Scientologists Talk About "The Master" - Revision history

Dl88008: added link to discussion

2014-02-03T23:50:34Z

added link to discussion

Dl88008: Text replace - "index.php?title=" to "info/"

2013-03-25T15:25:27Z

Text replace - "index.php?title=" to "info/"

Dl88008 at 01:33, March 21, 2013

2013-03-21T01:33:56Z

Dl88008 at 14:08, November 15, 2012

2012-11-15T14:08:56Z

Dl88008 at 03:34, September 24, 2012

2012-09-24T03:34:10Z

Dl88008 at 17:59, September 23, 2012

2012-09-23T17:59:12Z

Dl88008 at 17:58, September 23, 2012

2012-09-23T17:58:28Z

Dl88008 at 17:57, September 23, 2012

2012-09-23T17:57:26Z

Dl88008 at 13:38, September 22, 2012

2012-09-22T13:38:45Z

Dl88008 at 13:38, September 22, 2012

2012-09-22T13:38:12Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Articles
 |Image=TheMaster.jpg
 |Website=http://scientolipedia.org
 |Social Media={{#widget:Facebook Like Box|profile=https://www.facebook.com/pages/SCIENTOLiPEDIA/211370872278612}}
 }}
-:''Note: this page was set up so Scientologists can express their views on the movie "The Master". Create a log-in and add your views below or click on the [http://scientolipedia.org/info/Talk:Scientologists_Talk_About_%22The_Master%22 "Discussion"] tab to start a new, or comment on an existing thread.'' [[David LaCroix]]
+:''Note: this page was set up so Scientologists can express their views on the movie "The Master". Create a log-in and add your views below or click on the [http://scientolipedia.org/info/Talk:Scientologists_Talk_About_%22The_Master%22 "Discussion"] tab to start a new, or comment on an existing thread.''
+'''Ian Waxler'''
-*The new movie, "The Master" has been out barely one week, and even though released on a very limited number of screens, has already created enough of a buzz that has critics talking about "Academy Award" prospects!
+The new movie, "The Master" has been out barely one week, and even though released on a very limited number of screens, has already created enough of a buzz that has critics talking about "Academy Award" prospects!
 The acting of Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman receives raves all around, while some are finding faults with the meandering story-line and an unsettling ending that leaves one wondering!
 Apparently based "loosely", on [[L Ron Hubbard]] and Scientology, knowing Scientologists will say it goes well beyond that label and does so in a by-design very unflattering manner. In short, it's a "one-sided" viewpoint of the founder that presents him as a charismatic ego-maniac who endears himself to others solely for the purpose of using them. Devotees will argue that Hubbard was in fact a man totally dedicated to his self-improvement technologies, even to the point of self-denial of the benefits of the wealth he had accumulated over decades. [http://scientolipedia.org/info/Ian_Robert_Waxler,_Class_8_Auditor_/_C/S Ian Waxler]
 [[File:LRH-1.jpg|thumb|left|L Ron Hubbard]]
+'''Marty Rathbun'''
-*"While literal corporate Scientologists will likely arrogantly and smugly convince one another Anderson was clueless about the sum and substance of the core philosophy of Scientology, their captive minds will have missed out on the larger truth Anderson so competently and accurately captured.  They will have missed the forest for the trees and missed a wonderful opportunity to begin to wake up and investigate all the propaganda their own church has been implanting in them, and thus the opportunity to fully appreciate L. Ron Hubbard the man and their own religion.
+"If there is any fault in the film, it will be the one corporate Scientologists can hang their misguided criticisms on.  That is, for those well-studied and practiced in the subject, the portrayal of the methodologies and philosophy of Scientology was just plainly too shallow.  But, even Anderson’s shortcoming is a boon for Scientology.  For the average viewer, his portrayal of ‘processing’ is probably a tremendous mitigation of whatever their notions about it were coming in to the movie, given corporate Scientology’s bastardization of the subject.
-−
 If there is any fault in the film, it will be the one corporate Scientologists can hang their misguided criticisms on.  That is, for those well-studied and practiced in the subject, the portrayal of the methodologies and philosophy of Scientology was just plainly too shallow.  But, even Anderson’s shortcoming is a boon for Scientology.  For the average viewer, his portrayal of ‘processing’ is probably a tremendous mitigation of whatever their notions about it were coming in to the movie, given corporate Scientology’s bastardization of the subject.
 What they will miss by focusing on the technical inaccuracy, however, is the amazingly apt, artistic portrayal of L. Ron Hubbard and the ultimate, aberrated group dynamic of Scientology. Paul Thomas Anderson digs L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology better than Tom Cruise, John Travolta, David Miscavige (corporate Scientology’s supreme leader – read, Freddie Quell at the helm) and probably every other card carrying member of Scientology Incoporated..." [http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/a-scientologists-take-on-the-master/ Mark Rathbun]
-*Superb characters as portrayed by Hoffman and Phoenix.  Perfectly boring movie with a unimaginative script.  Blatant bits and pieces of Scientology, albeit sometimes horribly altered pieces, thrown about helter-skelter.  My wife, a retired RN who knows very little about Scientology, left before the movie was finished.  If you desire to see the movie, wait for the DVD. [[User:Howard Dickman|Howard Dickman]]
+'''More comments in the [http://scientolipedia.org/info/Talk:Scientologists_Talk_About_%22The_Master%22 Discussion] area'''

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |Social Media={{#widget:Facebook Like Box|profile=https://www.facebook.com/pages/SCIENTOLiPEDIA/211370872278612}}
 }}
-:''Note: this page was set up so Scientologists can express their views on the movie "The Master". Create a log-in and add your views below or click on the [http://scientolipedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Scientologists_Talk_About_%22The_Master%22 "Discussion"] tab to start a new, or comment on an existing thread.'' [[David LaCroix]]
+:''Note: this page was set up so Scientologists can express their views on the movie "The Master". Create a log-in and add your views below or click on the [http://scientolipedia.org/info/Talk:Scientologists_Talk_About_%22The_Master%22 "Discussion"] tab to start a new, or comment on an existing thread.'' [[David LaCroix]]
 *The new movie, "The Master" has been out barely one week, and even though released on a very limited number of screens, has already created enough of a buzz that has critics talking about "Academy Award" prospects!
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 The acting of Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman receives raves all around, while some are finding faults with the meandering story-line and an unsettling ending that leaves one wondering!
-Apparently based "loosely", on [[L Ron Hubbard]] and Scientology, knowing Scientologists will say it goes well beyond that label and does so in a by-design very unflattering manner. In short, it's a "one-sided" viewpoint of the founder that presents him as a charismatic ego-maniac who endears himself to others solely for the purpose of using them. Devotees will argue that Hubbard was in fact a man totally dedicated to his self-improvement technologies, even to the point of self-denial of the benefits of the wealth he had accumulated over decades. [http://scientolipedia.org/index.php?title=Ian_Robert_Waxler,_Class_8_Auditor_/_C/S Ian Waxler]
+Apparently based "loosely", on [[L Ron Hubbard]] and Scientology, knowing Scientologists will say it goes well beyond that label and does so in a by-design very unflattering manner. In short, it's a "one-sided" viewpoint of the founder that presents him as a charismatic ego-maniac who endears himself to others solely for the purpose of using them. Devotees will argue that Hubbard was in fact a man totally dedicated to his self-improvement technologies, even to the point of self-denial of the benefits of the wealth he had accumulated over decades. [http://scientolipedia.org/info/Ian_Robert_Waxler,_Class_8_Auditor_/_C/S Ian Waxler]
 * [[Ken Urquhart - What Was Ron Really Like?]]
 * [[Life On Board The Flagship Apollo]]
-* [http://scientolipedia.org/index.php?title=Category:Anthology More] being added as this site grows.
+* [http://scientolipedia.org/info/Category:Anthology More] being added as this site grows.
 [[File:LRH-1.jpg|thumb|left|L Ron Hubbard]]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |Social Media={{#widget:Facebook Like Box|profile=https://www.facebook.com/pages/SCIENTOLiPEDIA/211370872278612}}
 }}
 :''Note: this page was set up so Scientologists can express their views on the movie "The Master". Create a log-in and add your views below or click on the [http://scientolipedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Scientologists_Talk_About_%22The_Master%22 "Discussion"] tab to start a new, or comment on an existing thread.'' [[David LaCroix]]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |Social Media={{#widget:Facebook Like Box|profile=https://www.facebook.com/pages/SCIENTOLiPEDIA/211370872278612}}
 }}
 :''Note: this page was set up so Scientologists can express their views on the movie "The Master". Create a log-in and add your views below or click on the [http://scientolipedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Scientologists_Talk_About_%22The_Master%22 "Discussion"] tab to start a new, or comment on an existing thread.'' [[David LaCroix]]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 :''Note: this page was set up so Scientologists can express their views on the movie "The Master". Create a log-in and add your views below or click on the [http://scientolipedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Scientologists_Talk_About_%22The_Master%22 "Discussion"] tab to start a new, or comment on an existing thread.'' [[David LaCroix]]
-The new movie, "The Master" has been out barely one week, and even though released on a very limited number of screens, has already created enough of a buzz that has critics talking about "Academy Award" prospects!
+*The new movie, "The Master" has been out barely one week, and even though released on a very limited number of screens, has already created enough of a buzz that has critics talking about "Academy Award" prospects!
 The acting of Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman receives raves all around, while some are finding faults with the meandering story-line and an unsettling ending that leaves one wondering!
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 [[File:LRH-1.jpg|thumb|left|L Ron Hubbard]]
-"While literal corporate Scientologists will likely arrogantly and smugly convince one another Anderson was clueless about the sum and substance of the core philosophy of Scientology, their captive minds will have missed out on the larger truth Anderson so competently and accurately captured.  They will have missed the forest for the trees and missed a wonderful opportunity to begin to wake up and investigate all the propaganda their own church has been implanting in them, and thus the opportunity to fully appreciate L. Ron Hubbard the man and their own religion.
+*"While literal corporate Scientologists will likely arrogantly and smugly convince one another Anderson was clueless about the sum and substance of the core philosophy of Scientology, their captive minds will have missed out on the larger truth Anderson so competently and accurately captured.  They will have missed the forest for the trees and missed a wonderful opportunity to begin to wake up and investigate all the propaganda their own church has been implanting in them, and thus the opportunity to fully appreciate L. Ron Hubbard the man and their own religion.
 If there is any fault in the film, it will be the one corporate Scientologists can hang their misguided criticisms on.  That is, for those well-studied and practiced in the subject, the portrayal of the methodologies and philosophy of Scientology was just plainly too shallow.  But, even Anderson’s shortcoming is a boon for Scientology.  For the average viewer, his portrayal of ‘processing’ is probably a tremendous mitigation of whatever their notions about it were coming in to the movie, given corporate Scientology’s bastardization of the subject.
 What they will miss by focusing on the technical inaccuracy, however, is the amazingly apt, artistic portrayal of L. Ron Hubbard and the ultimate, aberrated group dynamic of Scientology. Paul Thomas Anderson digs L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology better than Tom Cruise, John Travolta, David Miscavige (corporate Scientology’s supreme leader – read, Freddie Quell at the helm) and probably every other card carrying member of Scientology Incoporated..." [http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/a-scientologists-take-on-the-master/ Mark Rathbun]

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:57, September 23, 2012
Line 18:		Line 18:

	[[File:LRH-1.jpg\|thumb\|left\|L Ron Hubbard]]		[[File:LRH-1.jpg\|thumb\|left\|L Ron Hubbard]]
		+
		+	"While literal corporate Scientologists will likely arrogantly and smugly convince one another Anderson was clueless about the sum and substance of the core philosophy of Scientology, their captive minds will have missed out on the larger truth Anderson so competently and accurately captured. They will have missed the forest for the trees and missed a wonderful opportunity to begin to wake up and investigate all the propaganda their own church has been implanting in them, and thus the opportunity to fully appreciate L. Ron Hubbard the man and their own religion.
		+
		+	If there is any fault in the film, it will be the one corporate Scientologists can hang their misguided criticisms on. That is, for those well-studied and practiced in the subject, the portrayal of the methodologies and philosophy of Scientology was just plainly too shallow. But, even Anderson’s shortcoming is a boon for Scientology. For the average viewer, his portrayal of ‘processing’ is probably a tremendous mitigation of whatever their notions about it were coming in to the movie, given corporate Scientology’s bastardization of the subject.
		+
		+	What they will miss by focusing on the technical inaccuracy, however, is the amazingly apt, artistic portrayal of L. Ron Hubbard and the ultimate, aberrated group dynamic of Scientology. Paul Thomas Anderson digs L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology better than Tom Cruise, John Travolta, David Miscavige (corporate Scientology’s supreme leader – read, Freddie Quell at the helm) and probably every other card carrying member of Scientology Incoporated..." [http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/a-scientologists-take-on-the-master/ Mark Rathbun]