Tommy Gorman is not a bully (except to the Scilons that have an agenda)
Happy Smurf
over with.. water under the bridge.. beating a dead horse over and
over again is not going to bring it back alive.
It's unfortunate that despite the tremendous impact that Anonymous has
had on the Scilons, there are those in its ranks that are so arrogant
& self-absorbed that they don't realize the enormity of risk involved
protesting the cult and having a file prepared on you by OSA.
Having been there.. done that, I nod my head at the Anons that pat
themselves on the back for pissing off the cult with their activism,
then whine like chidren when they are followed, put under
surveillance, their identities are uncovered, or receive the routine
"Cease & Desist" lettters from a cult attorney. If you're going to
play with rattlesnakes, you have no place to whine, if you're bit.
Their are Anon members who think the OSA fair game responses to their
raids are something new. Those of us that have been in the cult know
alot different.
Tommy Gorman hasn't been out of the cult that long. Despite the issues
surroundung the rape of his wife by a Scilon, Tommy has suffered the
same emotional & psychological trauma that all Scilons have to endure.
It is going to take years of being out of the cult, and hopefully
Tommy availing himself to therapy, for him to heal.
This, by no means, invalidates his behavior of recent, but critics &
ex-Scilons who have been around for awhile should recognize that Tommy
is still hurting and needs our support, however that may be (yes, that
means Jeff Jacobsen, too). Instead of calling for his banishment from
a raid, or reporting him to the police as a potential threat, Jeff has
years of experience with the cult that it the damaging residue that
all ex-members deal with, that he could actually help Tommy Gorman. I
think we need to extend more empathy to him.
jerald
wrote:
I was going to agree and add to this, but I think what you posted
says it well enough.
jerald
Black Mamba
news:616ce9c4-1ca9-48e7...@j7g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Just between you and me.
OSA has more files on people than the church has files of actual
customers. OSA is a kind of broad generality.
Like Tory *might* say:
"Good going, you really screwed it up good that time OSA!"
Bottom line: "Tommy Gorman is a bad mother fucker!"
--
Larry
{LaserClam Is Like A Pit Viper!}
Happy Smurf
> "Happy Smurf" <Miscavige.Sucks.D...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Bottom line: In a war, I'd rather be in a foxhole with a bad mother
fucker than a kiss-ass.
Black Mamba
*Bottom line: In a war, I'd rather be in a foxhole with a *bad mother
*fucker than a kiss-ass.
You've won!
Meet me on the internet for game of Backgammon! (LOL)
obscene dog
<Miscavige....@gmail.com> wrote:
>I wish people would give the Tori/Tommy
Not enough Tommy Gormans or lings. Let me fix that for you.
Tommy Gorman Tommy Gorman ling Tommy Gorman ling
--
Tommy Gorman Tommy Gorman ling Tommy Gorman ling
http://tinyurl.com/tommyling
http://i33.tinypic.com/qxrvb5.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/torybaw
cultxpt
wrote:
To me the protests are important enough to try to defend as much as
possible. The biggest threat to the protests is a protester messing
up. I might be extra sensitive about this for some reason, but I
think it's important enough that if a protester commits or threatens
violence, they're out. No exceptions. If *I* lost my cool and smacked
somebody, I'd be very sad, but I'd just never go to another protest to
show that peaceful protesting is more important than any person.
If you think somebody who does or threatens violence at a protest
should be allowed back, ok. We differ there.
Happy Smurf
Really, Jeff? Yet, you posted earlier your decision to resignn from
the LMT after you observed Bob Minton getting aggressive with Joe
Neal, but later changed your mind. What's the difference, in your
mind, between what Minton & Gorman did? Minton was also known for
being a hot head sometimes when he became frustrated or angry.
Fredric L. Rice
>I wish people would give the Tori/Tommy/Thunderdome issue a rest. It's
>over with.. water under the bridge.. beating a dead horse over and
>over again is not going to bring it back alive.
No, not if Tommy is going to stand along side of ARSCC or Anonymous
people in the future, then it still matters. He can no longer be
trusted to remain non-violent, ergo if he shows up at protests he
should be avoided and he should be pointed out to cops as a potential
problem.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5W8ALB0SNU
Insane woman verbally assaults 2 little girls
Dharma
> No, not if Tommy is going to stand along side of ARSCC or Anonymous
> people in the future, then it still matters. He can no longer be
> trusted to remain non-violent, ergo if he shows up at protests he
> should be avoided and he should be pointed out to cops as a potential
> problem.
>
> ---http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5W8ALB0SNU
> Insane woman verbally assaults 2 little girls
I agree with you completely. Many peope seem to be trying to excuse
his behavior, when they would excuse such behavior for someone else.
Mr. Gorman has proved he is unable to play well with others, therefore
he should not be allowed back on the playground. He has become a
liability to everyone involved in the protests, and that's just not
cool.
He has "apologized" but in that apology has tried to excuse what he
has done, blaming his upbringing, etc.
Well.... He knows better. He knows assault and threats are wrong
since he has repeatedly spoken out about the violence and threats from
Scientologists. He has no excuse whatsoever for his heinous,
childish, immature and illegal behavior.
...and Tory.... She encouraged this. She, too, needs to be held
accountable for her actions. My opinion of both of them is that they
are not the type of people I would ever want to interact with, and so
I will not now or in the future. I don't feel they can be trusted and
I don't believe they can be mature enough to take responsibility for
their actions. They need to sort this out and sort it out soon. (I
don't think they will, though, as they have already made it abundantly
clear that they feel their actions were justified.)
It just sucks because I had admired both of them for being so open and
vocal in their fight against Scientology. Now they're just another
couple of dweebs to avoid.
cultxpt
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
yep. That's why it was a difficult decision. It could be that I should
have resigned right then and there. And that's probably one reason
that I'm so adamant about it now.
Piltdown Man
Happy Smurf <Miscavige....@gmail.com> wrote...
<snip>
> It's unfortunate that despite the tremendous impact that Anonymous has
> had on the Scilons,
I've been watching "Anonymous" since it arrived on the scene. Unless
something dramatic happened in the last month or so (I've been away for a
couple of weeks), I can't remember reading anything showing that the
nonnies have had any impact on Scientology at all. Beyond forcing them to
pay some money to a wog firm to guard their web servers from the initial
DoS attack, back in January.
What change in Scientology's business as usual has "Anonymous" caused?
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>It could be that I should
>have resigned right then and there. And that's probably one reason
>that I'm so adamant about it now.
It's good to know this bit of history, Jeff. I couldn't imagine you
being very comfortable with Minton's churlish, confrontational
methods.
Dennis
------------------
"And here I sit so patiently,
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going though all these things twice." - B Dylan
Happy Smurf
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:21:47 -0700 (PDT), Happy Smurf
>
> >I wish people would give the Tori/Tommy
>
> Not enough Tommy Gormans or lings. Let me fix that for you.
>
> Tommy Gorman Tommy Gorman ling Tommy Gorman ling
Excuse me for asking OD... what's a ling?
realpch
<snip>
> To me the protests are important enough to try to defend as much as
> possible. The biggest threat to the protests is a protester messing
> up. I might be extra sensitive about this for some reason, but I
> think it's important enough that if a protester commits or threatens
> violence, they're out. No exceptions. If *I* lost my cool and smacked
> somebody, I'd be very sad, but I'd just never go to another protest to
> show that peaceful protesting is more important than any person.
> If you think somebody who does or threatens violence at a protest
> should be allowed back, ok. We differ there.
I have to agree with you that the biggest threat to a protest is a
protestor behaving badly!
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Happy Smurf
Makes sense, Jeff. Seems that alot of people here have a handle on
information about Mr. Gorman's conduct that I was not privy to, e.g.,
I didn't know he apologized then tried to justify his actions on his
upbringing (if in fact, this was true). On the other hand, if Tommy
threatened someone who threatened Tori with physical violence, I might
understand Tommy's reaction. Hypothetically, what would any of the
guys here do if they were protective of a sister that had been
threatened with rape and/or murder??
realpch
<snip>
> Really, Jeff? Yet, you posted earlier your decision to resignn from
> the LMT after you observed Bob Minton getting aggressive with Joe
> Neal, but later changed your mind. What's the difference, in your
> mind, between what Minton & Gorman did? Minton was also known for
> being a hot head sometimes when he became frustrated or angry.
What is this? We all make mistakes week?
: D
Happy Smurf
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> Happy Smurf <Miscavige.Sucks.D...@gmail.com> wrote...
The cult's aggressive reaction to Anonymous speaks volumes. If you had
observed the picket in Los Angeles on July 12, you would have also
seen the difference.
Android Cat
Phone ringing.
http://www.transbuddha.com/osaka/osakaphone.html
--
Ron of that ilk.
Get off my lawn--it's just been Rick-Rolled...
peters...@gmail.com
All I would like to add is:
Anybody would wish to have a Tommy as a friend!
Peter
"Scientology must be the only church without religion."
- Peter Schilte (FKA Navy)
Happy Smurf
> Happy Smurf wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 5:03 pm, obscene dog <obscene....@xenu.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:21:47 -0700 (PDT), Happy Smurf
>
> >> <Miscavige.Sucks.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I wish people would give the Tori/Tommy
>
> >> Not enough Tommy Gormans or lings. Let me fix that for you.
>
> >> Tommy Gorman Tommy Gorman ling Tommy Gorman ling
>
> > Excuse me for asking OD... what's a ling?
>
> Phone ringing.http://www.transbuddha.com/osaka/osakaphone.html
>
obscene dog
A mis-spelling of link.
Or a type of fish.
Hence the new meme :-)
--
Tommy Gorman Tommy Gorman ling Tommy Gorman ling
obscene dog
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
Yawn.
Asked and answered previously.
If you think that is the only impact, keep deluding yourself.
--
Don't get in front of me.
Wait! Oh shi-
Eldon
As I understand, Megaphone bitch made the "rape" comment online, and
in a way that could have been construed as metaphorical. Then later,
Tory got an anonymous phone call during a party threatening to kill
her, which would be impossible to take lightly.
Tommy Gorman assumed the two events were related and subsequently
verbally assaulted Megaphonebitch for 90 minutes at the protest. Have
I got that straight?
Summerick
news:i63094dn0070c7k4v...@4ax.com:
Piltdown's just pissed that he knows he'd be attacked for
being the 'egofag' that he is and would conclude that it'd be
about the fag bit and totally miss the whole point.
Just as he's missed the whole point of what Anonymous is about
anyway. And why they've been so effective, which he refuses to
see.
Summerick
news:6aadd6bf-225e-41ec...@d45g2000hsc.googlegr
oups.com:
>
> As I understand, Megaphone bitch made the "rape" comment
> online, and in a way that could have been construed as
> metaphorical. Then later, Tory got an anonymous phone call
> during a party threatening to kill her, which would be
> impossible to take lightly.
>
> Tommy Gorman assumed the two events were related and
> subsequently verbally assaulted Megaphonebitch for 90
> minutes at the protest. Have I got that straight?
>
No, you're so far of the mark I'm not going to try to explain
it.
There is now an admin created thread on General Discussion which
you can go read, if you you really want to know what happened.
Fredric L. Rice
>cultxpt wrote:
><snip>
>> If you think somebody who does or threatens violence at a protest
>> should be allowed back, ok. We differ there.
>I have to agree with you that the biggest threat to a protest is a
>protestor behaving badly!
Another thing is that if I personally were to threaten violence
against anyone in a protest, I would expect to be ostracized for
it and be untrusted from then on -- and I would like to hope
that all ARSCC would.
---
Ball of Fluff
>I wish people would give the Tori/Tommy/Thunderdome issue a rest. It's
> over with.. water under the bridge.. beating a dead horse over and
> over again is not going to bring it back alive.
>
> & self-absorbed that they don't realize the enormity of risk involved
> protesting the cult and having a file prepared on you by OSA.
>
> Having been there.. done that, I nod my head at the Anons that pat
> themselves on the back for pissing off the cult with their activism,
> then whine like chidren when they are followed, put under
> surveillance, their identities are uncovered, or receive the routine
> "Cease & Desist" lettters from a cult attorney. If you're going to
> play with rattlesnakes, you have no place to whine, if you're bit.
>
> Their are Anon members who think the OSA fair game responses to their
> raids are something new. Those of us that have been in the cult know
> alot different.
>
> Tommy Gorman hasn't been out of the cult that long. Despite the issues
> surroundung the rape of his wife by a Scilon, Tommy has suffered the
> same emotional & psychological trauma that all Scilons have to endure.
> It is going to take years of being out of the cult, and hopefully
> Tommy availing himself to therapy, for him to heal.
I've heard this line of thought before. It's crap. The idea is that if
someone's had a bad time in life, they can therefore act in a predatory way
with impunity. Well,no, it's not ok.
Gorman's problem isn't so much his time in the cult and what happened there
as it is his propensity for believing and doing what others tell him to. He
was like that in CofS, he's like that now.
Ball of Fluff
"Dharma" <dharm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0526c90-3800-4976...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Tory's done a lot of good in the fight against CofS. And yet she's done
this. Life is like that, people are like that. People are good and bad,
smart and dumb, all in the same package. There are no perfect critics and
there are no perfect villains.
C
lawt...@hotmail.co.uk
> On Jul 29, 9:47 pm, fr...@skeptictank.org (Fredric L. Rice) wrote:
>
> > No, not if Tommy is going to stand along side of ARSCC or Anonymous
> > people in the future, then it still matters. He can no longer be
> > trusted to remain non-violent, ergo if he shows up at protests he
> > should be avoided and he should be pointed out to cops as a potential
> > problem.
>
> > ---http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5W8ALB0SNU
> > Insane woman verbally assaults 2 little girls
>
> I agree with you completely. Many peope seem to be trying to excuse
> his behavior, when they would excuse such behavior for someone else.
I disagree completely, and I would excuse that behavior
for someone else. Note that I'm talking specifically about
TG's circumstance, not random thuggery.
From TG's perspective: You wouldn't excuse such
behaviour? You'd let your friends be raped?
>
> Mr. Gorman has proved he is unable to play well with others, therefore
> he should not be allowed back on the playground. He has become a
> liability to everyone involved in the protests, and that's just not
> cool.
Sigh. Loads of people are hotheads, they too are
sometimes a liability. Ok, the situation was fucked
up. Now that the air is clearing (about fucking time),
move on. TG is still useful to anonymous. And so
is Tory.
> He has "apologized" but in that apology has tried to excuse what he
> has done, blaming his upbringing, etc.
>
> Well.... He knows better. He knows assault and threats are wrong
But presumably ok from someone threatening
to rape someone else. Ok, that's taking it all
out of context as TG did. But that was his POV.
> since he has repeatedly spoken out about the violence and threats from
> Scientologists. He has no excuse whatsoever for his heinous,
> childish, immature and illegal behavior.
>
> ...and Tory.... She encouraged this. She, too, needs to be held
> accountable for her actions. My opinion of both of them is that they
> are not the type of people I would ever want to interact with,
Strangely enough, it's junkies and dodgy drug
dealers that I don't want to interact with. TG/TM
both seem ok.
Possibly just my upbringing.
> and so
> I will not now or in the future. I don't feel they can be trusted and
> I don't believe they can be mature enough to take responsibility for
> their actions. They need to sort this out and sort it out soon. (I
> don't think they will, though, as they have already made it abundantly
> clear that they feel their actions were justified.)
>
> It just sucks because I had admired both of them for being so open and
> vocal in their fight against Scientology. Now they're just another
> couple of dweebs to avoid.
Oh, ffs, everyone is crap. Now can we get back to
CoS shit? This is just some stupid drama. It's
pointless. And disappointing. Tory is just another
person, like you. She's gone through some shit.
Just let her be.
tl;dr : TG is a hothead, maybe a little thick,
but not a bad man.
Lawtears
obscene dog
wrote:
>As I understand, Megaphone bitch made the "rape" comment online, and
No. No he did not.
>in a way that could have been construed as metaphorical. Then later,
>Tory got an anonymous phone call during a party threatening to kill
>her, which would be impossible to take lightly.
Then why didn't she call the police? Could it be that she knew it
wasn't serious?
I will bet she called WBM to baw about it. WBM was also being trolled
IRL and told her not to worry about it but no, she had to baw about it
until she got a reaction from someone.
Step in Tommy Gorman Tommy Gorman ling Tommy Gorman.
>Tommy Gorman assumed the two events were related and subsequently
Tommy Gorman Tommy Gorman ling Tommy Gorman couldn't add 2 and 2
together. Bawry Magoo told him that MegaphoneBitch made the 'phone
call, which was untrue.
>verbally assaulted Megaphonebitch for 90 minutes at the protest.
If by "verbally assaulted" you mean "bullbaited", you would be
correct. Tommy Gorman Tommy Gorman ling Tommy Gorman even called MPB a
paedophile and threatened to go to his house.
Goddamn OSA neanderthal.
>Have I got that straight?
Have I put you straight?
Piltdown Man
obscene dog <obsce...@xenu.com> wrote...
> On 30 Jul 2008 03:13:35 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
> <pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>
> >
> >Happy Smurf <Miscavige....@gmail.com> wrote...
> >
>><snip>
>>> It's unfortunate that despite the tremendous impact that Anonymous has
>>> had on the Scilons
>>
>>I've been watching "Anonymous" since it arrived on the scene. Unless
>>something dramatic happened in the last month or so (I've been away for
>>a couple of weeks), I can't remember reading anything showing that the
>>nonnies have had any impact on Scientology at all. Beyond forcing them
>>to pay some money to a wog firm to guard their web servers from the
>>initial DoS attack, back in January.
> >
> >What change in Scientology's business as usual has "Anonymous" caused?
>
> Yawn.
>
> Asked and answered previously.
Asked, certainly. Answered, where? Care to provide a URL that points to one
of those previous answers?
It's not even as if I'm asking for actual facts. The whole "Anonymous"
thing has been so ridiculous from the start that even *claims* of fact
would be a great first step. I've yet to see anything coming from someone
purporting to speak on behalf of "Anonymous" that rise to the level of a
claim of fact about their alleged "tremendous impact". You know, something
like: "There were X Scientologists before Anonymous started their protests,
now there are only X minus whatever". "Scientology got X dollars in
donations before Anonymous started their protests, now they only get X
dollars minus whatever".
> If you think that is the only impact, keep deluding yourself.
That's another recurring and entertaining part of the "Anonymous" nonsense.
The vague claims that somehow, somewhere, out of public view, the nonnies
are engaged in terribly important and successful activities against
Scientology -- but of course, those of us who aren't initiated into
"Anonymous" aren't yet ready to be told about it. All will be revealed once
Scientology has collapsed and Miscavige has been put in jail. It'll happen
any day now.
After all, how could a bunch of teenagers who'd never heard of Scientology
until a few months ago possibly not easily destroy an organisation which
has been around for decades, with tens of thousands of dedicated grownup
members and many millions of dollars in the bank? "Piece of cake", as
Lafayette R. Hubbard would say.
Sorry, I may have misplet "cake".
Piltdown Man
Happy Smurf <Miscavige....@gmail.com> wrote...
> On Jul 29, 8:13 pm, "Piltdown Man"
> <piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
<snip>
>> I've been watching "Anonymous" since it arrived on the scene. Unless
>> something dramatic happened in the last month or so (I've been away for
>> a couple of weeks), I can't remember reading anything showing that the
>> nonnies have had any impact on Scientology at all. Beyond forcing them
>> to pay some money to a wog firm to guard their web servers from the
>> initial DoS attack, back in January.
> >
> > What change in Scientology's business as usual has "Anonymous" caused?
>
> The cult's aggressive reaction to Anonymous speaks volumes.
I asked for some substantiation of the claim that the "Anonymous" frolics
have had a "tremendous impact" on Scientology. All I get is yet another
unsubstantiated repeat of the same claim.
Of course Scientology always reacts aggresively to anything they perceive
as an outside threat. It's part of the belief system to act that way, and
laid down in many volumes of Hubbardian scripture.
> If you had observed the picket in Los Angeles on July 12, you would
> have also seen the difference.
The difference to what? And how would observing a little local
demonstration organised by people uninvolved in Scientology provide me with
information about the internal goings-on of Scientology?
Piltdown Man
Summerick <omewhere@downunder> wrote...
<snip>
> Piltdown's just pissed that he knows he'd be attacked for
> being the 'egofag' that he is and would conclude that it'd be
> about the fag bit and totally miss the whole point.
I responded to a claim that the nonnies have had a "tremendous impact" on
Scientology. All I get in return is completely irrelevant, homophobic
name-calling. Good going.
> Just as he's missed the whole point of what Anonymous is about
> anyway.
In my slightly over forty years on this planet, I've seen more than enough
adolescent brats acting out, in real life and online, to have a very good
idea of what the point of "Anonymous" is. And in my slightly over twenty
years of online activity, I've seen more than enough such loosely organised
cliques of adolescent brats come and go, with the added fuel of the online
fantasy of "anonymity". ("Adolescent" isn't a chronological term here, many
adults clearly never grow out of it.)
> And why they've been so effective, which he refuses to see.
So show me how "they" have been effective.
(Hint: I don't fall for that old internet standby, proof by endlessly
repeated assertion.)
JT
news:01c8f2bc$09781fe0$LocalHost@gateway...
> It's not even as if I'm asking for actual facts. The whole "Anonymous"
> thing has been so ridiculous from the start that even *claims* of fact
> would be a great first step. I've yet to see anything coming from someone
> purporting to speak on behalf of "Anonymous" that rise to the level of a
> claim of fact about their alleged "tremendous impact". You know, something
> like: "There were X Scientologists before Anonymous started their
> protests,
> now there are only X minus whatever". "Scientology got X dollars in
> donations before Anonymous started their protests, now they only get X
> dollars minus whatever".
I would not be able to pin-point the exact post but I think there has been
some statistics posted about book (not) selling...
jerald
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> Happy Smurf <Miscavige.Sucks.D...@gmail.com> wrote...
I'm not happy with the stuff going on right now with Anonymous but I
do think they have made a difference. For me it's not the pickets
where they have made it. And I never approve of any group breaking
the laws by messing with websites. We have to hold ourselves to the
higher standered when it comes to fighting scientology. I think
where Anonymous has made the biggest difference is online. We may
never see it but millions of young people have read about this and now
know about the danger of scientology. Those are kids I don't think we
could have reached You may not see the impact but I think it's
there.
jerald
Happy Smurf
Piltman, I'm sure you've heard of the White Rose during the Nazi
period in Germany. The White Rose, was formed by students at the
University of Munich in 1941. The group decided to adopt the strategy
of passive resistance that was being used by students fighting against
racial discrimination in the United States. This included publishing
leaflets calling for the restoration of democracy and social justice.
These were distributed throughout central Germany and the Gestapo soon
became aware of the group's activities. The leaflets were at first
sent anonymously to people all over Germany. Taking the addresses from
telephone directories, they tended to concentrate on mailing
university lecturers and the owners of bars.Members also began leaving
piles of leaflets in public places. On 18th February, Hans Scholl and
Sophie Scholl began distributing the sixth leaflet produced by the
White Rose group. Jakob Schmidt, a member of the Nazi Party, saw them
at the University of Munich, throwing leaflets from a window of the
third floor into the courtyard below. He immediately told the Gestapo
and they were both arrested and later executed.
The point being: their efforts did not cause the fall of Nazism, but
at least they had to courage to stand up to an evil institution,
whereby, many put on their horse-blinders and did nothing so not to
piss off the Nazis. It's abundantly clear from the amount of money
that the Scilons had to dish out in P.I. fees to track down, identify
& follow Anonymous members around in their cars, and to pay attorneys
large sums of money to have C&D letters personally served on those
that have protested. I would say it is having some impact on OSA.
obscene dog
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>> >What change in Scientology's business as usual has "Anonymous" caused?
>>
>> Yawn.
>>
>> Asked and answered previously.
>
>Asked, certainly. Answered, where? Care to provide a URL that points to one
>of those previous answers?
My, what a conveniently short memory you have.
here you go.
or
Piltdown Man
JT <Barry...@invalid.invalid> wrote...
If that had actually happened, it would have been major news, since it
would mean someone with access to CoS book sales numbers was leaking
information. I doubt I'd missed it.
It would also be completely irrelevant to the matter under debate. That
Scientology is in decline, or at the very least isn't growing, is something
that has been apparent for years, and there are plenty of sensible reasons
why that is so. What we're talking about is the grandiose claims about the
activities of the "Anonymous" kiddies since January 2008 having had any
impact on that.
Let me give a personal example. I can, truthfully, and with statistics
compiled on behalf of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium
by qualified academics to back me up, state that ever since I started
saying that I think Roman Catholicism is a bunch of crap, and that the
world would be better off without that bizarre and dangerous organisation,
attendance at Roman Catholic churches in Belgium has been in steady
decline, to the point that at the last publication of their own numbers, a
few months ago, 93% of people in Belgium don't attend church. But I cannot
claim that this decline is due to what I've been saying all those years.
Piltdown Man
jerald <jerald...@hotmail.com> wrote...
On Jul 29, 11:13 pm, "Piltdown Man"
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>> I've been watching "Anonymous" since it arrived on the scene. Unless
>> something dramatic happened in the last month or so (I've been away for
>> a couple of weeks), I can't remember reading anything showing that the
>> nonnies have had any impact on Scientology at all. Beyond forcing them
>> to pay some money to a wog firm to guard their web servers from the
>> initial DoS attack, back in January.
>>
>> What change in Scientology's business as usual has "Anonymous" caused?
>
> I'm not happy with the stuff going on right now with Anonymous but I
> do think they have made a difference. For me it's not the pickets
> where they have made it. And I never approve of any group breaking
> the laws by messing with websites. We have to hold ourselves to the
> higher standered when it comes to fighting scientology. I think
> where Anonymous has made the biggest difference is online. We may
> never see it but millions of young people have read about this and
> now know about the danger of scientology.
So you genuinely think there are millions of young people around who would
otherwise have joined Scientology, if it hadn't been for the activities of
"Anonymous", starting last January? (That's if one counts from the initial
DDS attack, otherwise it's last February, when the first masked nonnies
appeared).
Why, if those alleged young people are so vulnerable to being recruited
into Scientology, weren't they joining Scientology in their millions in
2007? Or in 2006, or 2005, or 2004, or 2003 ..., all the way back to when
Lafayette R. Hubbard first came up with Dianetics? Throughout the nearly
sixty years Dianetics/Scientology has existed, young people have shown a
remarkable ability to not join Hubbard's crazy little cult, without needing
any assistance from the masked teenagers suddenly appearing in February
2008. There's no indication he ever managed to acquire more than a couple
of tens of thousands of followers at any one time, and lots of indications
most of the followers he did manage to acquire left after a very brief
stint.
But of course, that's all ancient history. We're in the "Anonymous" era
now, and nothing that happened pre-2008 matters to anyone anymore. So there
are *millions* of young people around who would have joined Scientology if
it hadn't been for "Anonymous". Anyone who doesn't accept that claim as an
article of faith is either a "bitter old queen", or in need of psychiatric
treatment.
> Those are kids I don't think we could have reached. You may not see
> the impact but I think it's there.
I also don't see Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, but please feel free to
remain convinced that they're there. I have these strange eyes that insist
on only seeing things that exist for real.
jerald
wrote:
> jerald <jerald-ja...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you missed my point. First million's is your number not
mine. And if anon can keep one from joining its a good thing. Sure
most are not going to join scienology. But at the same time most
wouldn't know about the evil of scientology. Anonymous has done a
great job there. We just can't measure it.
jerald
Obscene Dog
> jerald <jerald...@hotmail.com> wrote... On Jul 29, 11:13 pm,
> "Piltdown Man"
> <piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote: <snip>
>>> I've been watching "Anonymous" since it arrived on the scene. Unless
>>> something dramatic happened in the last month or so (I've been away
>>> for a couple of weeks), I can't remember reading anything showing that
>>> the nonnies have had any impact on Scientology at all. Beyond forcing
>>> them to pay some money to a wog firm to guard their web servers from
>>> the initial DoS attack, back in January.
>>>
>>> What change in Scientology's business as usual has "Anonymous" caused?
>>
>> I'm not happy with the stuff going on right now with Anonymous but I do
>> think they have made a difference. For me it's not the pickets where
>> they have made it. And I never approve of any group breaking the laws
>> by messing with websites. We have to hold ourselves to the higher
>> standered when it comes to fighting scientology. I think where
>> Anonymous has made the biggest difference is online. We may never see
>> it but millions of young people have read about this and now know about
>> the danger of scientology.
>
> So you genuinely think there are millions of young people around who
> would otherwise have joined Scientology,
> So there are *millions* of young people around who would have joined
> Scientology if it hadn't been for "Anonymous".
He said Anonymous's message has reached millions, you fucking lackwit.
Piltdown Man
jerald <jerald...@hotmail.com> wrote...
<snip>
> I think you missed my point. First million's is your number not
> mine.
You stated, in the Usenet message I responded to, which had the ID
<1f306ca9-fd20-4e67...@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> (just in
case you have a very crappy news reader which doesn't allow you to see the
IDs of the messages you yourself post): "We may never see it but millions
of young people have read about this and now know about the danger of
scientology." That's where the "millions" came from: your own post. You do
know about this Usenet thing called "quoting", don't you? Unlike you, I
never expressed any delusions about millions of young people potentially
being interested in Scientology, or of these millions needing to be told
about the "danger of Scientology".
> And if anon can keep one from joining its a good thing. Sure
> most are not going to join scienology. But at the same time most
> wouldn't know about the evil of scientology. Anonymous has done a
> great job there. We just can't measure it.
For the rest of time, everyone must remain grateful to "Anonymous" for
doing a great job. Of course, we can't explain just what that great job
was. We definitely can't measure it, on any metric of greatjobness we can
think of. But oh, was it ever a Great Job!
Piltdown Man
Happy Smurf <Miscavige....@gmail.com> wrote...
<snip>
> Piltman, I'm sure you've heard of the White Rose during the Nazi
> period in Germany.
Sometimes, I almost can't believe this kind of thing is really being
posted. Here's someone actually trying to equate the activities of the
"Anonymous" kiddies, IOW teenagers prancing around in silly costumes in
front of buildings owned by the silly little cult of Scientology, in the
full knowledge that they're protected by the full force of democratic law,
and that if they get in some kind of legal trouble mom or dad will pick up
the bill anyway, with the activities of a German resistance group against
the Nazi regime, which led to the people involved being executed.
Smurf
wrote:
> Happy Smurf <Miscavige.Sucks.D...@gmail.com> wrote...
Irregardless how they are picketing, they are doing so in recognition
of their civil rights to do so, and its pissing the cult off big time.
You can question & debate this till you're blue in the face, but the
kids in Anonymous are kicking some serious Scifag butt.