KESQ-TV: Scientology Investigation #2

KESQ-TV looks into the Church of Scientology. This follows the installment that aired the previous night focusing in on the Anonymous protests outside of Scientology headquarters near Hemet, CA. Three more parts will follow:



The next part will focus on what many have termed the
“ANTI-SCIENTOLOGY RACKET”.

Tom Newton

Advertisements

20 comments so far

  1. Anonymous on

    Uhh this makes the Church of Scientology look like a wacky cult. You might want to be a little more selective in how you cover current events if you really want to make Anonymous look villainous.This entire site is a self-satire. All it accomplishes is encouraging people to learn about the Church of Scientology’s many violations of human rights against their own members and detractors, their infiltration into police and government agencies, and their near-terrorist level of fear-mongering, among other unethical and criminal behaviour the COS perpetuates.I do not have anything against the beliefs of Scientologists and I am not Anonymous. I do my research, and form my own opinions.

  2. Thomas Newton on

    ^<>I am sure you form your own opinions. And so why do you exclude Anonymous’ rampant abuse of it’s critics from informing your opinion?What about what they have done and are still doing to Hatch McKay?Your selective reasoning reveals your bias.Tom<>

  3. Anonymous on

    <>The next part will focus on what many have termed the“ANTI-SCIENTOLOGY RACKET”.<>Careful Tom, your bias is showing (so, it’s business as usual)

  4. Anonymous on

    Prediction: The next video isn’t going to paint the warped picture Tom wants it to so he’s either going to delete all the entries or decry the videos as showing how either the media is bigoted against him (because, of course anyone who disagrees with him is automatically a bigot) or how Anonymous interferes with the media.

  5. Anonymous on

    The next part will most likely focus on Jeff Stone and the corruption in Riverside.

  6. Thomas Newton on

    “Anonymous said… The next part will most likely focus on Jeff Stone and the corruption in Riverside.“<>Or maybe the FACT that Anonymous threatened to rape Jeff’s wife?< HREF="http://anonymous-is-a-hategroup.blogspot.com/2009/01/anonymous-members-stalking-christian.html" REL="nofollow">http://anonymous-is-a-hategroup.blogspot.com/2009/01/anonymous-members-stalking-christian.html<><>Tom

  7. Anonymous on

    ^Again, anonymous actions on the internet =/= actions of Anonymous. If you want to make the argument that they do then you also have to give credit to Anonymous for all the crimes solved by anonymous tip offs, the billions donated anonymously annually and all the people who anonymously help others.

  8. Anonymous on

    <>Or maybe the FACT that Anonymous threatened to rape Jeff’s wife?<>I’m sure the removal of that video suits you perfectly because you can now claim whatever you want. In it it specifically states that the information should in no way be used to harass or threaten Jeff. No one made that threat. Your claim of reverse psychology is stupid and absurd, it’s like claiming that the law against murder encourages murders to occur.

  9. Anonymous on

    “Or maybe the FACT that Anonymous threatened to rape Jeff’s wife?”Anonymous no more threatened to rape Jeff’s wife than anyone but you faxed that death threat Tom. Your relentless demonising is matched only by your incompetence.

  10. Anonymous on

    <>At 3:40 the creater uses reverse psychology to encourage hate crimes against the entire family<>What the shit? What next? Does a sign saying rape is wrong encourage people to rape each other because of reverse psychology? Face it, you want Anonymous to be a monster because otherwise you are one yourself.

  11. Thomas Newton on

    ^<>What, so you are refuting a video you haven’t even seen? Go jump off a bridge you ignorant moron. That video was removed because Youtube threatened to take down his account–Thanks to MY intervention.Tom<>

  12. Anonymous on

    “Or maybe the FACT that Anonymous threatened to rape Jeff’s wife?”That’s not a fact. That’s entirely made up by you or maybe YOU threatened to rape his wife and claimed to be Anonymous. Who knows?

  13. Anonymous on

    “Thanks to MY intervention”Delusions of grandeur. The video was perfectly in accordance with YouTube’s TOS.

  14. Anonymous on

    ” That video was removed because Youtube threatened to take down his account–Thanks to MY intervention.“The user closed his account himself, you moron.

  15. Thomas Newton on

    “Delusions of grandeur. The video was perfectly in accordance with YouTube’s TOS.”<>In the video still, you can clearly see that the video at least contains or insinuates a personal attack involving Jeff Stone’s wife and a dog–in a SEXUAL MANNER.Do you find bestiality acceptable as well?Sickos.Tom<>

  16. Anonymous on

    <>What, so you are refuting a video you haven’t even seen? Go jump off a bridge you ignorant moron. That video was removed because Youtube threatened to take down his account–Thanks to MY intervention.<>I’ve seen the video dumbass. Also, the video was removed by the user, it had nothing to do with you. Youtube would have removed the video and then threatened him if it was against the ToS.

  17. Anonymous on

    <>In the video still, you can clearly see that the video at least contains or insinuates a personal attack involving Jeff Stone’s wife and a dog–in a SEXUAL MANNER.Do you find bestiality acceptable as well?<>You’re the sick one, the dog appeared in the video. Just because your messed up mind jumped to thoughts of beastiality that does not mean everyone else thought the same.

  18. Anonymous on

    <>Do you find bestiality acceptable as well?Sickos.<>Stop using reverse psychology to encourage animal abuse.

  19. Anonymous on

    “In the video still, you can clearly see that the video at least contains or insinuates a personal attack involving Jeff Stone’s wife and a dog–in a SEXUAL MANNER.”If this could be seen as a personal attack against Jeff Stone, then YouTube would only remove it, if Jeff Stone himself had contacted them.You had nothing to do with the removal. Also the video was still up for at least a month after your blog post. It seems like the author himself decided to close his account. But certainly not, because YouTube threatened to suspend his account.

  20. Anonymous on

    TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM NEW TON TOM


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: