Last week I put up a post entitled Scientology Takes Clearwater For Suckers.
A bit earlier tonight, scientology finally got their response approved through command channels, and it appeared in the form of the comment reprinted below.
Of course, a comment such as this to an old post would be buried and most people would not see it.
I wanted it to receive the fullest airing possible in the interest of fairness.
Here is the response, posted under the name “Walter Lippmann”
Oh, dear, Mike, you know very little — about many things but most to the point here about economic impact studies. When the NFL announces the impact study for a Super Bowl game, who provides the numbers that are then crunched by someone? In that case, both the numbers and the crunchers are NFL. When, as Freedom reported, economic impact numbers described NASA in Florida, the Rays and Tampa’s cruise ship industry, who do you think provided the numbers? The organizations being studied, of course.
When, say, the Clearwater aquarium folks claimed in one of their “studies” they would have attendance in 2013 of 800,000, well, shucks, the actual attendance was almost 250,000 people less than projected. And, the aquarium folks told the city a downtown aquarium would have $1 billion a year economic impact, neglecting to note that, according to the city, Clearwater Beach’s economic impact for every single hotel and other business (including the existing aquarium) is only $1.5 billion a year. (The authors of the billion dollar claim were Univ of S Fla professors and students who have, sadly, no experience in vetting economic impact studies, as a very expert professor notes in Freedom.) The aquarium people refused to release their feasibility study, only an “executive summary” whose authors boldly stated: You can’t believe anything in this. My, my. Yet you give absolute credibility to the aquarium promoters’ assertions.
So, keeping in mind that almost every economic impact study must, almost by definition, rely on source material from the entity being studied, the Church of Scientology (as is clear in the FSU document) relied on “audited” (in the accounting sense) data from real life accountants, which was vetted and reviewed over many months by academics who have many, many combined years of examining such information.
You’re not going to believe any of this — or perhaps you do, but you are invested in only attacking Scientology, and facts don’t really matter to you. Your own little gaggle of followers shrinks and shrinks. No one really cares, except a few malcontents who shout hyperbole at each other. If you cared about Clearwater, you’d take a look at the amazingly unsubstantial claims about the aquarium, and the threat it poses to taxpayers. But you’d do anything to diminish Scientology — and that pretty obviously means that your the last person to trust on the matter (keeping in mind what many others have said about you, you were either lying then or you’re lying now).
Finally, it’s instructive how your lockstep followers suggest extortion and intimidation as means to respond to the economic impact study. High level discourse there.
Let’s start out with a question.
If the poster is such an honest and upfront guy, why does he/she post under the pseudonym of a dead author? He/she/they are so concerned with credibility and credentials, mocking the USF study, let’s have your credentials as an expert in the field of economic impact studies. Or in the field of anything.
My credentials (and name) are in plain sight. I made no claim to being an authority on economic impact studies, though I am certainly an unimpeachable authority on the subject of scientology lying. Which is what my posting concerned. Clearly, any sort of economic impact study that is based on entirely false premises is going to be flawed, if not useless.
You try to make a point that information comes from the subjects that are studied. Not sure how true this really is, but I will, for the sake of argument accept this as true. What is not assumed in any such example is that the “sources” will just plain LIE. You are apparently mortified that the Clearwater Aquarium claimed they would have 800,000 attendees in 20013 but only 550,000 showed up. If the church’s figures were erroneous by only a factor of 32% that would be an improvement of about 500%, but apparently the church’s false assertions do not offend you at all, though wrong predictions are apparently unforgivable. In that case, you might want to look at a recent posting covering all the “ideal orgs” that were “predicted to be open in 2012/2013.” The scientology prediction was off by a factor of 10. Like if the actual Aquarium attendees had been 80,000 instead of the predicted 800,000. And the “ideal orgs” are 100% under the control of scientology, unlike tourism.
And you focus on the information taken from church accountants, as if this is all the conclusions were based on. I focused on the lie that there are 23,000 scientologists in the Tampa Bay area and there are 300 “scientology owned” businesses here. But you don’t respond to that. At all. Just try and brush it off with “everyone gives false figures, that is what these studies are about.”
Don’t you find it just slightly jarring to proclaim the impossibility of the alleged $1 billion economic impact of the aquarium by stating “Clearwater Beach’s economic impact for every single hotel and other business is only $1.5 billion a year” when the church is claiming a billion dollar impact and accounts for less than 10% of the total visitors to Clearwater?
A number of people, myself included, have requested the underlying evidence for the foundation of the study, we shall see what comes from this.
But here is the real point. Had the church NOT opposed the Aquarium, and cited this study as their “authority” in doing so, it never would have come up on my blog.
And had the church not persisted with its policy of breaking up families and defrauding people of their money, I would long since have been doing other things rather than wading through the endless stream of garbage, broken lives and lies that scientology produces in enormous volume. You can believe what you wish. You can abuse your members all you want. But your arrogance in destroying families and taking money from people based on lies and then refusing to give it back when they wake up to your trickery — that has to stop.
Sadly, you sound like Jenny Linson at LAX — “no one really cares.” Clearly, this is disproven by your comment. You really DO care. Just as clearly, it is a dead giveaway that this piece came from the same author as the person who put words in the mouth of Jenny Linson.
As for my “little gaggle of followers,” I don’t seek any “followers”, that is something David Miscavige and scientology is almost exclusively engaged in — if you define “followers” as “people who will give you money.”
Finally, you don’t find it at all ironic that you are alleging that people who commented here with nothing more than WORDS, engaged in “extortion and intimidation”? I seem to recall the church taking the position that the Squirrelbusters were “engaged in constitutionally protected free speech” when they camped outside the Rathbun’s home, set up surveillance cameras, harassed their neighbors and family, shouted at them from the street, came to their door with cameras on their heads, showed up to the airport to “greet”them whenever they traveled etc etc? And was this all “free speech” when the same things were done to me and my family and friends? But you, you big pussy, are “intimidated” by comments on a blog on the fringes of the internet that nobody cares about?
Dave, your vanity and vindictiveness are on display yet again.
As has become tradition, the only answer scientology knows to being exposed as liars, cheats and human rights abusers is to attempt to shoot the messenger.
Yet again, you missed and shot yourselves in the foot.