Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!xs4all!bullseye.news.demon.net!demon!newsfeed.online.no!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.corridex.com!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: A&E on Scientology: ** Date: 15 Dec 1998 08:23:20 PST Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families." Message-ID: <367b8c8d.4441594@news.concentric.net> References: <36776fe7.219959859@news.concentric.net> Reply-To: informer@informer.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts042d34.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Lines: 39 Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:154673 drv1@concentric.net (David Voth): martinh@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) >>Two stars out of five. It's not that I don't agree with the >>"unbiased" method of reporting on the cult in which each >>"side" is given equal time and attention; the Scientologists >>generally come off as evasive, spaced-out, and brutish anyway. david >The Scientologists interviewed were mostly professional actors and >slicko "suits". The critics did very well. I thought Dennis looked >particularly good. Thanks. I haven't seen it, but I usually hate the way I look in these interviews. >>What I object to is Kurtis' reporting accuracy, which was >>very low. On the good side, there wasn't very much of it. >>On the bad side, what there was was generally wrong in terms >>of facts and figures. > >I gagged when they qouted Scientology's "8 million" figure for >membership, then mentioned that some think it's more like 300k, then >stated that CoS is the world's fastest-growing "religion" with no >facts or figures to back that up. And the L. Ron Hubbard "Indiana >Jones in real life" nonsense. No doubt contractual. >>Apart from this general criticism, it was great; the critics >>got their message across quite well... > >Agreed. Certainly no damage done to the critics. That's great. Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *