Comments on: ATLANTIC MAGAZINE SPIKES SCIENTOLOGY ADVERTORIAL AFTER BACKLASH (UPDATED)

By: Asillem4

Asillem4 — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 19:16:00 +0000

Reading the article 3 years later – and wondering; why the censorship of comments? Anyone ever get an answer to that? I seriously feel that reading the negative comments would have been THE CHERRY ON THE CAKE OF MY DAY in late Dec. 2015.
God bless you all and Merry Christmas!

By: moxonmoxoff

moxonmoxoff — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 17:38:00 +0000

Cross posting my comment here from another Bunker thread, just to keep the subject matter all together.

Internal staff memo from The Atlantic re the electronic incident from the other day. It’s pretty vague and they cop to nothing except “making some mistakes.” I’m curious to see their new policy, however.

http://observer.com/2013/01/th…

By: John P.

John P. — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 02:54:00 +0000

Another big-time online publication satirizes The Atlantic’s “sponsored content” fiasco. This time, it’s “TechCrunch,” a news wire covering everything in Silicon Valley and the world of High Tech that we in Global Capitalism HQ have long read and appreciated (and also been interviewed in many times). Their “sponsored content” entry extols the praises of North Korea as the next Asian technology powerhouse. It’s quite amusing on its own, but also at a deeper level for we Scientology critics, since so much of what happens in cult-land mirrors what happens in the crazy world of the Hermit Kingdom.

Check out the story here: http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/15/sponsored-north-korea-is-asias-new-start-up-hot-spot/

By: DeElizabethan

DeElizabethan — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:03:00 +0000

In reply to stillgrace. I wonder too, but didn't really give it a thought when I was attending. Hopefully! some that have been around a long time will give it some thought, as I wasn't up on all the personalities, etc myself.

By: stillgrace

stillgrace — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:33:00 +0000

In reply to DeElizabethan. Thank you, DeE. Good info. I know now they know not to question, but I wonder if they notice she's not present at the big events, and then wonder, even a little. Maybe not. Thank you, Derek. So they are trained to not believe.

By: dbloch7986

dbloch7986 — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:08:00 +0000

In reply to stillgrace. I'm sure the OSA members know the stories that have been spread. They would have recognized it as an "anti-Scientology" comment. They probably do not believe the story, but I'm sure they know about it.

By: DeElizabethan

DeElizabethan — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:11:00 +0000

In reply to stillgrace.

I’ll give my view if OK?
I think they believe whatever the punk tell them and first off they shouldn’t ask, as they are supposed to just trust him and know she’s doing some important work. Same with public altho a little less, but still cannot question beyond that. They live in the same bubble until they have had it by some incident or upset, then they can LOOK and get out easier.

By: Jgg2012

Jgg2012 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:57:00 +0000

In reply to OTVIIIisGrrr8!. NO OTVIIIISGRRR8 NO! That is not what happened! What happened was that so many people (over 22 million an hour) wanted to log on and read the good news, that the site crashed! You should have warned Atlantic how big Scientology is.

By: Jgg2012

Jgg2012 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:53:00 +0000

In reply to OTVIIIisGrrr8!. OT8, didn't auditing cure his asthma?

By: Jgg2012

Jgg2012 — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:38:00 +0000

In reply to Dee Fogger. Interestingly, the first ones had all pluses, but then the twitterverse kicked in. 200 negatives took under an hour; after a day, it might have been thousands.