Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: CoS NZ media statements  (Read 2181 times)
Filter
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« on: April 14, 2008, 12:21:34 AM »

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/auckland/4473670a6497.html

- Scientology spokesman Mike Ferris says about 30 protesters gathered on March 15 across the road from the centre.

- Mr Ferris has labelled them "nuts".

- "I have received phone and email threats from people calling themselves Anonymous."

- But Mr Ferris says the campaign is "dangerous" and full of "religious intolerance and hate-speech".

- "They have targeted me and my family."  (We actively discouraged this already) "It?s a bit dangerous and I really don?t like it."

- While Anonymous says allegations members want to harm anyone are untrue, Mr Ferris says the police have been informed.



http://www.stuff.co.nz/4441539a11.html

- The Church of Scientology in New Zealand has laid a complaint with police after allegedly receiving death and bomb threats from an internet-based protest group that has waged an online war against the religion.

- Mike Ferriss, spokesman for Scientology in New Zealand, said those involved in the protests were extremists and police had been alerted to the threats.

- Scientology in the US has posted a video on YouTube alleging a series of threats and harassing phone calls by Anonymous since January.


Keep these in mind if speaking to the media, you may wish to refute these points.
Logged
Filter
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2008, 07:20:14 PM »

http://www.critic.co.nz/archive?page=51&archive_id=795&type_code=a
Critic Magazine interview with Mike Ferris, 2002
(All comments by Ferris unless otherwise stated)

- We have a broad-based membership, that we are in contact with throughout New Zealand, of about 7000 people.

- What was it Einstein said, talking about religion without science is blind and science without religion is folly. Something like that, I can't quite remember the words but along those lines.  {This is later in the article, after he claims he is clear. Aren't they supposed to have perfect memory?}

- We don't, we sell our books...  {Referring to Christians giving out Bibles for free}

- Critic: How much do you estimate it cost in the process of going clear?
   Ferris: Under $5000.
{Critic does not ask how much the average cost is, or what the cost is for non-staff. I suspect this may be an acceptable truth based on what it cost Mr Ferris to attain 'clear'.}

I've also posted a couple of tl;dr blocks below because you have to take into account a string of questions.
Logged
Filter
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2008, 07:21:08 PM »

Critic: The title of L. Ron Hubbard's book was Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Is dianetics a science?
Ferris: Absolutely. It can be practiced and proven, it has been many times over.

Critic: Then could you give me a reference to an article in a scientific journal that supports the claims that dianetics makes? Just one reference.
Ferris: Frederick Leboyer, the eminent child doctor. He was publishing around the early '70s, and he wholly supported the statements that dianetics made about childbirth, pregnancy and so forth in terms of dianetics and stress caused on all unborn children and mothers.

Critic: I'm looking for a specific reference to an article in a peer-reviewed journal, not just a scientist's claims. In a journal like Science or Nature or something like that.
Ferris: I don't know of them.

Critic: You don't know of those journals?
Ferris: No. It's not like we would be trying to get any scientific validation.

Critic: But you've just claimed to me that [dianetics] is a science.
Ferris: Yeah. In fact it's far more of a science than psychology or psychiatry ever was or claims to be today.

Critic: Do you know what a science is? Could you tell me what the characteristics of a science are?
Ferris: A science is a body of knowledge, and it is to do with I suppose testing and proving claims made by that science. Have you read Dianetics by the way?

Critic: No, I've read some of it. It's not controversial to say that science is characterised first and foremost by a rigorous methodology of doubting everything until there's a lot of evidence for it.
Ferris: Well, we'll just look at science here in the dictionary...[reads] "A systemised knowledge derived from observation, study, experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature ... [unintelligible] ... especially one concerned with establishing and systemising facts". Dianetics is definitely concerned with that.

Critic: Where are all the facts then? Where is the data kept and why hasn't it been reviewed in any...
Ferris: Like I say, we don't necessarily ask for scientific validation of our subject. And there's a very good reason why.

Critic: Scientific validation is necessary for something to be a science.
Ferris: Just read the book and try it for yourself! I mean you're obviously coming from a very anti viewpoint, you have not read the book. I've done this for twenty years, and I can sit down with anybody and, using the technology of dianetics, produce some pretty good results, and have done for many thousands of hours and many hundreds of people.

Critic: I guess I'll have to take your word for it then, pal.
Ferris: Yeah. You will.
Logged
Filter
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2008, 07:22:04 PM »

Critic: I've got a document in front of me. It's called the Hubbard Dianetics Foundation Enrolment Application / Agreement and General Release. ... Is this a legitimate document?
Ferris: I'm sure you're right. I don't doubt it.

Critic: It's got some interesting things in it. Did you sign one of these when you joined up?
Ferris: Probably.

Critic: Did you sign a form making you aware that secret files could be kept on you by officials of your organisation to which you could have no access at all?
Ferris: No, they're not secret files.

Critic: Aren't they? I'll quote to you: "I understand that as a condition of being accepted for participation in this service I am giving up any and all rights of ownership, possession and control, copying and viewing the pre-clear folder and other files concerning myself, both with respect to the files themselves and the information contained therein." That's a secret folder.
Ferris: No, that's just a summary of one's progress through auditing and so on.

Critic: Yes, but it's secret, and you can never have any access to it. Is that true?
Ferris: Yes, I agree that you don't have access to it. There's no particular reason why anybody would want access to it.

Critic: I can think of several good reasons why. For example, if you left the church and wanted to know what had been written about you. The Privacy Act 1993 guarantees you certain rights to information on yourself. This is just in New Zealand. So, that's a pretty good reason I would have thought.
Ferris: Yeah, to understand the pre-clear file - and certainly if you're going to add this in to your story you should perhaps put an explanation of our side of it - it's essentially a running record of one's progress through auditing, and it's a record so as things aren't repeated and so on. It's really just a record for the auditor to keep, it's not for the person to keep. Your memory of the sessions and so forth is the only record you need of what occurred. It's just an admin sort of exercise.

Critic: So why make it so secret then?
Ferris: It's not so secret. You're putting that word in there. The document doesn't say secret, does it?

Critic: "I am giving up any and all rights of ownership, possession, and control..."
Ferris: Does the document say 'secret'? I mean get fucking real, mate.

Critic: That's the definition of 'secret'.
Ferris: Oh, Jesus! [laughs] Listen, you're coming at this from a pretty weird angle eh, I mean...

Critic: I'm quoting at you from your documents...
Ferris: I really don't care. I mean, that document has got nothing to do with the overall thrust of what scientology is about, and I'm not particularly interested in arguing pieces of paper. I've told you what that thing is about, and you're putting the word 'secret' in there. It is not secret. It is something that a person agrees to if they have auditing. That's all. They don't agree to it, we don't audit them.
Logged
Filter
Sr. Member
****

Karma: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2008, 07:25:06 PM »

Critic: Going back to this general release form that I have article 9 of it says: "I further understand and acknowledge and agree that the church is under no duty whatsoever to return any portion of any religious donation received from me."
Ferris: Yep, we are the only religion that does.

Critic: Does what?
Ferris: Returns donations if a person asks for them.

Critic: But it says: "I further understand..."
Ferris: I'm telling you that we are the only religion that you will find that does.

Critic: This article goes on, and it ends: "I further acknowledge and agree that the refund procedures require my direct participation to the exclusion of any third parties, including but not limited to attorneys." Why is this?
Ferris: Some people do use attorneys. We can't stop them.

Critic: But this article does try and stop people using lawyers, that seems to be its point.
Ferris: Yeah, it tries to discourage them.

Critic: Why is that?
Ferris: And I think also, just from what you're looking at, you've got an old enrolment form, not a current one. Just to make that point quite clear, because I don't think that one is on the new enrolment form. Because we encourage an arbitration system for settling disputes, which does involve a third party, an arbiter. ... One person selects their arbiter, and the other party selects their arbiter. They are agreed upon, and they are the third party, those two people. ... If someone is really that disgruntled with it, and wants their money back, we'll give them their money back. And, like I say, we're the only church that does.

Critic: Does the new updated one also end with a sentence: "I am aware that by signing below I am forever giving up my right to sue the Foundation, its staff, and/or other related organisations for any injury or damage suffered in any way connected with the service activities"?
Ferris: It might have something similar to that. But we're not the only organisation to have such clauses in agreements like that, because essentially we try and discourage a person from taking a suit. Like I say, if you studied law, you'd...

Critic: That's not a discouragement, that's "I am forever giving up my right". Can you see how that would be seen as kind of giving you carte blanche...
Ferris: Hang on, are you a lawyer? ... Have you ever studied law?

Critic: No, I haven't.
Ferris: No, okay, a person could sign a document one day and withdraw that document the next. Withdraw their agreement to it the next day so that document is no longer valid. Did you know that?

Critic: No, I didn't, I thought that when you signed a document, an agreement between two people, it was legally binding.
Ferris: A person could write and say, "I have now rescinded all agreements with you guys and I'm going to go my merry way - and sue the pants off you".

Critic: So that has happened?
Ferris: Sure it has, but to understand that you have to understand law. You'll find clauses such as that in many legal agreements. And you also realise that in the US, it's a very litigious country, and so we try to defend ourselves in that regard. We're not exactly happy with that. You've got to understand that in scientology, we try to actually help people. We're not trying to screw them over or screw them down, like you somehow get some kind of sinister idea that we might be all about. That's not true. That's absolutely not true. You just have to walk into any scientology organisation anywhere and just talk to the staff. They're straight-up people. What you see is what you get. They don't bullshit you round.
Logged
rockyslammer
Editors
Hero Member
*****

Karma: +19/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 531



« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2008, 08:46:05 PM »

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/auckland/4473670a6497.html

AWWW Mike - here ya go again!!!  This bullshit is so thin now you can see through it.  You've spread it out so many times.

Cumon Mike - you didn't come into scientology to make a prick out of yourself - did you?

No one has threatened to harm you - didn't you send yer son out to talk to them?

Now I - on the other hand have been harmed by scientology - provably. Why do you have to turn it 180 degrees around?  You accuse others of what you do yourself.  Damn hypocrite.

If anyone made bomb or death threats it was you - on yourself - so you could call foul!  Stop playing this sad sad game Mike.  It's the game of what you call "degraded beings".  Are you?

Get your head out of your arse Mike - and smell the roses!

Your leader is a madman and Cruise is not far behind.  A few years ago he would be called a "manic depressive".

Not one single person has been made "clear"or "OT".  Stop kidding yourself.

Regards
Martin
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to: