Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
<wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
> Just thought I'd share.
I'd say most of us critics would be against that (though of course this is all individuals and we have no spokesperson). Just because Scientology is creepy, doesn't mean we have to be creepy back.
wheaths...@googlemail.com wrote: > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
> Just thought I'd share.
That's a dumb idea. How can people look at both sides if one side is gone?
wheaths...@googlemail.com wrote: > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
> Just thought I'd share.
*rolls eyes* followed by *face palm*
(1) Scientology isn't the brightest, but they do pay for decent Internet support on their main sites. (2) Most hax0r kiddies seem to think that defacing Wiki pages full of sourced information is striking a blow against Scientology, somehow.
<wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
> Just thought I'd share. <
Yesterday or the day before someone else posted about some supposid young hackers jamming up the scientology site. I doubt anyone here even knows who is doing that. I agree with Barbz. Just because Scientology tries toshut down the critics does not mean that critics try to shut down the cult. The internet may be Scientology's worst enemy but it was the critic's fight for the right to free speech that made that happen. To condone ilegal activities to suppress the scientology's right to free speech would be hypocritical and wrong.
I suggest you go report your news to the cult itsself.. They have enough money, computer specialists, and PI's to track down the culprits if such exist.
> Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
> Just thought I'd share.
And you're not a Scientologist, right? Got any documentation of this or at least some memo from someone doing the cult's webmastering?
I put forth that if someone in the hacking arena decided to do what Scientology has attempted to do on a variety of critical sites (It's called a Denial Of Service attack, btw), they certainly wouldn't do it by sitting there hitting Refresh/F5.
How do you think one would "infiltrate it on a physical level"? Walking in the door, pretending to take a so-called 'personality test', and then sneak into some place where the servers are... See, that doesn't work either.
Rev. Norle Enturbulata "Church" of Cartoonism * * " 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, "Technique 88" * * "...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist...." * L. Ron Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", November 5, 1967 * * "All men shall be my slaves! All women shall succumb to my charms! All mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!" - L. Ron Hubbard, "Personal Affirmations"
> Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the > face of the internet by members of various websites.
Anyone who does that has as little understanding of freedom and of Scientology as the cult.
wheaths...@googlemail.com wrote: > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
> Just thought I'd share.
My guess this is just Scientology trying to play victim (again).
"wheaths...@googlemail.com" <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote: >face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring >is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times >whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level. >Just thought I'd share.
Human rights and civil rights activists oppose your core criminality, Mary, and trying to play pretend only marks you and your crime syndicate as the crooks that you are.
No offense intended.
--- When you're a Scientologist, and you drive by an accident, you know you have to do something about it, because you know you're the only one who can really help. -- Heterosexual Tom Cruise describing his magic powers.
> > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or > > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the > > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring > > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times > > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
> > Just thought I'd share.
> And you're not a Scientologist, right? Got any documentation of this or at > least some memo from someone doing the cult's webmastering?
> I put forth that if someone in the hacking arena decided to do what > Scientology has attempted to do on a variety of critical sites (It's called > a Denial Of Service attack, btw), they certainly wouldn't do it by sitting > there hitting Refresh/F5.
> How do you think one would "infiltrate it on a physical level"? Walking in > the door, pretending to take a so-called 'personality test', and then sneak > into some place where the servers are... See, that doesn't work either.
> Rev. Norle Enturbulata > "Church" of Cartoonism > * > * " 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, "Technique 88" > * > * "...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her > crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes > exist...." > * L. Ron Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", November 5, 1967 > * > * "All men shall be my slaves! All women shall succumb to my charms! All > mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!" > - L. Ron Hubbard, "Personal Affirmations"
well what they are doing is technically legal and is the process of leaching bandwidth by downloading the website thousands of times a minute. This would have the affect of taking down the site as the bandwidth is slowly leached away. Those videos and links that you have posted are also being used and spread by people undertaking this action. What is also taking place is the faxing of documents containing the truths of Scientology to their centres, maybe they'll be ignored but maybe they won't.
The sites have already been compromised already, again you don't need to have access to the servers to do anything. Simple USB stick based key loggers will suffice for the acquisition of data.
The people are taking a pro-active step, something that should be encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally within the confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the truth of
As for playing victim, I would say that it is certainly not the case. They are being attacked and it isn't a scam on their half.
The Chanology link that was posted earlier will inform you of the proposed plans. I can categorically say that I am not a scientologist although of course I don't know how I can prove this. i suppose iterating that L Ron Hubbard was an epic level douche bag won't convince it does need to be said.
> > > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or > > > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the > > > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring > > > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times > > > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
> > > Just thought I'd share.
> > And you're not a Scientologist, right? Got any documentation of this or at > > least some memo from someone doing the cult's webmastering?
> > I put forth that if someone in the hacking arena decided to do what > > Scientology has attempted to do on a variety of critical sites (It's called > > a Denial Of Service attack, btw), they certainly wouldn't do it by sitting > > there hitting Refresh/F5.
> > How do you think one would "infiltrate it on a physical level"? Walking in > > the door, pretending to take a so-called 'personality test', and then sneak > > into some place where the servers are... See, that doesn't work either.
> > Rev. Norle Enturbulata > > "Church" of Cartoonism > > * > > * " 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, "Technique 88" > > * > > * "...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her > > crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes > > exist...." > > * L. Ron Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", November 5, 1967 > > * > > * "All men shall be my slaves! All women shall succumb to my charms! All > > mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!" > > - L. Ron Hubbard, "Personal Affirmations"
> well what they are doing is technically legal and is the process of > leaching bandwidth by downloading the website thousands of times a > minute. This would have the affect of taking down the site as the > bandwidth is slowly leached away. Those videos and links that you have > posted are also being used and spread by people undertaking this > action. What is also taking place is the faxing of documents > containing the truths of Scientology to their centres, maybe they'll > be ignored but maybe they won't.
> The sites have already been compromised already, again you don't need > to have access to the servers to do anything. Simple USB stick based > key loggers will suffice for the acquisition of data.
> The people are taking a pro-active step, something that should be > encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally within the > confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the truth of
> As for playing victim, I would say that it is certainly not the case. > They are being attacked and it isn't a scam on their half.
> The Chanology link that was posted earlier will inform you of the > proposed plans. I can categorically say that I am not a scientologist > although of course I don't know how I can prove this. i suppose > iterating that L Ron Hubbard was an epic level douche bag won't > convince it does need to be said.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Harrassment like this is not ok. Yes, scientology is a scam (IMO) but squelching their free speech is as bad as them squelching ours.
You wrote: "The people are taking a pro-active step, something that
should be encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally within the confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the truth of"
> > > > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or > > > > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the > > > > face of theinternetby members of various websites. What is occurring > > > > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times > > > > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
> > > > Just thought I'd share.
> > > And you're not a Scientologist, right? Got any documentation of this or at > > > least some memo from someone doing the cult's webmastering?
> > > I put forth that if someone in the hacking arena decided to do what > > > Scientology has attempted to do on a variety of critical sites (It's called > > > a Denial Of Service attack, btw), they certainly wouldn't do it by sitting > > > there hitting Refresh/F5.
> > > How do you think one would "infiltrate it on a physical level"? Walking in > > > the door, pretending to take a so-called 'personality test', and then sneak > > > into some place where the servers are... See, that doesn't work either.
> > > Rev. Norle Enturbulata > > > "Church" of Cartoonism > > > * > > > * " 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, "Technique 88" > > > * > > > * "...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her > > > crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes > > > exist...." > > > * L. Ron Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", November 5, 1967 > > > * > > > * "All men shall be my slaves! All women shall succumb to my charms! All > > > mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!" > > > - L. Ron Hubbard, "Personal Affirmations"
> > well what they are doing is technically legal and is the process of > > leaching bandwidth by downloading the website thousands of times a > > minute. This would have the affect of taking down the site as the > > bandwidth is slowly leached away. Those videos and links that you have > > posted are also being used and spread by people undertaking this > > action. What is also taking place is the faxing of documents > > containing the truths of Scientology to their centres, maybe they'll > > be ignored but maybe they won't.
> > The sites have already been compromised already, again you don't need > > to have access to the servers to do anything. Simple USB stick based > > key loggers will suffice for the acquisition of data.
> > The people are taking a pro-active step, something that should be > > encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally within the > > confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the truth of
> > As for playing victim, I would say that it is certainly not the case. > > They are being attacked and it isn't a scam on their half.
> > The Chanology link that was posted earlier will inform you of the > > proposed plans. I can categorically say that I am not a scientologist > > although of course I don't know how I can prove this. i suppose > > iterating that L Ron Hubbard was an epic level douche bag won't > > convince it does need to be said.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Harrassment like this is not ok. Yes, scientology is a scam (IMO) but > squelching their free speech is as bad as them squelching ours.
> You wrote: "The people are taking a pro-active step, something that
> should be encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally > within the confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the > truth of"
> Much like the publicizing of ... what?
My bad, it's quite late here (7:27am) and I've not slept. Much like the publication of pamphlets and other materials revealing their terrible practices. As far as squelching their freedom of speech that is not what is occurring, they are well within their rights to express themselves as they wish, but the internet is a strange place and if you say something expect people to react to it. There are many actions that could have been undertaken, an actual DDoS is something different to what is actually happening. It would also have been possible for the front page to have been vandalised or attempts at damaging their machine. What is happening is that today their site got really popular and each time it is refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from scientology and prevents them from harming other individuals. At best their page will run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to pay a couple of bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month.
<wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > - Show quoted text -
> > Harrassment like this is not ok. Yes, scientology is a scam (IMO) but > > squelching their free speech is as bad as them squelching ours.
> > You wrote: "The people are taking a pro-active step, something that
> > should be encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally > > within the confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the > > truth of"
> > Much like the publicizing of ... what?
> My bad, it's quite late here (7:27am) and I've not slept. Much like > the publication of pamphlets and other materials revealing their > terrible practices. As far as squelching their freedom of speech that > is not what is occurring, they are well within their rights to express > themselves as they wish, but the internet is a strange place and if > you say something expect people to react to it. There are many actions > that could have been undertaken, an actual DDoS is something different > to what is actually happening. It would also have been possible for > the front page to have been vandalised or attempts at damaging their > machine. What is happening is that today their site got really popular > and each time it is refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from > scientology and prevents them from harming other individuals. At best > their page will run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to > pay a couple of bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I am not sure how your post justifies an attack on a site on the internet.
What do you mean "their site got really popular and each time it is refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from scientology and prevents them from harming other individuals. At best their page will run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to pay a couple of bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month" ?
This post started with a claim that people were attacking and now it's "their site got really popular" - ??
I am a scientology critic and I believe it is a harmful organization. But I will not condone the willful squelching of free speech.
> On Jan 18, 11:34 pm, "wheaths...@googlemail.com"
> <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Harrassment like this is not ok. Yes, scientology is a scam (IMO) but > > > squelching their free speech is as bad as them squelching ours.
> > > You wrote: "The people are taking a pro-active step, something that
> > > should be encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally > > > within the confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the > > > truth of"
> > > Much like the publicizing of ... what?
> > My bad, it's quite late here (7:27am) and I've not slept. Much like > > the publication of pamphlets and other materials revealing their > > terrible practices. As far as squelching their freedom of speech that > > is not what is occurring, they are well within their rights to express > > themselves as they wish, but theinternetis a strange place and if > > you say something expect people to react to it. There are many actions > > that could have been undertaken, an actual DDoS is something different > > to what is actually happening. It would also have been possible for > > the front page to have been vandalised or attempts at damaging their > > machine. What is happening is that today their site got really popular > > and each time it is refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from > > scientology and prevents them from harming other individuals. At best > > their page will run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to > > pay a couple of bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> I am not sure how your post justifies an attack on a site on theinternet.
> What do you mean "their site got really popular and each time it is > refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from scientology and > prevents them from harming other individuals. At best their page will > run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to pay a couple of > bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month" ?
> This post started with a claim that people were attacking and now it's > "their site got really popular" - ??
> I am a scientology critic and I believe it is a harmful organization. > But I will not condone the willful squelching of free speech.
There are steps that can go from here that will lead to the classic debate about how far can you take free speech, if it's okay with you I'd like to skip that part.
By 'their site got really popular' all the people who are attacking the website is doing is reloading images that they have hosted on their own site, as they intended them to be. I also understand that you think that free speech is being impeded here but I view it as the removal of a internet community and a way of saying 'we don't want you hear, please move on' much like if a paedophile or other danger to a community would be urged to move on. Much like shouting fire in a crowded theatre is illegal because it endangers peoples lives, the website and their presence on the internet is also a danger.
(please excuse my rather crude prose, I know what I want to say in my head but I don't know how to express it)
Discussion subject changed to "(KNT To You) Reality check: Scientology has declared war on the world - Re: The internet has declared war on Scientology" by To You
'Scientology' has declared war on the world, and that since long, and ever more vehemently they have declared so.
Not that they are succeeding of course. But nevertheless, it is what Tom Cruise in his 2004 'Scientology performance,' and to 'Scientologists,' was all about.
Etc., as other have already observed.
'
Specifically, the reality is, that 'Scientology' has stifled the publication of the book about Tom Cruise, around the world except they were not able to in America and Canada.
Defending the right of Hitler to be democratically chosen?
I mean, how insane do you want to be made by the darkest of darkest Criminal Minds, such as (l. ron hubbard and his) 'Scientology?'
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:42:04 -0800, anothersurfer999 wrote: > On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, "wheaths...@googlemail.com" > <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 18, 7:46 pm, "Rev. Norle Enturbulata, COD" <not-earthli...@nor-
>> hotmail.com> wrote: >> > <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> > > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or >> > > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the >> > > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is >> > > occurring is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website >> > > many times whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical >> > > level.
>> > > Just thought I'd share.
>> > And you're not a Scientologist, right? Got any documentation of this >> > or at least some memo from someone doing the cult's webmastering?
>> > I put forth that if someone in the hacking arena decided to do what >> > Scientology has attempted to do on a variety of critical sites (It's >> > called a Denial Of Service attack, btw), they certainly wouldn't do it >> > by sitting there hitting Refresh/F5.
>> > How do you think one would "infiltrate it on a physical level"? >> > Walking in the door, pretending to take a so-called 'personality >> > test', and then sneak into some place where the servers are... See, >> > that doesn't work either.
>> > Rev. Norle Enturbulata >> > "Church" of Cartoonism >> > * >> > * " 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, "Technique 88" * >> > * "...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or >> > her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those >> > crimes exist...." >> > * L. Ron Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", November 5, 1967 * >> > * "All men shall be my slaves! All women shall succumb to my charms! >> > All mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!" - L. Ron >> > Hubbard, "Personal Affirmations"
>> well what they are doing is technically legal and is the process of >> leaching bandwidth by downloading the website thousands of times a >> minute. This would have the affect of taking down the site as the >> bandwidth is slowly leached away. Those videos and links that you have >> posted are also being used and spread by people undertaking this action. >> What is also taking place is the faxing of documents containing the >> truths of Scientology to their centres, maybe they'll be ignored but >> maybe they won't.
>> The sites have already been compromised already, again you don't need to >> have access to the servers to do anything. Simple USB stick based key >> loggers will suffice for the acquisition of data.
>> The people are taking a pro-active step, something that should be >> encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally within the >> confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the truth of
>> As for playing victim, I would say that it is certainly not the case. >> They are being attacked and it isn't a scam on their half.
>> The Chanology link that was posted earlier will inform you of the >> proposed plans. I can categorically say that I am not a scientologist >> although of course I don't know how I can prove this. i suppose >> iterating that L Ron Hubbard was an epic level douche bag won't convince >> it does need to be said.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> Harrassment like this is not ok. Yes, scientology is a scam (IMO) but > squelching their free speech is as bad as them squelching ours.
> You wrote: "The people are taking a pro-active step, something that should > be encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally within the > confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the truth of"
wheaths...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Jan 19, 7:44 am, anothersurfer...@hotmail.com wrote: [.......] >> This post started with a claim that people were attacking and now it's >> "their site got really popular" - ??
>> I am a scientology critic and I believe it is a harmful organization. >> But I will not condone the willful squelching of free speech.
> There are steps that can go from here that will lead to the classic > debate about how far can you take free speech, if it's okay with you > I'd like to skip that part.
Evasion noted.
> By 'their site got really popular' all the people who are attacking > the website is doing is reloading images that they have hosted on > their own site, as they intended them to be. I also understand that > you think that free speech is being impeded here but I view it as the > removal of a internet community and a way of saying 'we don't want you > hear, please move on' much like if a paedophile or other danger to a > community would be urged to move on. Much like shouting fire in a > crowded theatre is illegal because it endangers peoples lives, the > website and their presence on the internet is also a danger.
> (please excuse my rather crude prose, I know what I want to say in my > head but I don't know how to express it)
Well, no sale. Sorry.
There is - IMHO - absolutly no need to stop the websites of the criminal organisation known as the "church" <spit> of $cientology from reaching the public. I, too, am in this battle because of freedom of speech and that includes the freedom of the clams to say whatever they want to say. (I also want them to be held responsible...) I find the high moral ground a nice place to be, in this case, and I would never suppose that I personally could decide for others what should, and should not, be on the internet.
People who are trying to remove $cientology from the internet are being as bad the cult itself is when it in turn tries to shut up critics. The clams are using legal tactics, too, when they take down websites.
Putting up intelligent comment and spreading information is what I think will be the small (very!) contribution of the internet to the downfall of the criminal cult. Trying to mess with the clam websites is to adopt the tactics of the enemy, it is to censor expression and it gives the clams an excellent chance to paint every critical voice on the internet as a criminal who opposes freedom of speech.
To the peope who are doing this: please consider doing something else.
Best regards
Jens
- -- Key ID 0x09723C12, jenst...@tingleff.org Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 829 985 "Flogging will continue until the mood of the crew improves" 'Blue Ice' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> I also understand that > you think that free speech is being impeded here but I view it as the > removal of a internet community and a way of saying 'we don't want you > hear, please move on' much like if a paedophile or other danger to a > community would be urged to move on.
Crap.
1) A weekend of fun won't remove them. The attention deficit kiddies will get bored and give up by Monday.
2) The cult will have been handed a propaganda gift. They will tell everyone that a hate group has been attacking them because of the hate stirred up by the critics. They have done this before, most recently when they allegedly received threatening hate Emails on the day of the picket filmed by the Panorama TV programme last year.
On Jan 18, 7:17 pm, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
> wheaths...@googlemail.com wrote: > > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or > > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the > > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring > > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times > > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
> > Just thought I'd share.
> That's a dumb idea. How can people look at both sides if one side is gone?
Both sides?
I've trawled the internet for a few days, there is no other side. There's the anti-Sci side and that's it. The pro-Sci side seems to be either air-filled crap, bernie and some pages on clambake.
> > By 'their site got really popular' all the people who are attacking > > the website is doing is reloading images that they have hosted on > > their own site, as they intended them to be. I also understand that > > you think that free speech is being impeded here but I view it as the > > removal of a internet community and a way of saying 'we don't want you > > hear, please move on' much like if a paedophile or other danger to a > > community would be urged to move on. Much like shouting fire in a > > crowded theatre is illegal because it endangers peoples lives, the > > website and their presence on the internet is also a danger.
> > (please excuse my rather crude prose, I know what I want to say in my > > head but I don't know how to express it)
> Well, no sale. Sorry.
> There is - IMHO - absolutly no need to stop the websites of the criminal > organisation known as the "church" <spit> of $cientology from reaching the > public. I, too, am in this battle because of freedom of speech and that > includes the freedom of the clams to say whatever they want to say. (I also > want them to be held responsible...) I find the high moral ground a nice > place to be, in this case, and I would never suppose that I personally > could decide for others what should, and should not, be on the internet.
> People who are trying to remove $cientology from the internet are being as > bad the cult itself is when it in turn tries to shut up critics. The clams > are using legal tactics, too, when they take down websites.
> Putting up intelligent comment and spreading information is what I think > will be the small (very!) contribution of the internet to the downfall of > the criminal cult.
You've got to be joking, right? I mean about the size of the internet's contribution to the downfall of this cult.
Last week, my complete knowledge of Sci was a disparaging comment my mother made 15 years ago and that Tom Cruise was one.
My generation of people and younger will all be using the internet as a source of information. As the best source of pro-information is clambake, not many kids are going to be taken in by it.
Sci is it's own black pr machine.
Note that the Sci web site is not a source of information. It's a fishing rod designed to try to get you closer than a web connection away. The information isn't there. That's the point!
With kid intake near zero and (inevitable) death of current members, the internet will ensure that active Sci will be gone in a lifetime.
Someone will write an ebook about it. LRH wouldn't be worried though. He was rich when he died, so Sci achieved his goals.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:56:00 -0800 (PST), "wheaths...@googlemail.com" <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote in msg <ca1cbafa-7281-40c1-bd5d-fb8a01c2a...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or >not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the >face of the internet by members of various websites.
Various websites are the same as teh internets now? Shouldn't the title be "some lame wannabe script kiddies have declared war on Scientology, part 99"?
>What is occurring >is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times
Is this what counts as imaginative in script kiddy land these days? A lame DOS attack from the last century?
>whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
Ninja script kiddies! You've social engineered your way into the data center as an aircon tech, right? Your faultless reconnaissance takes you swiftly to the right cabinet, and you pull cable LRH666 just long enough to install the subminature bridge right? Then you tell the guys on the desk as you sign out your dispatcher screwed up and you should be on the floor above, right? Now you control all traffic to the server. Muahahahahaha!
Yeah, riiiight. You mean a dictionary attack on the site admin.
In this situation I'm more sympathetic to Church of $cientology sysops than I am to your friends. It takes a lot of concentrated stupid to get me to do that, so I guess you've achieved something.
>Just thought I'd share.
"I get fairly frantic when I consider the idiocy of these louts."
Ever yours in fandom, Jommy Cross
--------------------------------------------------- This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth: before you hallucinate --------------------------------------------------
lawtea...@hotmail.com wrote: >You've got to be joking, right? I mean about the size >of the internet's contribution to the downfall of this cult.
It was the "place to stand" Archimedes mentioned. Truth was the lever.
>Last week, my complete knowledge of Sci was a >disparaging comment my mother made 15 years ago >and that Tom Cruise was one.
That's really getting up to speed on a subject.
>My generation of people and younger will all be using >the internet as a source of information. As the best >source of pro-information is clambake, not many kids >are going to be taken in by it.
It'll carry the same social stigma as being a tattooed skinhead.
>Sci is it's own black pr machine. >Note that the Sci web site is not a source of information. >It's a fishing rod designed to try to get you closer than a >web connection away. The information isn't there. That's >the point!
Anyone with half a brain will feel creeped out by their propaganda.
>With kid intake near zero and (inevitable) death of >current members, the internet will ensure that >active Sci will be gone in a lifetime.
I see it! The cyst was punctured when the "sakred sekrits" got out. The puss has been draining away since then. Society's own protective mechanisms will relegate it to its rightful place in the Smithsonian Scam Museum.
>Someone will write an ebook about it. LRH wouldn't be >worried though. He was rich when he died, so Sci >achieved his goals.
And he had thousands of little spiritual slaves to do his bidding. What more could a megolomaniac ask for in life.
lawtea...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Jan 18, 7:17 pm, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote: >> wheaths...@googlemail.com wrote: >>> Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or >>> not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the >>> face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring >>> is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times >>> whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level. >>> Just thought I'd share. >> That's a dumb idea. How can people look at both sides if one side is gone?
> Both sides?
> I've trawled the internet for a few days, there is no other side. > There's the anti-Sci side and that's it. The pro-Sci side seems > to be either air-filled crap, bernie and some pages on clambake.
> One side has already gone or was never there.
> Lawtears
No no no. There is a pro-Scientology side. You will find it under scientology.org. There are a lot of more covert sites as well, many attached to Scientology front groups.
Air-filled crap? Absolutely! But, without that air-filled crap, you would lack perspective on the cult's use of air-filled crap rather than real content and documentation. Having read Scientology's main site, you might notice lots of happy testimonials that are as meaningless as Tom Cruise's ramblings, tons of anecdotal accounts, and nothing of any real substance. Just a lot of lies and false promises.
Having seen that and recognizing it for what it is, you can proceed to critical websites with a bit more perspective. And an ability to recognize air-filled crap when you encounter it.
lawtea...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Jan 19, 11:10 am, Jens Tingleff <jenst...@tingleff.org> wrote: > <snip> >>> By 'their site got really popular' all the people who are attacking >>> the website is doing is reloading images that they have hosted on >>> their own site, as they intended them to be. I also understand that >>> you think that free speech is being impeded here but I view it as the >>> removal of a internet community and a way of saying 'we don't want you >>> hear, please move on' much like if a paedophile or other danger to a >>> community would be urged to move on. Much like shouting fire in a >>> crowded theatre is illegal because it endangers peoples lives, the >>> website and their presence on the internet is also a danger. >>> (please excuse my rather crude prose, I know what I want to say in my >>> head but I don't know how to express it) >> Well, no sale. Sorry.
>> There is - IMHO - absolutly no need to stop the websites of the criminal >> organisation known as the "church" <spit> of $cientology from reaching the >> public. I, too, am in this battle because of freedom of speech and that >> includes the freedom of the clams to say whatever they want to say. (I also >> want them to be held responsible...) I find the high moral ground a nice >> place to be, in this case, and I would never suppose that I personally >> could decide for others what should, and should not, be on the internet.
>> People who are trying to remove $cientology from the internet are being as >> bad the cult itself is when it in turn tries to shut up critics. The clams >> are using legal tactics, too, when they take down websites.
>> Putting up intelligent comment and spreading information is what I think >> will be the small (very!) contribution of the internet to the downfall of >> the criminal cult.
> You've got to be joking, right? I mean about the size > of the internet's contribution to the downfall of this cult.
> Last week, my complete knowledge of Sci was a > disparaging comment my mother made 15 years ago > and that Tom Cruise was one.
> My generation of people and younger will all be using > the internet as a source of information. As the best > source of pro-information is clambake, not many kids > are going to be taken in by it.
> Sci is it's own black pr machine.
> Note that the Sci web site is not a source of information. > It's a fishing rod designed to try to get you closer than a > web connection away. The information isn't there. That's > the point!
> With kid intake near zero and (inevitable) death of > current members, the internet will ensure that > active Sci will be gone in a lifetime.
> Someone will write an ebook about it. LRH wouldn't be > worried though. He was rich when he died, so Sci > achieved his goals.
> Lawtears
> My thetan is bigger than yours. Wanna see?
Raw meat intake might be dropping off, but Scientologists are breeding their own next gen slaves. Kind of like Sea World's orcas, you know?
Do you not think that as sane individuals we have a duty to protect potential converts from the danger that Scientology presents?
It might be a script kiddie denial of service attack, but it is not illegal. The way that it is being undertaken is an attempt to damage Scientology within a legal confine. The physical access is dubious. I'd like to move on.
Scientology has better spokesmen than the anti-side. People will look at Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise and be attracted to it. They'll go to a centre and have their lives destroyed by it.
