One of the Most Popular persons amongst Scientologists

[skepticalbip]

Why would anyone expect there to be anything new offered in a film about Scientology? The nuttiness of that cult has already been exposed many times but most of the population still know nothing about it because they haven't bothered to investigate. It is like a new movie or documentary on the Salem witch trials. What happened there has been well known for quite a while but most people either don't have a clue or only have a vague idea.

I see the value of this film being to clue in more of the population so they will not be sucked into this cult, pretty much as you pointed out.

How do they investigate?

I assume that the bolded is what you are asking about. How does anyone "investigate" something they know nothing about but that is well documented? They read. How would you "investigate" what happened during the Salem witch trials, assuming you were clueless about it?

 

[Angry Floof]

How do they investigate?

I assume that the bolded is what you are asking about. How does anyone "investigate" something they know nothing about but that is well documented? They read. How would you "investigate" what happened during the Salem witch trials, assuming you were clueless about it?

He'd check to see if L. Ron wrote about it and if not, then it didn't happen.

 

[whichphilosophy]

How do they investigate?

I assume that the bolded is what you are asking about. How does anyone "investigate" something they know nothing about but that is well documented? They read. How would you "investigate" what happened during the Salem witch trials, assuming you were clueless about it?

The Salem Witch Trials would be too time consuming for me but other things taking less time would possibly be.

History can be like yesterdays news and politics There can be different versions or even wrong versions due to omitted circumstances, added wrong information omitted information, a wrong sequence of what happened, out of context hearsay which was not true, rumour etc. I can go on.
Hearsay is very unreliable and though rarely allowed in courts is popular with news media.

Investigation can be a difficult job and you can go into a few blind alleys before finding the facts. You have to go through all the details from all sides and sometimes all the sources can be wrong.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I assume that the bolded is what you are asking about. How does anyone "investigate" something they know nothing about but that is well documented? They read. How would you "investigate" what happened during the Salem witch trials, assuming you were clueless about it?

He'd check to see if L. Ron wrote about it and if not, then it didn't happen.

He didn't write about my eldest daughter's graduation; does that mean it didn't happen. Your feet are full of holes and its got nothing to do with Easter.

 

[Angry Floof]

He'd check to see if L. Ron wrote about it and if not, then it didn't happen.

He didn't write about my eldest daughter's graduation; does that mean it didn't happen. Your feet are full of holes and its got nothing to do with Easter.

So, WP, I noticed you weren't here defending the cult of scientology for a while. Did something happen?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The Salem Witch Trials would be too time consuming for me but other things taking less time would possibly be.

You might be surprised. There's really little TO the Salem Witch Trials.
We spent a summer vacation there. Every museum tells the story and it's all the same story.
Well, there's a little variation in how they pronounce 'Tituba.' Tie-Too-Ba, Tit-chew-bah, Tea-tuh-bah.
But it wouldn't take all that long.

But oddly, 'too time consuming' isn't really an answer to 'how would you investigate?' You could certainly frame the method you'd use in the time it takes to explain why it's too onerous a task to accomplish.

 

[Angry Floof]

The Salem Witch Trials would be too time consuming for me but other things taking less time would possibly be.

You might be surprised. There's really little TO the Salem Witch Trials.
We spent a summer vacation there. Every museum tells the story and it's all the same story.
Well, there's a little variation in how they pronounce 'Tituba.' Tie-Too-Ba, Tit-chew-bah, Tea-tuh-bah.
But it wouldn't take all that long.

But oddly, 'too time consuming' isn't really an answer to 'how would you investigate?' You could certainly frame the method you'd use in the time it takes to explain why it's too onerous a task to accomplish.

The method is to check to see if it contradicts the teachings of the cult of scientology. If there's a hint that it might, it's too time consuming.

Ask WP about Piltdown Man, or why scientologists believe we evolved from clams. lol

 

[whichphilosophy]

He didn't write about my eldest daughter's graduation; does that mean it didn't happen. Your feet are full of holes and its got nothing to do with Easter.

So, WP, I noticed you weren't here defending the cult of scientology for a while. Did something happen?

If you notice I don't actually defend anything.

 

[bilby]

So, WP, I noticed you weren't here defending the cult of scientology for a while. Did something happen?

If you notice I don't actually defend anything.

Hey, no need to be so hard on yourself.

You try. That's the main thing.

 

[Angry Floof]

So, WP, I noticed you weren't here defending the cult of scientology for a while. Did something happen?

If you notice I don't actually defend anything.

You are very defensive about the cult of scientology. Taking the route of trying to turn others' comments back on themselves (comically) is just a passive aggressive, disingenuous, roundabout defense, but still a defense.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I watched it last week, and "reviewed" it in the TV thread, media subforum ...

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...vive-from-FRDB&p=141240&viewfull=1#post141240

You said not much new; I said nothing new.

Well, good for you if you were already up to speed on it all. For me, there were a few minor details I hadn't heard before, and there was the fact that Spanky Taylor gave an on-camera interview, which she hadn't (AFAIK) in the 30 years since she blew.

 

[PyramidHead]

Then why did you describe him as a "person amongst Scientologists?"

Being amongst is not the same as being one of.

I would have thought it was, but fair enough.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Being amongst is not the same as being one of.

I would have thought it was, but fair enough.

In some case amongst can mean the same.
A cat amongst the pigeons one use
Lawrence of Arabia amongst the Arabs would be a slightly different one

 

[whichphilosophy]

She did in 1992 November 06 to be precise and was interviewed by Gerry Armstrong.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Maybe I can defend the fact that I don't defend.

Now if Nice Squirrel was posting here, he would say, 'Don't defend, attack...

 

[Angry Floof]

Being amongst is not the same as being one of.

I would have thought it was, but fair enough.

It's just so hard to find good confirmation for your biases these days.

If you're a scientologist, that is. It's sort of like homeopathy - no matter how much of a pariah your cult has become, you can always find some speck of a story of an "outsider" to help give the appearance that someone approves of your cult beliefs and you can then ignore the ocean of evidence that you believe in bullshit. After all, you've invested so much into the religious identity (as Hubbard intended), it would be too painful to question it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would have thought it was, but fair enough.

It's just so hard to find good confirmation for your biases these days.

If you're a scientologist, that is. It's sort of like homeopathy - no matter how much of a pariah your cult has become, you can always find some speck of a story of an "outsider" to help give the appearance that someone approves of your cult beliefs and you can then ignore the ocean of evidence that you believe in bullshit. After all, you've invested so much into the religious identity (as Hubbard intended), it would be too painful to question it.

He didn't believe in Scientology.
Where's the bias?
The rest is gibberish, but I may add, written in superb English

 

[Angry Floof]

WP, thanks for starting up a new scientology thread.

Scientology’s redacted view of the proper role of women is (surprise!) incredibly sexist

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

She did in 1992 November 06 to be precise and was interviewed by Gerry Armstrong.

I didn't know about that one, apparently you're more up to speed on that than me. I checked it out on youtube, but the sound quality is just too horrible to listen to it for long. At the same time, from what I could see and hear, it looks like she's the one interviewing Armstrong, not vice versa, so does that really count as her "giving an interview"? Whatever. As I said in my "review", anyway, I think Going Clear will be most useful as a primer for those with little or no knowledge of the Co$, rather than adding anything new to the arguments of those more versed in its ways.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He didn't believe in Scientology.
Where's the bias?

Swing and a miss.

Many creationists quote mine evolutionary scholars to support Creationism. The bias is not on the part of the evolutionary scholars who do not 'believe in' Creationology.