New Article Needs Attention

[Sindy]

Below is one of two official statements from the church regarding the Lawrence Wright/Paul Haggis story:

http://scientologymyths.files.wordp...tology_international_pm_statement-_7feb11.pdf

In this statement the church cites a statement from this article:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/07/church-of-scientology-faces-controversy-over-latest-abuse-allega/

"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. Laura Eimiller, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Los Angeles, declined comment."







Now the OSAbots are out on the blogs stating that this is proof that Lawrence Wright is a liar, that there is not an FBI Investigation.

Now Aol has a new article asking for opinion
on whether the C of S deserves this scrutiny.
As of my writing here, there are only two comments.
More are needed. Here is the article:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/09/do-scientology-and-tom-cruise-deserve-so-much-scrutiny/

 

[NCSP]

Below is one of two official statements from the church regarding the Lawrence Wright/Paul Haggis story:

http://scientologymyths.files.wordp...tology_international_pm_statement-_7feb11.pdf

In this statement the church cites a statement from this article:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/07/church-of-scientology-faces-controversy-over-latest-abuse-allega/

"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. Laura Eimiller, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Los Angeles, declined comment."







Now the OSAbots are out on the blogs stating that this is proof that Lawrence Wright is a liar, that there is not an FBI Investigation.

Now Aol has a new article asking for opinion
on whether the C of S deserves this scrutiny.
As of my writing here, there are only two comments.
More are needed. Here is the article:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/09/do-scientology-and-tom-cruise-deserve-so-much-scrutiny/

Pooned. Thanks for the heads up!

(Under my real name -- mistake? Meh, I never was much interested in that "anonymous" stuff. )

 

[Atalantan]

Done.

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

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?

 

[Sindy]

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?

Thank you!

 

[Sindy]

Done.

Great!

 

[me myself & i]

Couldn't hurt for sure. But AOL news is like the NOKIA of, well whatever NOKIA once was, relative to something else.

If the FBI was aware of the possibility of Scientology's Secret Service (OSA) compromising their own FBI office (which they were) AOL is dead in the water when it comes to being an 'uncompromised' news source regarding anything Scientology.

The FBI ain't talkin (save for saying yes, no, maybe and no comment, all at the same time). Keeps targets a bit edgy that way.

Below is one of two official statements from the church regarding the Lawrence Wright/Paul Haggis story:

http://scientologymyths.files.wordp...tology_international_pm_statement-_7feb11.pdf

In this statement the church cites a statement from this article:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/07/church-of-scientology-faces-controversy-over-latest-abuse-allega/

"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. Laura Eimiller, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Los Angeles, declined comment."







Now the OSAbots are out on the blogs stating that this is proof that Lawrence Wright is a liar, that there is not an FBI Investigation.

Now Aol has a new article asking for opinion
on whether the C of S deserves this scrutiny.
As of my writing here, there are only two comments.
More are needed. Here is the article:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/09/do-scientology-and-tom-cruise-deserve-so-much-scrutiny/

 

[Karen#1]

Comment on CULT response

Larry Wright says :
If you did try, you’d be attacking the C.O.B.”—the chairman of the board. Tom De Vocht, a defector who had been a manager at the Clearwater spiritual center, told the paper that he, too, had been beaten by Miscavige; he said that from 2003 to 2005 he had witnessed Miscavige striking other staff members as many as a hundred times.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright#ixzz1DUyhnlD9

THE RESPONSE DOES NOT DENY THE BEATINGS.
THE RESPONSE DOES NOT DENY Miscavige beat others over 100 times just from Tom De Vocht eye witness alone.

THEY ONLY DENY FBI IS INVESTIGATING

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ulf K. Maier]

No better blanket than a denial...

From Church of Scientology Faces Controversy Over Latest Abuse Allegations, last line:

"The church told NBC it knows nothing about an investigation. "

Nor about David Miscavige living high on "church" funds... Will David Miscavige have to admit that the cult is not a church, to avoid charges of inurement against his diminutive person? That'd be a hell of an interesting twist on things.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... "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. Laura Eimiller, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Los Angeles, declined comment." ...

It took years for the feds to make a case against Jeffs, and that met with huge political backlash for raiding a church compound. Anything the government will do against the church will only be done very very cautiously. Reminding the Attorney General of the sensitive nature of the law & attitudes with regard to the 1st amendment is good advice.


Mark A. Baker

 

[TG1]

Why does anyone believe they are obliged to answer truthfully a question asked them by a reporter, just because the reporter asked and because your answer will be printed in a newspaper?

The FBI could be lying.
The Co$ could be lying.
Amy could be lying.
Mike could be lying.
David Miscavige and Tommy Davis are certainly lying.

The only people you'll really get your tit caught in a legal wringer for lying to are officers of the law when you're questioned by them under an explicit or assumed oath to tell them the truth. NOT when you're talking to a reporter.

 

[NCSP]

Synthia -- I'm alsmost disappointed that Bassoon (that *cannot* be her real name) hasn't replaied to me. She hasn't replied to you either. I take that to mean that our positions are unassailable.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Why does anyone believe they are obliged to answer truthfully a question asked them by a reporter, just because the reporter asked and because your answer will be printed in a newspaper?

The FBI could be lying.
The Co$ could be lying.
Amy could be lying.
Mike could be lying.
David Miscavige and Tommy Davis are certainly lying.

The only people you'll really get your tit caught in a legal wringer for lying to are officers of the law when you're questioned by them under an explicit or assumed oath to tell them the truth. NOT when you're talking to a reporter.

Maybe. But if in life you get known for lying then people don't trust you. Ever.

It's actually a big deal.

Paul

 

[Sindy]

Synthia -- I'm alsmost disappointed that Bassoon (that *cannot* be her real name) hasn't replaied to me. She hasn't replied to you either. I take that to mean that our positions are unassailable.

Let's see how long it lasts. Maybe her copy pasta hand is getting tired.

 

[Kookaburra]

I think it is the FBI that needs to be pooned if they have indeed dropped the investigation. It the Federal Bureau of Investigation can't find anything illegal in the RPF/SP Hall prison camps then they need to be disbanded and the USA needs to start from scratch on a new federal police force. This is just ridiculous.

Anyone who has ever been on the RPF or has first hand knowledge of it's abuses or keeping people against their will or negligence in medical care needs to call them today and report it, and demand that something be done.

 

[This is NOT OK !!!!]

:bump:

The only source of the "they've abandoned their investigation" is Tommy Davis.

(that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep contacting the FBI to ask what's up!)

 

[UmbalumTeapot]

Synthia -- I'm alsmost disappointed that Bassoon (that *cannot* be her real name) hasn't replaied to me. She hasn't replied to you either. I take that to mean that our positions are unassailable.

The "Bassoon" is an account on par with the "Louanne".

Personally I've only really noticed the Bassoon posting in UK comments.
Bassoon, Louanne, Teryeo, etc... blah blah blah

One of the majorly important things to come out of the NYorker article, imo, is that in an unprecedented way the auto-spam-copy-pasta is being seen a hundred fold more compared to previous events.

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)

Babbling...

Thanks for the OSA'ness Emma: thumbsup: I feel speshul now.

 

[degraded being]

The "Bassoon" is an account on par with the "Louanne".

Personally I've only really noticed the Bassoon posting in UK comments.
Bassoon, Louanne, Teryeo, etc... blah blah blah

One of the majorly important things to come out of the NYorker article, imo, is that in an unprecedented way the auto-spam-copy-pasta is being seen a hundred fold more compared to previous events.

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)

Babbling...

Thanks for the OSA'ness Emma: thumbsup: I feel speshul now.

That crossed my mind too. Actually though on your sentence following that "...Not even the most..." From what I have heard Tommy saying in the past, I have to say he is very capable of shooting off all his toes and would need extras for the amount of footbullets he fires. He has done it before.

 

[Sindy]

The "Bassoon" is an account on par with the "Louanne".

Personally I've only really noticed the Bassoon posting in UK comments.
Bassoon, Louanne, Teryeo, etc... blah blah blah

One of the majorly important things to come out of the NYorker article, imo, is that in an unprecedented way the auto-spam-copy-pasta is being seen a hundred fold more compared to previous events.

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)

Babbling...

Thanks for the OSA'ness Emma: thumbsup: I feel speshul now.

I think that is spot-on. I had the exact same thought myself.

By saying that he was "screwing over the church" by saying something that Miscavige can't really get mad at him for as it opens too big of a can of worms. This may be the moment of maximum cognitive dissonance for Tommy.

 

[Bill]

Response

Below is one of two official statements from the church regarding the Lawrence Wright/Paul Haggis story:

http://scientologymyths.files.wordp...tology_international_pm_statement-_7feb11.pdf

In this statement the church cites a statement from this article:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/07/church-of-scientology-faces-controversy-over-latest-abuse-allega/

"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. Laura Eimiller, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Los Angeles, declined comment."

Now the OSAbots are out on the blogs stating that this is proof that Lawrence Wright is a liar, that there is not an FBI Investigation.

Now Aol has a new article asking for opinion
on whether the C of S deserves this scrutiny.
As of my writing here, there are only two comments.
More are needed. Here is the article:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/09/do-scientology-and-tom-cruise-deserve-so-much-scrutiny/

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

"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.