|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Pop Culture
Tom Cruise comes undone. | from Lance - Tuesday, June 28, 2005
accessed 3898 times In a recent interview with NBC's Matt Lauer that was supposed to be a promotion of Tom Cruise's new movie The War of the Worlds, Mr. Cruise launched what I can only described as a diatribe of cultist propaganda.
Mr. Cruise is a long time member of the church of Scientology and has recently become very active it its promotion. His behavior has become less that of a celebrity, and more that of a cult member whose cares nothing about the opinions, research or facts that differentiate from his little bubble. And although I don't make it a habit to give a damn about celebrities; this one's actions seem a little too familiar.
Below is the article as found on CNN.
Psychiatrists: Cruise comments 'irresponsible'
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- The American Psychiatric Association on Monday sharply criticized actor Tom Cruise for televised remarks in which he called psychiatry a "pseudo science" and disputed the value of antidepressant drugs.
"It is irresponsible for Mr. Cruise to use his movie publicity tour to promote his own ideological views and deter people with mental illness from getting the care they need," APA President Dr. Steven Sharfstein said in a statement.
During interviews promoting his latest film, "War of the Worlds," Cruise has discussed his deep skepticism of psychiatry to explain his belief in the teachings of the Church of Scientology, founded by science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard.
In one such interview last Friday on NBC's "Today" show, Cruise was asked about his recent criticism of actress Brooke Shields for revealing that she had taken the antidepressant Paxil to cope with postpartum depression.
"Before I was a Scientologist, I never agreed with psychiatry," Cruise said. "And when I started studying the history of psychiatry, I understood more and more why I didn't believe in psychology. ... And I know that psychiatry is a pseudo science." (Full story)
Disputing the effectiveness of antidepressants generally, Cruise said, "all it does is mask the problem." He added, "There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance."
Cruise also singled out drugs, such as Ritalin, that are used to treat children for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, calling Ritalin "a street drug."
As "Today" host Matt Lauer pressed the 42-year-old actor on his views, Cruise said, "Here's the problem. You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."
The rebuke from the APA, which represents nearly 36,000 physicians specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness, challenged Cruise's assertion that psychiatry lacks scientific merit.
"Rigorous, published, peer-reviewed research clearly demonstrates that treatment (of mental illness) works," the APA statement said. "It is unfortunate that in the face of this remarkable scientific and clinical progress that a small number of individuals and groups persist in questioning its legitimacy."
Cruise remains one of Hollywood's biggest stars, but since his manic, couch-hopping appearance on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" last month, he also has leaped to the forefront of celebrity punch lines |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Taking the piss
Monday, October 17, 2005 - 05:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
This site is f...ing hilarious!
http://www.scientomogy.info/index.html
(reply to this comment)
| from Lauren Bacall
Tuesday, August 02, 2005 - 09:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
"When you talk about a great actor, you're not talking about Tom Cruise."
(reply to this comment)
| from neez
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 00:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
Here's an outake from Tom Cruise's apperance on Oprah:
http://www.zippyvideos.com/153109597471325.html
(reply to this comment)
| from more links
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
History of court cases
http://atheism.about.com/od/scientologyinthe/
belgium won't recognise COS
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/187477.htm
http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/celebrities_con.html
(reply to this comment)
| from no smoke without fire?
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 08:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Does Cruise perhaps actually believe that there is something wrong with homosexuality? His chosen religion, Scientology, does. Then again, Scientology has been the subject of its own gay-related lawsuits. In 1998 the Church of Scientology was sued by a man claiming that he was promised a "cure" for his homosexuality, and that John Travolta and Tom Cruise were held up as examples of Scientology's past successes.
http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/main/gl010610a.htm
This is a funny site!
http://www.sweatpantserection.com/tom-cruise-gay.html
(reply to this comment)
| from mia1
Monday, July 25, 2005 - 18:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just a question...
Pawn are u an exmember??? Have u ever had anything to do with the family/cog/freakysexcult???
(reply to this comment)
| from aiq0
Monday, July 25, 2005 - 18:22
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Pawn:
Great comments every one- I keep waiting for someone to muster up an intelligent reply...
Just a guess but I suspect former members of this group- in particular those that grew up in it- suffer from acute intellectual inferiority at their home-grown educational roots and overcompensate by transparant attempts at wit peppered with a fractional knowledge.
Please keep it up- someone needs to call this spade a spade and I'm too dumb to do it myself...
(reply to this comment)
| | | |  From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 19:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Gee, thanks if that is sincere (hard to tell over the internet).
As far as your theory goes it sounds very plausible. I must suspect also that their traumatization and disappointment at their upbrining and family and friends has caused them some bitterness that they indiscriminately direct. But I also think they're just those kinds of people that do tons of small, bad things, such as playing mean jokes on people, lying, stealing small amounts of money, talking about people behind their back, etc., you know, those kinds of things you see the bullies at school do, and they just spread bullshit around. Either that or they're extremely guillible and bad at sorting truths from lies.
If you do mean what you say I will continue to call a spade a spade. Thank you for the support.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from cheeks
Monday, July 04, 2005 - 15:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Joe needs Paxil.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from To the tune of "Yes, jesus loves me"
Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 11:45
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Xenu hates me; this I know
For L. Ron Hubbard tells me so.
But we can foil his evil plans
With jumper cables and tin cans.
Yes, Xenu hates me,
Yes, Xenu hates me,
Yes, Xenu hates me,
I paid ten grand to know!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From moon beam
Sunday, July 24, 2005, 10:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
I thought it amusing-so we don't share the same sense of humour!
"About eighty people turned up for the event, which was held in the banqueting hall of a Wichita hotel. Hubbard first introduced an ingenious little gadget called an E-meter, which he claimed was capable of measuring emotions accurately enough to 'give an auditor a deep and marvellous insight into the mind of his pre-clear'. It was a black metal box with a lighted dial, adjustment knobs and wires connected to two tin cans. He demonstrated how it worked by inviting a member of the audience to hold the tin cans and then pinching him the needle of the dial flickered in response. Then he asked him simply to imagine the pinch and the needle fluctuated again."
The Wheatstone Bridge was already over 100 years old when LRH adapted it for the E-Meter. The circuit is now 162 years old and yet remains the Crown Jewel of CoS. Draw your own conclusions about this 162 old central CoS technology used for the detection of Body Thetans, lies, and engrams.
The Wheatstone bridge was first widely used in "needle telegraphs" which, unlike a conventional telegraph that had a operator decoding dots and dashes, had an alphabet wheel and a needle. The needle would point to letters on the wheel as it was moved by the pulses from the Wheatstone bridge.
Fast forward to 1959: Volney G. Mathison invents what would become LRH's E-Meter. It doesn't "zap" people but does emit low-level DC current.
The E-Meter has two soup cans attached by alligator clips to wires. The wires go to a circuit card and a meter with a needle. What is being measured are changes in skin resistance. The E-Meter is a crude lie detector and, as everyone knows, lie detector results are not allowed as evidence in US courts because they are not infalliable. Yet in Scientology, the E-Meter is used to convict people of all kinds of crimes against the CoS.
Here is a good beginners link on CoS' 162 year old technology: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/E-Meter/
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Sunday, July 24, 2005, 21:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
Apparently we don't share the same I.Q. either.
I don't know what the Wheatsone Bridge is, but I'm assuming it's somewhat of a protetype of what was to become the e-meter. Although, I thought a person was a thetan, so how could their body be consumed by many thetans as you say? I never saw how that added up.
What the e-meter actually does is emit I think about 1 volt of electricity through the person. You can't feel this and anyway there is a natural current of electricity running through your body regardless (if you are alive that is). It then measures electrical changes in the person's bodies as indicated by the needle. It is not a lie detector because a lie detector measures many other things, such as heart rate and breathing patterns, and does not emit any electricity through a person's body (the last part is as far as I know so I could be wrong on that point). The needle reaction indicates the person's mental state and mental changes and the person looking at the needle, after some training, determines what that state/change is. These indicators from the needle and their interpretation are always constant, so it's not like one time the needle does this and it means that, and the next time it does the exact same thing but it means something else. It's not like reading a thermometer; it takes some real training.
It can detect everything from a person having upset on something to feeling better about a subject. It is not a lie detector although it can be used to detect lies as the person will create a needle pattern on that, though I'm not sure if there is a needle reaction that means only a lie is being told by the person. Like I said, it is used for all sorts of things.
As far as convicting people against crimes, you yourself stated that it cannot be used as evidence in court, so either you're contradicting yourself (big surprise) or you're saying it is used to convict people for crimes as far as the Church goes. If a legal crime is committed then they have the person charged in court and the e-meter is not used as evidence. If it is just an internal rule broken then they take whatever course of action is necessary, which includes excommunication. I don't see what's wrong with this. What is wrong with this?
As far as I know, however, it's not like flunking a drug test; if they see a needle reaction that indicates the person may have done something or whatnot they would ask the person about this to see if they would say what is on their mind. Some people would not naturally fess up as can be expected. Again, I don't really know about this as it is a technical detail but you can always find out from some place other than a website with cartoons on it.
Oh, and soup cans? You really think they grab a bunch of Campell's off the shelves, empty them, take the labels off and hook them up to the e-meter? They use cans. You can use cans for purposes other than storing soup and other foods.
Again though, I must express confusion on how arrive to this body thetans thing seeing as how it directly contradicts Scientology basic principles, including the definition of the word "thetan".
Your research is lacking. Good luck next time.(reply to this comment) |
| | From surfinalong
Monday, August 22, 2005, 07:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
And now a response from a Scientologist.
Pawn is a bit confused about the meter and perhaps Scientology too?
Wheatstone bridge? Why not. Look, the meter is not some miracle of electronics, it is just something that anyone that has spend time using it has come to realize can be a pretty fantastic instrument. Basic theory is that there is a lot of electrical activity associated with the body, the mind, and the spirit's interaction with both. Makes sense to me. The meter introduces a small carrier wave into the body and measures how this electrical activity influences this wave. Can be used to guide the experienced practitioner in helping another person. That is all.
Body thetans? Bottom line, believe them or not, people that have addressed them feel that they have benefited.
Soup cans? Again, why not? That is exactly what the early cans were. The new cans have a thicker tin coating to last longer but soup cans can still work.
Finally, I am not some Scientology "drone" and, after many years of involvement, actually not much active at all. Like many things, Scientology is not subject to a black and white appraisal. I have helped may people with Scientology and seen many more helped. I think that Scientology itself encourages that black and white outlook that I personally cannot live with. I hope that it matures. It is coming off a difficult stage and when you are being attacked you DO dig your heels in and assert your rightness. What I DO know is that Hubbard was "spot on" in so many areas and so many predictions. I know of no other group that so fights the degradations and insanities of this society. GTA-SA anyone? How about almost every primetime TV show that isn't a scripted "reality" show is about new and creative ways to murder one anther. How about teachers that are not taught to teach but instead blame the children for their failings. Don't you think it is the goal of the drug companies to have EVERY American on as many drugs as possible? And don't you think that they are spreading a ton of money around in campaign support and lobbyists to go there? Etc. Etc.
You don't have to be a Scientologist to see which way the wind blows. You only have to pull your head out of the sand.(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Monday, August 22, 2005, 07:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
"GTA-SA anyone?"
I assume you're referring to the "hot coffee" mod (which one must install separately and which enables one to view some light nudity), in a game where (without any mod whatsoever) you could pull out your piece (pardon the pun) and cap a couple rounds in some cops, run over anything on the road that moves (et cetera) and it would all be "part of the gameplay", just like every other bit of "action" in any FPS/driver/strategy game out there. Ooo, scandalous, I'm outraged..! It's a freakin' game, fer chrissakes.
-Disclaimer: I'm not a gamer-(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 11:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Outside of the law? Mmm, as far as I've read I haven't seen them convicted on any criminal charges. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts on this, but please don't quote me the "fair game" policy as that's a trite old line that really doesn't work anymore. You can read about that on Scientology's website. If it's so bad though why don't you show the whole policy instead of that one line that's taken out of context.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 20:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
So because you were criminally abused by people who were never convicted on it every other alleged abuser is guilty?
I'm not going to mock your abuse, but there are no proven physical abuse cases. And like I said, many of ex-members had broken a serious rule in the Church. Some didn't even stick around to argue their case and how they did no wrong.
I can't make you believe one way or the other, but even in criminal cases you must examine the accuser, and you should just use your judgement.
In case you're interested, Ted Coppell did a long interview with the COB of RTC of the Church of Scientology on "Nightline" or whatever show he hosts. It's actually on some anti-Scientology website, which I can't remember the name of. You'll have to Google it. Anyway, in it Ted Coppell takes the COB up on some people who left the Church and of course were hostile towards them, and the COB responds to them. You can make up your mind on at least those particular ones. Also, I saw an issue of a SP declaration (you're all so buff on this subject of Scientology so I don't need to explain that term) on the internet. I don't know if it was something the Church allowed to be posted on the net or it someone just took it upon themselves to do it, but it tells the person's name and their numerous violations of Church rules. You can look at that yourself as well. I know for a fact that every person that is out there expressing resentment towards the Church (and who didn't take any advantage of the Church's internal justice system) has one of these out on them, though probably not up for all to see on the internet. You'll have to Google this too. I'm not sure how I stumbled on it.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From moon beam
Monday, July 25, 2005, 09:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good lord, you could just read about it from one of the links.
Okay, thetans are 75 million years old and they were blown up at the base of volcanos by the evil Xenu. Nearly every body was blown up but some remained, so the thetans (peoples spirits) enmassed into a shared body. Ron says that we need to get rid/clear all those excess thetans out of us.(as we are made up of millions of thetans)
It is interesting that Tom went to scientology to cure him of being gay, as he was told that it wasn't him, just one of his thetans.
H-files from the FBI
http://www.xenu.net/archive/FBI/(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from
Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 11:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Post natal depression, unbalanced chemicals, all bollocks, but he can believe humans are infected with invisible bodies of murdered aliens! Weirdo.
(reply to this comment)
| From Pawn
Saturday, July 23, 2005, 22:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
And what do you believe? If I had to guess I would go with the statistics and say you are a Christian, who all agree the son of a divine force known as God was born from a virgin, whom was pregnated by said divinity. Also, there's this thing with a guy called Noah who managed to stuff 2 of every kind of animal in existence onto a boat he built with his bare hands. And you say Tom is a weirdo? Also, please show me a credible source for that bit which you like to pull out when you have no actual facts to use to discredit people.(reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Sunday, July 24, 2005, 10:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
Guess again!
By "that bit" I am assuming you mean the part where Scientology has been described as a "Bait-and-Switch" fraud. This has a definite meaning in US law. It describes a fraud where a person is seemingly sold one thing only to find out that it is another and more expensive thing and so they pay more than they would have paid had they known what it was all about. Scientology is the definitive example of this. It starts out with Dianetics, a supposed science of the mind that will greatly improve a person’s thinking and health at a seemingly reasonable cost. People are attracted in, they receive some Dianetic processing only to be told that it only works on a few people and so to benefit they must receive the very expensive Scientology auditing instead at $200 per hour. This they do and reach the dubious state called Clear only to be told that they are then "at risk" and must move at all speed to the more advanced level of OT III, parting with thousands of dollars all the while. When they reach OT III a great secret is told them. That is that they are full of the souls of space aliens(thetens) murdered, by XENU, 75 million years ago at the base of volcanos, and to achieve spiritual benefits they must pay to have them removed. The processing at this level costs $400 per hour. The whole of the Scientology religion is a continuous bait-and-switch fraud with the whole purpose of extracting the maximum amount of money from people.
Enter the Xenu leaflet. The Xenu leaflet reveals the switch part of the bait-and-switch fraud. It lets people know in advance the trick that is going to be pulled on them about five years and $30,000 later. It lets people know before they get into the cult while they have their critical reasoning faculties intact.
(Do read about the clams)
So here are a few links;
http://www.xenu.net/roland-intro.html
http://www.scientology-kills.org/cults.htm
There was a good expose in the Mirror last week, they have been trying to recruit around london tube stations after the bombings.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Sunday, July 24, 2005, 19:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
I like how you totally avoided the question.
I thought Dianetics was supposed to work on everyone. Also, I thought Scientology was considered an extension Dianetics. And the state of Clear is dubious? How so?
Funny thing how the Church has never acknowledged this piece of data. It's also funny how this Xenu site has said everything from Hubbard being a criminal to Hubbard having satanic influences. I see none of this in either Scientology dogma nor in encyclopedic references.
Bait and switch? They seem pretty upfront about what you need to do, including reaching OT levels. Also, I never heard of anyone being forced to pay for something they don't want to do. And reasoning faculties? You describe a website with cartoons on it. How about you give a website that might not have something to gain by hurting Scientology and its practitioners.(reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Monday, July 25, 2005, 10:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Scientology have not disclosed all the info thats out there NOW-ex-members and people who have first hand knowledge have, to warn others. Scientology do everything in there power to stop it,they have taken over a very important website CAN(cult awarness network), they pull down websites all the time.
You wanted to know the definition of a cult(which scoientology most certainly fits into)I'lll cut and paste below seeing as you don't seem to read the links.
We suggest that you check all characteristics that apply to your or your loved one's group, then print this browser page for future reference. You may find that your assessment changes over time, with further reading and research.
The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members (for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.
The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.
Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 11:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, wow, I really feel you are here to help me now. That's awesome. You really are a smart, wonderful, kind-hearted person. That is evident now.
Those things you listed, none of those apply. Even the COB of RTC doesn't make that much money and he works 24 hours a day almost.
In fact, a lot of the characteristics you listed are in exact opposition to some of the actions the church carries out. A lot of these things may exist in actual, harmful cults, but as far as they apply to the Church of Scientology, people just twist actions and statements so they can somehow fit the Church into this category.
As far as being "preoccupied" with pulling in new members, what religion doesn't want new members? Ever heard the word "crusade"? You can't force someone into the religion, at least nowadays, unless it's in a totalitarian COUNTRY. It's also against Scientology policy to force someone to do something they're not willing to do, such as paying money, going through procedures and agreeing with things. I've heard a lot of people say that in Scientology you aren't forced to believe anything in fact, but instead really make it true for oneself.
I'm sure there are groups out there like that, but unless you can exactly show with reasonable, credible facts, you're only displaying more of your ignorance and ill will.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Yawn....
Sunday, July 24, 2005, 20:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is getting soooooo boring.
Listen, Pawn, you certainly picked an apt name for yourself and as much as it is evident that you favor Scientology, I doubt many of us on this site want to hear about it.
Unless you were born in and or raised in The Children of God /The Family of Love /The Family /The Family International, go away.
It's bad enough having to deal with our own cult apologetics, much less those for other cults.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Sunday, July 24, 2005, 21:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, if you're trying to say you want to avoid answering the question, just say it. It's not like I would be surprised at this.
Pawn is a random name I chose. I do like the sound of it though. But Yawn is a good name for as it perfectly conveys your convincingness as well as the predictableness of your comments.
I'm sorry if no one wants to hear from me because I show the folly of your comments. Well, not really, but you get the point.
By the way, last I checked Scientology was a U.S. recognized religion, as well as in many other countries. Did you know it's also recognized in Australia where it once was considered a cult? You apparently decided to ignore the government's label though with calling it a current "cult". Not surprising. In fact, it is cliched and predictable.
"Yawn".(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From
Monday, July 25, 2005, 09:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Check this link out to see what U.S judges, the IRS and the FBI have said about COS; Oh and by the way, so far, Germany, Greece and russia have banned them.
RS Final Adverse Ruling re "Church of Spiritual Technology," July 8, 1988:
"The California case also demonstrates inurement... amid continuous representations denying control by and benefit to Mr. Hubbard, and a tenacious denial of the actual state of the organization's actual affairs in the face of overwhelming evidence establishing the true nature of the organization's operations." ...Such self dealing does not lose its identity as private benefit and inurement merely because it is conducted through intermediary individuals and\or organizations.
California Supreme Court, United States v. Lee [455 U.S. 252,257,258 (1982)*/:
"When a person is subjected to coercive persuasion [as in Scientology] without his knowledge or consent ...[he may] develop serious and sometimes irreversible physical and psychiatric disorders, up to and including schizophrenia, self-mutilation, and suicide."
Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court:
"[The court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology] is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories... and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not wish to continue with their sect.... The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard."
http://www.xenu.net/archive/judge_quotes.html
Top Scientology officials have been convicted of a variety of crimes, and Scientology itself was convicted of espionage in Canada in 1992.
As Time Magazine reported in 1991, "Eleven top Scientologists, including Hubbard's wife, were sent to prison in the early 1980s for infiltrating, burglarizing and wiretapping more than 100 private and government agencies in attempts to block their investigations."
http://www.xenu.net/archive/audit/(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 11:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know exactly when Scientology was officially recognized as a religion in the United States, but the tax extemption thing is pretty recent. I mean, look at all the dates on your little quotes! The earliest date you have is in '92, of which I never heard anything about, but will look into. Other than that, all these little dates are all in the 80's, when I believe Scientology didn't have tax exempt status yet. You also didn't give the date on Judge Breckenridge's quote. I also noticed you didn't quote any praises from other officials, including mayors and senators, which far outnumber the negative ones you've given.
Also, as far as it being banned in Germany and Russia, yes, it is. But keep in mind these are the same people that invented fascism and communism respectively. Also keep in mind Scientology was banned in Australia at one time. It's now considered an official religion. I believe it also has tax exempt status but I'm not sure. There is current human rights work being done both in Germany and Italy for sure, and as far as I've read they've had some progress there. I wouldn't be surprised if in 5 years it too is considered a religion in those countries (it is in Italy as far as I know).
Time magazine got a serious ass-kicking for that report. And the top officials being convicted of crimes, yes, they were. I like how you chose to omit the fact that they were all kicked out of the Church and that those crimes violate church policy. In fact, Scientology's own website clearly admits to that fact and gives information on it and what was the Guardian Office. I'm sure you didn't read about that though. And even if they were, so? You gonna use 10 people as specimen for an entire group, in an event that happened 20 years ago? Man, you must hate the Catholic church even more!
Sorry, incomplete data. Try again.(reply to this comment) |
| | From
Monday, July 25, 2005, 22:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Remember as you bandy about your "officially recognized as a religion in the United States" that the Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion.
What are you referring to, if not the tax exemption? You may be surprised at how many things that are controversial get tax exemption. In this free country, that is not a stamp of approval regarding the content of a religion. Do you really think the IRS gave in because someone decided you have a good religion? No, they decided that despite what they thought, they were losing the fight to say CoS is not a religion but business.
There are other countries that maintain list of approved and forbidden religions. We don't.(reply to this comment) |
| | From roughneck
Monday, July 25, 2005, 15:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Man, you must hate the Catholic church even more!"
Yup! And I dislike The Family International even more than that! Wanna fight about it?
Seems your central argument above is that by virtue of a lot of highly paid lobbyists &/or legislators, Scientology has managed to insinuate itself into "legality." Last time I checked, The Family International has a similar thing going for them vis-a-vis taxation with the IRS. (Which, I hear they learned from CoS & the LDS.) Big fucking whoop. TFI's still full of shit, as anyone who grew up there can attest.
Whoops, is my cynicism showing again?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 19:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's a shame you like to use a few bad apples as an excuse to condemn the bunch. By that logic I could come up with an excuse to hate every ethnic group on earth.
My argument for cult vs. religion is that the government considers it a religion, but you obviously feel you know better. Highly paid lobbyists and legislators may have helped in the matter but I think it comes down to bottom line, which is the actual principles and goals of the religion/cult itself, which you are obviously lacking in. I don't know if you commented before on these so-called facts you have, being I am replying to too many people at once to keep up with their names, so I can't quote you on anything.
This also has nothing to do with cynacism, but more like retardation. An intelligent person can tell when one person is sticking to only what they want to be true and get through as opposed to a person who really has a vewipoint that they actually hold that they arrived to logically. You fit into the prior with the kind of generalizing and irrational targeting for hate. I may understand if you had a bad ubringing and you are bitter about that but you are obviously going around trying to be a bully. Tough talk doesn't mean shit in an argument.(reply to this comment) |
| | From JohnnieWalker
Monday, July 25, 2005, 21:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pawn, I will address you with respect. I expect no less from you.
You said, "An intelligent person can tell when one person is sticking to only what they want to be true and get through as opposed to a person who really has a vewipoint that they actually hold that they arrived to logically." (sic)
Indeed, I can, Pawn and, with all due respect, you are the second--"a person [...] sticking to only what they want to be true". Sadly, you have made this evident by your comments here.
I would like to point out to you that you know nothing of the group we emerged from. You neither have a concept nor an inkling of what it is like to grow up in an isolated religious environment; to be punished for seeking to express individuality; to be demonized for showing an interest in higher education.
Pawn, I would caution you to think twice before you hurl insults at people who were abused in ways you can only begin to imagine.
Your lack of empathy for victims of sexual, physical and emotional abuse is abhorrent. Please do us the favor of either biding your tongue or removing yourself from this forum.
If you would kindly make yourself familiar with the documents and articles provided at http://www.xfamily.org, you may be in a better position to speak to us on a more intelligent level.
If you have something intelligent to say, you are free to do so. But you will find that the educated can make their points quite clear without the aid of sarcasm and insults, which you, Pawn, have proven yourself well versed in. In all honesty, your ad hominem attacks lend little weight to your expressed opinions of the Church of Scientology.
A little food for thought: Had your initial comments here been less defensive and derogatory in nature, many of us would have listened to your opinions with respect—being the atheists and agnostics that a large percentage of us are, however, we would probably have been little more than bemused.
In light of your flaming on this forum, I will offer you now, will all due respect, the words of your fellow believer Tom Cruise when he became the victim of a childish prank:
"Why would you want to do that? You're a jerk. You know that? You're a jerk."(reply to this comment) |
| | From
Monday, July 25, 2005, 11:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
You say, "Also, as far as it being banned in Germany and Russia, yes, it is. But keep in mind these are the same people that invented fascism and communism respectively." But I think the people who invented those things are dead or hiding abroad. Or do your beliefs include that a whole nationality/race can be tainted?
And how about Greece? Oh, I forgot, they invented Western civilization.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From the full story of Xenu
Sunday, July 24, 2005, 10:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Summary of the Xenu story
The story of Xenu is covered in OT III, part of Scientology's secret "Advanced Technology" doctrines taught only to advanced members. It is described in more detail in the accompanying confidential "Assists" lecture of 3 October 1968. Direct quotes in this section are from these sources. (See also Scientology beliefs and practices)
75 million years ago, Xenu was the ruler of a Galactic Confederacy which consisted of 26 stars and 76 planets including Earth, which was then known as Teegeeack. The planets were overpopulated, each having on average 178 billion people. The Galactic Confederacy's civilization was comparable to our own, with people "walking around in clothes which looked very remarkably like the clothes they wear this very minute" and using cars, trains and boats looking exactly the same as those "circa 1950, 1960" on Earth.
Artist's impression of one of Xenu's space planes, per Hubbard's description.
Enlarge
Artist's impression of one of Xenu's space planes, per Hubbard's description.
Xenu was about to be deposed from power, so he devised a plot to eliminate the excess population from his dominions. With the assistance of "renegades", he defeated the populace and the "Loyal Officers", a force for good that was opposed to Xenu. Then, with the assistance of psychiatrists, he summoned billions of people to paralyse them with injections of alcohol and glycol, under the pretense that they were being called for "income tax inspections." The kidnapped populace was loaded into space planes for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). The space planes were exact copies of Douglas DC-8s, "except the DC-8 had fans, propellers on it and the space plane didn't." DC-8s have jet engines, not propellers, although Hubbard may have meant the turbine fans.
When the space planes had reached Teegeeack, the paralysed people were unloaded and stacked around the bases of volcanoes across the planet. Hydrogen bombs were lowered into the volcanoes, and all were detonated simultaneously. Only a few people's physical bodies survived.
The now-disembodied victims' souls, which Hubbard called thetans, were blown into the air by the blast. They were captured by Xenu's forces using an "electronic ribbon" ("which also was a type of standing wave") and sucked into "vacuum zones" around the world. The hundreds of billions of captured thetans were taken to a type of cinema, where they were forced to watch a "three-D, super colossal motion picture" for 36 days. This implanted what Hubbard termed "various misleading data" (collectively termed the R6 implant) into the memories of the hapless thetans, "which has to do with God, the Devil, space opera, etcetera". This included all world religions, with Hubbard specifically attributing Roman Catholicism and the image of the Crucifixion to the influence of Xenu. The interior decoration of "all modern theaters" is also said by Hubbard to be due to an unconscious recollection of Xenu's implants. The two "implant stations" cited by Hubbard were said to have been located on Hawaii and Las Palmas in the Canary Islands.
In addition to implanting new beliefs in the thetans, the images deprived them of their sense of identity. When the thetans left the projection areas, they started to cluster together in groups of a few thousand, having lost the ability to differentiate between each other. Each cluster of thetans gathered into one of the few remaining bodies that survived the explosion. These became what are known as body thetans, which are said to be still clinging to and adversely affecting everyone except those Scientologists who have performed the necessary steps to remove them.
The Loyal Officers finally overthrew Xenu and locked him away in a mountain, where he was imprisoned forever by a force field powered by an eternal battery. (Some have suggested that Xenu is imprisoned on Earth in the Pyrenees, but Hubbard merely refers to "one of these planets" [of the Galactic Confederacy]; he does, however, refer to the Pyrenees as being the site of the last operating "Martian report station", which is probably the source of this particular confusion.[1]) Teegeeack/Earth was subsequently abandoned by the Galactic Confederacy and remains a pariah "prison planet" to this day, although it has suffered repeatedly from incursions by alien "Invader Forces" since then.
[edit]
Xenu's volcanoes
In OT III, Hubbard names the locations around the world where Xenu's genocide took place, in addition to the two "implant stations" located at Hawaii and Las Palmas. The volcanoes which Xenu blew up were said to have been situated at:
* Asia and Pacific: North Japan (presumably Hokkaido); South Japan (could be Honshu, Shikoku or Kyushu), "Krakajawia" (apparently a mispelling of Krakatoa), Indonesia; Philippines; Himalayas; Hawaii
* The Americas: Mount Washington (it is unclear which of the 15 mountains of that name in the US is meant, but it is probably Mount Washington, Oregon, a shield volcano); Mount Rainier, Washington; Mount Hood, Oregon; Mount Shasta, Northern California; Mount San Gorgonio, Southern California; Canada; Andes, South America
* Atlantic and Africa: Tangier, Morocco; Saint Helena; "Kolomonjero" (apparently a misspelling of Kilimanjaro, Tanzania); Las Palmas, Canary Islands
Critics have pointed out that many of the volcanoes named by Hubbard did not exist 75 million years ago, and that other regions — notably Tangier and the Himalayas — have no history of volcanism. (See Rebuttals of the Xenu story). It is possibly not coincidental that Hubbard had visited many of the places where Xenu was said to have operated; indeed, he announced OT III while his private fleet was berthed at Las Palmas, declaring that Xenu's principal implant station had stood on the main street of the island's capital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu
(reply to this comment) |
| | from SeanSwede
Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 07:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Tom Cruise quit school after the 9th grade.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From Knows better
Sunday, July 24, 2005, 22:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes Pawn, and you notice they didn't convert him until after he got famous.
Listen, I don't think you have any idea who you're talking to here. We grew up in an abusive cult, we recognize bullshit when we see it, and scientology is nothing but grade A bullshit.
You are quite obviously an apologist of some kind. That's okay, some of us used to do the same thing for our old group. I hope one day you manage to grow out of it, until then, fuck off.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Sunday, July 24, 2005, 23:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hmm, I'm not sure about that converting after famous part, but in case you haven't noticed they have "converted" a lot of non-famous, regular people. But I guess you like picking on the celebrities because they're so easy to attack.
If you don't know whom I'm talking to then you shouldn't be saying anything.
You grew up in an abusive cult. I have not. You recognize bullshit? You obviously didn't recognize it while you were growing up in it, and now all you do is bitch about it on a website. If all this shit is so bad, including Scientology, I'd like to see you take some actual legal action and stop being such a blowhard. And I see you don't know shit about Scientology seeing as how you spread exagerrations, lies and contradictory information, promoting websites like Xenu.net and probably have never read shit about the religion in, say, an encyclopedia. Yes, I have done that for the record.
Fuck off? I thought this was up for discussion. I guess you don't like what I have to say so I should just go away. Tough titties.
You hope I grow out of this being an apologist or whatever? Well, I'm flattered; you care about my well-being. Or do you? Please don't be insincere. You're already ignorant and bitter so don't add fuel to the fire.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 25, 2005, 02:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pawn,
In order to properly understand your perspective in these discussions, I'd be interested to hear a bit about who you are, and what it was that brought you to this website? Do you have an actual reason for joining our discussions, or are you just picking fights for the sake of it?
As you may have noticed in all your research, this site was set up for people who were born into The Family International (aka: Children of God, Family of Love, The Family, etc), and was designed for us to share experiences and views with others of a similar background.
Your accusation that someone born into a cult was unable to recognise bullshit is both ignorant and offensive to all here. There is precious little that a child in such circumstances can do regardless of their cognizance of the environment they are growing up in, not to mention the challenges they then face in building new lives for themselves afterwards.
So yes, the topic is up for discussion, but as any debater will tell you knowing your audience is key, and you obviously don't know yours!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 09:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, so this is about the ex-Family members sharing their experiences, trying to perhaps comfort one another, like a support group? Yet here I read this bit about Tom Cruise on "The Today Show". I can really see the relevance here, what with a celebrity's appearance and comments on a morning talk show and a bunch of ex-cult members (if that's legally what it's considered, seeing how you call every religion you don't agree with a cult even if it technically isn't) sharing their experiences with their former cult that they left. Makes perfect sense to me.
How did I come to this site you ask? Well, I was doing a Google search on said celebrity on said morning talk show and lo and behold I come upon this site.
What I was talking about in regards to someone being unable to recognize bullshit is not ignorant and offensive really. You are the one calling a certified and legal religion a cult, you have posted a topic unrelated to what you claim you are trying to do on this site and you spread bullshit such as this bit with the e-meter detecting body thetans, which directly contradicts the word "thetan". So if you want to call someone ignorant and offensive, look in the damn mirror.
I might also add that even though the subject was supposedly about Tom Cruise's comments on "The Today Show", all the comments are centered around Tom Cruise's religion, sex life and other personal matters.
Not only is knowing your audience key, which you are right about, but so is knowing exactly what the fuck you are talking about, and you obviously don't know!
By the way, what the hell do you need to know about me as far as my background is concerned? All you need to know is I just provided more facts in one post than all the other pinheads in their posts combined. Don't believe they are facts? Perhaps you should explore more credible sources than Xenu.net, a website made by people kicked out for violating seroius rules, otherwise known as committing high crimes. Don't know what those crimes are? Well, then you know less than even I thought.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nancy
Tuesday, July 26, 2005, 12:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
How does one exactly become a "certified" religion? Do I get my paralegal to notarize a hymnbook? What about a “legal” religion? Isn’t that an oxymoron in a country founded upon the separation between church and state? Are we talking about simple 501(c)(3) status? I think the Church of Satan has that.
What about these “seroius rules”? Are these distinct from serious rules? Where’s my memo on the hierarchy of rules? How does one distinguish between a minor rule and a serious one? Whose rules are these anyway?
And what of these “high crimes”? Treason? Are were doing espionage? “Well, then you know less than even I thought.” Apparently so! When did everyone go insane?
What I’d like to see is Scientology vs. Mormonism. It’d be like Freddie vs. Jason. “I’m not a cult, you are!” “I know you are, but what am I?” “Shut up! L. Ron Hubbard could kick Brigham Young’s ass.” “Nu’uh! You’re ‘stupid’ and ‘uneducated’. Infinity!” “No you are. Double infinity, double stamp.” “You are. Triple stamp.” “You can’t triple stamp a double stamp!”
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 25, 2005, 14:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
"I was doing a Google search on said celebrity on said morning talk show and lo and behold I come upon this site"
What exactly did you type into Google to find this site? I tried entering tom cruise today show, and gave up looking for a link to this site by the 20th page of results.
This, in addition to your syntax and aggressive manner also leads me to wonder if you are indeed as much an outsider to this site as you claim? Are we seeing yet another reincarnation in the tradition of ack and xolox?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 20:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
I typed in something like "Tom Cruise psychiatry comments" or something close to that. It's on page 4.
I don't know what you're talking about with "ack and xolox". I am not familiar with those terms, but, hey, at least I admitted my ignorance.
I find it funny, however, that you question me, one who disagrees with you, but you don't question all those ex-Church of Scientology members. Hmmm....(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 25, 2005, 10:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
First off, you're not too much with the comprehension - even from a relatively short post such as mine - if you don't understand that when I said this site was for us to "share experiences and views with others of a similar background". So let me explain it for you - the common thread is our shared background, not that every topic must be about TF.
Secondly, I never stated any views in regards to Scientology - as it happens I don't have a particular formulated opinion on the matter, apart from perhaps the mild ammusement I hold for religion and self-help in general. So don't be so quick to throw around accusations of my use of facts, terminology for 'legal religions' or my knowledge of what I speak.
You must be relatively new to online (and other) discussions to be unaware of the way that topics can (and usually do) change from the original title. As in any conversation, the theme is dynamic and adapts as various aspects are addressed, or even tangents followed.
As for what I 'need to know about you and your background', in this instance I would say that your relationship to Scientology is particularly pertinent (which I'm assuming to be quite strong). What would also be relevant would be any relationship you may have to TF (which I assume to be minimal if at all). Other trivia is also welcome - and can be found in most of our profiles - and all helps to facilitate civilised exchanges in such discussions.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 11:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
You already stated the purpose of this website. I don't see how this issue relates to that.
You also have a mild amusement toward religion and self-help in general. Just because one method didn't work for you doesn't mean you should hold others in contempt, even if mild contempt. Self-help is exactly what this world needs, and through any non-harmful means. I don't have your prior statements here on hand as I type this, but I believe you referred to Scientology as a cult, so I am going to call you on that. What if I called you a traitor and abandoner? You consider yourself a dissenter or whatnot, so there is a big difference in the terminology you use.
No, I don't make on-line discussions my life but I know how they work. I also know there are a lot of idiots that like to act as if they know a lot, which they don't. Am I saying you're one of them? I won't go there. But I will say you haven't particularly impressed me with your inconsistent logic on things.
Civlized exchanges? How is a poem used for mockery "civilized"? I won't even go into the gay thing, but is that also "civilized"?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Blast from the Past
Monday, July 25, 2005, 16:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Pawn: "What if I called you a traitor and abandoner"
Ha! Is that what they threatened to call you if you quit the Sea Org?
In our cult they called us "Backsliders and Apostates" if we fell from grace. I can laugh about it now, but I used to be terrified at the thought of facing the world alone.
(By the way, I could care less about Tom Cruise's religion OR love life. "War of The Worlds" was pretty good, and so was "Minority Report".)
Check out this Onion article:
Armchair Publicist Would
Totally Rein In Tom Cruise
OMAHA, NE—Responding to the negative press coverage Tom Cruise has received in recent weeks, University of Nebraska financial-aid clerk Ben Matherson, 28, announced Monday that things would be different if he were the megastar's publicist.
Above: Tom Cruise's armchair publicist, Ben Matherson.
"Tom is a force of nature, no question," Matherson announced from his one-room efficiency apartment in the Cornhusker State. "You can't control him, but you have to at least steer him in the right direction. That's how you handle a star of his caliber."
According to Matherson, Cruise's "PR nightmare" began with an article in the German publication Der Spiegel , which reported that Cruise arranged to have a tent for the Church of Scientology set up on the set of War Of The Worlds .
"I have no idea what he was thinking, promoting Scientology when he's supposed to be shooting a film," said Matherson, who was on a movie set only once, when he took the Universal Studios tour in 1988.
Matherson added: "I would have redirected the questioning the moment the reporter started asking Tom about religion, or maybe just said, 'Okay, let's wrap this up.'"
Although not a regular reader of Der Spiegel , Matherson said he gleaned information about the publication from the celebrity-news program Insider , which he typically watches alone in his room while eating cold cereal.
Matherson cited Cruise's May 23 appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show as the first sign the popular actor was in need of some guidance.
"Even with a guy like Tom Cruise, who makes $20 million a movie, you've got to lay down the law," said Matherson, who is not in a supervisory position in the financial-aid office. "I would have told him, 'Lay off the poetry. Stick with the smile. The smile is working for you.'"
Matherson said he has some ideas for keeping Cruise "on message."
Above: An example of the sort of erratic behavior that has Matherson worried.
"I would want to work out a hand-signal system with Tom, so I could motion to him from backstage when he was getting out of control," Matherson said.
Matherson's friends and coworkers report that the file clerk often makes comments drawing on his knowledge of the celebrity world, which he monitors from this ensconced position in the center of America's cattle-producing heartland.
"Back when Britney Spears wed and divorced her childhood friend all within a 24-hour period, Ben used to lean over the countertop at the office and shake his head," said Shelly Johansen, who has worked as a file clerk in the financial-aid office since 1992. "He thought it was a really bad move for her."
Cruise is currently in Italy shooting Mission Impossible 3 and out of the public eye, which Matherson believes is "for the best."
"I don't know if Tom realizes what a headache he can be for a PR man," Matherson said, repeating comments he made earlier in the day to coworker Gary Siebold. "A good image buffing isn't gonna do the trick at this point. We need to talk damage control."
The lifelong Nebraska resident's recommendations for Cruise include pulling him off the interview circuit for "dehydration and exhaustion," then spending a day or two "giving him some talking points."
Jessica Furstrom, a receptionist from nearby Lincoln and a longtime armchair publicist for Courtney Love, said Matherson "has a long row to hoe" with Cruise.
"I went through a lot of this same type of thing with Courtney," Furstrom said. "These problems don't just go away by themselves. The hard work of repairing a star's image has to get done. And thank God there are publicists to do it."(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nancy
Tuesday, July 26, 2005, 11:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
This whole thread is juvenile. You’re making personal attacks on people you never met in defense of an actor you haven’t met regarding a religion no one here is a part of.
Next I expect to read, “My cult’s better than your cult.”
What a colossal waste of everyone’s time!
Folks, resist being baited by insult slinging anonymous posters defending movie actors of all things. Haven’t we lived through enough to realize this is ridiculous?
Now, if anyone wants to get serious and discuss the pressing issue of Eric Bana’s next movie role, then let’s talk. Or they want to throw a rock from behind their laptops at Eric, then the gloves come off! Them are some fightin’ words. And this “stupid uneducated…cult kid” has got somethin’ to say. Otherwise, bug off school yard brats!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 07:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hear he's in a movie called Lucky You scheduled to be released later this year. It also stars Drew Barrimore and Debra Messing. I heard it was about a poker player at the Las Vegas world tournament.
I also heard he is going to be in Steven Spielburg's new film about the 1971 killings of the Isreali Olympic team.
Bloody shame they passed over him for the Bond role.
The world has not seen the last of Eric Bana, and I have not seen enough. What is it about Australia that grows these beautiful, intriguing and talented actors? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nancy
Wednesday, July 27, 2005, 07:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hear he's in a movie called Lucky You scheduled to be released later this year. It also stars Drew Barrimore and Debra Messing. I heard it was about a poker player at the Las Vegas world tournament.
I also heard he is going to be in Steven Spielburg's new film about the 1971 killings of the Isreali Olympic team.
Bloody shame they passed over him for the Bond role.
The world has not seen the last of Eric Bana, and I have not seen enough. What is it about Australia that grows these beautiful, intriquing and talented actors? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 25, 2005, 12:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
"You also have a mild amusement toward religion and self-help in general. Just because one method didn't work for you doesn't mean you should hold others in contempt, even if mild contempt."
Ammusement is defined as:
1. The state of being amused, entertained, or pleased.
2. Something that amuses, entertains, or pleases.
Contempt is defined as:
1. The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior, base, or worthless; scorn.
2. The state of being despised or dishonored; disgrace.
3. Open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of a court of law or legislative body.
Try getting at least your definitions straight.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 19:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Believe me, I'm well aware of the difference in the meanings in these two words. But you are "amused" by religion and self-help in general. Yes, those are two subjects are funny. But the reason I threw in the word contempt is because your amusement in this case is that of someone who thinks something is stupid, thus amused by it. I see nothing funny about religion and self-help. The only people who laugh at them are those who look down to the subjects.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Ne Oublie
Monday, July 25, 2005, 12:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I restated the purpose of this site because you questioned (through sarcasm) the relevance of discussing Tom Cruise or Scientology on this site.
As for my comments in regards to Scientology, might I recommend the 'scroll' feature - either on your mouse (if you have a recent model) or by using the bar to the right of the webpage - to re-read my post. By doing so you will find that you are indeed 'called out' as the only time I used the word 'cult' was in reference to those born into one. If taken contextually, you'll understand that I was speaking about TF, but I guess you're not much with the context either, huh?
Again, I recommend the scoll feature for you to re-read my comment on a civil exchange - I was suggesting ways to FACILITATE such, I at no time claimed that the current discussion WAS civil. Again, a modicum of intelligence would have recognised that my context indicated a desire change the current tone to one more civil, as if it were already so the suggestion would have been irrelevant.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 20:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'll be honest with you: I HAVE NOT KEPT TRACK OF WHO SAID WHAT. Too many posts to keep up with! A reply within a reply within a reply, etc. I only read what's there and directly reply to that.
But, yes, I do question the relevance on the Tom Cruise thing. How is this helping you as far as your experiences with the Family go? I mean, if you said this is just a site for ex-memebers to gather around and discuss anything from sports to movies to politics, I might understand but you didn't. Furthermore, maybe you aren't (again, I wouldn't know as I can't keep track of all these names) but many people are using this so-called support site as a forum for ignorant mockery, without even so much as sticking to the topic that was posted which isn't relevant to your stated purpose of this website.
I am well aware of the scroll feature, thank you. I use it quite a bit in fact. But I gather from what you're saying that you suggest ways to make the discussion civil but people do not use those suggestions, as you are saying you didn't say the discussion WAS civil, and I am saying it is not, and anyone with "a modicum of intelligence" can see it isn't.
Do take that not being able to keep up with who's reponsible for what comments though. I'm just replying to the latest replies.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Tuesday, July 26, 2005, 02:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
... and yet you expect us to trust your 'facts' as absolute and definitive? I really am sorry for you that you are unable to follow the conversation in which you are currently involved. In light of your short-term memory lapses I would recommend that you in future limit your choice of forum to those which are less diverse, and which are less intensive on your memory and multi-tasking abilities.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Pawn
Monday, July 25, 2005, 19:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wouldn't go through all the trouble to give you a link, not because that link doesn't exist, but because I'm too lazy too. Use your imagination. You can check out Scientology's own website, but you wouldn't believe that. So you can look at other websites and old news reports or encyclopedias, both online and the old-fashioned book kind (those are so much better). Besides, what facts that I've given would you dispute here?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Phoenixkidd
Saturday, July 02, 2005, 15:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
He had dislexia, that's prolly why he quit. Well he found the right job where you don't necessarily have to be a good reader. It was almost embarassing to see him argueing with Matt Lauer. It was a complete media mess up and the next day NBC tried to air some housewife's rebuttal against Cruise's remarks saying that drugs and psychotherapy have helped her in ways that nothing else could. Lesson, never hurt the media! However, Tom seems to be doing just fine, his movie made brought in more money on it's opening day then "Top Gun" made in it's debut back in the 80's
(reply to this comment) |
| | from Removed
Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 01:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
[Removed at author's request]
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from SeanSwede
Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 00:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think that it is very sad and tragic how Mr.Cruise got snared by the Scientology cult. It will in the end be his final downfall...it already started with his former wife Nicole Kidman.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]