Today Tonight
- Thread starter Lohan2008
- Start date
ScudMuffin
Silver Meritorious Patron
ot3
Carmel
Crusader
I'd usually agree, but look at this (done last year). It was "Neo" being interviewed as well as "Mate" - both have a line in with Brian Seymour.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=6541&highlight=today+tonight+child
Once bitten
Patron Meritorious
Do tell us in the rest of the world what's going on!!
Carmel
Crusader
Yep, nothing new particularly.
Read Vicki Dunstan's email to the reporter Bryan Semour though - looks like the CofS here is taking a new tack.
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/5300519/none/xenu-scientology
Read Vicki Dunstan's email to the reporter Bryan Semour though - looks like the CofS here is taking a new tack.
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/5300519/none/xenu-scientology
Once bitten
Patron Meritorious
What I can't understand is why all the OTs who are now out ALL say that they learned about Xenu when they did OT3. Why does the 'church' keep saying that it's not true? It does them no good at all, and just makes them appear to even bigger liars than we already know that they are.
Why do they think it won't hurt them to keep denying it?
I hope this pgm will be made available. Good old Today/Tonight.
Why do they think it won't hurt them to keep denying it?
I hope this pgm will be made available. Good old Today/Tonight.
anonymous1312
Patron with Honors
meh, TT just clipped together stories from web about Xenu...
couldnt even bother to do their own research.
of course TT said Scilons believe in Xenu, even though only 10% know about it; can anyone else see the math problem?
Perhaps, but they used snippets of the original recordings, mostly from the Assists lecture where the Galactic Overlord's name is spelled X-E-M-U. This and many other recordings are available on Wikileaks and have been listened to by a lot of Anonymous and other protestors. This is the first time I know of where significant snippets of L Ron Hubbard's actual lectures have been broadcast on mass media.
10% is a scientology figure, although I forget the exact origin of the quote. Suffice to say the cult said somewhere that only 10% of scientologists had achieved OT3; that would be the 10% of the wider scientology circle though, the one that includes anyone who ever took a course, so I agree the math maybe skewed.
I also agree though that MOST scientologists don't believe in Xenu because they haven't gotten to the level required to be told about it. I point this out at protests, that although the cult's "advanced" teachings incorporate the Xenu story, space aliens and space alien spirits concepts most members have not reached that level so are genuine when they say they haven't heard of it.
It is still a fact though that the advanced teachings are all about that, that engrams on your thetan needing to be cleared become Body Thetans, that past life traumas are all linked to Incident 1 and Incident 2 of OT3 and the implants.
Where Scientology differs from main stream religions is that the full belief system is not revealed at the start. When people decide to become Christians they accept the invisible God, the virgin birth, the resurrection, walking on water, Jesus Christ's miracles and all the other bible concepts at the outset; they are not revealed as some kind of revelation in reward for having donated a huge some of money and or time and effort in support of the church. Main stream religions are basically this is what we really are take it or leave it.
Scientology is a bait and switch religion that subtly draws people in by appearing to mold itself as the answer to each individuals' problems; find the ruin, play on it and claim scientology can fix it. It throws out very plausible answers at first, based on defunct theories by Freud and Jung among others. The concepts become more elaborate as the individual becomes more indoctrinated. Not only that but Scientology turns around the individuals' desires to work to the benefit of the cult, usually at the expense of the individual.
What ever originally got the individual in to the cult is replaced by a fanatical desire to recruit more members, buy more courses and literature and sell courses and literature. This is done in the sincere belief this is the right thing, this is their mission in life and this will make the world a better place. The problems that originally got them in become irrelevant; some subjective ones, such as social acceptance issues, may appear to go away for a while within the cults' closed community while others can be made worse.
The Today Tonight programme is a win in that it will have made more people less inclined to get involved in Scientology but I prefer programmes that reveal the darker nature of the cult rather than just its hidden teachings.
What the ....?
In the attachment to Vicki Dunstans email :
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/5300519/none/xenu-scientology
Vicki Dunstan writes :
Quote :
"We have since learned that this person, who had no personal knowledge of anything relating to Scientology, was involved in attacks on the Church’s computer systems – an attack for which one individual has agreed to plead guilty to federal crimes that could potentially send them to prison, .."
and isn't that an outright goddamned lie?
Just because some kid in the US makes something stupid with his computer, does not automatically mean that some other person in Australia is a part of that "crime".
Isn't there a basis for a lawsuit for libel, on behalf of the "this person"?
If "this person" is "guilty" of being "involved in attacks on the Church’s computer systems", I am "guilty" too.
Or what?
Kind regards
TGAck
In the attachment to Vicki Dunstans email :
http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/5300519/none/xenu-scientology
Vicki Dunstan writes :
Quote :
"We have since learned that this person, who had no personal knowledge of anything relating to Scientology, was involved in attacks on the Church’s computer systems – an attack for which one individual has agreed to plead guilty to federal crimes that could potentially send them to prison, .."
and isn't that an outright goddamned lie?
Just because some kid in the US makes something stupid with his computer, does not automatically mean that some other person in Australia is a part of that "crime".
Isn't there a basis for a lawsuit for libel, on behalf of the "this person"?
If "this person" is "guilty" of being "involved in attacks on the Church’s computer systems", I am "guilty" too.
Or what?
Kind regards
TGAck
Div6
Crusader
There are a number of statements in her "letter" that are lies.
The one that struck me was that the confidentiality of the OT levels was not a matter of policy but of belief.
THAT is SO not true. IT IS Policy.
But then, all Scn PR's are trained to tell "acceptable truths"....(ie: lies.)
More BS.
Terril park
Sponsor
Its rare I have even a slight disagreement with you. No doubt you are correct that their are PLs written on this matter. However they are written because of valid tech reasons. I consider that as valid to call belief and as such is senior to policy. I also used to think the confidentiality was BS. However I know personally two people adversely effected by premature exposure to OT 3. I know probably 100s not so affected including myself.
Its a difficult situation. Many in the FZ also insist on keeping upper level data confidential, including me because I know adverse reactions are possible. So here I'll talk freely about such matters and on my own FZ forum I don't. So hat juggling is the way to go.
Below one such post here. This program, TT, though represents a complete failure on the part of COS to follow a vitally important PL , The First. " Maintain Friendly relations with the environment and the public". This has been reversed by COS and part of the consequences are this upcoming program, another part is anonymous, and there are many many other parts including this forum where we are communicating. Your sig line quote is also very relevant here.
----------------
If one looks at the processes of OT 2-7 you start with the very enigmatic OT 2 whose purpose is the breaking up of the composite case, then OT 3 could perhaps be considered to take this process a bit further, and OT 4 is really more OT 3 but audited, and then one comes to NOTs. In a sense this is all part of the same area of case. On OT 2 you aren't given a story of much data at all yet somehow it works. On OT 3 you are given a story, and its one I don't really believe, however one is addressing the composite case
regardless.
Its very interesting to read PAB 12 " The cycle of action of an Explosion"
and see how that relates to OT 3. Couple of quotes below:-
" That thing which most closely approximates life itself in the material universe is an explosion"
" The cycle of action of life in the mest universe is the cycle of action of an explosion"
" The explosion is apparently a very definite basis in all engrams and, for our purposes here, can be considered to be basic-basic."
OT3 is a primer in explosions rather than on some nasty tax collector.
Veda
Sponsor
Lying about "OT 3" when conversing with "Wogs," "DBs," "SPs," and assorted (for "Scientology Freezoners") "Meatballs," is standard procedure.
There are a half dozen, or so, PR lines that are used - depending on the "public" and the situation - to mislead people about "OT 3."
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=201352&postcount=26
Axiom142
Gold Meritorious Patron
Some Word Clearing Required?
bigot n. a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
That is what the ‘Concise OED’ says. Vicky Dunstan uses derivatives of ‘bigot’ four times in her letter to Bryan Seymour. She appears to equate bigot with someone who disagrees with the policies and practices of the ‘Church of Scientology’. This is a common tactic of cults – accuse others of intolerance for disagreeing with them. Given the behaviour of the CoS as documented by numerous videos, books, court cases and eye-witness accounts, I’d say that members of the CoS qualify as being intolerant more than almost anyone else that I have ever heard of.
I’d suggest that Vicky and her colleagues get word-cleared on this word before they carry on making idiots of themselves.
In her letter, Ms Dunstan makes numerous illogical statements, for example:
“Like other religions, Scientology will not enter into a debate concerning the validity of our beliefs.”
This is ridiculous. I have seen religious leaders debate their religion many times, often without feeling the need to verbally attack those who disagree with them. Scientology is supposed to be built on a foundation of logic and reason. Why aren’t they prepared to demonstrate this?
“Evidently, you continue to rely on anti-Scientologists for tabloid fodder for your program.”
Well what choice do they have, when the CoS will not allow representatives or members of the CoS to appear on the program and discuss it? She complains about the treatment that the CoS gets, but will not accept an invitation to appear on the program to defend the CoS. How is this logical?
“Would you insist on a Muslim allowing an infidel into their mosque?”
On several occasions recently, TV cameras have been admitted into mosques and the activities filmed for general broadcast. If Muslims allow this, why can’t Scientologists discuss their beliefs?
“No religion should be taken to task about their beliefs and nor should the media put church members or officials to the Hobson’s choice of ignoring your barbs or committing sacrilege.”
Why not? Is she suggesting that the rest of the world is not allowed to challenge ‘beliefs’ that they believe are dangerous? Just putting a 'religious' label on something doesn't make it above criticism. Or the law. And what is wrong with ignoring barbs? How about turning the other cheek Ms Dunstan? Oh, that’s right, Scientologists don’t do that, do they?
“Should you wish to find further examples to make a mockery of, they may be found in the book History of Man. In that book is contained the track of a spiritual being and the genetic line of evolution of bodies; It could provide more than enough material for you to fill a program with ridicule.”
Well OK, that last bit is true.
Many of the critics of Scientology have been members of the Cult of Scientology so have first-hand knowledge of what the CoS really stands for. They are far more informed on the subject of their criticism that the majority of Scientologists who robotically criticise people and groups just because they are told to.
With this programme and many others like it recently, the CoS is reaping what they have sowed over the past 50 years with their arrogant, intolerant and at times inhuman attitude and behaviour towards anyone who does not think as they do. Most other organisations would realise that they have to change if they wish to survive. I don’t think that message has got through yet.
Axiom142
bigot n. a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
That is what the ‘Concise OED’ says. Vicky Dunstan uses derivatives of ‘bigot’ four times in her letter to Bryan Seymour. She appears to equate bigot with someone who disagrees with the policies and practices of the ‘Church of Scientology’. This is a common tactic of cults – accuse others of intolerance for disagreeing with them. Given the behaviour of the CoS as documented by numerous videos, books, court cases and eye-witness accounts, I’d say that members of the CoS qualify as being intolerant more than almost anyone else that I have ever heard of.
I’d suggest that Vicky and her colleagues get word-cleared on this word before they carry on making idiots of themselves.
In her letter, Ms Dunstan makes numerous illogical statements, for example:
“Like other religions, Scientology will not enter into a debate concerning the validity of our beliefs.”
This is ridiculous. I have seen religious leaders debate their religion many times, often without feeling the need to verbally attack those who disagree with them. Scientology is supposed to be built on a foundation of logic and reason. Why aren’t they prepared to demonstrate this?
“Evidently, you continue to rely on anti-Scientologists for tabloid fodder for your program.”
Well what choice do they have, when the CoS will not allow representatives or members of the CoS to appear on the program and discuss it? She complains about the treatment that the CoS gets, but will not accept an invitation to appear on the program to defend the CoS. How is this logical?
“Would you insist on a Muslim allowing an infidel into their mosque?”
On several occasions recently, TV cameras have been admitted into mosques and the activities filmed for general broadcast. If Muslims allow this, why can’t Scientologists discuss their beliefs?
“No religion should be taken to task about their beliefs and nor should the media put church members or officials to the Hobson’s choice of ignoring your barbs or committing sacrilege.”
Why not? Is she suggesting that the rest of the world is not allowed to challenge ‘beliefs’ that they believe are dangerous? Just putting a 'religious' label on something doesn't make it above criticism. Or the law. And what is wrong with ignoring barbs? How about turning the other cheek Ms Dunstan? Oh, that’s right, Scientologists don’t do that, do they?
“Should you wish to find further examples to make a mockery of, they may be found in the book History of Man. In that book is contained the track of a spiritual being and the genetic line of evolution of bodies; It could provide more than enough material for you to fill a program with ridicule.”
Well OK, that last bit is true.
Many of the critics of Scientology have been members of the Cult of Scientology so have first-hand knowledge of what the CoS really stands for. They are far more informed on the subject of their criticism that the majority of Scientologists who robotically criticise people and groups just because they are told to.
With this programme and many others like it recently, the CoS is reaping what they have sowed over the past 50 years with their arrogant, intolerant and at times inhuman attitude and behaviour towards anyone who does not think as they do. Most other organisations would realise that they have to change if they wish to survive. I don’t think that message has got through yet.
Axiom142
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Its very interesting to read PAB 12 " The cycle of action of an Explosion"
and see how that relates to OT 3. Couple of quotes below:-
" That thing which most closely approximates life itself in the material universe is an explosion"
" The cycle of action of life in the mest universe is the cycle of action of an explosion"
" The explosion is apparently a very definite basis in all engrams and, for our purposes here, can be considered to be basic-basic."
OT3 is a primer in explosions rather than on some nasty tax collector.
1. I think this idea of explosions being so central to life is bananas.
2. I think your love, Terril, for the connection between PAB 12 and OT3 - I know OT3 has explosions in it - is bananas too.
3. Since OT3 is bananas anyway, that makes any such genuine relationship bananas cubed.
Paul
Lucretia
Patron with Honors
!!!! Well, there we have it I think. From my recollection, it was fatal to be exposed to OT3 data before ready for it. At the very least you got a bad case of pneumonia.
2 out of hundreds? At most 2% of people were affected - affected by what - their own desire to be affected? We have been right royally conned, boys and girls.
The big test now is to wait for the epidemic of pneumonia in Oz.
Go TT. Jeez, there was a time I thought I'd cut my tongue out before saying something like that!
Didja see Kate C and the barefaced lie? She looked liked she believed what she was saying......she has dived in my estimation.
Similar threads
