Tony Ortega book drops in May

[aegerprimo]

To keep this thread on topic...


So far there are two press releases about Tony Ortega's book.

Tony Ortega Reveals the Title and Subject of His Forthcoming Scientology Expose
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/tony-ortega-paulette-cooper-silvertail-books_b238700

Title, Art & Cover Revealed for Tony Ortega's Upcoming Explosive Scientology Expose
http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwboo...pcoming-Explosive-Scientology-Expose-20150110

 

[degraded being]

Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

AnonyMary, thanks for the vote of confidence, but quite frankly I don't see any of the above as a personal attack. Certainly I don't see my missive on Alan Walter as a personal attack, and I find it amusing that I presented the evidence as to why I might have some reservations about Alan - many of which are the same reservations expressed by the same people about the same kind of behavior from Marty - and I get no substantive refutation of my opinion, only ad hominems and vague character witnessing.

This is a hot button for some people, and you know what? Loyalty to a friend is something the Co$ discourages, and it shows nobility on the part of people who rush to do so. That they may be doing so in defense of someone who may not totally deserve that loyalty is something for outsiders to legitimately point out, but those outsiders should not expect tea and crumpets for their trouble. I developed a thick skin in my short academic and long business career, and I don't mind taking a shot from people who disagree with me, even if I think their reasoning is unfounded. It's why this is a message board and not an echo chamber.

I think it's a good thing for lurkers who are toying with the one foot out one foot in approach of Feezoning or Knowledgism or whatever other Laffy Lite bullshit programs are out there, to see how the adherents of those disciplines react when challenged.

With that, I'll start a thread later today to deal with these issues, so we don't derail this thread.

Looking forward to that thread. I know people here love Alan, and I respect that. That does not mean that people cannot criticize ideas -ideas which he used in his "spiritual/mental" procedures. Udarnik got jumped on just because he dared to criticize someone others here happen to like a lot. Not good.

Also, on the subject of Sara, Urdarnik was only asking questions on the basis of his information so far. It was a very enquiring sort of question. He was not trying to push anything. So, Veda, I don't see how that is offensive.

 

[Veda]

Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

-snip-

Also, on the subject of Sara, Urdarnik was only asking questions on the basis of his information so far. It was a very enquiring sort of question. He was not trying to push anything. So, Veda, I don't see how that is offensive.

It was a profanity laced invitation to "dig up dirt" on a good person. Not my cup of tea.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

"You will still be able to find parking, I promise" (2:59)


[video=youtube;2R-4_u61TWo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R-4_u61TWo[/video]

 

[Terril park]

Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

Sara wasn't even a teenager when her sister married Jack Parsons, and barely 16 when she was invited to join the O.T.O. Sara passed away in 1997 and her personal spiritual views, Udarnik, are none of your business.

Sorry, Udarnik, but I just find your language and your tone offensive.

The whole world and their Spiritual views are anyone's business who wishes to make it so here. You have posted the brain washing Manual 5000 + times as a case in point.

Your attempts to moderate the net are pointless
and makes you look stupider than you are.

I find Udarniks language and commentary refreshing. He mostly
has the opposite opinion of matters to myself. You for years have
been giving me wrong indications that I indulge in PR when I give my opinions. You know wrong indications can be psychically very disturbing.
You are better than OSA how?

You need to step out of the box you are in sometimes.

I noted from Just Shiela that Udarnik has given much help back
channel. I had no idea. I have sought his advice on a few occasions
in his area's of expertise including that of psyche drugs. He freely
gave it in excellent detail. He is a great asset to this forum.

I have no problem that he finds Dn and Scn ridiculous and
worthless. Almost all criticism of these I agree with. Yet I have
had great gains with these as have many I know. They can work and can produce results bordering on the miraculous.

Talk therapy is often recomended by critics. Thats all Scn & DN is.
This will be more improved someday and much learned.

 

[Terril park]

Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

It was a profanity laced invitation to "dig up dirt" on a good person. Not my cup of tea.

You know this before dirt is dug?

What you mean is you object to someone you consider an ally
having dirt dug up.

You specialize in digging up and posting dirt.

Saying others cant do the same is hypocrisy.

 

[Veda]

Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

You know this before dirt is dug?

What you mean is you object to someone you consider an ally
having dirt dug up.

You specialize in digging up and posting dirt.

Saying others cant do the same is hypocrisy.

I'm concerned with bad people not good people. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference.

 

[degraded being]

Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

It was a profanity laced invitation to "dig up dirt" on a good person. Not my cup of tea.

Udarnik cannot know who is a good person, or not, in your estimation.
"Digging up dirt" well, yes, but it was a question which allowed any "dirt" to be corrected as untrue, unfair, unbalanced, irrelevant, out of context, outdated, etc. We all dig up dirt around here (well most of us). It is also what Tony does as a Journalist and what anyone interested in history does.
"Profanity laced" is stretching it for one, 2 word, hyphenated term.

 

[Veda]

One can imagine what the retorts by Scientology PRs will be.

"Minister of the Church of Scientology Ken Hoden assures us that what a few overzealous, and confused, persons did forty years ago does not reflect the Humanitarian and spiritual views expressed in the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Scientology religion."​

 

[Lone Star]

Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

Tony, did you track anything new down about Sara? If you read the interviews and memoirs of the members of Parsons's OTO lodge, she was quite a piece of work, even for a group of Satanists in California. Did she settle down in later years and repudiate all the weirdness she was into with Jack and Ron, or did she keep that up on the down low? She was indeed a victim of Ron, but the fact that she was practicing magik with Parsons based on Crowley's crap - and considered a shit-stirrer by that very, very strange crowd - often gets overlooked due to the madness Ron visited on her life.

It was a profanity laced invitation to "dig up dirt" on a good person. Not my cup of tea.

Profanity laced. Hmmmmmm..... I see the word "crap" and the word "shit". Each used just one time. Hardly laced with profanity. Some don't even consider either of those words to be profanity, especially in the context in which he used them.

 

[Veda]

Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

Udarnik cannot know who is a good person, or not, in your estimation.
"Digging up dirt" well, yes, but it was a question which allowed any "dirt" to be corrected as untrue, unfair, unbalanced, irrelevant, out of context, outdated, etc. We all dig up dirt around here (well most of us). It is also what Tony does as a Journalist and what anyone interested in history does.
"Profanity laced" is stretching it for one, 2 word, hyphenated term.

The post was directed at Tony, and he can answer it if he wishes. I'm done with the matter.

 

[degraded being]

One can imagine what the retorts by Scientology PRs will be.

Minister of the Church of Scientology Ken Hoden assures us that what a few overzealous, and confused, persons did forty years ago does not reflect the Humanitarian and spiritual views expressed in the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Scientology religion.​

You might have a point there, but speaking for myself, getting my head so stuck up the arse of what Scientology PRs might think about what I am wondering what to think about something which somebody else thinks and wants to see what T Ortega thinks......................Please excuse profanity.

Life is difficult enough. What if on my deathbed I found out that Scientology Pr did not care about anything I thought, or was going to think. Such a waste of my precious thoughts.

 

[Veda]

You might have a point there, but speaking for myself, getting my head so stuck up the arse of what Scientology PRs...]

-snip-

Sounds icky.


None of us have seen the content of the book, but it might not be a bad idea to review the possible, or likely, Scientology responses, and to be prepared to hit them with well documented counter responses.

Scientologists are not known for their imaginations so they'll likely follow the old patterns.

An important point, as I mentioned before, is that this was not an oddity; it was a standard application of Scientology's applied philosophy, which happens to be overt (visible) and covert (behind the scenes).

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

Re: Tony Ortega's Paulette Cooper book

...I think it's a good thing for lurkers who are toying with the one foot out one foot in approach of Feezoning or Knowledgism or whatever other Laffy Lite bullshit programs are out there, to see how the adherents of those disciplines react when challenged...

Quoted for truth and enlarged for emphasis.

 

[Sassy]

I didn't write the announcement, Veda. The first part is from Humfrey Hunter of Silvertail Books, the second from Jon Atack.

However, if you look carefully, you will see that there are no gratuitous uses of the word.

The organization that tried to destroy Paulette was the B-I branch of the Guardian's Office, which was a unit of the Church of Scientology.

As a journalist, those are the words that I have to use in order to be factual. But if that will keep you from buying the book, so be it.

Tony O.

I say if they want to be called a "church", let's give that to them, haha. This book, simply by being truthful, is going to knock the socks off anyone who isn't familiar with Paulette's story. I would bet that anyone who has read ANYTHING about the cult and/or about this book will take that label with a HUGE grain of salt. I think they're probably the only ones (the "parishoners") who would classify them as a "church". Tony seems to have been respectful and quite generous with his use of that word I myself wouldn't have been so PC or nice

 

[degraded being]

Sounds icky.


None of us have seen the content of the book, but it might not be a bad idea to review the possible, or likely, Scientology responses, and to be prepared to hit them with well documented counter responses.

Scientologists are not known for their imaginations so they'll likely follow the old patterns.

An important point, as I mentioned before, is that this was not an oddity; it was a standard application of Scientology's applied philosophy, which happens to be overt (visible) and covert (behind the scenes).

What does "it" refer to, in the highlighted bit? Urdanik's post?

 

[Veda]

What does "it" refer to, in the highlighted bit? Urdanik's post?

Enough with Urdanik's post!

"It" refers to what was done to Paulette Cooper.

 

[degraded being]

Enough with Udarnik's post!

'It" refers to what was done to Paulette Cooper.

Yes, good! Thank's for clarifying!

 

[The_Fixer]

Sounds icky.


None of us have seen the content of the book, but it might not be a bad idea to review the possible, or likely, Scientology responses, and to be prepared to hit them with well documented counter responses.

Scientologists are not known for their imaginations so they'll likely follow the old patterns.

An important point, as I mentioned before, is that this was not an oddity; it was a standard application of Scientology's applied philosophy, which happens to be overt (visible) and covert (behind the scenes).

If I remember correctly, Scientologists always had their standard responses and deviating from them was pretty much frowned upon.

I guess it's not so much a lack of imagination, but the lack of being allowed to be creative?

 

[Lone Star]

What does "it" refer to, in the highlighted bit? Urdanik's post?

Enough with Urdanik's post!

"It" refers to what was done to Paulette Cooper.

Yes, good! Thank's for clarifying!

Oh you two are just delightful tonight!!



I just wanna give you both a big hug and pinch your cheeks!!





Okay....better run!