Read Scientology's shrill demand that The Times remove its undercover investigation

[Karen#1]

TONY ORTEGA
Excerpt:

[td width="760px"]

​

[/td][td]

​

[/td]​

[Graeme Wilson (inset) responds to The Times in a big way!]
Last Thursday, the Times of London published the results of an undercover investigation by one of its reporters, Tom Ball, who had spent enough time at the Church of Scientology’s Edinburgh “org” to confirm that it was, indeed, recruiting children from 13 to 16 to work as staff members, some of whom were away from their parents in East Grinstead, England and other distant locations.
This was some terrific reporting by Ball, and we figured that the church would, as is their usual custom, respond with attacks on him rather than addressing the problems brought up in his reporting.
That’s what is spelled out in Scientology’s playbook by founder L. Ron Hubbard about how to deal with nosy reporters. It’s by smearing that reporter and accusing them of crimes, so that no one will trust what they say.
That’s Scientology’s well-worn strategy — attack the reporter and his methods — but it’s really something to see this full letter to The Times from Scientology’s UK public relations man, Graeme Wilson.
We can’t wait to hear what is your favorite part!
READ MORE

Read Scientology's shrill demand that The Times remove its undercover investigation

Last Thursday, the Times of London published the results of an undercover investigation by one of its reporters, Tom Ball, who had spent enough time at the Church of Scientology’s Edinburgh “org” to confirm that it was, indeed, recruiting children from 13 to 16 to work as staff members, some of...

tonyortega.substack.com

 

[TheSneakster]

OSA is whining about an alleged vandalism incident which allegedly occured after the publication and blaming it on the Times of London.

This a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because they have not even remotely established a causal connection.

 

[I M Dex]

OSA is whining about an alleged vandalism incident which allegedly occured after the publication and blaming it on the Times of London.

This a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy because they have not even remotely established a causal connection.

 

[Zertel]

After all these years I still hate getting stuck with an MU - Study tech prevails:


AI Overview
post hoc ergo propter hoc
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a Latin phrase that means "after this, therefore because of this". It describes a mistake in logic where you think that because one thing happened after another, the first thing must have caused the second thing. [1]

Core Definition

• • It is a false cause error.
  • Time order does not prove cause.
  • Just because A comes before B does not mean A made B happen. [1, 2, 3]

Common Examples

• • Rooster and Sun: A rooster crows before the sun comes up. So, the rooster makes the sun rise.
  • New Shoes: A basketball player wears new socks and scores a lot of points. The socks caused the good game.
  • Sickness: You eat fish for dinner and get sick later that night. The fish made you sick (even though it might have been a bug). [1, 2, 3]

Why People Make This Mistake

• • Our brains like to find simple patterns.
  • When things happen close in time, it feels like a chain reaction.
  • It takes extra proof to show real cause, not just timing. [1, 2, 3, 4]

 

[SuperstarNeilC]