[This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've decided to take on Scientology through harassment, DOS attacks, and dirty tricks]
Dear Anonymous,
It's understandable that people get upset over the things the Church of Scientology has done online and off. They harass, sue, play dirty tricks on people, lie, etc. They tried to shut down a.r.s. They spam our newsgroup to this day. So I can see why you'd think damn it, it's time somebody shut them down! I'll just give you my insight for whatever it's worth. I've been a public critic of Scientology since 1987. I've been on a.r.s. since 1994. My actions are pretty well known, and in fact you can go to youtube and watch a lot of our protests and such, or go to lisamcpherson.org and see some more of my activism. Also, I'm older. I'm 52. So if it's of any value, here's an old, experienced critic's 2 cents. The internet has already taken a big whack out of Scientology. Free speech has allowed us critics to expose many of the lies and horrible actions of Co$ for all the world to see. We've protested, right at their front door. We've been on radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. So it's not like you have to jump in and reinvent the wheel, or assume nobody's been doing anything. We've been quite successful because of the Golden Rule of the Internet; Free Speech for Everybody. In fact, whenever Co$ has attacked our free speech, it has spawned dozens and dozens of new critics who would not otherwise have cared about this cult. Most of us, and indeed most netizens, value free speech almost religiously. So, as I understand it, one of your first methods for dealing with Scientology is to shut down their web sites. This goes against the Golden Rule. By silencing them in one format, all you've done is make a martyr out of the cult. Martyrdom is GOOD for Scientology. It's something for the members to rally around. It's proof that they're in the right because they're being persecuted. Externally, it makes some people ask "why is a church being attacked?" So you've lost me at hello. The weapons we choose are important. Our weapons as critics are reason, evidence, argument, and free speech. If we "win" [and by win I mean, Co$ renounces its practices and policies that hurt people], then we've won the argument over their policies and actions. However, if YOU win using dirty tricks, harassment, and such, then you still haven't won over their arguments. You've just pounded them into submission. Their arguments stand. We're supposed to be the good people. They're supposed to be the bad people. If both sides are being creepy, then the public will just look on this as a battle between two creepy groups and not be very interested. If, however, one side is moral, honest, and just, and the other side STILL beats up on them just for speaking out, there you have a story. It is this CONTRAST between us and them that is part of our message. The nicer we are, the better the contrast, the more easily it is to see which side is the right side. I'm very confident that we as critics have severely hampered Scientology. I don't believe our goal is to destroy Scientology as yours seems to be [here I'd better say, I don't represent anybody but myself]. Our goal is to get them to stop locking people up until they're dead, to stop pretending they're doctors, to stop destroying families. If they want to believe in Xenu, fine. No problem. We can still debate that, but believing in weird things is no reason for some group to fear attack. If you don't believe my mamby-pamby methods work, consider all the cases in history where such actions did work; Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Vaclav Havel, etc. These people didn't harass. They didn't pull dirty tricks. They were straightfoward, honest, moral, and they won. I believe their methods work admirably well on Scientology as well. So my wish for you is that you stop a while, listen to some of us who've already been out there on the front lines working to expose Scientology, and reconsider your methods. You seem to be coming onto the stage presuming that us experienced critics never got anything done since Scientology still exists. You're quite wrong. I hope you'll take time to listen.
On Jan 22, 2:26 pm, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not > believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other gullible idiots (like Tory) into believing that there was some really BIG SCARY HACKER DUDES that can shut down big bad old scentology.org. Give me a break. What a yawn. All they did was slow the site down. And they never even did a very good job at it. I also watched their most frightening youtube vid with the voice makeover and the scary cloud sequence. Really well done. I mean, I was terrified beyond belief. I'll have nightmares for days now <rolls eye>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:09:47 -0800 (PST). > In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology > With the Message-ID: > <a0379f0b-b694-45ed-aa07-464e96c64...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com> > And the Organization Header:http://groups.google.com. > The famous author: cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com>. > Wrote on the subject: Open Letter to Anonymous:
> >[This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've > >decided to take on Scientology through harassment, DOS attacks, and > >dirty tricks]
> >Dear Anonymous,
> > It's understandable that people get upset over the things the > >Church of Scientology has done online and off. They harass, sue, play > >dirty tricks on people, lie, etc. They tried to shut down a.r.s. > >They spam our newsgroup to this day. > > So I can see why you'd think damn it, it's time somebody shut them > >down! > > I'll just give you my insight for whatever it's worth. I've been a > >public critic of Scientology since 1987. I've been on a.r.s. since > >1994. My actions are pretty well known, and in fact you can go to > >youtube and watch a lot of our protests and such, or go to > >lisamcpherson.org and see some more of my activism. Also, I'm older. > >I'm 52. So if it's of any value, here's an old, experienced critic's 2 > >cents. > > The internet has already taken a big whack out of Scientology. Free > >speech has allowed us critics to expose many of the lies and horrible > >actions of Co$ for all the world to see. We've protested, right at > >their front door. We've been on radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. So > >it's not like you have to jump in and reinvent the wheel, or assume > >nobody's been doing anything. > > We've been quite successful because of the Golden Rule of the > >Internet; Free Speech for Everybody. In fact, whenever Co$ has > >attacked our free speech, it has spawned dozens and dozens of new > >critics who would not otherwise have cared about this cult. Most of > >us, and indeed most netizens, value free speech almost religiously. > > So, as I understand it, one of your first methods for dealing with > >Scientology is to shut down their web sites. This goes against the > >Golden Rule. By silencing them in one format, all you've done is make > >a martyr out of the cult. Martyrdom is GOOD for Scientology. It's > >something for the members to rally around. It's proof that they're in > >the right because they're being persecuted. Externally, it makes some > >people ask "why is a church being attacked?" So you've lost me at > >hello. > > The weapons we choose are important. Our weapons as critics are > >reason, evidence, argument, and free speech. If we "win" [and by win I > >mean, Co$ renounces its practices and policies that hurt people], then > >we've won the argument over their policies and actions. However, if > >YOU win using dirty tricks, harassment, and such, then you still > >haven't won over their arguments. You've just pounded them into > >submission. Their arguments stand. > > We're supposed to be the good people. They're supposed to be the > >bad people. If both sides are being creepy, then the public will just > >look on this as a battle between two creepy groups and not be very > >interested. If, however, one side is moral, honest, and just, and the > >other side STILL beats up on them just for speaking out, there you > >have a story. It is this CONTRAST between us and them that is part of > >our message. The nicer we are, the better the contrast, the more > >easily it is to see which side is the right side. > > I'm very confident that we as critics have severely hampered > >Scientology. I don't believe our goal is to destroy Scientology as > >yours seems to be [here I'd better say, I don't represent anybody but > >myself]. Our goal is to get them to stop locking people up until > >they're dead, to stop pretending they're doctors, to stop destroying > >families. If they want to believe in Xenu, fine. No problem. We can > >still debate that, but believing in weird things is no reason for some > >group to fear attack. > > If you don't believe my mamby-pamby methods work, consider all the > >cases in history where such actions did work; Gandhi, Martin Luther > >King, Jr., Vaclav Havel, etc. These people didn't harass. They didn't > >pull dirty tricks. They were straightfoward, honest, moral, and they > >won. I believe their methods work admirably well on Scientology as > >well. > > So my wish for you is that you stop a while, listen to some of us > >who've already been out there on the front lines working to expose > >Scientology, and reconsider your methods. You seem to be coming onto > >the stage presuming that us experienced critics never got anything > >done since Scientology still exists. You're quite wrong. I hope > >you'll take time to listen.
> >Jeff Jacobsen > >for the ARSCC[wdne]
> Don't be so fucking naive Jeff. These people are not really interested in > the fight against Scientology. They're more interested in testing their > tech to take down web sites.
> Had it not been Scientology, it would have been any other site of their > choice.
> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not > believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
"Anonymous" and other so called /i/nsurgents have no moral stake in this question. They don't care about you or the years of fighting you have put in against Scientology. They're more or less like a group of kids with a loaded gun; they don't care where they point it, as long as it makes a commotion they're happy. Most of them don't know anything much at all about Scientology or the history behind it, and don't particularly care. as FTSOH mentioned.
> On Jan 22, 2:26 pm, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not >> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
> That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were > bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other > gullible idiots (like Tory)
If I'm such an "Idiot" as you OSA floormats constantly push, why is it you keep having to drop my name in here and there, and lie about me CONSTANTLY? Why can't you be honest? WTH? MY ASS! You can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!
> BIG SCARY HACKER DUDES that can shut down big bad old scentology.org. > Give me a break. What a yawn. All they did was slow the site down. And > they never even did a very good job at it. I also watched their most > frightening youtube vid with the voice makeover and the scary cloud > sequence. Really well done. I mean, I was terrified beyond belief. > I'll have nightmares for days now <rolls eye>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:09:47 -0800 (PST). > In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology > With the Message-ID: > <a0379f0b-b694-45ed-aa07-464e96c64...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com> > And the Organization Header: http://groups.google.com. > The famous author: cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com>. > Wrote on the subject: Open Letter to Anonymous:
> >[This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've > >decided to take on Scientology through harassment, DOS attacks, and > >dirty tricks]
> >Dear Anonymous,
> > It's understandable that people get upset over the things the > >Church of Scientology has done online and off. They harass, sue, play > >dirty tricks on people, lie, etc. They tried to shut down a.r.s. > >They spam our newsgroup to this day. > > So I can see why you'd think damn it, it's time somebody shut them > >down! > > I'll just give you my insight for whatever it's worth. I've been a > >public critic of Scientology since 1987. I've been on a.r.s. since > >1994. My actions are pretty well known, and in fact you can go to > >youtube and watch a lot of our protests and such, or go to > >lisamcpherson.org and see some more of my activism. Also, I'm older. > >I'm 52. So if it's of any value, here's an old, experienced critic's 2 > >cents. > > The internet has already taken a big whack out of Scientology. Free > >speech has allowed us critics to expose many of the lies and horrible > >actions of Co$ for all the world to see. We've protested, right at > >their front door. We've been on radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. So > >it's not like you have to jump in and reinvent the wheel, or assume > >nobody's been doing anything. > > We've been quite successful because of the Golden Rule of the > >Internet; Free Speech for Everybody. In fact, whenever Co$ has > >attacked our free speech, it has spawned dozens and dozens of new > >critics who would not otherwise have cared about this cult. Most of > >us, and indeed most netizens, value free speech almost religiously. > > So, as I understand it, one of your first methods for dealing with > >Scientology is to shut down their web sites. This goes against the > >Golden Rule. By silencing them in one format, all you've done is make > >a martyr out of the cult. Martyrdom is GOOD for Scientology. It's > >something for the members to rally around. It's proof that they're in > >the right because they're being persecuted. Externally, it makes some > >people ask "why is a church being attacked?" So you've lost me at > >hello. > > The weapons we choose are important. Our weapons as critics are > >reason, evidence, argument, and free speech. If we "win" [and by win I > >mean, Co$ renounces its practices and policies that hurt people], then > >we've won the argument over their policies and actions. However, if > >YOU win using dirty tricks, harassment, and such, then you still > >haven't won over their arguments. You've just pounded them into > >submission. Their arguments stand. > > We're supposed to be the good people. They're supposed to be the > >bad people. If both sides are being creepy, then the public will just > >look on this as a battle between two creepy groups and not be very > >interested. If, however, one side is moral, honest, and just, and the > >other side STILL beats up on them just for speaking out, there you > >have a story. It is this CONTRAST between us and them that is part of > >our message. The nicer we are, the better the contrast, the more > >easily it is to see which side is the right side. > > I'm very confident that we as critics have severely hampered > >Scientology. I don't believe our goal is to destroy Scientology as > >yours seems to be [here I'd better say, I don't represent anybody but > >myself]. Our goal is to get them to stop locking people up until > >they're dead, to stop pretending they're doctors, to stop destroying > >families. If they want to believe in Xenu, fine. No problem. We can > >still debate that, but believing in weird things is no reason for some > >group to fear attack. > > If you don't believe my mamby-pamby methods work, consider all the > >cases in history where such actions did work; Gandhi, Martin Luther > >King, Jr., Vaclav Havel, etc. These people didn't harass. They didn't > >pull dirty tricks. They were straightfoward, honest, moral, and they > >won. I believe their methods work admirably well on Scientology as > >well. > > So my wish for you is that you stop a while, listen to some of us > >who've already been out there on the front lines working to expose > >Scientology, and reconsider your methods. You seem to be coming onto > >the stage presuming that us experienced critics never got anything > >done since Scientology still exists. You're quite wrong. I hope > >you'll take time to listen.
> >Jeff Jacobsen > >for the ARSCC[wdne]
> Don't be so fucking naive Jeff. These people are not really interested in > the fight against Scientology. They're more interested in testing their > tech to take down web sites.
> Had it not been Scientology, it would have been any other site of their > choice.
> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not > believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
It's the types who just like to "fight the fight" with little or no interest in the cause.
However, I think what Jeff said was worth saying because I do think there are some that actually believe their own propaganda.
>>> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not >>> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
>> That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were >> bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other >> gullible idiots (like Tory)
> If I'm such an "Idiot" as you OSA floormats constantly push, > why is it you keep having to drop my name in here and there, > and lie about me CONSTANTLY? Why can't you be honest? > WTH? MY ASS! > You can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!
> Tory/Magoo~~
> into believing that there was some really >> BIG SCARY HACKER DUDES that can shut down big bad old scentology.org. >> Give me a break. What a yawn. All they did was slow the site down. And >> they never even did a very good job at it. I also watched their most >> frightening youtube vid with the voice makeover and the scary cloud >> sequence. Really well done. I mean, I was terrified beyond belief. >> I'll have nightmares for days now <rolls eye>
I didn't say they're big scarry dudes: I said Scientology would play that card---and I still wouldn't doubt it, at all, if they need it. Scientology WILL lie, cheat, steal, destroy someone utterly IF they feel the person is even speaking out against them, telling true things. (That was written by L. Ron Hubbard in a policy called "Fair Game": You can lie, cheat, steal, destroy someone utterly").
THAT is sick: THAT is idiotic! And you following it, is even worse-- way worse. The Executives you follow could care less about you: The SECOND any public "Legal flap" happens, your ass will be held out, along with Joel Phillips (If you're not him)--to dry---and will anyone blink? Have you blinked about me? I rest my case.
My sympathies to you and your smug gang of Internet floormats, AND TC,
> > On Jan 22, 2:26 pm, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not > >> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
> > That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were > > bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other > > gullible idiots (like Tory)
> If I'm such an "Idiot" as you OSA floormats constantly push, > why is it you keep having to drop my name in here and there, > and lie about me CONSTANTLY? Why can't you be honest? > WTH? MY ASS! > You can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!
The truth is, Tory, you are nutty and gullible. Here, take this one seriously:
Report back at how these are a bunch of real serous hackers who are going to shut down Scientology and break the organization, so we can have a good chuckle at your silliness. The only one who believe this is you, sadly enough.
> > BIG SCARY HACKER DUDES that can shut down big bad old scentology.org. > > Give me a break. What a yawn. All they did was slow the site down. And > > they never even did a very good job at it. I also watched their most > > frightening youtube vid with the voice makeover and the scary cloud > > sequence. Really well done. I mean, I was terrified beyond belief. > > I'll have nightmares for days now <rolls eye>
>>>> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just >>>> not >>>> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
>>> That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were >>> bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other >>> gullible idiots (like Tory)
>>If I'm such an "Idiot" as you OSA floormats constantly push, >>why is it you keep having to drop my name in here and there, >>and lie about me CONSTANTLY? Why can't you be honest? >>WTH? MY ASS! >>You can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!
>>Tory/Magoo~~
>> into believing that there was some really >>> BIG SCARY HACKER DUDES that can shut down big bad old scentology.org. >>> Give me a break. What a yawn. All they did was slow the site down. And >>> they never even did a very good job at it. I also watched their most >>> frightening youtube vid with the voice makeover and the scary cloud >>> sequence. Really well done. I mean, I was terrified beyond belief. >>> I'll have nightmares for days now <rolls eye>
> Give it up Tory. You calling everyone who calls you for your lack of > intelligence (sorry for being blunt but you just are't the smartest > cookie in the package) an OSA floormat, just isn't believable.
And you are the smartest cookie in the package? I never said I was, I never will. I don't give a damn who is smarter, who is not. Bottom line, I try to speak as honestly as I can. If I missed, you can just say so, without the inval/"you're not this/"you are an idiot" etc. That isn't needed, either way.
So who are YOU? Do I know you? No, I don't. So I hope you're happy you've shown who you are, whatever label is put on it, YOU show you---and no thanks, I don't want to be with people who slime others, just because of their viewpoints. If I was wrong re "OSA" ---I hope one thing comes of it: *I* Prove how deep the mind control in Scientology really is. It isn't because I'm "not smart"---it's due to one thing: Being a part of a Top Secret OSA Int Gang of immoral, unethical, lying creeps: PERIOD.
> Instead you should perhaps learn to evaluate things before you post your > not so intelligent comments.
And I will. You should learn to give your "constructive Criticism" in a better way, which honestly educates, vs. the name calling you've shown.
There is no special new group on the critics
> side this time either. It's just kiddies playing with Internet attack > tools. They don't give a shit about Scientology pro or con, or the > critics "cause".
Call them kiddies, I promise you heads rolled within the Cult. Kiddies....and TC being laughed at around the world, is that just "kiddies" too? I don't think so, darlin.
> Tomorrow they get bored and will move on to another organization to > attack. Scientology isn't their first target, this is an ongoing > Internet-wide problem.
I don't give a rats ass about this attack deal---I know it isn't a big deal. My point is it's ONE of a THOUSAND things SCIENTOLOGY has done to create more of their own enemies, but you missed that, didn't you Mr. Smart man.
> Geeze Tory. THINK THINK THINK.
Is this some montra you hope will change things? LOL--- think, Think, Think.............Didn't Hubbard say "thinkingness" was very low on the scale of Know-to-Mystery?
>> > On Jan 22, 2:26 pm, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just >> >> not >> >> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
>> > That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were >> > bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other >> > gullible idiots (like Tory)
>> If I'm such an "Idiot" as you OSA floormats constantly push, >> why is it you keep having to drop my name in here and there, >> and lie about me CONSTANTLY? Why can't you be honest? >> WTH? MY ASS! >> You can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!
> The truth is, Tory, you are nutty and gullible. Here, take this one > seriously:
> Report back at how these are a bunch of real serous hackers who are > going to shut down Scientology and break the organization, so we can > have a good chuckle at your silliness. The only one who believe this > is you, sadly enough.
YOU are the moron, not I. I said if anything, this is merely a distraction> The *real* bad news for Scientology isn't these hackers---it's Tom Cruise showing how mind controlled he is. THAT is the message, and Andrew's book, which Scientology is having a heart attack about. (If it was all "not true, just gossip"-- why would they care?)
So you push putting me down, and once again, I'll tell you what I've said since I left (and even before, when I was "in"): SCIENTOLOGY C R E A T E S their own enemies.
Laugh all you want, and then go LOOK into your empty orgs, and Think about how you CANNOT speak to little ol me.
>>>>> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just >>>>> not >>>>> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
>>>> That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were >>>> bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other >>>> gullible idiots (like Tory)
>>>If I'm such an "Idiot" as you OSA floormats constantly push, >>>why is it you keep having to drop my name in here and there, >>>and lie about me CONSTANTLY? Why can't you be honest? >>>WTH? MY ASS! >>>You can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!
>>>Tory/Magoo~~
>>> into believing that there was some really >>>> BIG SCARY HACKER DUDES that can shut down big bad old scentology.org. >>>> Give me a break. What a yawn. All they did was slow the site down. And >>>> they never even did a very good job at it. I also watched their most >>>> frightening youtube vid with the voice makeover and the scary cloud >>>> sequence. Really well done. I mean, I was terrified beyond belief. >>>> I'll have nightmares for days now <rolls eye>
>> Give it up Tory. You calling everyone who calls you for your lack of >> intelligence (sorry for being blunt but you just are't the smartest >> cookie in the package) an OSA floormat, just isn't believable.
> And you are the smartest cookie in the package? I never said I was, I > never will. I don't give a damn who is smarter, who is not. Bottom line, I > try to speak as honestly as I can. If I missed, you can just say so, > without the inval/"you're not this/"you are an idiot" etc. > That isn't needed, either way.
> So who are YOU? Do I know you? No, I don't. > So I hope you're happy you've shown who you are, whatever label is put on > it, YOU show you---and no thanks, I don't want to be with people who slime > others, just because of their viewpoints. If I was wrong re "OSA" ---I > hope one thing comes of it: *I* Prove how deep the mind control in > Scientology really is. It isn't because I'm "not smart"---it's due to one > thing: Being a part of a Top Secret OSA Int Gang of immoral, unethical, > lying creeps: PERIOD.
>> Instead you should perhaps learn to evaluate things before you post your >> not so intelligent comments.
> And I will. You should learn to give your "constructive Criticism" in a > better way, which honestly educates, vs. the name calling you've shown.
> There is no special new group on the critics >> side this time either. It's just kiddies playing with Internet attack >> tools. They don't give a shit about Scientology pro or con, or the >> critics "cause".
> Call them kiddies, I promise you heads rolled within the Cult. > Kiddies....and TC being laughed at around the world, is that just > "kiddies" too? I don't think so, darlin.
>> Tomorrow they get bored and will move on to another organization to >> attack. Scientology isn't their first target, this is an ongoing >> Internet-wide problem.
> I don't give a rats ass about this attack deal---I know it isn't a big > deal. My point is it's ONE of a THOUSAND things SCIENTOLOGY has done to > create more of their own enemies, but you missed that, didn't you Mr. > Smart man.
>> Geeze Tory. THINK THINK THINK. > Is this some montra you hope will change things? LOL--- > think, Think, Think.............Didn't Hubbard say "thinkingness" was > very low on the scale of Know-to-Mystery?
> "TruthSetsYouFree" <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host> wrote in message > news:msucp3hr6hf3iebi7lerq8dihgqivd34ji@nntp.aioe.org... >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:24:12 +1100. >> "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> Wrote: >>>It's just Sten Arne Zerpe being his usually trolling self.
>>>Ignore him Tory.
>>>- Emma
>> Oh, Michelle Ryan from Melbourne Australia comes crawling out of the >> woodworks :-)
> You can only "out" a person once Sten. Your intimidation tactics don't > work any more.
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:31:11 +1100. > "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> Wrote:
>>"TruthSetsYouFree" <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host> wrote in message >>news:msucp3hr6hf3iebi7lerq8dihgqivd34ji@nntp.aioe.org... >>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:24:12 +1100. >>> "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> Wrote: >>>>It's just Sten Arne Zerpe being his usually trolling self.
>>>>Ignore him Tory.
>>>>- Emma
>>> Oh, Michelle Ryan from Melbourne Australia comes crawling out of the >>> woodworks :-)
>>You can only "out" a person once Sten. Your intimidation tactics don't >>work >>any more.
>>- Emma (Michelle Ryan from Melbourne Australia)
> Neither does yours you insane fuck.
> PS. You seems to lose friends one by one nowadays.
> Sent any logs to OSA recently? At least I posted mine openly on ARS, but > you sent yours exclusively to OSA.
> Yeah yeah...
You SAY you posted them directly to ARS but no one ever figured out who sent the 4000 hours of logs to OSA about the same time your RFW page came down.
So Sten Arne Zerpe/Truth sets you free/FTSOH/George Feodor or any other names you use to troll & flame ars, why don't you tell us how they got those logs?
Or better still, explain why your RFW page was removed.
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:31:11 +1100. > > "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> Wrote:
> >>"TruthSetsYouFree" <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host> wrote in message > >>news:msucp3hr6hf3iebi7lerq8dihgqivd34ji@nntp.aioe.org... > >>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:24:12 +1100. > >>> "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> Wrote: > >>>>It's just Sten Arne Zerpe being his usually trolling self.
> >>>>Ignore him Tory.
> >>>>- Emma
> >>> Oh, Michelle Ryan from Melbourne Australia comes crawling out of the > >>> woodworks :-)
> >>You can only "out" a person once Sten. Your intimidation tactics don't > >>work > >>any more.
> >>- Emma (Michelle Ryan from Melbourne Australia)
> > Neither does yours you insane fuck.
> > PS. You seems to lose friends one by one nowadays.
> > Sent any logs to OSA recently? At least I posted mine openly on ARS, but > > you sent yours exclusively to OSA.
> > Yeah yeah...
> You SAY you posted them directly to ARS but no one ever figured out who sent > the 4000 hours of logs to OSA about the same time your RFW page came down.
> So Sten Arne Zerpe/Truth sets you free/FTSOH/George Feodor or any other > names you use to troll & flame ars, why don't you tell us how they got those > logs?
> Or better still, explain why your RFW page was removed.
On Jan 23, 10:38 am, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host> wrote:
> Neither does yours you insane fuck.
So *this* is what it's all about, aye Sten?
Revenge?
I dont get on with emma, and we've had some serious conflicts over the last year and a half. So its not as if Im jumping in because I am one of her friends or have some sort of loyalty.
Im jumping in because youre a bully, plain and simple. You are reminicient of another keyboard wannabe hardarse (ARS poster no longer posting) that took pride in knocking down a woman in the street.
You are a gutless wonder. You are filled with hatred and revenge and it consumes your every fibre.
If criticising the cult delivers *your* kind of cognative abilities, then you are the poster boy of why criticising the cult can also rape the psyche of a critic, just like hubbard rapes the psyche of his adherents.
> PS. You seems to lose friends one by one nowadays.
"Don't believe your friends when they ask you to be honest with them. All they really want is to be maintained in the good opinion they have of themselves." --Albert Camus
Dont ever come to Australia and drink in a Pub, you'd probably get a glassing within 5 minutes of opening your mouth.
cultxpt wrote: > [This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've > decided to take on Scientology through harassment, DOS attacks, and > dirty tricks]
> Dear Anonymous,
> It's understandable that people get upset over the things the > Church of Scientology has done online and off. They harass, sue, play > dirty tricks on people, lie, etc. They tried to shut down a.r.s. > They spam our newsgroup to this day. > So I can see why you'd think damn it, it's time somebody shut them > down! > I'll just give you my insight for whatever it's worth. I've been a > public critic of Scientology since 1987. I've been on a.r.s. since > 1994. My actions are pretty well known, and in fact you can go to > youtube and watch a lot of our protests and such, or go to > lisamcpherson.org and see some more of my activism. Also, I'm older. > I'm 52. So if it's of any value, here's an old, experienced critic's 2 > cents. > The internet has already taken a big whack out of Scientology. Free > speech has allowed us critics to expose many of the lies and horrible > actions of Co$ for all the world to see. We've protested, right at > their front door. We've been on radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. So > it's not like you have to jump in and reinvent the wheel, or assume > nobody's been doing anything. > We've been quite successful because of the Golden Rule of the > Internet; Free Speech for Everybody. In fact, whenever Co$ has > attacked our free speech, it has spawned dozens and dozens of new > critics who would not otherwise have cared about this cult. Most of > us, and indeed most netizens, value free speech almost religiously. > So, as I understand it, one of your first methods for dealing with > Scientology is to shut down their web sites. This goes against the > Golden Rule. By silencing them in one format, all you've done is make > a martyr out of the cult. Martyrdom is GOOD for Scientology. It's > something for the members to rally around. It's proof that they're in > the right because they're being persecuted. Externally, it makes some > people ask "why is a church being attacked?" So you've lost me at > hello. > The weapons we choose are important. Our weapons as critics are > reason, evidence, argument, and free speech. If we "win" [and by win I > mean, Co$ renounces its practices and policies that hurt people], then > we've won the argument over their policies and actions. However, if > YOU win using dirty tricks, harassment, and such, then you still > haven't won over their arguments. You've just pounded them into > submission. Their arguments stand. > We're supposed to be the good people. They're supposed to be the > bad people. If both sides are being creepy, then the public will just > look on this as a battle between two creepy groups and not be very > interested. If, however, one side is moral, honest, and just, and the > other side STILL beats up on them just for speaking out, there you > have a story. It is this CONTRAST between us and them that is part of > our message. The nicer we are, the better the contrast, the more > easily it is to see which side is the right side. > I'm very confident that we as critics have severely hampered > Scientology. I don't believe our goal is to destroy Scientology as > yours seems to be [here I'd better say, I don't represent anybody but > myself]. Our goal is to get them to stop locking people up until > they're dead, to stop pretending they're doctors, to stop destroying > families. If they want to believe in Xenu, fine. No problem. We can > still debate that, but believing in weird things is no reason for some > group to fear attack. > If you don't believe my mamby-pamby methods work, consider all the > cases in history where such actions did work; Gandhi, Martin Luther > King, Jr., Vaclav Havel, etc. These people didn't harass. They didn't > pull dirty tricks. They were straightfoward, honest, moral, and they > won. I believe their methods work admirably well on Scientology as > well. > So my wish for you is that you stop a while, listen to some of us > who've already been out there on the front lines working to expose > Scientology, and reconsider your methods. You seem to be coming onto > the stage presuming that us experienced critics never got anything > done since Scientology still exists. You're quite wrong. I hope > you'll take time to listen.
> Jeff Jacobsen > for the ARSCC[wdne]
I will reiterate the statement I made earlier. You can't look at both sides if one side is down.
> [This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've > decided to take on Scientology
A separate community to ourselves? Yes. A group? No, the people you are addressing operate like ourselves, as anarchist activists. There are no leaders, only opinion formers.
And they don't read Usenet, so while I applaud most everything you say Anonymous won't see it.
The following visited in the given order might help.
Past Wikipedia, adult and offensive content, not work or school safe! Plus, lots of disinformation and smoke screens.
> It's just Sten Arne Zerpe being his usually trolling self.
> Ignore him Tory.
That is disgusting that this person is Sten-Arne. What is his deal? Does he work with OSA? He sure acts like he does---and what *did* happen to all those logs? I'd like to know, too, SA: Did you send them to Gavino? (Don't yell, spare me I'm an idiot--you already said that, so just ANSWER THE QUESTION MR. SWEDE: Did you, or didn't you? That *would* explain your super sensitiveness to my mentioning...... shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....osa.).
Man, and to think I used to really like you. I'm sorry for you-- you've lost that lovin' feeling, that's for sure! :)
Oh well---march on SA, and thanks, Emma for pointing out who this anon is. What a shame---he really helped me, back when I was first waking up. I doubt he was trying to, but either way, he did. Now? Psssssfffffffft, as Tommy boy would say.
>>>>>> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just >>>>>> not >>>>>> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
>>>>> That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were >>>>> bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other >>>>> gullible idiots (like Tory)
>>>>If I'm such an "Idiot" as you OSA floormats constantly push, >>>>why is it you keep having to drop my name in here and there, >>>>and lie about me CONSTANTLY? Why can't you be honest? >>>>WTH? MY ASS! >>>>You can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!
>>>>Tory/Magoo~~
>>>> into believing that there was some really >>>>> BIG SCARY HACKER DUDES that can shut down big bad old scentology.org. >>>>> Give me a break. What a yawn. All they did was slow the site down. And >>>>> they never even did a very good job at it. I also watched their most >>>>> frightening youtube vid with the voice makeover and the scary cloud >>>>> sequence. Really well done. I mean, I was terrified beyond belief. >>>>> I'll have nightmares for days now <rolls eye>
>>> Give it up Tory. You calling everyone who calls you for your lack of >>> intelligence (sorry for being blunt but you just are't the smartest >>> cookie in the package) an OSA floormat, just isn't believable.
>> And you are the smartest cookie in the package? I never said I was, I >> never will. I don't give a damn who is smarter, who is not. Bottom line, >> I try to speak as honestly as I can. If I missed, you can just say so, >> without the inval/"you're not this/"you are an idiot" etc. >> That isn't needed, either way.
>> So who are YOU? Do I know you? No, I don't. >> So I hope you're happy you've shown who you are, whatever label is put on >> it, YOU show you---and no thanks, I don't want to be with people who >> slime others, just because of their viewpoints. If I was wrong re >> "OSA" ---I hope one thing comes of it: *I* Prove how deep the mind >> control in Scientology really is. It isn't because I'm "not smart"---it's >> due to one thing: Being a part of a Top Secret OSA Int Gang of immoral, >> unethical, lying creeps: PERIOD.
>>> Instead you should perhaps learn to evaluate things before you post your >>> not so intelligent comments.
>> And I will. You should learn to give your "constructive Criticism" in a >> better way, which honestly educates, vs. the name calling you've shown.
>> There is no special new group on the critics >>> side this time either. It's just kiddies playing with Internet attack >>> tools. They don't give a shit about Scientology pro or con, or the >>> critics "cause".
>> Call them kiddies, I promise you heads rolled within the Cult. >> Kiddies....and TC being laughed at around the world, is that just >> "kiddies" too? I don't think so, darlin.
>>> Tomorrow they get bored and will move on to another organization to >>> attack. Scientology isn't their first target, this is an ongoing >>> Internet-wide problem.
>> I don't give a rats ass about this attack deal---I know it isn't a big >> deal. My point is it's ONE of a THOUSAND things SCIENTOLOGY has done to >> create more of their own enemies, but you missed that, didn't you Mr. >> Smart man.
>>> Geeze Tory. THINK THINK THINK. >> Is this some montra you hope will change things? LOL--- >> think, Think, Think.............Didn't Hubbard say "thinkingness" was >> very low on the scale of Know-to-Mystery?
Long time ARS poster (1996-1991 as 'Anti-Cult'), ran the first video archive and preserved a lot of stuff that would otherwise have been lost. Sten also trolls and pokes fun at people, but we all love him really.
> Long time ARS poster (1996-1991 as 'Anti-Cult'), ran the first video > archive and preserved a lot of stuff that would otherwise have been lost. > Sten also trolls and pokes fun at people, but we all love him really.
hmmmmmmmmm....it's odd he uses different nicks and trolls, putting down various critics. I've seen that somewhere else, let's see....where was that? hmmmm....where DID I see that? :) I guess love isn't on my mind tonight, but I'm glad you and your pals love that kind of thing.
cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com> wrote: >Jeff Jacobsen >for the ARSCC[wdne]
I agree 100%. On all points. The Scientology crime syndicate is going to proclaim the DDOS as the act of "religious persecution by bigots," of course. Before the crime syndicate just spewed their claims every time one of their ringleaders went to prison. Now the crooks can point to some idiot script kiddies and say, See?!
--- "The majority of military bases in this country are named after Confederate officers: Eisenhower, Nimitz. The list of southerners in our military is legion." -- Republinazi Ann Coulter, Jan 18, 2008
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:11:01 -0800 (PST). > Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> Wrote:
> >On Jan 23, 10:38 am, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host> > >wrote:
> >> Neither does yours you insane fuck.
> >So *this* is what it's all about, aye Sten?
> >Revenge?
> >I dont get on with emma, and we've had some serious conflicts over the > >last year and a half. So its not as if Im jumping in because I am one > >of her friends or have some sort of loyalty.
> >Im jumping in because youre a bully, plain and simple. You are > >reminicient of another keyboard wannabe hardarse (ARS poster no longer > >posting) that took pride in knocking down a woman in the street.
> >You are a gutless wonder. You are filled with hatred and revenge and > >it consumes your every fibre.
> >If criticising the cult delivers *your* kind of cognative abilities, > >then you are the poster boy of why criticising the cult can also rape > >the psyche of a critic, just like hubbard rapes the psyche of his > >adherents.
> >> PS. You seems to lose friends one by one nowadays.
> >"Don't believe your friends when they ask you to be honest with them. > >All they really want is to be maintained in the good opinion they have > >of themselves." > >--Albert Camus
> >Dont ever come to Australia and drink in a Pub, you'd probably get a > >glassing within 5 minutes of opening your mouth.
> >You are a bully.
> Oh, another one from the prison colonies :-)
> Bwahahahah.,....
Ok who let their child onto their computer? I'm looking at you Joel. Seriously do you think that anyone is going to pay attention to a rude foulmouthed little racist like you? The moment you started attacking people you gave yourself away. Tory, Alert and the rest are far better people than you'll ever be. No matter how much you grow-up. And since they've all appeared around the world in public denunciation of the cult of scientology, I hardly think you can question them as critics not to mention the fact of their constant chess game with the cult more than proves their intelligence is far greater than yours. In case you hadn't noticed; they're still in the game and they're WINNING.
The fact that a TV reporter recently corrected themselves when they almost called scientology a religion, is evidence of that. Then there's the now popular media activity of calling scientology a cult, really quite openly as more evidence. And almost every time $cientology is mentioned in the mainstream papers, the xenu story and OT3 are told or at least referenced.
> On Jan 23, 9:32 am, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host> > wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:11:01 -0800 (PST). >> Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> Wrote:
>> >On Jan 23, 10:38 am, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host> >> >wrote:
>> >> Neither does yours you insane fuck.
>> >So *this* is what it's all about, aye Sten?
>> >Revenge?
>> >I dont get on with emma, and we've had some serious conflicts over the >> >last year and a half. So its not as if Im jumping in because I am one >> >of her friends or have some sort of loyalty.
>> >Im jumping in because youre a bully, plain and simple. You are >> >reminicient of another keyboard wannabe hardarse (ARS poster no longer >> >posting) that took pride in knocking down a woman in the street.
>> >You are a gutless wonder. You are filled with hatred and revenge and >> >it consumes your every fibre.
>> >If criticising the cult delivers *your* kind of cognative abilities, >> >then you are the poster boy of why criticising the cult can also rape >> >the psyche of a critic, just like hubbard rapes the psyche of his >> >adherents.
>> >> PS. You seems to lose friends one by one nowadays.
>> >"Don't believe your friends when they ask you to be honest with them. >> >All they really want is to be maintained in the good opinion they have >> >of themselves." >> >--Albert Camus
>> >Dont ever come to Australia and drink in a Pub, you'd probably get a >> >glassing within 5 minutes of opening your mouth.
>> >You are a bully.
>> Oh, another one from the prison colonies :-)
>> Bwahahahah.,....
> Ok who let their child onto their computer? I'm looking at you Joel. > Seriously do you think that anyone is going to pay attention to a rude > foulmouthed little racist like you? The moment you started attacking > people you gave yourself away. Tory, Alert and the rest are far better > people than you'll ever be. No matter how much you grow-up. And since > they've all appeared around the world in public denunciation of the > cult of scientology, I hardly think you can question them as critics > not to mention the fact of their constant chess game with the cult > more than proves their intelligence is far greater than yours. In case > you hadn't noticed; they're still in the game and they're WINNING.
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:11:01 -0800 (PST). > Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> Wrote: >>On Jan 23, 10:38 am, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host> >>wrote:
>>> Neither does yours you insane fuck.
>>So *this* is what it's all about, aye Sten?
>>Revenge?
>>I dont get on with emma, and we've had some serious conflicts over the >>last year and a half. So its not as if Im jumping in because I am one >>of her friends or have some sort of loyalty.
>>Im jumping in because youre a bully, plain and simple. You are >>reminicient of another keyboard wannabe hardarse (ARS poster no longer >>posting) that took pride in knocking down a woman in the street.
>>You are a gutless wonder. You are filled with hatred and revenge and >>it consumes your every fibre.
>>If criticising the cult delivers *your* kind of cognative abilities, >>then you are the poster boy of why criticising the cult can also rape >>the psyche of a critic, just like hubbard rapes the psyche of his >>adherents.
>>> PS. You seems to lose friends one by one nowadays.
>>"Don't believe your friends when they ask you to be honest with them. >>All they really want is to be maintained in the good opinion they have >>of themselves." >>--Albert Camus
>>Dont ever come to Australia and drink in a Pub, you'd probably get a >>glassing within 5 minutes of opening your mouth.
>>You are a bully.
> Oh, another one from the prison colonies :-)
> Bwahahahah.,....
Sten, you do sometimes go after people. I like you in spite of that, though, as you've been decent to me. But, yeah, you do that sometimes. You know you have a temper.
But Alert lecturing other people on bullying is like Stalin lecturing Pol Pot on being a tad bit rough on the population...
> [This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've > decided to take on Scientology through harassment, DOS attacks, and > dirty tricks]
> Dear Anonymous,
> It's understandable that people get upset over the things the > Church of Scientology has done online and off. They harass, sue, play > dirty tricks on people, lie, etc. They tried to shut down a.r.s. > They spam our newsgroup to this day. > So I can see why you'd think damn it, it's time somebody shut them > down! > I'll just give you my insight for whatever it's worth. I've been a > public critic of Scientology since 1987. I've been on a.r.s. since > 1994. My actions are pretty well known, and in fact you can go to > youtube and watch a lot of our protests and such, or go to > lisamcpherson.org and see some more of my activism. Also, I'm older. > I'm 52. So if it's of any value, here's an old, experienced critic's 2 > cents. > The internet has already taken a big whack out of Scientology. Free > speech has allowed us critics to expose many of the lies and horrible > actions of Co$ for all the world to see. We've protested, right at > their front door. We've been on radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. So > it's not like you have to jump in and reinvent the wheel, or assume > nobody's been doing anything. > We've been quite successful because of the Golden Rule of the > Internet; Free Speech for Everybody. In fact, whenever Co$ has > attacked our free speech, it has spawned dozens and dozens of new > critics who would not otherwise have cared about this cult. Most of > us, and indeed most netizens, value free speech almost religiously. > So, as I understand it, one of your first methods for dealing with > Scientology is to shut down their web sites. This goes against the > Golden Rule. By silencing them in one format, all you've done is make > a martyr out of the cult. Martyrdom is GOOD for Scientology. It's > something for the members to rally around. It's proof that they're in > the right because they're being persecuted. Externally, it makes some > people ask "why is a church being attacked?" So you've lost me at > hello. > The weapons we choose are important. Our weapons as critics are > reason, evidence, argument, and free speech. If we "win" [and by win I > mean, Co$ renounces its practices and policies that hurt people], then > we've won the argument over their policies and actions. However, if > YOU win using dirty tricks, harassment, and such, then you still > haven't won over their arguments. You've just pounded them into > submission. Their arguments stand. > We're supposed to be the good people. They're supposed to be the > bad people. If both sides are being creepy, then the public will just > look on this as a battle between two creepy groups and not be very > interested. If, however, one side is moral, honest, and just, and the > other side STILL beats up on them just for speaking out, there you > have a story. It is this CONTRAST between us and them that is part of > our message. The nicer we are, the better the contrast, the more > easily it is to see which side is the right side. > I'm very confident that we as critics have severely hampered > Scientology. I don't believe our goal is to destroy Scientology as > yours seems to be [here I'd better say, I don't represent anybody but > myself]. Our goal is to get them to stop locking people up until > they're dead, to stop pretending they're doctors, to stop destroying > families. If they want to believe in Xenu, fine. No problem. We can > still debate that, but believing in weird things is no reason for some > group to fear attack. > If you don't believe my mamby-pamby methods work, consider all the > cases in history where such actions did work; Gandhi, Martin Luther > King, Jr., Vaclav Havel, etc. These people didn't harass. They didn't > pull dirty tricks. They were straightfoward, honest, moral, and they > won. I believe their methods work admirably well on Scientology as > well. > So my wish for you is that you stop a while, listen to some of us > who've already been out there on the front lines working to expose > Scientology, and reconsider your methods. You seem to be coming onto > the stage presuming that us experienced critics never got anything > done since Scientology still exists. You're quite wrong. I hope > you'll take time to listen.
> Jeff Jacobsen > for the ARSCC[wdne]
Jeff,
You do raise some concerns about the method of anon which are very understandable. Yes, first of all there really is a group of people on the internet who have decided to band together and attack the Scientology websites. First, as an anon, I can speak for all anon in that we respect all that you have done against the CoS, and greatly appreciate the efforts you put fourth, and also the efforts of everyone over at Operation Clambake. Let me explain to you some of the tenets of Project Chanology, to help you understand some of the idealism behind this. Firstly, we do not target scientologists or single anybody out. We do not threaten people or resort to any sort of terrorism in that way at all, nor do we want to make any one person fear for their safety in any way. That would be disgusting and make us no better then them. What we have been doing is targeting the "Church" itself as an organization, because, contrary to what many of you believe, we all do have a very large moral stake in this. We actually do care deeply about stopping the CoS and are in it for the long haul. What you guys don't know is that scientology.org has been under attack since the 15th, and after 10 days and some decent press, our numbers have only increased, and every day I hear the same thing a hundred times: "I'm not stopping, I'm in it for the long haul." I believe it, I know I'm in it for the long haul myself. The raid actually has it's own radio station online. This is happening because we are honestly sick of the shit, as you can see in our official press release on digg.com, wherein we link to lisamcpherson.org and other such sites. We're tired of wondering why the hell a "church" needs a secret police, and what the hell Scientology's children are going to grow up like. This is where anon parallels with many of you. Where we differ, clearly, are in our methods. Like I said, we greatly respect yourself and the other protesters, even to the point of heroism; however for all the effort that was put in, the CoS is still fucking standing. The OSA is still harassing people and threatening people, still hiring private eyes, the Church still gets gullible people to join all the time, and still gets press whenever it so chooses, and the RTC still extorts hundreds of thousands of dollars from each CoS member.
So what is anonymous really doing to stop this, you ask. We're not hurting people, or harassing people or following them around bull baiting them to provoke a response, or trying to get them to do something illegal so that we can sue. Scientology has over 800 websites registered to it, and believe me we know every single one, but we chose to attack...one? Does that sound like we're trying to silence them to you? No, that's not the objective, otherwise we'd be doing that instead. What we have been doing is taking down scientology.org and a small handful of other high profile sci sites, clogging the dianetics hotline, wasting ink in their fax machines (they shut down all their fax machines very often these days), staging in person protests (see youtube videos), and distributing their "secret" information (all top level scientology documents for high level OT's only happened to get leaked on digg.com and in various other places). Basically, anon is making the high level administrators at the CoS spend a whole bunch of time and money, and making the job of receptionist at a CoS totally horrible. Petty but very persistent and taxing annoyances.
We are doing it for a few reasons- one is press, of course, to further grow our numbers and to raise much more awareness about what the CoS does. When we have everyone listening, we can really hurt them with the reality of what they do. I'd have to argue that the media loves a "creepy vs. creepy" fight, as you put it. Yes, people do want to see that, especially when the media along with most people have already settled on the fact that the CoS is bad (thanks once again to the people like you, heroes). You argue that such an attack on Scientology allows them to play the martyr card, which we all know they love to do so much. They say they are being persecuted but, aren't they? Shouldn't they be persecuted to the deaths and harassment? Or for breaking into government buildings in search of files on some SP's like you and me? Aren't they already being persecuted by all the negative media, all the protesters, the talk show hosts, comedy shows, T-Shirt companies, stand up comedians, anti-scientology websites, etc..? The answer is yes of course, because when you do something wrong, you should fucking be persecuted. We are hurting, specifically, the exact members of Scientology which should be hurt- the higher ups, and the rtc (burn me at the stake should I EVER capitalize the rtc).
Aside from press, another reason for this attack is to show them what a real backlash is, negative reinforcement. "Censor people again, and you're going to have a bad day, and all the lawyers and money in the world aren't going to be able to help you." is the message here. Clear and simple, they won't listen otherwise, as we've seen, and the government seems to get bought out every time, as we've seen. No more free rides for them, they pay the piper just like everybody else. We're dirtier and more vulgar then the older protesters, yes, but we are also more potent.
I understand also that it is indeed the contrast of the CoS vs. the protesters which is one of the strongest arguments. Two points
...
