If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Aged 16-25? Share your experience of using the discussion boards and receive a £25 voucher! Take part via text-chat, video or phone. Click here to find out more and to take part.
Options
Comments
Indeed. I seem to remember that Germany origonaly asked MicroSoft to remove Diskeeper from the new XP release because the company that developed Diskeeper were owned (or part-owned) by the Scientologists.
the scientologist's spokesman, despite claiming to want balanced reporting, would not (for the entirety of the programme) let the journalist get a word in edgeways, nor would he participate in rational debate, or discussion. he was constantly baiting and talking over the top of the journalist in an attempt to intimidate.
I dont really care about the whole xemu thing, it seems they're flatly denying that now. but the scientology organisation as a whole seems scary, and actively involved in intimidation and "brainwashing".
pity they're called scientlogists too... there's nothing rational or scientific about their beliefs or the way they go about them either.
so, what is scientology? it's scary, that's what.
You can watch the entire thing on YouTube
BUT .. I think for a more balanced view you should also watch the other side's story and then make up your own mind
http://tinyurl.com/2562yc
After having seen in person how a UK Camera crew filmed an event last year I have no doubt the BBC reporter and their team staged a lot of scenes in their report - the crew I watched filming last year often asked totally random and unrelated questions to people they interviewed whilst filming them to get a reaction from them - which they'd then use later in the editing room to make the person look foolish.
I have no doubt the BBC edited their film to show what they wanted to show and the people of the film above did the same thing
I would suggest people watch both video's and then pass judgment
Oh, and yeah Jim, the programme was Panorama.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6655207.stm
watched the vid from scientology discrediting the bbc, but it's interesting that at most of the points when it plays them voicing and asking him questions, there is no audio response from the journalist, which leads me to believe that it's probably been edited somewhat to serve their means. also, the interviews with those others in the religious community were more general about the media.
however, I do think his method of journalism seems a bit confrontational, and I can understand that some of the people he may have spoke to could have taken offence.
still though, their spokes person, tom whatshisname was much much worse.
"Tom's Guide To How To Win At Arguments"
"Chapter 2: The Art Of Not Stopping Talking
If you ever stop talking, other people may have a chance to say to you any of the following things...
1) valid arguments
2) critical points
3) words
Never stop talking, otherwise YOU LOSE!"
also love the fact that they interviewed a psychiatrist to discredit the bbc's reported, when the scientologists are supposed to hate them... (or was that psychologists? )
quite why sweeney went to the movie premier to heckle john travolta is beyond me though
Well sometimes the temptation is just too great.
Having just watched the video exposing Panorama, I feel assured I can confidently say Scientology is a load of crap.
The editing of the video is awful, it really is propaganda that even Gerbils would be proud of. I only wish Louis Theroux could have presented that report. He has such a clever way of feeding an organisation enough rope to hang themselves.
Anybody who is daft enough to believe any of the tosh that these Scientologist come out with are having a laugh, and quite frankly you deserve to loose your money.
I agree. Its like the bucket of shit and Kilroy situation.
Huh?
What did I say?
I'm just saying there' the BBC's video on YouTube and the Scientology video that linked to and that people should watch both really.
I do know a lot of people (maybe 6 or 7) that have been on a very famous BBC programme that has been running for several years now and all the stories they've told me are scary ... they've all said they've been filmed for upto an hour and then what gets shown on TV is anything from 10 seconds to 6 or 7 minutes and that the producers cut and paste the film together to make it look exactly how they want it to look
I tend to prefer TV that is filmed totally live where they can't edit things out or put things in - all the TV companies are under pressure to get high ratings and increase rating, or bring in money in other ways such as with the telephone phone-in scams .. even Blue Peter scammed the public it was shown .. dunno what your experience is with the media but when you see a few things behind the scenes and hear from people you know that have been on TV you find out a lot of what you see on TV is faked.
Much like the Daily Mail like to do about this place.
Have personal experience with the BBC on issue like this and the theme of the progarmme always sets the quiestion and they always edit the answers to show those which portray the point they are trying to get across IME.
That said, Scientology is a fairly easy target for them. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they target the Repunblican party in the US next. I heard on the radio (and will look for a link) that when the candidates for the next Presidential election got together for a TV debtae the other week they were all asked who didn't believe the theory of evolution was fact. At least three put their hands up, one arguing that school books on the subject should have a "this is only one opinion" sticker on them... [/tangent]
how the scientoligists behave though, is thoroughly dodgy though
they use all the tactics in my '37 ways to be right even when you're wrong book'
Diamond - my problem is with the comment that you made that things were 'staged' in the BBC documentary - I agree whole heartedly that a lot of television involves heavy editing and things taken out of context but that's not the same as staging/faking actual events.
Oh and live TV is no different either - once a second camera is added than editing can play with anything.
By live I meant TV filmed live and broadcasted simultaneously
Not just the Beeb, a few days ago I was reading an article in a paper about a policy I knew a lot about. The facts were there, but the language was used in such a way to portray it as something it wasn't...
Oh no ... I think the truth lies somewhere in between the two video's which is why I suggested people watch both.
I think there's some dodgey going on in Scientology - certainly at the higher levels and the BBC were right to do a documentary on it - be interested to see more .. but I do think the scientologist have a point in their documentary on the panorama report - Both sides are gonna show whatever supports their case .. seems natural to me ..
I learn't the truth about TV when I went to Hollywood 6 years ago and stayed there as well as did a 2,000 mile road trip and saw what you see on TV and reality can be so different.
By staged I meant - like if you see the guy walking away he might have walked away several times to get the shot looking good or from different angles.
The scientologists didn't show their own people following the BBC people around or their chap losing his temper.
But I think it's cool we live in an age with access to the internet where both sides can put their points of view across to the public and let them make up their own minds.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was just a load of rubbish. The Beeb was by no means perfect when it came to editing.. but the Church of Scientology has shown its self to be complete control freaks, who are economical with the truth. The fact they ignore difficult questions about Scientology and are so litigious really shows these people as the schysters they are.
Seven years ago I read about this woman and I have found Scientology undefendable since. If you're easily upset or very sensitive then it's probably not a good idea to look at this link.
They are racist, elitist and prey on the people they consider subordinate. Drug addicts, down-n-outs, social outcasts - that would be a good thing if they actually gave these people a fraction of the rehabilitation or anything approaching the level of opportunity they promise them. That's just scratching the surface, scum is too good a word and is wasted on the followers and perpetrators of its beliefs and customs :mad:
But haven't you seen in their propaganda video how happy and smiling everyone is in their rehabilitation programmes :rolleyes:
Cheers for the link Briggi :thumb:
Oh yes, I think I might sign right up for my initial audit. Where do I register my bank details?
Nee bother, after all I am a one-woman Scientology-hate-spreading-machine!
Well the £3.52 I have in my pocket is all the money I own. If they wish to sue me for that, their welcome.
Cheers :thumb:
And I saw that picket on Tottenham Court Road; I was impressed. Was going to stop and say something but I was in a rush. I can't stand the harassment I get off them when I'm on my lunch hour and trying to go to Tesco or something. I take back streets to avoid them.