BBC Report Losing It!

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sun May 13, 2007 1:16 am

helefra;611903 wrote: The following link is an excerpt to a BBC reporter losing it whilst interviewing staff at a Scientology church.

wow he got out the wrong side of didn't he :wah: :wah:

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sun May 13, 2007 1:25 am

helefra;611906 wrote: I think you missed a word or two out there in your reply O'Neil, don't you mean "wow he got out the wrong side of the bed . . ."

very well spotted carter , i have just out of my,and as you can see i'm not functional yet (more so than normal)

see debra i am fg's top moron :wah: :wah:

there is no way any one can take my title:wah:

oh carter i'm not calling you debra ... debra is er debra that just joined

oh i know i left the word bed out of this post too just keeping you on your toes

Post by **spot** » Sun May 13, 2007 2:38 am

helefra;611903 wrote: The following link is an excerpt to a BBC reporter losing it whilst interviewing staff at a Scientology church.I say! The reporter chappie raised his voice! Bad form, that.

Here's the reporter's report on what happened, anyway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6650545.stm

Top Scientologist Tommy "Don't mention the word cult" Davis had been goading me all week, and on the seventh day I fell into his elephant trap. He shouted at me and I shouted back, louder.

If you are interested in becoming a TV journalist, it is a fine example of how not to do it. I look like an exploding tomato and shout like a jet engine and every time I see it makes me cringe.

I apologised almost immediately, Tommy carried on as if nothing had happened but meanwhile Scientology had rushed off copies of me losing it to my boss, my boss's boss and my boss's boss's boss, the Director-General of the BBC.

[...]

Scientology is a pay-as-you-go religion - which is one of the reasons why the Charity Commission in Britain does not class it as a religion. When you have paid as much as £100,000, you get to Operating Thetan Level Three and learn about "The Incident". L Ron wrote that 75 million years ago an intergalactic space alien lord called Xenu kidnapped Thetans to earth, dumped them in volcanoes and blew them up with atomic bombs.

Ex-Scientologists have insisted to me that Xenu is part of Scientology. If so, it is a religion that requires its followers not to tell others about its core belief, which is very odd. Critics say that if we all knew about Xenu, then Scientology could not charge people as much as £100,000 to find out about him. The full report, "Scientology And Me", is to air on Panorama, Monday, 8.30pm, BBC1.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Sun May 13, 2007 11:32 am

spot;611914 wrote: The full report, "Scientology And Me", is to air on Panorama, Monday, 8.30pm, BBC1.

Probably best to watch that, rather than a context-less clip that will be replayed endlessly until the end of time.

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Sun May 13, 2007 1:18 pm

Ok. So nothing new then. Just another expose of another part of the lunatic fringe using pseudo science and deity belief to extract lots of money from braindead idiots. Lookout Rome. You have got some serious competition.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 13, 2007 3:11 pm

Hugh Janus;612175 wrote: Ok. So nothing new then. Just another expose of another part of the lunatic fringe using pseudo science and deity belief to extract lots of money from braindead idiots. Lookout Rome. You have got some serious competition.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~reinoud/fishman/ot3.html is quite an interesting read, it's a walkthrough of section 3 of the teaching materials.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 14, 2007 1:35 pm

helefra;612712 wrote: The truth of the reporter exposed, please see link below.

http://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org/intr ... xposed.php

Just watched the documentary. Can't say I'll be rushing off to join Scientology any time soon. They turned down the chance to put their case and seem unable to understand the basics of journalistic practice in putting both sides of a case. You're a cult yes or no.

from the above web site.

A simple example proves the point: look up an anti-semitic website, interview the people who make the outrageous claims and then seek out Jews to ask each one "some people say you control all the commerce and banking in the world", or "some people say you are the messengers of the devil," or "some people say all Jews are greedy, selfish criminals." Don't bother to look at the practices or activities of the Jews, just fire away with the accusations. Of course, the vast majority of the population seeing this would dismiss it as the most vile sort of propaganda.

Simple all right. Put the question and give a chance to defend themselves and have an equal say.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Mon May 14, 2007 1:56 pm

gmc;612862 wrote: Just watched the documentary. Can't say I'll be rushing off to join Scientology any time soon. They turned down the chance to put their case and seem unable to understand the basics of journalistic practice in putting both sides of a case. You're a cult yes or no.

from the above web site.

Simple all right. Put the question and give a chance to defend themselves and have an equal say.

i like to think of carter(helefra)as one of my closest buddy's on the internet but i found the thing made scientoligy look very bad indeed ,sorry carter i had been open minded but I for one will not be signing up soon :-3 :-3

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon May 14, 2007 1:57 pm

gmc;612862 wrote: Just watched the documentary. Can't say I'll be rushing off to join Scientology any time soon.

It doesn't really matter. Thousands of copies of that unfortunate segment of proceedings will be shown out of context for the next N years where N is a fair old number. It's a "done deed".

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon May 14, 2007 1:59 pm

helefra;612712 wrote: FONT="Book Antiqua"COLOR="Blue"]

The truth of the reporter exposed, please see link below.

http://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org/intr ... xposed.php

Yeah, right.

"Copyright 1996-2007 Church of Scientology International. All Rights Reserved."

It's ballocks.

See my reply to GMC about this being used as propoganda for the forseeable future.

Pheasy · Post by **Pheasy** » Mon May 14, 2007 2:09 pm

helefra;611903 wrote: The following link is an excerpt to a BBC reporter losing it whilst interviewing staff at a Scientology church.

Umm I was just wondering - do you think he thought the guy was not there at the beginning of the interview mmmm

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 14, 2007 11:58 pm

helefra;612924 wrote: AT LEAST I KNOW THE ACTUAL TRUTH! I'VE BEEN AROUND SCIENTOLOGY LONG ENOUGH.

So what do you believe?

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Tue May 15, 2007 5:57 am

its really interesting carter, i'm not really an atheist and i'm not religious either my mind is open, i was really interested in your church it made more sense to me that their could of been aliens who populated this planet then a god who lets so many bad things happen and allows wars in his name , so can i ask you some questions as a friend not as someone who is knocking your church :-6

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue May 15, 2007 6:17 am

helefra;613141 wrote: FONT="Book Antiqua"]SIZE="4"]COLOR="Blue"]Perhaps you ought to click on the link below and view the whole interview

Will you say, unequivocally, that the link you indicate is the whole and unabridged interview?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue May 15, 2007 6:17 am

helefra;613141 wrote: FONT="Book Antiqua"]SIZE="4"]COLOR="Blue"]It's not for me to say what I believe

Why?

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Tue May 15, 2007 6:52 am

hey carter i know this chuch sceintoligy is very important too you so i'm not knocking it , but why do you have to pay so much money for enlightenment it kinda seems too cut off the poor and needy from happiness to me

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 15, 2007 6:55 am

helefra;613141 wrote: Perhaps you ought to click on the link below and view the whole interview and then decide for yourself. It's not for me to say what I believe but if you are intelligent enough, then you can make a decision on both points of view.

http://www.bbcpanorama-exposed.org/watc ... entary.php

I'll rephrase the question. What do scientologists believe? What is your religion actually about? Who or what is this xenu? It's probably no more bizarre than any other belief system.

I have seen both the BBC programme and the version on scientology website. John Sweeney showed considerable restraint, pity he lost his temper as that is probably what the scientologist wanted judging from the, literally, in your face aggression being shown to him. Bet John Sweeney was really tempted to punch the guy. .

He also gave them ample opportunity to make their case and the interviews with the various celebrities would have been shown-it wasn't the BBC that chose not to show them. The scientologists come out with little to their credit IMO

http://www.bbc.co.uk/

Do a search on scientology on the site-you can see both sides of the story.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 15, 2007 12:27 pm

helefra;613344 wrote: If you want the whole and unabridged interview then write by e-mail to g.wilson@scientology.org or write to the BBC themselves.

Or just look at the bbc website where you can see the clip and the scientologist one as well if you want. It's not exactly being hidden away. Maybe you should watch the bbc documentary yourself-althouigh I would tend ton assume you already did. .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/p ... 655207.stm

Call me a cynic but any cult that expects you to pay to find out it's arcane mysteries is on a hiding to nothing. Even more so if they try and stop people criticising them. The right to call religious belief a load of bunkum is an essential one that should be protected at all costs from those that believe they should never have the **** taken out of them.

Chookie · Post by **Chookie** » Tue May 15, 2007 1:29 pm

gmc;613476 wrote: The right to call religious belief a load of bunkum is an essential one that should be protected at all costs from those that believe they should never have the **** taken out of them.

I could not agree more.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue May 15, 2007 2:52 pm

helefra;613593 wrote: FONT="Book Antiqua"]SIZE="4"]COLOR="Blue"]I'm afraid gmc, that as far as I'm concerned, you and many others like you are probably out there with your enemies trying to destroy anything good for mankind. [snip] My argument here is done with you. If you want to respond to this, well, I'm not interested but thanks for the time anyway.

Oh dear never mind. Quite predictable.

Same for the Moonies, etc, IME.

Tigerlily · Post by **Tigerlily** » Tue May 15, 2007 4:39 pm

I'm Church of England and I'm earning about twice as much as I was earning last year. That's because I put my hourly accountancy rates up and do more hours. I managed it without Scientology, but if I keep it up, I'll be able to afford to be a Scientologist.

One of the defining things about the church of England, for example, is that the clergy - not the nutters at the top, but the sincere ones slogging away as parish priests - are generally poverty-stricken. The collection is for the church fabric and the poor of the parish - at least in our church it is. This keeps the focus of the religion on spirituality and community, not money and celebrity.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:32 pm

helefra;613593 wrote: Well, I guess then the only thing I know about all churches is they come round with a box begging for money. Every Sunday service I had to attend at a Christian church all I saw was someone coming around with a box for money from people.

ALL religions have secrets, the higher scriptures in other religions are not viewed by everyone, only the elite get to see those. Therefore, how can we be different than any other religion to that effect.

I'm afraid gmc, that as far as I'm concerned, you and many others like you are probably out there with your enemies trying to destroy anything good for mankind. I don't mind paying for what I have obtained in Scientology, it's made me a better and more ethical person. Before I came into Scientology I would abuse people's trust and use others, I didn't give a damn about you or anyone else in this world. In fact, I couldn't care whether I lived or died. If you're here to argue about paying to improve your life, then there are many other ways out there that may cost less but it would take you a lifetime, if at all, to achieve. My argument here is done with you. If you want to respond to this, well, I'm not interested but thanks for the time anyway.

The catholic church could do a lot for the poor if they gave away all it's wealth but I don't imagine that will happen any time soon and at least they don't set fire to heretics nowadays. I also object to sanctimonious Presbyterians wringing their hands because people no longer fear god like they should. Hell and damnation is a bit hard to take seriously when don't believe in it.

Luckily I live in a secular society so I can say what I like about religion. Took a lot of bloodshed to get to that point and I like it that way. I'm against any religion/cult that thinks it should have the right to silence it's critics just because they don't see things their way. It's ludicrous that we still have blasphemy laws in this country-even more worrying that some want them extended to all religions not just the C of E

posted by pinky

All I'll say is this: Just because it's not your thing, don't criticise what works for and makes someone else happy. But then ignorant individuals always fear and find fault with what they can't understand. I thought we lived in a more tolerant age...

She was the one that brought up the subject clearly expecting us all to agree with her point of view. Why go on a discussion forum and then run away because people disagree with you? Why did she bother then?

Don't know what happened the last time as I don't look at the religious posts very often. If you don't share the initial belief there is little point arguing about what god meant when the divinely inspired author re-wrote it. All L Ron Hubbard did was invent a religion of his own and charge people to join it. If it's followers are daft enough to believe in it good luck to them but they should not be allowed to stifle criticism any more than other religions should be able to.

I would happily get involved in discussions about religious belief but I get fed up with the constant refrain of I'm not discussing this any more because you don't accept my religious belief is right and shouldn't be criticised. Bollocks to that.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Tue May 15, 2007 11:37 pm

Pinky;613671 wrote: I'm not surprised H doesn't want to talk about her beliefs after the appallling way she was treated last time, in fact I'm pretty impressed that she stuck around and even more impressed with her way of dealing with it. If I was her, I sure as hell wouldn't want to get into the whole debate again, especially after people were so insulting. In fact if I was her, I'd be telling people to pull their heads out of their arses.

All I'll say is this: Just because it's not your thing, don't criticise what works for and makes someone else happy. But then ignorant individuals always fear and find fault with what they can't understand. I thought we lived in a more tolerant age...

As for the reporter, blimey! He made himself look a total muppet didn't he?

oi you muppet :wah:

i have asked questions as a friend trying to understand another friends chuch thingy , so keep your orbs out of it :wah: :wah:

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Wed May 16, 2007 12:29 am

helefra;613751 wrote: Thank you for that insight Tiger, Mr Hubbard believes that all religions are an effort to help man. The same goes for the Christian church. Anyone who is against the betterment of man can only be considered suppressive.

it does not mean if your not a member of the god squad that your against helping your fellow man or woman and that your suppresive though carter:-6

i really do try to understand peoples faith i really do and i dont knock anyones church at all i just dont get it ,but i would really like to

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Wed May 16, 2007 12:32 am

helefra;613755 wrote: I don't expect everyone to agree with what I posted here, I only posted the issue so that people can view it for themselves and decide for themselves, whether that be negative or positive. I'm not trying to encourage anyone to join the church or agree with what I believe in, I think people don't look at ALL the facts, they just listen to what is being said rather than investigating it.

There are many out there who disagree with my religion just as they will disagree with the Christian religion or the Muslim religion. I also want to apologise what I said earlier in this topic regarding the church coming around with a box for money. I think I said that in haste and was not intended in that way. As far as I am concerned, the Christians can do a lot of good. I am very open minded to learn about what other religions do but it doesn't mean that I will join up.

As to the upper levels within the church itself, from OT I to OT VIII, you are not just reading the scriptures, you are applying these to your life. You also receive counselling and the attainment of each level is indicated on The Bridge which I will post here later.

Once again, I don't want people to go along with what I say, I want them to make a judgment for themselves. I'm not looking for a fight but just to review the situation and if you don't like it, well, you can't please everyone can you?

good points carter , you indeed cant please every one :-6

or in my case anyone :rolleyes:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 16, 2007 1:25 am

posted by helefera

There are many out there who disagree with my religion just as they will disagree with the Christian religion or the Muslim religion. I also want to apologise what I said earlier in this topic regarding the church coming around with a box for money. I think I said that in haste and was not intended in that way. As far as I am concerned, the Christians can do a lot of good. I am very open minded to learn about what other religions do but it doesn't mean that I will join up.

The bit about the money was a rather good point to make. At least now the church has no right to tithe everybody.

That's right O'Neil, what I mean by suppression is that if there is a person out there who actively supports anything destructive and rages against things that are constructive, then that would be considered suppressive.

That is incorrect. Suppression is when you stop someone publishing or expressing a different point of view.

from the oxford english dictionary

suppress

• verb 1 forcibly put an end to. 2 prevent from being expressed or published. 3 Psychoanalysis consciously avoid thinking of (an unpleasant idea or memory).

Judging from the documentary scientology along with many other religions would love to suppress anything critical of them or that challenged their beliefs. Be it fundamental Christians that want to stop the teaching of the theory of evolution or scientologists that object to anyone investigating their practices.

It's rather a moot point whether scientology is constructive or destructive. But then I would say the same about christianity or Islam.

Glad you stayed. There's no fun if we all share the same point of view and conversation wouls be pointless.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 16, 2007 7:01 am

posted by helefera

Just want to correct you on the suppression point there gmc. Scientology, like other professions such as medical and engineering, have their own dictionaries for specialised terms. Therefore, to get the full understanding, you would have to have a Scientology Technical Dictionary.

I'm writing in English as my native language as are most of the people on this board.

While there are occasional semantic differences between English and American English in general words mean the same on both sides of the atlantic.

From the American versuion of the same dictionary

suppress

• verb 1 forcibly put an end to. 2 prevent from being expressed or published. 3 Psychoanalysis consciously avoid thinking of (an unpleasant idea or memory).

— DERIVATIVES suppression noun suppressive adjective suppressor noun.

— ORIGIN Latin supprimere ‘press down’.

Scientology is not a profession nor is suppression a technical term by any means.

To put it in more anglo saxon terms as used in the UK you are now talking a load of bollocks.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed May 16, 2007 9:26 am

helefra;614218 wrote: FONT="Book Antiqua"]SIZE="4"]COLOR="Blue"]Well, gmc, I've tried to be reasonable in our discussions but all you've done is try to cause an ARC break between us. This has put a lot of entheta on my lines and you have also chopped up a lot of comm.

I have already just put three Scientology terms in the paragraph above - ARC break, entheta and comm. I'm not going to clear those terms up, I've decided to leave you with a few misunderstood words. D

LMAO! "Your being nasty to me and I'm not going to tell you why so there, and oh BTW I give up!". BTW, the jargon translations must be available on the 'net...

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Wed May 16, 2007 10:55 am

Well I would just like to say, that you have deeply snarbled my grootible with you mashikling and scnammering. In fact I would even say sharfituimul and buzkoidits.... Phew, I am really glad that I got that off my chest...

"What!... You didn't understand it! Oh well that's a shame... Such a poetic piece and so well written..." "You see, you are not the only sect that can make words up. I may be only a sect of "one," at the moment. But others will follow. I also intend to charge less than your lot"

Bargain Basement cultism anyone?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed May 16, 2007 11:39 am

helefra;613751 wrote: Thank you for that insight Tiger, Mr Hubbard believes that all religions are an effort to help man. The same goes for the Christian church. Anyone who is against the betterment of man can only be considered suppressive.

No side here, just querying you logic.

You jump from stating that Mr Hubbard believes that all religions are an effort to help man to the assumption that everybody else accepts this and that anyone who questions Scientology is against the betterment of man and therefore can only be considered suppressive.

For the record, I would agree that the reporter lost it big time and should be ashamed of his lack of professionalism.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 16, 2007 11:53 am

Hugh Janus;614303 wrote: Well I would just like to say, that you have deeply snarbled my grootible with you mashikling and scnammering. In fact I would even say sharfituimul and buzkoidits.... Phew, I am really glad that I got that off my chest...

"What!... You didn't understand it! Oh well that's a shame... Such a poetic piece and so well written..." "You see, you are not the only sect that can make words up. I may be only a sect of one ,at the moment. But others will follow. I also intend to charge less than your lot"

Bargain Basement cultism anyone?

Made sense to me-but You shouldn't let dooogieloogies snarble your grootoble like that. It's not warth ayinkets ferdle in a boobeltop geting fessed aboot.

Once you know all will be revealed by the mighty Mekong. blessed be the perch.

Nobody laugh or you will be pressed.