Scientology Warning
Here’s an interesting video. This young woman had been telling people how great her Scientology experiences were in a series of YouTube videos — but then she decided to leave and warn those who might have listened to her advice about getting in.
It appear’s she’s removed all the early videos but here is her apology/warning.
UPDATE:
For some unknown reason, this post more than others seems to really have sparked “Tom Newton’s” vivid imagination. His nonsensical rumblings led me back to the girls channel where she has posted this to her video description:
I want to clarify any rumors being spread about me “being hired” to rant againt Scientology. Its a lie I don’t even know who the hell Anonymous is. Its a bunch of shit people are making up because they’re mad I am against Scientology. YES I tried it out, but I finally discovered their true motives. My videos are REAL and the purpose of them is NOT to press my beliefs on anyone else. I simply wanted to share MY experience with people to give them some insight on what I went through. I’m sure my experience is not going to be the same as everyone elses. If people want to make up false rumors that my videos are “scripted” thats not my problem. I stay true to who I am and I will stick by my personal beliefs. I was not vulgar or rude to anyone related to Scientology therefore I deserve the same respect in return. These people have way too much time on their hands and I will not waste any more of mine trying to defend myself.
Usually I wouldn’t pay you this much attention, Tom. But I have to say, you are some kind of nut.
Explore posts in the same categories: New Voices
THE WOG BLOG from XENU TV 
February 12, 2009 at 12:17 am
Interesting. Kind of makes you think.
February 12, 2009 at 2:30 am
As you listen to her story, consider this: her account is less than one month old, yet she has over twenty subscribers and over twenty “friends”–ALL of whom are Anonymous members.
Mark really needs to re-think his tactics; hiding behind an 18 old girl isn’t going to make the fear mongering anymore palatable than when it’s presented by an 81 year old.
http://anonymous-is-a-hategroup.blogspot.com/2009/02/anonymous-member-unmasks-to-more.html
February 12, 2009 at 2:30 am
As you listen to her story, consider this: her account is less than one month old, yet she has over twenty subscribers and over twenty “friends”–ALL of whom are Anonymous members. And getting an endorsement from Anonymous leader Mark Bunker within two days of having uploaded her video is especially revealing.
Mark really needs to re-think his tactics; hiding behind an 18 old girl isn’t going to make the fear mongering anymore palatable than when it’s presented by an 81 year old.
February 12, 2009 at 2:44 am
Tom, I wasn’t aware this was a tactic. I saw her video and put it on my blog. End of story.
Except I’m sure you will build more of it. Go to it, man. The game is afoot!
February 12, 2009 at 2:48 am
Tom. The reason is that we want to hear her story while Scientologists avoid entheta at all costs. If they don’t unsubscribe they are told to do so.
This is the exact same thing as happens on Facebook. I’m recieving warnings on entheta groups all the time, sent by sciloons, telling me to leave whatever group is “entheta” or warning me not to join another…
Tom really, are you made out of tinfoil?
February 12, 2009 at 2:54 am
Her story confirms your preconceptions and backs up your existing black propaganda campaign.
Her membership in Anonymous, prior to her supposed visit to a Scientology Org–is a total fabrication.
You’d have to be an idiot to believe this crap.
And Mark Bunker, what are you doing following an 18 year old’s videos anyway? Your quick response was a dead giveaway. You are involved in this, I know it.
Tom Newton
February 12, 2009 at 3:01 am
Well, it’s those keen instincts of yours that make you such a laughing stock, Tom.
Quick response? You are the subscriber of my blog who usually makes the first comment in any thread. You seem to leap as soon as an entry is placed on my blog.
You are certainly welcome to, Tom. But just as you get an e-mail that says I’ve made a post, I get an e-mail when someone makes a comment. So…I responded.
Ooooo, nefarious giveaway of underhanded scheme.
You dope.
February 12, 2009 at 5:42 am
Seriously Tom no-one wishes to detract from your ‘religious’ beliefs, but the ‘church’ of Scientology needs reformation before people can take it at face value. The abuses, crimes, cover-ups and ‘suicides’ that litter Scientology’s history are worrying too many people. But the most frightening part is that this religion charges astronomical fee’s for its services, which leads many too the conclusion that it elaborate pyramid scheme.
This may or may not be fair, but for the ‘Church’ to shed this image it needs to open its self fully to scrutiny and yes ridicule by some (hey that’s nothing new look at the attacks/debates on Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Zoroastrianism). I do not deny it is very trying to have the tenants of one’s faith laid out for people to dismiss as tact, but it is a burden many face without walls off secrecy or threats of litigation. Most religions do charge their followers in the seemingly cynical why Scientology does. Yes they accept donations and suggestion that such acts may be looked on appreciatively by the appropriate deity, but such donations are not required to progress in the religion! If you feel moved to serve most religion’s you are not usually required to sign billion year service contracts! If you chose to leave such service in most other religion’s you are not prevented by barbed wire or armed security! If someone is critical off my beliefs I am not required to disconnect from them and actually I find in many case’s faith can be strengthened thru such debates/incidents!
February 12, 2009 at 6:34 am
“Tom Newton Says:
February 12, 2009 at 2:54 am
Her story confirms your preconceptions and backs up your existing black propaganda campaign.”
You messed up the words, you must have meant this:
This is yet another testimony showing everybody that what we KNOW about the Co$ is true.
I agree with Tom in that.
XD
February 12, 2009 at 8:49 am
Mark Bunker is not the “leader of Anonymous”. Anonymous has no defined leader.
February 12, 2009 at 9:54 am
“ebruary 12, 2009 at 3:01 am
Well, it’s those keen instincts of yours that make you such a laughing stock, Tom.
Quick response? You are the subscriber of my blog who usually makes the first comment in any thread. You seem to leap as soon as an entry is placed on my blog.
You are certainly welcome to, Tom. But just as you get an e-mail that says I’ve made a post, I get an e-mail when someone makes a comment. So…I responded.
Ooooo, nefarious giveaway of underhanded scheme.
You dope.”
Mark,
I am subscribed to your blog.
How did you instantly know when that girl came out with an obviously scripted video?
And by the way, watch who you call a “dope.” I’m not playing games here. You are stirring up hatred and perpetuating negative stereotypes which you personally have helped to create.
If you think I’m going to allow you to continue this campaign unchallenged, think again. You’re story is full of holes.
Expect me.
Tom Newton
February 12, 2009 at 9:59 am
hehehe… troll trolling.. awesome
February 12, 2009 at 10:09 am
Tom, you make me wet.
February 12, 2009 at 10:10 am
Hey Tom,
Way to discredit yourself “Mr I’m Not a Scientologist.”
By the way.. when you are going to remove my address from lulzkiller.blogspot.com?
February 12, 2009 at 10:12 am
Tom,
your accusations that this is a scam really do tend to put doubt on your claims to being impartial. I don’t think the video poster has much interest in Anonymous or joining up with the Anti-Scn cause. She was simply sharing her experience.
Oh by the way… I’ve dropped about 17 pounds so… you won’t be able to call me fat before too long.
Keep being Scientology’s pet bitch! 🙂
February 12, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Hi i didn’t know where else to put this and i haven’t seen it posted anywhere else but my mom just called me and she heard on a local radio station here in canada that david miscavage is going to be on a canadian news show tonight…. anyone else heard this???
February 12, 2009 at 1:39 pm
David writes:
> for the ‘Church’ to shed this image it needs to open its self fully to scrutiny
Fat chance of that happening. They’d need to make the OT stories public. Good luck defending those.
Christianity gets away with the bible (to the extent that it does), because it was written a very long time ago, it’s public, and taking it literally is not required of Christians. Cooking up Xenu in the 20th century is simply very bad sci-fi.
> Scientology needs reformation before people can take it at face value
The trouble is that the face value is nil. Actually, I think David Miscavige is running Scientology to the ground, and this is a good thing. It’s sad and wrong that he has abused and violated so many people, but imagine for a second a situation where Scientology had an effective leadership (to the extent that that is possible while following at least some of LRH’s writings). There would be a lot more people in Scientology, but the ‘technology’ still would not work, and those people would be spending their time and money and possibly destroy their family relations chasing ‘a piece of blue sky’, as it were.
February 12, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Tom Newton is full of PHAIL.
February 12, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Tom, how did I find out about this girl’s video? The same way I find out about most videos I post here. People send me links. I then look at them and decide if I want to pass them along on my blog.
Seems, I don’t know…simple.
Maybe not simple enough for you, but simple.
And the girl’s video was obviously scripted? Why is it that what seems so obvious to you is often so very, very wrong? For instance, that I am “the leader of Anonymous.”
There’s two explanations. The first is that you are a complete idiot, unable to comprehend the world around you. The second is that you willfully distort reality and purposely post propaganda hoping to confuse some who stumble upon your idiocy.
Of course, both could be true. You could be a lying moron.
February 12, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Hm…
Tom Newton subscribes to blogs/forums/youtube/etc…
Anonymous subscribes to blogs/forums/youtube/etc…
Tom Newton is an active website attendee and posts what he want regardless of the opposition…
Anonymous are active website attendees and post what they want regardless of the opposition…
Tom Newton is expected…
Anonymous is expected…
Tom Newton gains satisfaction trolling things he hates on the internet…
Anonymous gains satisfaction trolling things they hate on the internet…
Tom Newton isn’t his real name, its an internet handle…
Anonymous never uses real names, they go Anonymously or use internet handles…
Tom Newton does most his work on the internet…
Anonymous does most their work on the internet…
Tom Newton is doing this for personal enjoyment…
Anonymous is does what it wants for personal enjoyment…
Anonymous can be a cruel, uncaring monster…
Tom Newton has become the monster…welcome to Anonymous, Tom. Thanks for playing. 😉
February 12, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Hey, Tom! Here’s a clear demonstration of how this blogging thing works:
Last night, I sent a video to a website I regularly read. Today they posted it:
http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2009/02/dave-flames-joa.html
See? It’s really simple.
You dope.
February 12, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Ooooooh a FailThreat:
“And by the way, watch who you call a “dope.” I’m not playing games here. You are stirring up hatred and perpetuating negative stereotypes which you personally have helped to create.
If you think I’m going to allow you to continue this campaign unchallenged, think again. You’re story is full of holes.”
Hey Mark, evidently you-are story is full of holes. Typical clam grammar fail. Methinks it’s his head that’s full of holes.
Expect me.
February 12, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Yes, Tom we have an SP cabal bent on taking down scientology because we know it works. That makes sene, if I know a car works, I’m mad because it works.
OH DEAR LORD I SEE THE LIGHT!! SCIENTOLOGY SAVES! wait…nope, it’s gone..
loser.
February 12, 2009 at 6:01 pm
And by “expect me”, I mean I want my usual chilled Basil Hayden Manhattan waiting for me when I get there. Expect me . . . what a putz.
February 12, 2009 at 6:15 pm
If you only learned about that video now, then where are you getting your information that “This young woman had been telling people how great her Scientology experiences were in a series of YouTube videos”? When did she joined? How long did she stay? What course/auditing did she do? What did she have to say about them?
Apparently she joined youtube in Feb 7, less than 7 days ago!!!
February 12, 2009 at 6:21 pm
^
The fact that we are RIGHT explains why Bunker has resorted to personal attacks against me.
As far as I am concerned, it’s time to DEBUNK MARK BUNKER.
Tom Newton
February 12, 2009 at 6:23 pm
OK – she joined Jan 10, not Feb 7. Sorry.
February 12, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Where’d I get the information? From watching her video where she says she’s sorry for telling people in earlier videos that it was great.
It may be that she started a new account and deleted her old one.
I don’t know. But you could go to her channel and ask her if you wanted to know.
February 12, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“I don’t know. But you could go to her channel and ask her if you wanted to know.”
Ever heard of ‘fact checking’, or does hearsay constitute evidence in the court of Mark Bunker?
February 12, 2009 at 6:26 pm
You are welcome to debunk me, Tom. But I should think that means more than just making up goofy stuff.
Not to you, of course.
February 12, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Appeal to ridicule, also called the Horse Laugh[1], is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent’s argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. For example:
* If Einstein’s theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That’s crazy! (This is, in fact, true, but the effect is so minuscule a human observer will not notice.)
* If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your great great great grandfather was a gorilla! (False, since the theory states that humans and gorillas evolved from a common early ancestor and clearly states evolution took many more than 5 generations.)
This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent’s argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument’s logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.
Appeal to Ridicule is often found in the form of challenging one’s credentials or maturity;
* Nobody believes in socialism after college! Grow up.
The argument is ridiculed on the basis that having a view commonly associated with youth is somehow invalid.
Other such fallacious arguments may include:
* You haven’t even graduated from college yet! Come back and talk to me when you have your Ph.D
* It’s funny you think you know so much about people, even though you’re not a psychologist.
* It’s funny you think you know so much about money, even though you’re not an economist.
* He is not married, therefore he must not know anything about relationships!
* She is not a parent, therefore she must not know anything about children!
* She is not a man, therefore she must not know anything about about men!
* She is younger than me, therefore she cannot know more than me!
* Don’t like X? What’s the matter? Too deep for you?
February 12, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Interesting that Mr. Newton makes no attempt to deny Scientology’s recurring theme of wringing every dollar they can from their most vulnerable members, using the most dishonest means necessary.
Despicable.
You won’t win this argument Mr. Newton, you’re not properly equipped.
Actually, nobody in your cult is.
February 12, 2009 at 6:51 pm
“averagethinkinghuman Says:
February 12, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Interesting that Mr. Newton makes no attempt to deny Scientology’s recurring theme of wringing every dollar they can from their most vulnerable members, using the most dishonest means necessary.
Despicable.
You won’t win this argument Mr. Newton, you’re not properly equipped.
Actually, nobody in your cult is.”
Dear AVERAGEthinkingman,
I’m not in a cult. Your simple either/or mindset wouldn’t be able to comprehend that, however.
You’re probably a closet racist too.
Tom Newton
February 12, 2009 at 6:56 pm
The only way you can control people is to lie to them.
– LRH
Good night Mr. Newton.
February 12, 2009 at 6:58 pm
^
quote miner
February 12, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Tom Newton commented on his blog:
“I think LRH was probably a Satan worshipper who did too many drugs, and in all likelyhood, one who has bedded more hookers than I have ever seen.”
Does that mean that Tom Newton rejects LRH teachings? Not at all! Because Tom Newton is probably a Satan worshipper himself and LRH is his idol.
February 12, 2009 at 10:37 pm
I hereby declare Tom Newton to be the ultimate Devils Advocate. Maybe the King of Trolls.
February 12, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Tom Newton trying his best to “shatter suppression”, and KSW. Tom worships none other than LRH. Or maybe he’s just trying to carry on the con for finical purposes. I’m just speculating Tom. He’s just trying to create a smokescreens in an attempt to cover for his cult.
Tom’s MO and behavior completely give him away. He behaves like an unhinged $cientologist. His blog preaches to the initiated and maybe sometimes confuses an unsuspecting person or two but besides that no one in their right mind could ever thank that Tom’s comments or especially his blog is unbiased. It reeks of Scientology black propaganda. This is typical behavior for the Co$.
Hopefully someone is archiving Tom’s blog along with other crazy websites run by the cult (Religious Freedom Watch). In the end the cult and their zealous followers are their own worst enemies. They makes themselves look so creepy, and bad.
February 13, 2009 at 2:05 am
I hereby declare Tom Newton to be the ultimate Devils Advocate. Maybe the King of Trolls.
February 13, 2009 at 2:06 am
That girl was smart to leave that org before they got her parent’s credit card numbers. it happens.
February 13, 2009 at 4:13 am
Tom Newton is a bore!
Not even funny or creative… boring, simply boring.
When I saw comments escalate to 40 and I saw so many of TN’s posts I thought, mmmm, juicy, let’s read.
…
You disappointed me, man… you argue like a little girl.
NEXT!!!!
February 13, 2009 at 7:31 am
Tom,
Why do you and every Scio in almost every video I see say “You are probably a (fill in the crime)”?
(Your comment above “You’re probably a closet racist too.”)
Because we do not choose to believe in something does not make us bigots. If we see harm in something that you choose to accept or not accept, this does not give you any right to throw your accusations on us.
False accusation in a court is a crime. If you did that, then YOU would be in jail and Scientology would leave you to rot because you now have… crimes. There’s not evidence to support yours or any other Scientologists ‘crime stickers’ that you so happily throw on anyone who says “no thank you.” to one of your stress tests.
If you aren’t in Scientology like was stated early on in this message, then why can’t you objectively see that in all these videos that the Scientologists are the ones who will not rationally sit down and discuss their religion. It simply makes no sense to us who are not afraid of the truth.
People who fight for their limitations deserve them. If you choose to be closed minded to EVERYONE here on the forums, then at least admit you’re closed minded and leave the forums where real thinking people can discuss without being harassed by you.
SP Batman
February 13, 2009 at 7:34 am
ALL HAIL KING TOM NEWTON!!!11!
HE IS NOT A DOPE!
February 13, 2009 at 10:03 am
To everyone who engages Tom Newton the liar:
Ever heard of DON’T FEED THE TROLLS!?
Just starve them and they’ll go away.
February 13, 2009 at 10:05 am
Also we shouldn’t put to much hate on this guy. He could be the next Tory for all we know.
February 13, 2009 at 10:14 am
After having read this jumbled mass of incoheirant garbage, I just want to know how long Mark has known COS posts this crap on his blog. It seems to me that COS has a constant watch on this site and just because Mark stands up to COS that means they MUST return fire. Epic Fail Mr. Newton!!!!
February 13, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Has anyone thought Tom Newton is just some guy on a computer who doesn’t believe any of the shit he spills out and just does this for fun? Just a thought.
February 13, 2009 at 12:45 pm
People often ask me why I am doing this. I know that most of you do not agree with my point of view–that hate and divisiveness is at the heart of every human evil–but this is what I believe.
Therefore, I will continue to expose Mark Bunker and the rest of the Anti-Scientology “critics”.
Anonymous are basically sheep, so once the truth comes out, they will collectively ditch those ridiculous masks and go back to trading cartoon child porn and hacking myspace accounts.
Tom “The Lulzkiller” Newton
February 13, 2009 at 1:05 pm
But you arent exposing anybody, in order to “Expose” something people have to listen to you. And nobody listens to you.
February 13, 2009 at 1:12 pm
^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. If for instance, a logical proof that the answer is A attempted to make the argument that 75% of people polled think the answer is A, there is a 25% chance that the answer is not A. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this chance by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.
This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one’s community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.
One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case (see conformity).
The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other.
[edit] Evidence
* One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it.
* One could claim Brad Pitt is the best-looking man in the world, because he is regularly voted such, although the sample he is part of (celebrities) is insufficient.
February 13, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Right.
February 13, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“You disappointed me, man… you argue like a little girl.”
A Little girl with wikipedia copypasta.
February 13, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Tom Newton doesn’t kill the lulz….he is walking lulz….or in this case typing lulz. More than likely it is some church peon that is posting as him in order to keep the arguement going. Gotta love the keepyouatyourdesktec. I am going to go enturbulate now.
February 13, 2009 at 2:56 pm
You know, a rule I like to follow is that a comment shouldn’t be longer than the original post … Tom. When I see a huge, long comment, I consider it not worth reading.
Just a piece of advice.
February 13, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Awh, don’t be picking on Tom nau! He’s just trying to get more reads on his blog….
February 13, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Hey Tom,,, you dope!! OSA boy!!
February 13, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Isn’t it interesting how none of these comments address the FACT that the little girl in the video is an actress?
February 13, 2009 at 7:03 pm
“DMS Says:
February 13, 2009 at 2:56 pm
You know, a rule I like to follow is that a comment shouldn’t be longer than the original post … Tom. When I see a huge, long comment, I consider it not worth reading.
Just a piece of advice.”
Your advice is fascinating. Have you always been this lazy?
Tom
February 13, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Tom,
I know you’re being serious and everything (or are least committed to having that appearance), but if you take a step back and look at how much vitriol and energy you’re putting into “exposing lies” about people whom have had genuine experiences with scientology, you’ll realise pretty quickly that indeed your actions are funny.
Take occams razor to your argument about it being ‘obviously scripted’.
which is more believable –
IT’S ALL SCRIPTED BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE HATE FREEDOM AND I’M EXPOSING YOU GUYS. ps I provide no evidence (other than circumstancial anon are on her friends list) and YOU’RE RACIST!
or
girl on youtube has bad experience, wishes to explain her experience and why she changed her mind. people find video,people know about scientologys prior convictions do too, anonymous friends her, mark posts video.
I believe most humans are a lot like electricity – they tend to follow the path of least resistance, overall we’re pretty lazy.
which one of these above explanations requires more effort?
Tom, to us, you’re funny. to others, not so much.
February 13, 2009 at 8:43 pm
UPDATE ON JACKYLN-THE-LIAR
3 hours ago that lonleygirl15 wannabe just claimed to have “no idea who Anonymous is.”
…this is 5 days AFTER she was involved in a discussion group on ExScientologykids.com .
Tom Newton
February 13, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Hey Tom wake up!! $cientology is a scam!! $$$$$$ is the name of the game!!
February 13, 2009 at 10:56 pm
A very stupid person writes: “Your advice is fascinating. Have you always been this lazy?”
Tom, my advice is not about being lazy. It’s about being considerate to others. IRL, if someone responds to a person’s 10-second remark with a two-minute reply, the listener’s response is boredom. And the two-minute-reply guy is being a self-centered jerk.
What *did* they teach you in Scientology “communications”?
February 13, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Hey Tom, how’s the weather in crazy town?
“* One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it.
* One could claim Brad Pitt is the best-looking man in the world, because he is regularly voted such, although the sample he is part of (celebrities) is insufficient.”
One could claim that the girls video is faked, simply because there’s no definitive proof to the contrary. However, in such a case, the burden on proof is on you to prove she is a fake, and not on us to prove she is not. As far as anyone can tell, she’s telling the truth. The fact that you assume she’s not, based upon your own biased belief system, does not mean the rest of us have to agree with you.
That’s really tough on you, huh?
February 14, 2009 at 1:51 am
@ Tom Newton:
I think its time you gave up your thetan powers and came back to the real world rather than living in your own world of paranoia.
Oh and by the way, your references and quotations are so hilariously bad. Wikipedia? are you kidding me? people with a elementary school education use that website. I think its time you went back to school and learned how to research, and properly quote an article.
Copying and pasting and then adding your mumbo jumbo and false accusations at the end doesn’t make you look smart! as you think it does. Oh and posting articles which are not even remotely related to what is being discussed also makes you look stupid.
February 14, 2009 at 2:25 am
UPDATE ON JACKYLN-THE-LIAR
3 hours ago that lonleygirl15 wannabe just claimed to have “no idea who Anonymous is.”
…this is 5 days AFTER she was involved in a discussion group on ExScientologykids.com .
Tom Newton
February 14, 2009 at 2:42 am
Folks, there’s something I feel I need to ask after seeing this comments section for some time now:
Why do you all insist on feeding the troll?
People like Tom show up on here, obviously, to try and take the wind out of things, failing to recognize that they’re (poorly) advocating Scientology in an anti-Scientology community. However, there’s another reason he shows up: you all pay attention to him.
For any rational argument/statement you make there’ll be an equally irrational one being thrown back at you, and with each subsequent response you’ll just be dragged further and further down into a pointless argument on the internet. And for those who’ve not seen this one:
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning the special olympics: in the end you’re still a retard.
Now arguably the ‘Net has gained a bit more clout since then, but what image would you rather convey to new arrivals: that you’re a mature community able to talk rationally and can successfully ignore the one nutbar ranting in the corner. Or would you rather shown yourselves to be easily dragged down to their level?
Just a thought. Either way: thanks for the video Mark. Admittedly I wish she would have left her other videos up as I’m curious to see what the shift in mentality would’ve looked like over time.
February 14, 2009 at 3:09 am
Listen, a guy’s got to have a hobby and if poking Tom with a stick from time to time puts a smile on my face, why not?
The guy’s a kook. People can see he’s a kook. It doesn’t hurt once in a while to say, “You’re a kook.”
February 14, 2009 at 4:13 am
Tom’s a Scientologist. I think most reasonable people would come to that conclusion after looking at the positions he takes.
February 14, 2009 at 4:47 am
Tom,
You talk and smell like a scientologist.
You use fancy arguments that to an unthinking person, almost makes sense – and thus I can see how this is one mechanism somewhat successfully used to attract people into CoS.
And this experience for me is real – the smell and stench is just underneath the surface. The pressures to spend money, the complete lack of compassion in your organisation, with all the attention on what’s in my wallet – what’s with that?
Honestly Tom, keep wasting your time in here if you like, you are not assisting your own cause and certainly not taking the unwanted spotlight away. Rather you are only enforcing the will of others to continue exposing all the rot within CoS.
No regards,
Yet another with an active cause against the CoS
February 14, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Tom is a cutie!!!
(*No, not Cruise! I mean OUR Tom here! Honestly!*)
> “I’m not in a cult.”
Sure, Tom! (*patting his head*)
You are a Scamtologist.
Hence you are in a cult.
q.e.d.!
Even if you deny it – the truth still stays true, no matter what!
> “You’re probably a closet racist too.”
Yeah, you REALLY show to the world how sophisticated your rethoric knowledge is!
An no copypasta from wikipedia that even still contains the citation index ([1]) but without copying the source reference too (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_laugh ) can help you to conceal that you are a moron beyond words and about as intellectual as the closet related insults you prefer to smear others with.
> “The fact that we are RIGHT explains
> why Bunker has resorted to personal
> attacks against me.”
Yeah, Tom, the closet racist, speaking of personal attacks. In your face, buddy!!! 😉
Two remarks to that very special comment of yours:
first: WBM witty “attacks” mocking you realy are no match to your way of factually handling the arguments. (see your “closet racist” subtlety when fighting the “hate and divisiveness” you despise so much!) Let me put it very precisely again, so that even you can understand it: you ARE a dope!
second: When you write “we are right”
… who’s “WE” then?!?
Are you sure you are not a part of Scamtology?
Or could it be that you just accidentally slipped the truth there – even when not meaning to?
But don’t be too hard on yourself, Tom! Even the most decided liars blab sometimes …
Thanks for taking part here!
You are realy a feel-good man to everyone who is outside the cult and can actually allow himself to see the crap de la crap of Scamtologies campainers.
and by the way:
> “As far as I am concerned, it’s
> time to DEBUNK MARK BUNKER.”
Well, Tom, than GO AHEAD! We are waiting! If only you wouldn’t fail so thoroughly whenever you are trying!!! REALY!!!
February 14, 2009 at 4:59 pm
The only people that would take Tom Newton’s hard hitting investigative “journalism” seriously would be the webmasters of Religious Freedom Watch.
February 14, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Well I’ll give you that, Mark. Just seems an awful waste of energy is all, but that’s probably just my jaded side talking @.@
February 15, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I love that “Tom” included this . . . “* One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it.” in his long winded copypasta Logical Fallacy Blather. Why? Because his cult founding hero once said this about cigarette smoking . . . “NOT smoking enough will cause lung cancer”. Hey Elron, don’t bogart that Kool. Really, you can’t make this shit up . . .
February 16, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Common guyz! We’ve almost broke 100 comments!
February 17, 2009 at 3:25 am
^
I think 50 was enough to drown out the important information. Good job troll.
February 17, 2009 at 7:11 am
“I think 50 was enough to drown out the important information. Good job troll.”
(TN’s dixit)
Ok, to bring back the IMPORTANT INFORMATION to the surface:
“This is yet another testimony showing everybody that what we KNOW about the Co$ is true.”
(Lizzy0lizzard’s dixit)
Xenu bless you TN, and keep you in his heart forever.
February 18, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Hey Tom –
Paranoia strikes deep…
February 19, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Tom said:
“The fact that we are RIGHT explains why Bunker has resorted to personal attacks against me.
I say (rather, repeat what another pointed out):
who is “we”, Tom? Do you have others who colaborate on your blog, or are you with some sort of group that you aren’t telling us about?
Tom said:
“As far as I am concerned, it’s time to DEBUNK MARK BUNKER.”
I say:
By all means please do so. I’m always interested in gaining new insights and facts to change my views. I’ve changed opinions on many things before, and i’m bound to do it again; I just need facts to do it. Please, debunk Mark- but please, do it with facts, not opinions.
Take care Tom, and have a wonderful day! 🙂
March 7, 2009 at 11:19 pm
lol. tom “the obvious scilon even though in order to maintain his reputation as a critic dictates that he denies membership” newton is epic fail.
think about this tommy:
you post “facts” yet call opposing facts incorrect.
you post quotes yet call others that post quotes “quote miners”
you continue to make the misconception that anonymous is a group yet it has been explained, time and time again, that a collective(which is exactly what anonymous is) has no leadership or organization.
please, if your going to be a critic, at least get your ducks in a row and start following the example of other critics, like, oh, i dont know, anonymous.