This is what "Anonymous" ~REALLY~ thinks of the Free Zone (link provided)
Jonathon Barbera
This is what "Anonymous" ~REALLY~ thinks of the Free Zone (link
provided)
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Freezone
Excerpt:
The Freezone or Freezone for short is a group of people who worship L.
Ron Hubbard to a degree even "normal" Scientologists consider strange.
Not only are these people almost completely out of their fucking minds
but they are also are the strongest proof that Intelligent Design does
not exist since Christians. The "freezone movement" started in 1982
when a believer of "standard technology" Captain Bill Robertson left
Scientology after arguing that aliens were truly watching us all and
were infiltrating Scientology. Of particular note about the Freezone,
they are the source of over 9000 percent of the conspiracy theories
written about in the world ranging from hollow and flat Earth theories
to JEWS DID COS.
They are more or less a group of smug, self important morons who know
the secrets of the universe and are thus, over 9000 percent better
than you. Thankfully, they are a minority religion just like their
puny pathetic alien cousins Scientology and are of no true consequence
to the world at large. However, if they were larger it would be
hilarious to point out how fucking stupid they all are on a daily
basis.
plexf...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ahahahahahah.... you think ED is real! Mwahahahahaha... oh, you're a
dumb fuck....
YHBT.... Hahahahahah.....
Bud McDermot
> This is what "Anonymous" ~REALLY~ thinks of the Free Zone (link
> provided)
>
> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Freezone
>
> Excerpt:
If only the Church of Scientology was worth it.
Nec_V20
wrote:
Jonathon,
Not wanting to nit-pick the site but it is badly written, not funny
and the information content is summed up best by Douglas Adams when he
wrote, "... though it has many omissions and contains much that is
apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate...".
As for the following:
QUOTE
Joe Lynn - Don't know if this faggot was ever a Scientologist but he's
a complete/total pedophile, drug dealer/user and alcoholic. Nothing he
has ever said has been while cognizant.
Fluffy - another overweight over-opinionated fat bitch who has stupid
alien beliefs
UNQUOTE
Ball of Fluff has never been in the FreeZone, and although I
personally have no reason to like Zinjifar (Joe Lynn), what was
written about him is just the product of a sub-prime intellect well
past its sell-by date.
Compared to the person who wrote the entry, Rich Little at the
Correspondents Dinner was a comedic genius.
I would say that if they want to take lessons in faux outrage, then
they should take a serious look at Lewis Black.
Howard
<sighs>
Please repeat after me; context, milieu, satire, irony, cognitive
dissonance, taking the piss, strange loops and idle amusement.
BTW, I'm still up for doing a review of the book that you deem your
best to date.
Howard
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
Now playing: The Boll Weevil Song - Brooke Benton
Nec_V20
Howard,
it's not funny - end of story. It's at best from the shallow end of
the gene-pool.
I've been a critic of Scientology for many years now, but I want
nothing to do with the likes of the article Jonathon linked to.
Now if you do want something which is ironic, and perchance funny,
this is something I posted as a piss-take years ago of a Scienoborg
named E.J.
QUOTE
I hate ignorant bigots, racists, mealy-mouthed hypocrits, fascists,
weak minded fools and people who cannot face the truth.
And then again there are the people outside of Scientology. I can't
talk about them because I have never met any personally.
But as you can see, when I speak with you then I am giving you the
benefit of the doubt.
You say that we have no support outside of Scientology, well this link
may well prove you wrong:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/
At Berkeley University, as you can see, they have launched a
monumental project to find L. Ron Hubbard. Almost three and a half
million people are involved in this research.
I know that they do not state this openly, but they are searching for
extraterestrial intelligence, and who else could they be looking for?
They have discovered some bright spots in the sky but have discounted
them as being L. Ron Hubbard. In fact one spokesman for the SETI
project is quoted to have said, that they do not think that they will
find L. Ron Hubbard very bright when they discover him.
For the people that don't know, and I know that you are not any of
them, Scientology may appear to be tortuous, money-grabbing and
without scruples. We Scientologists actually only find it difficult to
pronounce.
Actually before I joined Scientology I had a great difficulty with
words of more than one syllable. In fact it took me three years of
auditing and endless concentration just to be able to pronounce it.
And after "it" came "the" then "and" then "cat" ....
Scientology I mastered after ten years.
I regularly visit sites like these with my friends Mary Jane and Lucy.
They (Mary Jane and Lucy) actually help me to formulate my posts and
my website.
By the way have I mentioned my website, my very own website. The
website they said could never be made. The website to end all
websites! (This last was a quote from somebody who used to be on the
internet a lot, he wrote me a letter saying that he had given it up
after visiting my site.)
I have found that the people in Scientology accept me for what I am, a
dreary bore who has not quite gotten over his puberty.
I have found my time in Scientology to be fruitful and and full of
zest and spice (they send me to the grocery stores a lot on errands).
L. Ron Hubbard made some amazing discoveries in his lifetime among
which were:
Finding out where the toilets were on the USS Enterprise. The real
one, not the one they rumour to be floating around on earth.
He discovered that James T. Kirk was NOT gay, even though he was
always asking Scotty for more thrust.
He created the great slogan for one of the major toilet-paper
manufacturers in the UK:
"Why is the USS Enterprise like our brand? They both wipe out
Klingons."
Or the one he did for the meat producers of America:
"Pork, the one you love".
Or the one he did for Wang Computers:
"Wang cares".
Or the one that he did for Electrolux, a manufacturer of vacuum-
cleaners:
"Nothing sucks like an Electrolux sucks"
He even had the brilliant idea, which he shared with Siemens, to set
up their offices in Stains in England.
So I have proven you to be liars when you say that L. Ron Hubbard
never did anything useful in his life.
We find that psychs are very discriminatory to us. It reflects on
scores that our members receive on their I.Q. tests. They have never
given any of us a higher mark than 80. Even though nearly all non-
Scientologists come out with 100 or more!
This proves that these tests are discriminatory to Scientology, and we
have every right to fight them.
In fact medical science has been maliciously cruel to me.
I remember the first time I went into a drug-store to get some
condoms. I asked the assistant if he could demonstrate how to use one.
It took me 20 years and five kids to find out that YOU DO NOT WEAR
THEM ON YOUR THUMB when you are having sex.
And as for the other thread on this site "Was L. Ron Hubbard impotent"
NO he was NOT! He was just a great architect who was worried about his
erection.
UNQUOTE
Hartley Patterson
>
> This is what "Anonymous" ~REALLY~ thinks of the Free Zone (link
> provided)
>
> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Freezone
And only a dumb cultie really believes that Scientology boosts your IQ as
opposed to making you a totally predictable liar.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/index.htm
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Howard
>
> it's not funny - end of story. It's at best from the shallow end of
> the gene-pool.
>
> I've been a critic of Scientology for many years now, but I want
> nothing to do with the likes of the article Jonathon linked to.
>
> Now if you do want something which is ironic, and perchance funny,
> this is something I posted as a piss-take years ago of a Scienoborg
> named E.J.
>
> QUOTE
> UNQUOTE
Nec
My interest rests with the reasons for and the way in which JB
flings this little gobbet into the ars frog pond. Being a charitable
and generous hearted old soul, I offer some terms on which he might
ponder and reflect, that might enhance his awareness of the personal
process that he habitually exhibits.
For me, the issue here is not the callow, rough and ready ED stuff.
It's about how JB manifests on ars, together with my wish to see him
broaden his horizons and engage more openly with we other denizens.
Howard
(who has just returned from a fine meal with an old friend who
travels to Sainte Nathalčne near Sarlat tomorrow for several months)
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
Alexia Death
place to troll somebody, it's ED. Everybody get theirs at ED. The
"moralfags" and "protestfags" and even the ED admins themselves...
Jonathon Barbera
You are addressing me as though we know each other. Have we met?
What is your association with Scientology? (Please start a new thread
about yourself and we will talk more there...)
If you are looking for a book to review, I would highly recommend the
newly restored 2007 edition of Science of Survival by L. Ron Hubbard.
Good luck!
Jonathon Barbera
>UNQUOTE
>
Joe Lynn is a real person and the site is obviously infringing on all
sorts of his rights by defaming about him like that.
Why can't he sue the web host for libel?
obscene dog
Jonathon is just a wee bit butthurt because ED has an article about
him:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Scientology_Agents#Jonathon_Barbera
--
Don't get in front of me.
What the... Oh, shi-
Alexia Death
Oh my....No wonder he is butthurt. Lovely!
Nec_V20
wrote:
Jonathon,
There is an international accord that that for the purposes of
publications on the Internet, legislation with regard to the legal
term "libel" cannot apply.
Where however all courts, as far as my purview allows, agree is that
Joe Lynn could seek redress under the applicable laws with regard to
slander.
The jurisdiction of that court with regard to anything on the Internet
has never been firmly resolved, but the rule of thumb is, it resides
where the IANA trail ends.
There is of course the caveat with regard to any court that both
parties be unequivocally AND uniquely represented as legitimate AND
that the unique identities of both such MUST BE established..
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
wrote:
> This is what "Anonymous" ~REALLY~ thinks of the Free Zone (link
> provided)
>
> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Freezone
ED is NOT anonymous. ED is a a spoof on wikipedia.
See their entry on atheist
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Atheist
"Atheists think
*the Bible does not exist
*suffocation = evolution
* things fall because of science
* they created man kind"
This presumes that you are interested in truth and not propaganda. ED
is a joke. I don't agree with much of the humor.
Nec_V20
> --
> hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
Howard.
QUOTE
My interest rests with the reasons for and the way in which JB flings
this little gobbet into the ars frog pond.
UNQUOTE
unfortunately the areal of that "frog pond" into which he cast his
"gobbet" were very murky indeed thus making it very difficult to
differentiate any obfuscation from obtuseness with regard to any
criticism Jonathon may have with regard to his original post.
My opinion of the "opinion" represented on the site Jonathon referred
to is so beyond the pall of civilised discourse that it would require
a paleontologist to even recover its remotest ancestors.
Alert
> http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Scientology_Agents#Jonathon_Barbera
ROFPMSL!
Jonathon Barbera
Jonathon Barbera doing what he does best, seeing your soul through his
monitor
Jonathon Barbera a schizophrenic retard who was so completely batshit
insane that he was too crazy for Scientology. He was in the Sea
Organization for seven years until they realized that he was a bi-
polar cum dumpster who has a penchant for young boys and men. He if
most often seen posting on alt.religion.scientology to discuss his
batshit insane beliefs about Psychiatrists being pedophiles like him.
It has been rumored for years that Jonathon may be an operative for
OSA but it has recently been discovered (through doxing him) that he
is actually the leader of the 4th or 5th invader force. Johathon is
currently on assignment on the Internet posting a load of garbage
under numerous sock puppet accounts so that he does not have to suck
too much cock when he gets back into Scientology.
Howard
>
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:10:50 +0100, Howard <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >Jonathon Barbera wrote:
> >>
> >> This is what "Anonymous" ~REALLY~ thinks of the Free Zone (link
> >> provided)
> >>
> >> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Freezone
> >>
> >
> ><sighs>
> >
> >Please repeat after me; context, milieu, satire, irony, cognitive
> >dissonance, taking the piss, strange loops and idle amusement.
> >
> >BTW, I'm still up for doing a review of the book that you deem your
> >best to date.
> >
>
No. Does it matter? No - this is Usenet. A communication medium par
excellence.
> What is your association with Scientology? (Please start a new thread
> about yourself and we will talk more there...)
One of some half century or so. (What an odd request. This thread
suits me fine).
> If you are looking for a book to review, I would highly recommend the
> newly restored 2007 edition of Science of Survival by L. Ron Hubbard.
>
Given that you've frequently spoken of/publicised your writings, you
piqued my interest. As to this version of SoS, it'll likely differ
little in content from the copy on my bookshelves.
Howard
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
Cudgel
Hartley Patterson <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
news:MPG.22db31e37...@news.thundernews.com:
Nec_V20
> And only a total idiot believes anythin that's on ED....
>
>
> > jonathonbarb...@ispname.net:
>
> >> This is what "Anonymous" ~REALLY~ thinks of the Free Zone (link
> >> provided)
>
> >>http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Freezone
>
> > And only a dumb cultie really believes that Scientology boosts your IQ
> > as opposed to making you a totally predictable liar.
Cudgel,
what you seem to forget is that Scientology is the side which is
asserting a "Truth" and as such in any forum whether as biased as this
or as neutral as you can name, it is up to Scientology to prove its
efficacy to at least the standards of empirical proof.
It has had almost sixty years to do so and to date nothing has
emerged.
This so-called "Anonymous" although their motives, origins and even
motives may be dubious - I am granting all of that - at the lowest
(and to my mind most depraved, with regard to the article originally
mentioned) level of the common critical denominator are requesting
that Scientology display the validity of their claims.
Scientology has evidentially shown no falsifiable, reproducible or
logical inductive causality leading to its claim of real-world
efficacy, let alone anything deducible from its stated socio-political
platform which could lead anyone to divine a benign purpose for its
existence.
Thus I would contest that Mr. Patterson is well within his rights to
demand and any Scientologist thus confronted I would contend should
humbly submit valid and pertinent evidence - or withdraw.
Barbara Schwarz
Jonathon Barbera wrote:
> This is what "Anonymous" ~REALLY~ thinks of the Free Zone (link
> provided)
>
> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Freezone
Interesting, Jonathon.
First Anonymous goes after the C of S, and then after the Freezone.
Apparently, they have an issue with religion, typically for German p
$ychiatric controlled dummies.
I want to bet all accounts of the world bank that the allegedly
loosely organized Anonymous gang is run by German p$ychs within the
German secret service.
Nothing but robots and cultists themselves.
I know these guys too well to think otherwise.
Barbara Schwarz
---
Who is Paul Horner aka Paul Durks aka Darude and a lousy zoo full of
other sockpuppets? I describe Paul as typical ultra low and lawless
anti-religious extremist scum.
Right now, he imposters me under ID Barbara.Schwarz @ charter.net.
He stole the name of Mark or Marty Rathbun and my name Barbara Schwarz
and forged our names as registrars of a criminal rip-off website.
Horner steals also the name, the layout and the informative ideas of
correct informing www.religiousfreedomwatch.org and twists their
information and distracts from the low activities of the anti-
religious extremists and the anonymous "protesters", which apparently
are front groups of the psychiatry-obsessed and Scientology-hating
traditionally intolerant German secret service.
This here is the original website:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/
It is not my website either, but I am a witness to numerous events
described on this website and therefore can testify that these events
indeed happened. I also encountered the extremists as portrayed on
this website and I find their characters and activities correctly
described on the www.religiousreligiousfreedomwatch.org.
Paul Horner can't accept that I didn't fall for the lies of anti-
religious extremists and Anonymous. By forging my name as registrar
under his rip-off-and-lie website, he simply tries to change reality
in his and their favor.
Let me give you another example what Paul Horner is doing. Let's say,
you despise smoking. He would steal your name and register and publish
a pro-smoking website under your name.
Let's say, you despise drinking. He would steal your name and register
and publish a pro-drinking website under your (famous) name. Let's say
you despise drugs. He would steal your name and publish a pro-drug
website under your name. Let's say you would despise Nazis and
psychiatrists. He would steal your name and register and publish a pro-
Nazi and psychiatrist website under your name. Let's say, you despise
pedophilia. He would steal your name and register and publish a pro-
pedophilia website under your name.
I hope you got the point what Paul Horner does to me with his rip off
website of the www.religiousfreedomwatch.org.
Any anti-religious extremist or Anonymous guy who does not handle Paul
Horner to remove his lying website from the net is just as guilty as
Paul Horner himself.
Paul Horner has a criminal history of ripping off websites.
Have a look here:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0029.html
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0071.html
I am impostored and forged by a poster who uses the e-mail address
Barbara.Schwarz @ charter.net. Tory Christman posts with @
charter.net. Is she part of these criminal activities against me?
Any anti-religious extremist and Anonymous who is pro Paul Horner
should share a prison cell with him.
Barbara Schwarz
Jonnie Tyler
news:29c6e06a-53ad-4295...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Jonathon Barbera wrote:
>> This is what "Anonymous" ~REALLY~ thinks of the Free Zone (link
>> provided)
>>
>> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Freezone
>
> Interesting, Jonathon.
>
> First Anonymous goes after the C of S, and then after the Freezone.
> Apparently, they have an issue with religion, typically for German p
> $ychiatric controlled dummies.
Encyclopedia Dramatica seems to have an issue with everything, be it
religions or atheism, be it Scientology or critics. As they once stated (but
now deleted) it on ED itself, "Anonymous exists entirely for the purpose of
destruction".
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
wrote:
>
> Interesting, Jonathon.
No it isn't. ED exists to laugh at everyone else's expense. Whether
they be a Atheist, Christian, Jew, or whatever. Everyone and
everything is fair game. Jonathon is just offering propaganda, not
fact. "Look over here, they laugh at free zone.". Bullshit, ED
laughs at everything. Just like no single person on wikipedia is in
charge of it, no single group runs ED.
>
> First Anonymous goes after the C of S, and then after the Freezone.
> Apparently, they have an issue with religion, typically for German p
> $ychiatric controlled dummies.
Where are these German psychiatric controllers? Seriously, why hasn't
anyone other than your self met one?
No one is going after Freezone, Freezone is a rather tame organization
that doesn't demand you go into debt, disconnect from your family, and
do their best to make your life 100% supported by the cult.
> I want to bet all accounts of the world bank that the allegedly
> loosely organized Anonymous gang is run by German p$ychs within the
> German secret service.
What German Secret Service? What does one have to do with the other?
> Nothing but robots and cultists themselves.
Ah, no. Anonymous is at best a social anarchy. It has no ideology or
dogma in it self. It's made of of individuals. I'm not a member and
made it clear I wished to be external to Anonymous so I can remain
critical of it, and Anons were most accepting. This doesn't happen
with cults, cults depend on secrecy because they can't take
criticism.
> I know these guys too well to think otherwise.
Well, if you were to put forth an argument why Anonymous is a cult,
perhaps we could take you more seriously.
Ball of Fluff
"Jonathon Barbera" <jonatho...@ispname.net> wrote in message
news:b7k174tjn1b0jb66q...@4ax.com...
Actually, I have seen anons say stuff like this. But it's evidently not
anons, it's just some disgruntled moron.
C
Ball of Fluff
"Nec_V20" <ARC_Tr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c204872-5b91-49d8...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Joe Lynn - Don't know if this faggot was ever a Scientologist but he's
> a complete/total pedophile, drug dealer/user and alcoholic. Nothing he
> has ever said has been while cognizant.
> Fluffy - another overweight over-opinionated fat bitch who has stupid
> alien beliefs
Actually, I say very little about my beliefs and have repeatedly said that I
don't buy the Incident II story.
> Ball of Fluff has never been in the FreeZone, and although I
> personally have no reason to like Zinjifar (Joe Lynn), what was
> written about him is just the product of a sub-prime intellect well
> past its sell-by date.
I did consider myself a Freezoner at one time (see thread:"Fluffy takes a
step on her voyage of self discovery" and still support them. Because of
this, I've been closely linked in a lot of people's minds with the FZ. But
in the end, all I am is a fluffentologist.
I'm not fat, either. Zaftig, yes, but many many dress sizes away from having
to shop at the big girl shops or the "woman" departments at department
stores.
What they wrote about Zinj is pretty bad. I'm not on the best of terms with
Zinj, but I think what they wrote about him is a pile of libellous crap. And
he actually does write some very good posts at times. He ain't my favorite
person, but he's far from my least favorite. I personally think the forums
would be poorer, not richer, without him.
But from what I read here on this thread, they're equal opportunity haters.
C
Jonathon Barbera
Or it could differ just enough in its presentation that you cognite on
something new this time.
I've read both the newly restored 2007 edition and the previous 1990s
edition so my reality on the new edition will obviously be different
than yours.
As for the advantages of reading the new edition, you won't know for
sure until you decide to look for yourself.
Jonathon Barbera
But with masked "Anonymous" bigots, you don't know who you're getting
in the mix. That might be a flaw in their current organizing method.
As I've written previously, I've received mail from "Anonymous"
members reassuring me that they have no problem with me personally but
are protesting some policies of the church. Then the next "Anonymous"
member sends me a hate message insulting every aspect of the subject
Scientology apart from the church.
Jonathon Barbera
<BarbaraSc...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jonathon Barbera wrote:
>> This is what "Anonymous" ~REALLY~ thinks of the Free Zone (link
>> provided)
>>
>> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Freezone
>
>Interesting, Jonathon.
>
>First Anonymous goes after the C of S, and then after the Freezone.
>Apparently, they have an issue with religion, typically for German p
>$ychiatric controlled dummies.
>
>I want to bet all accounts of the world bank that the allegedly
>loosely organized Anonymous gang is run by German p$ychs within the
>German secret service.
>
>Nothing but robots and cultists themselves.
>
>I know these guys too well to think otherwise.
>
The German government's recent report was very revealing of their true
intentions. Instead of just focusing on the church and its policies,
the German government was attacking various beliefs and practices
specific to Scientology. The important thing about that, however, is
that it then includes all forms of Scientology whether it be the Free
Zone, Ron's Org, independents or the Church of Scientology itself!
Alexia Death
wrote:
> But from what I read here on this thread, they're equal opportunity haters.
peters...@gmail.com
> This is what "Anonymous" ~REALLY~ thinks of the Free Zone (link
> provided)
>
> http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Freezone
>
>
> The Freezone or Freezone for short is a group of people who worship L.
> Ron Hubbard to a degree even "normal" Scientologists consider strange.
> Not only are these people almost completely out of their fucking minds
> but they are also are the strongest proof that Intelligent Design does
> not exist since Christians. The "freezone movement" started in 1982
> when a believer of "standard technology" Captain Bill Robertson left
> Scientology after arguing that aliens were truly watching us all and
> were infiltrating Scientology. Of particular note about the Freezone,
> they are the source of over 9000 percent of the conspiracy theories
> written about in the world ranging from hollow and flat Earth theories
> to JEWS DID COS.
>
> They are more or less a group of smug, self important morons who know
> the secrets of the universe and are thus, over 9000 percent better
> than you. Thankfully, they are a minority religion just like their
> puny pathetic alien cousins Scientology and are of no true consequence
> to the world at large. However, if they were larger it would be
> hilarious to point out how fucking stupid they all are on a daily
> basis.
Jonathon, it is not a crime, nor a sin to be stupid.
But please! Don't show it!
Peter
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write
that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can
control anybody is to lie to them."
- L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952,
excerpted in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL
VOLUMES OF DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418
Nec_V20
wrote:
> "Nec_V20" <ARC_Trian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Claire,
when I said that you were not a member of the FreeZone I am comparing
you to the likes of Terril, who most definitely is, and keeps up with
them on a day to day basis.
Also over the years I have known you, you have mainly described
yourself as an "indie" Scientologist. That you may side with the
FreeZone or identify with them on some issues, i don't see as being
equivalent to being FreeZoner.
I could be wrong, but that is the impression I have gained over the
years.
BTW if this turns out to be a double post then I apologise, my
original post didn't seem to get through.
obscene dog
At least ED _can_ be humourous.
The Cult is about as funny as finding out you have a terminal disease.
Ball of Fluff
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008 06:02:16 -0700, "Ball of Fluff"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Jonathon Barbera" <jonathonbarb...@ispname.net> wrote in message
There are no flawless organizations.
;->
>
> As I've written previously, I've received mail from "Anonymous"
> members reassuring me that they have no problem with me personally but
> are protesting some policies of the church. Then the next "Anonymous"
> member sends me a hate message insulting every aspect of the subject
> Scientology apart from the church.
That's because they are individuals. They kind of purvey this idea of
some hive mind type thing, but they're individuals. Some truly loathe
the Freezone and others are appalled at the idea that anyone would
have a hard time with anyone being part of the Freezone.
Anons are individuals and "old guard critics" also are.
C
Ball of Fluff
Thank you!
I think (and you can correct me if I'm wrong)- but I ~think~ that this
is one of those things where different people contribute different
articles. Someone with a hard on for the FZ wrote that one and I know
exactly where he/she/it/they got their "information" from. ESMB. From
lurking or posting there. They used my nick the way it appears there
(Fluffy instead of fluffygirl or ball of fluff or Claire Swazey) and
they also went after some people who post on ESMB. Additionally, they
downloaded/reproduced a pic of one of the people they were targetting
that they could ONLY have gotten from ESMB because it has a pink hat
and Emma had gone through this really cute pink hat phase where she
was photoshopping pink hats, etc, onto people's avatars. I still have
my avatar's pink hat 'cuz I think that's cute and fun.
C
Jonathon Barbera
The old-timey "critics" are individuals and represent themselves as
such. At least with them we can determine by their own admission which
is rabidly opposed to every aspect of Scientology and who is merely
seeking reform of a church.
With "Anonymous", there are no individuals. There is only the one mask
with its "legion" hiding behind it. The worst of the group pull down
everyone else to their level.
Jonnie Tyler
That's a good point. The motto of Anonymous is precisely that there are no
individuals, that it is only a group consciousness.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ4HSwb59IA and note:
"We direct this message to ourself to clarify the importance that we do not
allow ourselves to become tainted by personal distinction. Once an
individual attempts to act as, or act for, the many, Anonymous is no longer
the incoherent machine it is intended to be"
"Anyone attempting to modify these points does so to the detriment of the
whole. Anonymous is not your personal army."
"Everyone's contribution is equal. Don't be a follower.
Rely on the whole. Be part of the whole. Avoid the one."
Unknown
You guys know that it is a website based equally on hatred and comedy, right?
And you may want to read up on their article about Anonymous to clear up the definition you seem
to have aquired; to define Anonymous would destroy it.
--
--------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v3.7 Final
Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
------------------- ----- ---- -- -
Ball of Fluff
That's certainly not true and I've proved my stance on that. Different anons
say and think different things.
C
Ball of Fluff
"Jonnie Tyler" <Barry...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Aeyck.198070$ea6....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
Well, they try to sell that, certainly. But it's bullshit. Just seeing how
differently various anons react to the "Freezone" issue is proof enough.
C
Ball of Fluff
"Nec_V20" <ARC_Tr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0af28d5f-3e0b-4652...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 7, 2:08 pm, "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com>
wrote:
> I could be wrong, but that is the impression I have gained over the
> years.
You're right!
And ya know why? 'Cuz I wouldn't want to be a member of club that would have
me in it! LOL.
C
Jonnie Tyler
news:V5CdnZ-RmKxTJ-_V...@posted.internetamerica...
Yes but they have this thing they call consensus, that if there isn't such
then the viewpoint expressed in name of the anons is not necessarily
representative. The problem with this is where is such consensus to be
found? Maybe they ought to have some threads on enturb that would reflect
the consensus they reach on various topics.
Alexia Death
Anybody can write ED. Even you. But trying to "correct" something
there is pointless. ED is not about correctness, Its about causing
maximum amount of drama - hence Encyclopedia Dramatica. ED is the
troll capitol of the internet. EVERYBODY gets trolled(see article on
You). Disregard anything on ED for meaning and if you want to improve
things, make whats posted there WORSE, so it is clearly too absurd for
anyone to take seriously.
Alexia Death
> On Jul 7, 9:32 am, Jonathon Barbera <jonathonbarb...@ispname.net>
> wrote:
> > But with masked "Anonymous" bigots, you don't know who you're getting
> > in the mix. That might be a flaw in their current organizing method.
>
> There are no flawless organizations.
Err, may it be pointed out that anonymous is not an organization per
see. It has no command chain, no structure. Anonymous is cross product
of humanity. The ones on the streets with masks and on the forums are
the ones you need to worry least. They have honor, purpose and code.
And a lot less venues to make a difference. They are using what they
have fully tho and are doing it by what the consider right.
Its the anonymous(not the group, the nature, the people unknown) wild
cards even within the scientology organization itself you should be
worried about. The ones that will be anonymous on TV screen exposing
the crimes while still in or just leaving.The ones that leak DOX and
will never even talk to Jonathon because they have no interest in this
squabbling.
Alexia Death
wrote:
If that were true this movement would not exist... It is not. Ans so
the hell hole of the internet can spawn something that makes a
difference, that has a goal and that believes in betterment of the
world as a side product of fun.
Nec_V20
> "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com> wrote in messagenews:V5CdnZ-RmKxTJ-_V...@posted.internetamerica...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Jonnie Tyler" <BarryPep...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:Aeyck.198070$ea6....@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
Jonnie,
it's the "fir us or agin us" redneck kind of consensus, considering
what they did to Terril when all he did was answer their questions
about the FreeZone on enturbulation.org (i.e. he was banned).
Don't take my word for it, here's the thread - read it for yourself
http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/questions-re-freezone-1990/
In their "mission statement" on enturbulation.org the first paragraph
reads:
QUOTE
It is the purpose of this site to collect and distribute sourced
information and facilitate the organization and planning of worldwide
protest actions concerning the Scientology Organization. The purpose
of these actions is to expose and document the offenses of the
Organization of Scientology, not attack or question the religious
beliefs held by members of the Organization.
UNQUOTE
After reading through the thread, you can judge for yourself just how
far short of their own stated aims they fell in his case.
It's also the same way that Co$ reaches its "consensus" basically by
declaring everyone an SP who isn't "fir" them.
Jonnie Tyler
Jonnie,
==========
Crowd mentality type consensus...
Leads me to think that maybe some things should be open to consensus and
other things not. For example banning somebody should not, because obviously
this would lead dissenting voice being forced out through group mentality.
Reminds me of democracy, where the majority wins, but nevertheless where
anybody is free to put up his candidacy and free to voice his opinion.
Consensus should not be in a position where it would endanger minority
rights.
Nec_V20
Alexia,
you mean like the "Freepers" where it's all just fun and games until
some black guy gets chained to the back of a pickup and they drive at
full speed laughing whilst the poor guy's limbs are being torn off?
A hell of a lot of people watch Faux News and actually believe it is a
news channel. 27% of the US still thinks Bush is doing a great job as
Preznit. Over 30% still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
In the light of this do you think you might just want to revise your
definition of the word "Trolled"?
The article has nothing about it which is funny, satirical or indeed
with any discernible merit whatsoever. It just plumbs the depths of
abject stupidity, baseness and depravity - and those are just its good
points.
Nec_V20
wrote:
> "Nec_V20" <ARC_Trian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Claire,
QUOTE
And ya know why? 'Cuz I wouldn't want to be a member of club that
would have me in it! LOL.
UNQUOTE
I'd like to suggest that there could be other groups which you could
post to where your stature would be higher than it is on ARS. I would
further suggest that the reason you do not do so is because you would
die of boredom in an environment of consensus.
Nec_V20
Claire,
we've known each other for some time now, and when I say that you were
not in the freezone I would say that were so if I compare you to
Terril for instance.
Also, although you have posted in sympathy of the freezone when the
issues arose you have generally described yourself as an "indie"
Scientologist.
That was my understanding when I wrote that you were not a member of
the freezone.
Nec_V20
Claire,
WOW, the post above must be the longest time it has taken for any post
to appear.
I sent the post off FOUR DAYS AGO.
P.S. This was the "double post I was referring to in my reply
Jonathon Barbera
The so-called "consensus" on this group is to dead agent or ignore any
pro-Scientology posters.
On youtube, however, videos and whole accounts have been removed due
to "Anonymous" intervention.
Jonathon Barbera
<alexi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jonathon Barbera, word clear dark humor for yourself. If there is a
>place to troll somebody, it's ED. Everybody get theirs at ED. The
>"moralfags" and "protestfags" and even the ED admins themselves...
Then please link me up an article that demonstrates what "Anonymous"
thinks of the Free Zone.
Kat
wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 13:27:07 -0700 (PDT), Alexia Death
>
> >Jonathon Barbera, word clear dark humor for yourself. If there is a
> >place to troll somebody, it's ED. Everybody get theirs at ED. The
> >"moralfags" and "protestfags" and even the ED admins themselves...
>
> Then please link me up an article that demonstrates what "Anonymous"
> thinks of the Free Zone.
Rereading some of this thread, a few things come to mind.
Johnathan, You will find as many different opinions on freezoners as
there are stars in the night sky. Anonymous may act according to the
hivemind (also known as majority concensus) but they are all still
individuals, with individual thoughts and behaviors. I'm feeling kind
of lazy at the moment and quite frankly don't feel like link digging,
but I will tell you there are anons who do and do not like them, and
anons who are nuetral. Fact remains anon doesn't picket them, which is
really the most telling. Anything the group does, or doesnt do, as a
whole is significant.
"As I've written previously, I've received mail from "Anonymous"
members reassuring me that they have no problem with me personally but
are protesting some policies of the church. Then the next "Anonymous"
member sends me a hate message insulting every aspect of the subject
Scientology apart from the church." This would be the variance I
stated above. Some anons are more open minded than others. All agree
that at the least, the CoS needs to change/discontinue some of its
more destructive practices.
There is also the problem that anyone can say "I am anonymous!!!" and
hide behind a screen name. There is a difference between the internet
phenomenon of lack of identity, anonymous as it existed during the
chans, and the Chanology Anonymous movement. I've been over this
before a while ago, but Im working on a tl:dr of doom that I will post
seperately in the near future to reiterate this. Anyone can pick a
fight and be an internet tough guy behind a monitor. They still lack
physical identity. Something they regain when they show up in person
to picket, even if it is behind a mask.