Ms. Reitman’s book is filled with inaccuracies. [Oops that's a generality].
It is neither scholarly nor well‐researched and bears no resemblance to an “inside” story. [Very critical statement. What are your crimes then?]
While preparing her book, Ms. Reitman never contacted the Church and never requested nor interviewed a single Church representative [Seems a blatant lie - She names the people she spoke to inside the "church" - Of course they may no longer be there considering the high attrition rate.] , let alone the ecclesiastical leader of the religion. [He was probably unavailable - Most likely busy playing with his X-Box]
Ms. Reitman chose to speak exclusively to people outside the Church. She and her publisher refused to accept the Church’s offer to provide information. Her “report” is really no different than a view of, say, the Catholic Church told exclusively by lapsed Catholics or defrocked priests and should more accurately be called OUTSIDE SCIENTOLOGY. [Even if this were true, it wouldn't necessarily make the report inaccurate].
The book is a rehash of false and baseless allegations largely drawn from stories written by others that have long been disproved, many held inaccurate, by courts of law. [Another generality. Which allegations have been disproved? Is Lisa McPherson still alive then?]
Despite her claim of “personal interviews and e‐mail exchanges with roughly one hundred former and current Scientologists,” Ms. Reitman’s book refers to an exchange with only one Scientologist—a single parishioner in five years. [That's simply untrue and it is possible that many others may have been concerned about R2-45 reprisals].
Her primary sources of information are a handful of apostates, previous external affairs officers who are admitted perjurers, dismissed and defrocked when their crimes were discovered. [Let's mention that they were ostracised for following the orders of "church" senior management and for lying for the "church". Finding a scapegoat has been standard operating procedure for Scientology since the early 1950's.].
These sources have a documented history of making false and defamatory statements against the Church. [Again a generality.]
Their anger and hostility toward the Church should give anyone serious pause. [It really should give the "church" pause. It might look at itself and ask what has the "church" done to make them angry.]
Many of Ms. Reitman’s sources are also members of or are affiliated with Anonymous, the cyberterrorist organization that has been the subject of federal investigations, arrests and convictions for engaging in hate crimes against the Church and its members. In the past few months Anonymous members have been the subject of intensified global law enforcement. [The same could be said about this "church" of sanctimonious hypocrites.] investigations involving criminal activities that include violating the privacy of countless innocent people while hacking into accounts at credit card companies, businesses and financial institutions. [Has the "church" ever done anything like that?].
If Ms. Reitman were truly “objective” she would have held these sources and their claims up to a harsh and penetrating light instead of putting them on a pedestal. [No, that's what the "church" has failed to do with its source, L.Ron Hubbard].
She would have found, among other things, that they boast arrests, a conviction for pummeling an officer of the court, and a failed lawsuit that a federal judge not only tossed out, but also ordered the plaintiffs to reimburse the Church more than $40,000 in court costs. [Let's balance the argument and mention operation "Snow White". How many failed lawsuits has the "church" been involved in? How many out of court settlements has the church engaged in to silence the critics?]
Claims by Ms. Reitman to have engaged in extensive research for her book are laughable. [Nowhere near as laugable as Hubbard's Book 1 research].
Ms. Reitman has it wrong from the first page of chapter one, where she states, “When Hubbard died in 1985, the world took note…” Mr. Hubbard passed away January 24, 1986. [Yes, she was wrong on two counts - The world not only didn't take note, it couldn't have cared less].
Perhaps the most significant illustration of how far outside Scientology her book lies is Ms. Reitman’s ignorance of the Church’s accomplishments. She could have seen our new Churches in Moscow or Melbourne or any of the dozens opened since 2006 in cities like London, Brussels, Rome, and Washington, D.C., all of them bursting with thousands of new members practicing their chosen faith. [She could probably see the buildings but the thousands of new members - Hardly].
Anyone is welcome to experience the Church’s practices and see its humanitarian works firsthand: Scientology’s global human rights initiative has educated millions on human rights;[Funny how its own members are denied those very same human rights.] its “Truth About Drugs” crusade teaches millions how to live drug‐free; [Pity the former leader of the "church" couldn't do that] and our global Volunteer Ministers disaster relief program has been hailed by the international community. [Touch assists are pretty useless when you've experienced the trauma of an earthquake. The only hailing would be from self serving Scientologists].
Contrary to Ms. Reitman’s claims, there is nothing secretive about Scientology. [Then tell everyone about OTIII and stop denying it].
Our Churches, located in major cities around the world, are open seven days a week, 365 days a year. [Kept open by brainwashed, abused, poorly fed, washed out, underpaid, tired and exhausted staff].
Many have public display areas to answer all questions about Scientology beliefs and practices. Anyone who wants to know the true story of Scientology should find out for themselves by coming to our new Church of Scientology of Tampa, 1911 N 13th Street, Ybor Square, or go to the Churchʹs website, .... [No, I don't think so].
Your chapter on the death of Lisa McPhereson heavily implicates David Miscavige as a contributing factor to her death. His "minion at the time" Marty Rathbun has admitted destroying evidence relating to her untimely death in Clearwater. Did you talk to the DA or his staff about any of this? How do you think this incident has affected Scn in the long run?
– 七月 16, 2011 8:20 上午 Permalink
A.Janet Reitman :
Yes I did speak to Clearwater officials about the case. I think the incident has certainly put a pall over Scientology in Clearwater and probably elsewhere as well. I know a number of people who told me they left Scientology when they learned about the Lisa McPherson case, by going online and seeing her autopsy photos. So it certainly cost them some members.
– 七月 18, 2011 11:51 上午
Interesting ( from any fucking point of view ) to refer to her death as an "incident".
:: Puke ::
Where did I go wrong?
Here are the definitions from googling the word:
in·ci·dent [ ínssid'nt ] 1.event: something that happens, especially a single event
2.violent occurrence: a public occurrence, especially a violent one
3.event with potentially serious consequences: an event that may result in a crisis, especially one involving different countries
All three definitions seem to apply. Definition #2 is right on the money as is also definition #3.
Oh, sorry, I thought you had posted somewhere that you were once a dianetic auditor.
And you have amply stated you feel it appropriate to use scientologese to express yourself.
But, I guess, it is my bad because I see you now throw in an Amercian Dictionary definition in preference over the LRH definition.
To a non-Scientologist, "incident" sounds very impersonal.
It always seemed to me like negligent homicide.
Speak for yourself. You can certainly say that for yourself but to generalize it to all non-Scientologists is a bit of a stretch. I for one am no longer a Scientologist and it doesn't sound impersonal to me. I was using it exactly as per those definitions I pulled off of Google.
You asked for an explanation, Lakey. I offered one.
There's nothing wrong with your denotation skills. At all.
However, words have connotations of coldness and warmth (among other things) and incident is rather cold and clinical when it comes to describing Lisa's death.
Additionally, in this case, someone interpreted it as a Scn word when you didn't intend it that way.