just a description of standard operating procedure for both the CofS and outside the CofS Scientology.

What happened before you "were contacted" is irrelevant.

But I can't navigate through your muddled thought processes.

You imply I lie.

Bring that on.
 

apocalyptic

Patron with Honors
Scott is supposed to be very "PTS" to the evil "SP" Gerry Armstrong.



And the 'scholars" will be manipulated and lied to more and more, but that happened before with the CofS, so what else is new?

Stay tuned.

Apocalyptic

Scientology's private apocalypse is taking place in a very public forum (called 'the world stage of exposure' courtesy of the internet, circa 2012, pre & post). Which forum includes scholars that have witnessed second hand (and some, first hand) the manipulation you speak of. What's new is not the attempt at manipulation of such scholars, but the end times in which scientology is attempting to do so.

The real (new) issue is one of the methodology and means of scientology's organizational worldly (spiritual) surrender. Not (only) to the scholars of the world, but to the people of the world (one by one, country by country, nation by nation, individual by individual). Which l ron hubbard called wogs. Being the arrogant and foolish (though brilliant) man he was. And some say, still is.

Nonetheless, in the final analysis, the 'financial manipulation' that was, that is and that will be, will be trumping the 'scholarly manipulation' that was, that is and that will be, hands down. From top to bottom. From inside out.


 

apocalyptic

Patron with Honors
Terril, please answer the 'good question!, for once' for us all.

Thank you (for your honesty and candor). Our children are watching.

Apocalyptic
 
Last edited:

NCSP

Patron Meritorious
I didn't have a huge problem with Marty's response. It was actually more measured than I'd expected.

I did find it galling that M&M and the commenters went on and on about how you can't use Hubbard's personality to criticize Scientology, because a person's behavior has nothing to do with the truth of their message -- and then proceed to attack people's ideas by citing their personalities and even appearances.

Rinder:

Jon Atack – not known for either his knowledge of Scientology or his balanced approach to life

Ralph Hilton:

As for Gerry Armstrong, one needs only to look at the degraded state of his personal presentation.

And can we for once and for all bury the "old news" defense? CoS and M&M are equally guilty of using it. "Who cares? It's old and boring, let's move on." Well, so is the fact that Hubbard founded Scientology, that he had a wife named Mary Sue, etc., etc. That doesn't make it any less true, or any less essential for an understanding of the subject. What they really mean when they say this, of course, is, "What you're saying is true but embarrassing, and we would prefer that people stop talking about it."
 

apocalyptic

Patron with Honors
I didn't have a huge problem with Marty's response. It was actually more measured than I'd expected.

I did find it galling that M&M and the commenters went on and on about how you can't use Hubbard's personality to criticize Scientology, because a person's behavior has nothing to do with the truth of their message -- and then proceed to attack people's ideas by citing their personalities and even appearances.

Immaculate.

Thank you.

Apocalyptic
 

Veda

Sponsor
I didn't have a huge problem with Marty's response. It was actually more measured than I'd expected.

-snip-

Then you couldn't have expected much. :) It was a gimmick-riddled PR handling of a semi-celebrity (Ortega).
 

NCSP

Patron Meritorious
Then you couldn't have expected much. :) It was a gimmick-riddled PR handling of a semi-celebrity (Ortega).

No, I didn't. I wasn't impressed with his arguments, nor in the least persuaded. I didn't expect to be.

But I did note that he threw the red meat to his audience while carefully avoiding actually condemning Ortega or burning any bridges. That was not unimpressive, given the man's past.
 
I didn't have a huge problem with Marty's response. It was actually more measured than I'd expected.

I did find it galling that M&M and the commenters went on and on about how you can't use Hubbard's personality to criticize Scientology, because a person's behavior has nothing to do with the truth of their message -- and then proceed to attack people's ideas by citing their personalities and even appearances. ...

Clearly they have the words but the cognition hasn't happened yet.


Mark A. Baker
 

Veda

Sponsor
No, I didn't. But I did note that he threw the red meat to his audience while carefully avoiding actually condemning Ortega or burning any bridges. That was not unimpressive, given the man's past.

Marty can still use Ortega and so will not burn any bridges to him. I've no doubt that Marty called Tony Ortega and attempted to smooth things over on the phone. Ortega still wants Marty Rathbun as an information source, a source for stories. So, they would have "made up" during the phone conversation - each with his own self-serving motivation: Marty to "forward Scientology" by maintaining contact with an "opinion leader," and Tony to maintain a newsworthy contact.

It's business as usual. IMO, nothing to be impressed with.
 
No, I didn't. I wasn't impressed with his arguments, nor in the least persuaded. I didn't expect to be.

But I did note that he threw the red meat to his audience while carefully avoiding actually condemning Ortega or burning any bridges. That was not unimpressive, given the man's past.

This Open Letter is not really addressed to Tony Ortega, the target audience is Rathbun's flock. They have bonded with the Village Voice enjoying 24 theta articles about the the demise of "radical corporate Scientology", and filled with excitment and anxious anticipation they read the #1 source and BAM!!! Ortega ambushes them with the worst entheta imaginable. Enturbulation alert. So Marty handles them, writes what they want to hear. They need guidance or they might start thinking again. From a Scientology perspective thinking people are bad for business.

aa
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
mrinder | September 29, 2011 at 1:18 am | Reply

. . . And the final long-felled tree that Tony somehow found in the forest (apparently with the guidance of Jon Atack – not known for either his knowledge of Scientology or his balanced approach to life) is his assertion that L. Ron Hubbard “mandate[d] that the survival of Scientology be the most central, guiding principle in Scientology.” This is NOT the Scientology I am familiar with – I would go out on a limb and say the real mandate of Scientology is achieving personal survival, understanding and enlightenment. At least that’s the Scientology I know and have been involved in for 50 years . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gm7ATqW4p0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifcp9uAxLcY
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
There is numerous video available on internet wich shows Mike lying.

a little bit body language study of mike is interesting

we then know (very easily and predict) when he he going to lie within the next sec

His eyes disconnect - he escape the interviewer eyes (twitching)

And then, when ''performing'' lies

he shakes his head like a spring..each time he knows he hides things but wishes we could not find (twitching)

Tommy Davis do pretty much the same with his eyes
 
Top