Yawn…. another journalist trying a PR stunt. Disappointing.

Update September 28, 2010: I just watched the Panorama show (courtesy of some Anon asshole who streamed it). Not impressed. Kept on waiting for something substantial.

In 2007 Sweeney not only lost his reputation as a professional journalist, he lost his sense of fair and true reporting as well (if he had such a thing). Any information in the Panorama show got swallowed by John Sweeney’s overriding and futile attempts to get his status back. Yes, the church filmed him when he was trying to trick them. Yes, the Church of Scientology is a strong group that does not tolerate being lied about. Wow, what’s new?

This “documentary” is best explained in the Church’s statement and own documentary that was published on their website (http://www.freedommag.org) yesterday. Or watch it on Youtube:

Mike Rinder, you are such a whimp, attacking women. Try this with me and you’ll learn something new.

73 Comments

  1. […] Scientology Myths Forum Tags: another, Disappointing., journalist, stunt., trying, Yawn…. […]

  2. Big daddy, I believe that the word you’re looking for is “libel”
    “a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person”

  3. Correction, only one dot after au

  4. Yahoo news, for one:

    http:// au (dot) (dot) yahoo (dot) com/article/8162120/none/john-sweeney-revisits-church-scientology

  5. Interesting! Source?

    – L

  6. Ask her yourself, if you would like:
    http:// frontlineclub (dot) com/club/contact-us (dot) html

  7. Marion Atkinson is the membership coordinater of the Frontline Club.

  8. Hold your horses, bd….

    Who is Marion Atkinson?

    – L

  9. Boy, what’s the name for a lie deliberately used to attack the character of another…? Is that “freedom”?

  10. Freedom Magazine’s lies are exposed

    Scientology Lies in “Documentary” Video
    Reporter Bryan Seymour checked several claims in a video about John Sweeney produced by Scientology, only to find they were fabricated. See the email exchange (below) relating to one such serious claim:

    From: Marion Atkinson
    Sent: Monday, 18 October 2010 10:21 PM
    To: Seymour, Bryan
    Subject: Re: Network Seven (Australia)
    Dear Bryan,

    We never banned John Sweeney from our club and have no intention of banning him in the near future.

    Best,

    Marion.

    On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Seymour, Bryan> wrote:
    Hi,

    We will tomorrow (Tuesday October 19), broadcast in Australia a shortened version of the BBC Panorama program The Secrets of Scientology.

    I have received information from the Church of Scientology and I am writing to check its voracity (sic) with you.

    In a DVD produced by Scientology it is asserted that the Frontline Club banned John Sweeney from membership after his on-screen screaming match with Scientologist Tommy Davis in 2007.

    The exact claim is :”The elite body of British Investigative Reporters, The Frontline Club, threw Sweeney out of its membership.”

    Can you please advise what action the Frontline Club has taken against John Sweeney?

    I would appreciate a reply by the close of business Monday, your time, if possible?

    Kind Regards,

    Bryan

    Bryan Seymour
    Senior Reporter / Today Tonight

  11. “Did I miss your question?”
    Yes. I asked ‘where on this blog will we find these straight answers’ that you referred to? I see questions answered on Marty’s blog… not so much here.

    “Right. All the while he is trying to destroy scientology. Is that fitting to your ideas on treating a religious community?”
    See, that’s that distorted mindset again. Criticism is not the same thing as trying to destroy something. To put it in a different context- I criticised the Cathlolic Church handling of the sex abuse scandal. Does that mean I’m trying to “destroy” the Church?
    Also, I see him very supportive of scientology. It’s the church and its management that he opposes. Do you see the difference?

  12. “Comment by Bigdaddy on October 16, 2010 4:29 pm
    Where on this blog will we find these straight answers?”

    Did I miss your question?

    “Quite honestly, he makes scientologists seem to be caring, which is is no way done here.”

    Right. All the while he is trying to destroy scientology. Is that fitting to your ideas on treating a religious community?

    – L

  13. Where on this blog will we find these straight answers?
    I’ve seen Marty’s blog. I see him say kind things to people and build them up. He doesn’t call them assholes or make broad generalizations like you do on this blog.
    Quite honestly, he makes scientologists seem to be caring, which is is no way done here.

  14. “Comment by bigdaddy on October 11, 2010 10:55 pm”

    If you are interested in slime dripping off a page, go read Marty’s blog. Here you find straight answers and comments.

    – L

  15. L,
    Re: “Comment by DMSTCC ”

    If you had truly watched the BBC program you might understand something about the post.

  16. So let me see if I understand, this teen takes some hard drives (which I believe he said had some music on them) and leaves. ex-member rathburn tells him not to commit a crime and return the drives. He does so. Scientology execs change what they first reported to claim that MORE drives were stolen putting the drives just over the felony threshold.
    Yeah, that sounds like a very caring group.
    I imagine they’ll be pressing charges?
    It’s interesting, I read rathburn’s blog, and he’s very complimentary, very kind, with positive things to say. Why is this blog so angry all the time, while his is, well, not?

  17. Back to BBC, there is actually an official statement of the Church of Scientology International on freedommag.org:

    http://www.freedommag.org/special-reports/bbc/bbc-statement-church-of-scientology.html

    – L

  18. Sheriff’s spokesman Steve Whitmore gave the LA Weekly the following time line and background regarding Montalvo’s arrest:

    On Sept. 24 Montalvo was reported to have quit a Scientology-related job at a warehouse in East Los Angeles, at East Olympic Boulevard and South Gerhart Avenue in the city of Commerce, which the Sheriff’s Department patrols.

    On Sept. 29, representatives of the church came to the East Los Angeles sheriff’s station to report that when Montalvo quit he allegedly took hard drives with him. The report was taken as a case of grand theft, Whitmore said.

    On Oct. 6, after having returned from Florida, Montalvo “walked into lobby of the East L.A. station and turned himself in,” Whitmore said. He added that the teen “told us everything he did.”

    Strange twist: Whitmore originally echoed our report here that Montalvo allegedly took two hard drives. He said, more definitively, that the teen was alleged to have stolen a computer hard drive and a Zip drive.

    When we asked how — with retail prices in the sub-$100 range for both items — the alleged theft could have added up to meet the $400 state threshold (soon to be $950) for grand theft, Whitmore wasn’t sure.

    We suggested that maybe Scientology was claiming a high intellectual property value for what was on the drives.

    However, Whitmore called back to say there were five hard drives worth $200 each involved in the alleged theft.

    The case would normally be brought by sheriff’s authorities to the District Attorney’s office, where prosecutors would weigh the evidence and either drop the case or press forward.

    As we noted previously, the D.A.’s office on Friday had no record of the case. That doesn’t mean that it won’t prosecute later, through.

    Asked if the church of Scientology would have to “press charges” in order for the matter to go to court, Whitmore said, no, but that if the organization were to withdraw its claim of theft and refuse to testify the D.A. might then be forced to back off.

    Comments here and charges on Rathbun’s blog seem to charge that Sheriff Lee Baca — who has appeared at Scientology events in the past — has somehow gone out of his way to target Montalvo.

    Whitmore says Baca wasn’t even aware of the case and that “the sheriff has nothing to do with this.”

  19. “Comment by DMSTCC on October 9, 2010 9:44 pm”

    A little cryptic there, DMSTCC. What do you mean? The story is out on blogs and the media.

    – L

  20. L has it workin’ on Time…

    Gross-E
    An odd story indeed. Or should we call it carte blanche to steal and get away with it?
    Today, 3:43:37 PM
    – Flag – Reply
    Liked by Louanne

    Louanne
    This story is missing out on the most important fact: After talking to an anti-scientology group Daniel Montalvo STOLE harddrives (with content) and went to meet them. Only after law enforcement went on a search for him he returned and certainly got booked, obviously for larceny. The normal routine of the law in treating suspects is presented here as if there was something wrong with it. Makes me think that the writer of the article bought into a campaign for criminal acts against the Church of Scientology.

    Today, 2:54:48 PM
    – Flag – Reply
    Liked by Louanne

    Now you have to prove his content. And we all know how you will do it.

  21. What did I miss, anon?

  22. Next freedom article about the thug who stole 2 hard drives please.

  23. Hey, did you know that L. Ron Hubbard won a nobel prize in 1994?
    See for yourself:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners#1994

  24. What color was Tommy’s face when he made the statements here?

    http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/church-response.shtml

  25. Pat,

    IMO your Creed post comes across as the Wizard of Oz’s cowardly lion holding his tail repeating “I do believe in spooks”.

  26. Louanne and Pat – RE: Creed

    I’ve never been a Scientologist and never will be. I am also not a protestor, I’m just a fan of this real life soap opera.

    I don’t care what religion you belong to. You are still a part of this world and I’m sure you’re wonderful people and most folks who read this blog care for you whether you know it or not.

    Being able to read and learn about all sides is a wonderful thing.

    I hope you work things out with your doubt.

  27. Pay, that’s very lovely, but unrelated to the issues being discussed. One is left with the impression that you may be “spamming” the board. Do you have any relevant thoughts?

  28. The Creed of the Church of Scientology

    The Creed of the Church of Scientology was written by L. Ron Hubbard shortly after the Church was formed in Los Angeles on February 18, 1954.

    After Mr. Hubbard issued this creed from his office in Phoenix, Arizona, the Church of Scientology adopted it as its creed because it succinctly states what Scientologists believe.

    We of the Church believe

    That all men of whatever race, color or creed were created with equal rights.

    That all men have inalienable rights to their own religious practices and their performance.

    That all men have inalienable rights to their own lives.

    That all men have inalienable rights to their sanity.

    That all men have inalienable rights to their own defense.

    That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments.

    That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.

    That all men have inalienable rights to the creation of their own kind.

    That the souls of men have the rights of men.

    That the study of the Mind and the healing of mentally caused ills should not be alienated from religion or condoned in nonreligious fields.

    And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.

    And we of the Church believe

    That Man is basically good.

    That he is seeking to Survive.

    That his survival depends upon himself and upon his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the Universe.

    And we of the Church believe that the laws of God forbid Man

    To destroy his own kind.

    To destroy the sanity of another.

    To destroy or enslave another’s soul.

    To destroy or reduce the survival of one’s companions or one’s group.

    And we of the Church believe

    That the spirit can be saved.

    And that the spirit alone may save or heal the body.

    http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/the-scientology-creeds-and-codes/the-creed-of-the-church.html

    Pat

  29. Anon, true about the Aussie documentary. The canadians chose the same name for theirs:
    http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2010/xfiles/

  30. Hubbard PR tech doesn’t work.
    It creates only bad PR and downstats.
    When was the last time Scientology had good PR on a major TV network?
    Your PR tech is utter fail.
    All you can do is blaming the evil psychs and the suppressive merchants of chaos and thereby admitting that you are nothing more than EFFECT and never truly cause over anything.

  31. “(produced under supervision of the same people, that’s why they are so similar).

    – L”

    Who?

  32. Ex-Files was originally produced by the australian ABC four corners program earlier this year.
    See
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2837513.htm

  33. No, ex files was also the name of the Canadian broadcast.
    Off for a bit, on later.

  34. You were talking about “ex-files”, dude. But yes, I saw the rating reports about BBC. I was one of the viewers and it didn’t impress me at all.

    – L

  35. Btw: reference for number of viewers of the program; 5m in the uk alone.

    http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/29/john-sweeney-church-of-scientology

  36. What ratings are you showing for the BBC piece?

  37. you are mixing up the bbc smear with the australian smear (produced under supervision of the same people, that’s why they are so similar).

    – L

  38. 5 million people cared, if the ratings are to be believed. Plus a growing YouTube audience. And that’s not including the Canadian expose.

  39. BD, who cares about another warmed-up propaganda show. It was old already when it came out six months ago.

    – L

  40. And pat, those of us that have tested before talking?
    But I may have missed your point… Is that quote related to anything previously discussed?

  41. Do not harken too well to he who would tell you this system will not work. He would not feel safe if people around him grew too strong. The wise man tests before he talks. The critic but follows the fad of a cynical and apathetic age. You have a right to your own opinion. This system works or it doesn’t according to your experience. Not all the authorities in Christendom can alter natural law.

    – L Ron Hubbard from the Introductory Chapter in Self Analysis

    Pat

  42. I am left to wonder why there isn’t this same level of “attention” paid to the producers of the Canadian documentary “Scientology: the ex files”, which was also released this week, and which levels pretty much the same charges from a Canadian perspective?

  43. Pat, you do realize that the information that you’ve presented refers to information PROCESSING by the reciepient, don’t you? In other words, it’s a logical fallacy, of sorts, in the way inforamtion is taken in, not delivered. Basically, what you’re saying is that you believe the recipients of the information to be biased based on information, to include the BBC special, received.

  44. Pat,
    I am very grateful that you are attempting to prevent anyone from interrupting the conversation between me and louanne (to include your inject, but I suppose that’s already been addressed, lol!), but I do welcome others, to include BD (what’s up, man?) to join in the conversation. Of course, I believe in the free exchange of ideas, so I welcome others to post when I do so in a -public- forum, such as this.
    Now, anyways, when you actually look at what I’m saying, it’s a question on the scientology predisposition to ad-hom attacks against their critics. Why is that necessary?
    _FR

  45. Ah, wikipedia :) there’s a very good reason that universities don’t allow the site to be used as research references.

    Are you trying to say that you believe the BBC to be guilty of bias?

  46. BBC Panorama and Confirmation bias

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and/or recall have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a stronger weighting for data encountered early in an arbitrary series) and illusory correlation (in which people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

    A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another proposal is that people show confirmation bias because they are pragmatically assessing the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

    Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to disastrous decisions, especially in organizational, military, political and social contexts.

    Pat

  47. To continue the irony… Didn’t pat respond to a post not originally directed at her?

  48. @Pat

    Since I think you may be gone again, perhaps the questions I’ll ask are more to clear my good name. :)

    You accuse me of, in your posts, of “never backing your insinuations with facts”. So you make an insinuation as to my conduct. Okay. But ironically, you state later that you “can’t even begin to give specifics”. So… you’re making an insinuation, and then refusing to back it up with facts? But I’ll take the high road and won’t mention it. oh, wait…

    You also say that I “hijack others posts”. Are you referring to the question that I asked about a post that you made, when you responded to FR? Am I not alowed to do that? In every definition that I can find, hijacking means that the originator no longer has control of the element, or the ability to use it. Are you saying that by asking you a question, I somehow forced FR or you to behave in a certain way? That’s a lot of power, if so, and I will try to use it more responsibly in the future.

    You also say “It isn’t my job or obligation to answer your questions”. And, I agree with you. Nor do you do so :)

    There, I think the air is cleared for now. If you don’t want to reply to my posts or questions (as you did here, before accusing me of “hijacking” the post)… feel free to not.

  49. Right, pat.
    In the mean time, read our conversation on criminon and let me know which one of us failed to provide the facts… On a conversation YOU started.

  50. @ Comment by Bigdaddy on September 29, 2010 6:51 am

    “Pat, I can’t speak for fr (welcome back, btw), but I don’t think anyone wants to play this game right now. By “game”, of course, I mean answering your questions, while you ignore theirs (much like you did here, and in the past), only to have you disappear after a few posts.”

    You have choice to play any game you like. Especially never backing your insinuations with facts. Thus the questions trying to get specifics. It isn’t my job or obligation to answer your questions. I’m not here to do that. In my personal experience, you won’t change. It gets no product to even converse with you and you hijack others posts. This is “noticing something non-optimum and commenting on it”. I can’t even begin to give specifics at this point because I have never seen anything to the contrary. So, BD. I’m not gonna play your game either, which is to insinuate and make statements and put down any answers you get. Buh-bye.

    Pat

  51. I’ve finished watching the videos- wow, there’s some pretty interesting and damaging film footage and audio recordings. Sweeny really did a much better job, being prepared for what he may face, and was generally calm, cool and collected. I also noticed that he apologized several times for his outburst- but I guess that’s not quite good enough to be forgiven :)
     
    Anyways, some interesting items. For example, the audio recording of Rinder’s ex-wife. That is not a woman who sounds in any way collected, and certainly not the image that freedom… mag… tries to portray. It seems quite possible to me that a woman that far out of control could have injured herself in any number of ways. I haven’t seen the original police report- is it true that the police (who were apparently called? That wasn’t in the FM story) did not find any evidence of battery?
     
    I also do see that Tommy denied that Sweeney was being followed at all, calling him “paranoid”. Maybe Tommy only meant covertly followed, as it’s pretty darn clear that he was being overtly followed, filmed and photographed by multiple scientologists. Given the captured footage, it’s pretty clear that they were being covertly followed when not being overtly followed. But, either way, Tommy was either wrong or lying. Was that an official statement, with Tommy speaking on behalf of the church, or was that just Tommy’s personal opinion?
     
    Other than that, most of the points have been discussed at length here and other online sources, but I don’t believe that the adherents or critics are the targets of the documentary.

  52. Pat, I can’t speak for fr (welcome back, btw), but I don’t think anyone wants to play this game right now. By “game”, of course, I mean answering your questions, while you ignore theirs (much like you did here, and in the past), only to have you disappear after a few posts.

  53. Comment by Bigdaddy on September 28, 2010 5:05 pm

    “Pat…?
    What did fr say about claims?”

    Last paragraph. He asked why the claims weren’t focused on, rather than individuals.

    What specific claims? (Who, what, when and where and the event).

    Pat

  54. Lol, while I’ll save my questions for the end, that portion appears… Dishonest of Tommy.

    Enjoy the sunset, it was beautiful here today.

  55. “Comment by Bigdaddy on September 28, 2010 6:10 pm
    I’m only part way through the first portion, but dis I not see Tommy Davis denying that Sweeney was being followed?”

    Impatience, my friend, is not a virtue. Keep watching. I am off shooting the sunset.

    – L

  56. I’m only part way through the first portion, but dis I not see Tommy Davis denying that Sweeney was being followed?

  57. Louanne, that’s the 4 new ones for that user? Assuming so, I’ll watch them so we are on the same page. Thanks for the link.

    Is the footage taken by those that… Documented… Him included? Or did you see them kiss from another source? That sounds important, if you please have a link?

    I would argue that rinder’s ex had much to gain by her injuries, whether caused by him or otherwise. Freedom mag has dedicated a great deal of space to attacking him, as has this blog. The accusations made, unrelated to his claims, attempt to discredit the man, and by extension, his claims.

    If she is indeed a scientologist, surely you would agree that it is at least POSSIBLE that she COULD lie or fake her injuries to support the official efforts against him? Freedom mag readily believes that the man will attack another solely for being a scientologist- is it possible that a scientologist may attack him in the same way?

    Also, why does freedom Mage make such a big deal out of the unverified (?) claim that rinder never replied to his mother’s letter? I had thought that Scientology supported one”s right to communicate with whom one chooses (when discussing disconnection)

    Awesome about the new hobby- you showcase your work anywhere?

  58. Pat…?
    What did fr say about claims?

  59. Comment by FailRoot on September 27, 2010 5:43 pm

    What claims? I didn’t see or hear anything from Sweeney beyond generalities. Did you see or hear an actual specific claim, that I missed?

    Pat

  60. ” Comment by Bigdaddy on September 28, 2010 4:43 pm
    “Do you have a link to the show?”

    http://www.youtube.com/user/TreVelocita

    “by sending photographs of him hugging a sobbing Amy Sobee”

    Nice try ;)

    She’s laughing and they kiss. But fine, minor details, body liquids are involved in both scenarios.

    ““Yes, that’s right. He and Marty ran the beat-them-up club. I heard violence dropped 100% after the pissed off.”
    I’ve heard otherwise”

    Well, as Sweeney so famously put it: “You were not there….!!!!” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqR5NPhtLI)

    And I was not either. So, no go either way.

    ““Admitted? No. Who: his ex-wife. Photos of that: freedommag.org”
    I had assumed that’s what you would say, and saw her claims as well. But, you would surely admit that she has something to gain by discrediting him”

    Bullshit. All she has to gain is a lot of noise and painful personal contact with that jackass. What he has to gain is someone funding his lazy life and “being important”.

    “I’m not much for believing what I’m told solely because someone told me it to be true.”

    Sounds good in theory.

    ““I have a new hobby, not so much time lately.”
    Really? What’s that? That must keep you busy, with the photo editing / image design that you’re doing.”

    I am doing the whole production line now, creating the pics myself (not that I have to but it’s a skill I want). It’s fun and I get out a lot!

    – L

  61. “Yes. Dude, isn’t that obvious? I understand that Sweeney does not like being documented in his unprofessional behavior but that does not excuse him making allegations that filming was done “surreptitiously” (actually I don’t remember that he actually said that).”
     
    That wasn’t his word, but mine. Do you have a link to the show? I have only his interview, in which he says that he didn’t know he was being followed and filmed, but suspected that he was. Rinder, he says, confirmed it, and the CoS later confirmed it as well by sending photographs of him hugging a sobbing Amy Sobee, to try and discredit his character. Are you saying that this is not how it happened?
     
    “Yes, that’s right. He and Marty ran the beat-them-up club. I heard violence dropped 100% after the pissed off.”
     
    I’ve heard otherwise, but I suppose that you’re in the difficult position of trying to prove a negative (claim: it didn’t happen), where I am in the fortuitous position of knowing that my claim (claim: it happened) can only be proven, if true, and that the absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. (assuming that one does not accept firsthand accounts as evidence)
     
    “Admitted? No. Who: his ex-wife. Photos of that: freedommag.org”
     
    I had assumed that’s what you would say, and saw her claims as well. But, you would surely admit that she has something to gain by discrediting him- so I can’t accept her word as “gospel” any more than I would accept his. I’m not much for believing what I’m told solely because someone told me it to be true.
     
    “I have a new hobby, not so much time lately.”
     
    Really? What’s that? That must keep you busy, with the photo editing / image design that you’re doing. I’ve been doing some reading lately, haven’t had much time for that until recently.

  62. “Comment by Bigdaddy on September 28, 2010 4:09 pm
    Do you dispute the claim, by both Rinder and Sweeney, that they were followed and filmed surreptitiously?”

    Yes. Dude, isn’t that obvious? I understand that Sweeney does not like being documented in his unprofessional behavior but that does not excuse him making allegations that filming was done “surreptitiously” (actually I don’t remember that he actually said that).

    ” In other words, did they know they were being followed and filmed before the footage was used against them?”

    Sweeney says so himself in the show today.

    “Also, I believe that the claim is that he was “beating up” people while a cos executive”

    Yes, that’s right. He and Marty ran the beat-them-up club. I heard violence dropped 100% after the pissed off.

    “Are you making the claim that he beat someone up AFTER the period to which he has already admitted?” Beating up? Not really, but injured, yes. Admitted? No. Who: his ex-wife. Photos of that: freedommag.org

    “Nice talking to you again, btw. It was quiet here.”

    I have a new hobby, not so much time lately.

    – L

  63. So you’re saying that they were following him, and that wasn’t a secret? Do you dispute the claim, by both Rinder and Sweeney, that they were followed and filmed surreptitiously? In other words, did they know they were being followed and filmed before the footage was used against them?

    Also, I believe that the claim is that he was “beating up” people while a cos executive, and that he has expressed remourse for doing so. Are you making the claim that he beat someone up AFTER the period to which he has already admitted? If so, on what do you base your accusation?

    Nice talking to you again, btw. It was quiet here.

  64. I am not saying that he is lying. He says that the Church was filming Sweeney and followed him around. That’s evident and no secret at all. They produced TWO DOCUMENTARIES with that footage. He also says he was beating up people “and so did Marty”. Freedommag.org says the same. And he says that Church execs wanted Sweeney to piss off. Evident and understandable. He’s a tabloid reporter and useless asshole.

    – L

  65. “BD, I prefer straight talk. What Rinder does is slitting your throat with a smile on his face and a calm voice.”

    That’s because you make the immediate assumption that he is lying (or, similarly, that others are telling the truth), without the uncomfortable burden of “proof” or “validation”.

  66. BD, I prefer straight talk. What Rinder does is slitting your throat with a smile on his face and a calm voice.

    – L

  67. “Sweeney not only lost his reputation as a professional journalist, he lost his sense for fair and true reporting as well”

    Funny… isn’t this what you pretty much say about ALL of the reporters that have disagreed with your views? And I’m including the ones that have won awards for the pieces as well.

  68. Dude, I just watched the Panorama show (courtesy of some Anon asshole who streamed it). Not impressed. Kept on waiting for something substantial.

    In 2007 Sweeney not only lost his reputation as a professional journalist, he lost his sense for fair and true reporting as well. Any information in the Panorama show got swallowed by John Sweeney’s overriding and futile attempts to get his status back. Yes, the church filmed him when he was trying to trick them. Yes, the Church of Scientology is a strong group that does not tolerate being lied about. Wow, what’s new?

    This “documentary” is best explained in the Church’s statement and own documentary that was published on their website (http://www.freedommag.org) yesterday.

    – L

  69. “Desperate lies” by Scientology indeed.

  70. LOL

  71. SO much to discuss here…

    To start with a definition: Pillory: Attack or ridicule publicly

    So louanne says the reporter is “pilloried on YouTube as the “exploding tomato,”. By who, exactly? By the scientologiists? Clearly louanne is doing so, by only linking to a poriton of the total clip (the part with just sweeny), clearly engaging in this public ridicule. She may have created the video herself, as it has only 21 hits, versus the full copy, showing Tommy Davis exploding, which has 17,000 hits.

    Also, I’d probably explode, too, after being followed for so many days (as admitted by the UK scientology lawyer, who provided one of the photos taken by the scientology stalkers).

    But this seems to be what this site is lately- no “myths” to address, just focused on attacking individuals, rather than their claims. Same way with Freedom Rag… I wonder if the two are related somehow?

  72. It’s ironic; I’ve heard rinder speak (on video) and seen every one of the many articles that “freedom” mag has put out, and nothing from him is as hateful as from the scientologists- especially this blog.
    Doesn’t Scientology have a way to help with such hate?


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos