|
Post by kostgard on Feb 11, 2011 21:53:54 GMT -4
I do think that Tom is surrounded by ass-kissers who shield him from most of this stuff, but I also think he knew things kinda went to shit there. At the very least, he had to wonder why Matt Lauer wasn't kissing his ass like he was supposed to do and he's gotta know that his domestic box office is no where near what it used to be. I don't know - I just get the feeling that he knew that he damaged his career, and that's why he's stepped back and cooled it on the TomKat stuff. That sounds like the MO of the group that tried to snag my roommate. They seemed to target vulnerable freshmen and I suspected that a lot of them didn't actually go to the university. This is the group that tried to snag my roommate. They certainly pegged me as a cynical bitch, though. Man, the main girl who was working on my roommate did not like me at all and would tell my roommate to not listen to me because I was confused or lost or some shit. She didn't even bother trying to recruit me too (when "Hey! Invite your friends!" was part of their MO). Probably because I was giving her the "I know you're a cult" stink-eye every time she came to our room.
|
|
chiquita
Blueblood
Posts: 1,616
Nov 7, 2006 19:00:53 GMT -4
|
Post by chiquita on Feb 11, 2011 23:22:56 GMT -4
I thought it was telling in the article, when the author spoke with Anne Archer and her husband, that when he asked how the negative publicity/talk affected her, she said, "It doesn't affect me at all." I'm a practicing Catholic, and while no one I know was abused, the priest sex abuse scandal effected me. If I had been asked that question at the time, I probably would have said something acknowledging how painful or difficult it was, especially knowing that 99% of priests weren't abusers. For her to say that the smack talk doesn't effect her at all is either complete BS or further proof that the Scienos are kept completely in the dark as to any negative comments about their "faith".
|
|
|
Post by Sunnyhorse on Feb 12, 2011 0:26:59 GMT -4
... or just how dismissively the Celebrity Centre types view the plebes who keep their lives running smoothly. I used to really like Anne Archer because of her acting, but I find her utterly arrogant and nasty now.
|
|
|
Post by angelaudie on Feb 12, 2011 0:32:04 GMT -4
Honestly, any "religion" that has a building called the Celebrity Center makes my bs meter start pinging.
|
|
|
Post by kostgard on Feb 12, 2011 0:32:40 GMT -4
Anne Archer may have been able to act once, but the crazy has sucked away all her talent.
Last time I saw her was for some BBC piece on the clams, and when the journalist asked her something about the church, she was all "HOW. DARE. YOU." It was very Sunset Boulevard.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 3, 2024 19:18:53 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2011 0:39:20 GMT -4
I thought it was telling in the article, when the author spoke with Anne Archer and her husband, that when he asked how the negative publicity/talk affected her, she said, "It doesn't affect me at all." I'm a practicing Catholic, and while no one I know was abused, the priest sex abuse scandal effected me. If I had been asked that question at the time, I probably would have said something acknowledging how painful or difficult it was, especially knowing that 99% of priests weren't abusers. For her to say that the smack talk doesn't effect her at all is either complete BS or further proof that the Scienos are kept completely in the dark as to any negative comments about their "faith". This. I don't get how something so huge can not affect someone who's supposedly so into their religion. All the priests-are-pedophile jokes sting every time I hear one, it really hurts that so many people see the Catholic Church as nothing more than a mob of rapist pedophile priests. It sucks when so many people have a deeply negative view of your faith, and I don't see how the Clams can be so blasé about it.
|
|
|
Post by kostgard on Feb 12, 2011 1:48:54 GMT -4
Huh - I wonder if the clams are trying to do a little damage control because of the New Yorker piece because I just saw a commercial for Scientology, and I almost never see them around here. I walked into the commercial part way and it was going on about "people who are educated are more likely to volunteer, hang on to a job, make 3x more money, etc." so I think it's for some community college or something. Then it keeps going and going and going about amazing people who save the environment and are 70% more likely to have a successful marriage, and at that point I'm thinking "What the hell are they selling here?" Turns out it is Scientology. Gross. I want to know where they get their statistics. How do they know the clams are 70% more likely to have successful marriages? Did they do a study? What about golden boy Tom Cruise? Is he so awesome at marriage that he had to do it three times? Here it is.
|
|
|
Post by angelaudie on Feb 12, 2011 1:59:38 GMT -4
I saw that commercial the other day at Jezebel. On the net the consensus seems to be, "Dudes. That's creepy. Knock it off!" No way of knowing if that's the opinion of the public at large but it seems there are still plenty not buying what they are selling.
|
|
roundround
Valet
Posts: 87
Jul 28, 2009 17:16:30 GMT -4
|
Post by roundround on Feb 12, 2011 8:33:04 GMT -4
I saw a Scientology billboard at a railway station in Ireland about the recession and how you can boost your potential etc. It's the first time I've seen them advertise so openly here before.
|
|
|
Post by divasahm on Feb 12, 2011 10:24:31 GMT -4
They don't advertise here much, because they own a building on the Drag that runs along the west side of the UT campus, and it says "CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY" across the facade. I wonder if they know that the guides for the freshmen campus tours during orientation every fall tell the freshmen to avoid that building and the people coming out of it at all costs...
|
|