Jesus - what is happening at Enturbulation.org?
Jonnie Tyler
Lafayette at The Beacon
wrote:
> http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulati...
Oh noes! Catechism!
In any group there will always be frictions and upset. Even CoS, and
they have KSW to guide them. It seems most of the protesters can't be
bothered with the spat, and recognise that it detracts from the srs
bsns. Don't worry too much about it Jonnie.
--
Your humble servant,
Lafayette
http://myurlisname.blogspot.com
"The e-meter? It lies!"
k
Some anons who thought TD was /b/ baaaaaaaawwwwww'd
Instead of banning OSA/trolls they installed a vb hack that makes the user
misserable. (timeouts)
problem was they got some non osa/trolls on the list, some people bawwwww'd
again
They then whined that this was were stabbed in the back by the admins/mods
they had donated to
TL;DR: admins mess up, anon baaaaaawwww's nothing actually happened. We
stayed on target.
"Jonnie Tyler" <Barry...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:iH58k.184690$ea6.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
> http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulation-19717/2/
Android Cat
> http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulation-19717/2/
And *this* is why we have distributed messaging systems like Usenet that no
one controls...
(If only people would stop using limited, busted, POS interfaces like
GoogleGroups with no filter capability.)
--
Ron of that ilk.
Thirsty Thetan
I tried the killfile for a while, but found that although it did cut down on
the noise, I missed out on some damn fine entertainment from the likes of
Tom Newton, et al.
I realize many people find Tom and other trolls annoying, but to me they
nicely demonstrate the level of insanity/stupidity of the cult and its
defensive tactics and mindset.
Besides, with my newsreader, I can highlight specific posters with color,
making it easy to ignore the circlejerk without making their posts
disappear completely.
I have to admit, also, that I sometimes switch between GG and my reader, as
it allows me to quickly pop between the nice tabular format of GG for the
topic list, and then to KNode for the threaded view.
TT
Jonnie Tyler
news:g3qtud$aih$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Android Cat wrote:
> Besides, with my newsreader, I can highlight specific posters with color,
> making it easy to ignore the circlejerk without making their posts
> disappear completely.
Eh - that's exactly what I do. Are you using Outlook or Vista Mail? Or maybe
THunderbird?
> I have to admit, also, that I sometimes switch between GG and my reader,
> as
> it allows me to quickly pop between the nice tabular format of GG for the
> topic list, and then to KNode for the threaded view.
GG? KNode? Waz that?
A great way to view the topic only is to RSS them. Really that is all that
interest me and discussions are more for fun or deepening my understanding
of things, something optional.
Since I have this great feature RSS feature (thanks Google), I do not need
to read all of the forum through Vista Mail anymore just to catch up the
topic and can concentrate on my colored posters instead, plus can read the
other ones too depending on the topic since they are visible but just in a
different color (at present I have 8 different colors which may seem as many
but it all makes sense to me :-)
Hartley Patterson
> http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulation-19717/2/
What happens at every discussion board and forum on the Internet - people
disagree about the Rules.
This is one problem ARS does not have, as we have no Rules only
Conventions.
--
alt.religion.scientology FAQ
Please read before posting
http://mysite.orange.co.uk/newsfrombree/faq.htm
Thirsty Thetan
> "Thirsty Thetan" <bmac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:g3qtud$aih$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Android Cat wrote:
>
>> Besides, with my newsreader, I can highlight specific posters with color,
>> making it easy to ignore the circlejerk without making their posts
>> disappear completely.
>
> Eh - that's exactly what I do. Are you using Outlook or Vista Mail? Or
> maybe THunderbird?
KNode--requires the KDE desktop. Better than TBird IMO. Tried Outlook and
Outlook Express on my XP VM, but they were too slow to download and display
stuff.
>
>> I have to admit, also, that I sometimes switch between GG and my reader,
>> as
>> it allows me to quickly pop between the nice tabular format of GG for the
>> topic list, and then to KNode for the threaded view.
>
> GG? KNode? Waz that?
GG=Google Groups
Knode=Newsreader with KDE Linux that doesn't suck; not to be confused with
KNews, another newsreader with KDE, that sucks with huge lips.
>
> A great way to view the topic only is to RSS them. Really that is all that
> interest me and discussions are more for fun or deepening my understanding
> of things, something optional.
>
> Since I have this great feature RSS feature (thanks Google), I do not need
> to read all of the forum through Vista Mail anymore just to catch up the
> topic and can concentrate on my colored posters instead, plus can read the
> other ones too depending on the topic since they are visible but just in a
> different color (at present I have 8 different colors which may seem as
> many but it all makes sense to me :-)
I'll have to try the RSS feed. Google groups is a real pain.
TT
chuckbeatty77 @aol.com
> Admins wanted to close TD (which has no place there in the first place imho)
> Some anons who thought TD was /b/ baaaaaaaawwwwww'd
>
> Instead of banning OSA/trolls they installed a vb hack that makes the user
> misserable. (timeouts)
> problem was they got some non osa/trolls on the list, some people bawwwww'd
> again
> They then whined that this was were stabbed in the back by the admins/mods
> they had donated to
>
> TL;DR: admins mess up, anon baaaaaawwww's nothing actually happened. We
> stayed on target.
>
>
> news:iH58k.184690$ea6.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> >http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulati...
Thanks, makes sense!
phil scott
wrote:
> http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulati...
no telling... could be just humans being human or as in some past
cases, the cult paying folks off to shut up, go south or whatever...
they stopped a good sized class action in the mid 80's pay paying off
the principle litigant... a little under a million dollars I think it
turned out to be.
Enturb if it goes will simply be replaced by a wide range of other
options... and of course as always there is USENET etc... and the
existing local forums anons mention to me at the protests.
govt and other vested interests will attempt to put the quash on open
discussion aside from this... too late though most likely... business
and commerce depends on an open internet these days... info will leak
though in one form or another.
Phil scott
The Badger
wrote:
> http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulati...
Airing dirty laundry because the smell was starting to get annoying,
and passing the time on slow news days.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Jonnie Tyler
news:iH58k.184690$ea6.1...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
> http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulation-19717/2/
OK - I scanned through the 37 pages of it (not read everything for God sake
just scanned and read as appropriate) so now I have a pretty good idea of
what it was all about. I am happy to say the issue found a happy resolution,
well, almost but anyway it was resolved to the satisfaction of most
participants.
As a service to the community I am going to post three links from that
monstrous thread that summarize the issue so you don't have to read the 739
posts (!) of that thread if you don't want to).
(Parenthesis - it was quite fun to read/scan a full thread on
enturbulation.org and I have a better understanding of why people like to
post on a web media (you have your own ID pic, you can post pics and videos
and big HTML letters, and you can see all the posts in one go without having
to open them message by message... Nevertheless am not a convert yet)
(Second parenthesis - of course I got a better idea on the mentality of
anonymous as well. Interesting in many ways but I will not bore you with my
thoughts about it.)
POST NBR 1 - summarizing the claims (add to that list the claim of stealth
editing (editing of posts by mods without the knowledge and consent of the
poster)):
http://forums.enturbulation.org/371429-post121/
POST NBR 2 - more on the SP list or miserable users hack (please note that
this is a description of the hack, not necessarily what was implemented on
Enturb.)
http://forums.enturbulation.org/371345-post80/
POST NBR 3 - Finally everything (almost) came back to order. TD was
restored. The SP list (miserable users hack) canceled. the responsible mods
demoted, and a script was added to note when and if a post is being edited
by someone else. The following post summarize the end situation, points to
the resolution and to the remaining problems to address.
http://forums.enturbulation.org/372084-post411/
Howard
<falls to knees and cries Amen>
Howard
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
henri
<Barry...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulation-19717/2/
[WARNING: MAY CONTAIN BULLSHIT. I AM TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING I'M NOT
REMOTELY AN EXPERT ON. IF WRONG, CUT ME SOME SLACK. THIS SHIT IS
COMPLICATED.]
There's a culture clash between various elements of the recent
anti-Scietnology activists. There's "Anonymous," which largely
emerged from the chans. They come from an anarchistic perspective
which rejects hierarchy and leadership. They reflect, to some degree,
the kind of fora from which many of them emerged, i.e. basically no
moderation, anything goes, judging ideas on their merits and with no
regard for their origin, hostility toward self-importance, and more
than a fair amount of random viciousness. These are the people who
took down pedophile Chris Forcand. However, they've also hounded
retarded or otherwise weird people off YouTube for no particular
reason. They range from the scum of the net to some pretty fine
people. In fact, the very same people may be responsible for scummy
as well as noble actions depending on their mood that day. A lot of
these people are the people who did the original DDoS against
Scientology, who have shown up at protests, who have done other
prankish activity against Scientology, and presumably, at least some
of the alleged death threats, bomb threats, whatever, came from this
general class of people. I wouldn't say all of it by any means. I
think Scientology manufactured a lot of that stuff, gets a lot of
flack and prank calls in general, with or without Anonymous, and some
of it was just random due to the attention Anonymous was getting.
That, however, is kind of part of Anonymous anyway. It's whoever
jumps in. And when I say Anonymous does this or that, I mean that
it's entirely possible people from other factions are also Anonymous.
It's entirely possible OG (that's Old Guard or "us") are also
Anonymous at this point.
This is grossly oversimplified itself. There are parts of Anonymous
who view the Scientology raids themselves as a complete violation of
the very idea of Anonymous, or who despise the moralfags and their
principles, ideas about abiding by the law in protests, reject the
idea of protests itself, and particularly loathe the influx of people
who specifically showed up and started calling themselves Anonymous
solely because of the raids themselves. These would be the sort who
would deliberately do things like raiding epilepsy forums with
flashing graphics just to fuck with the moralfags. Anonymous merely
being the class of people who call themselves that, it's pretty
amorphous, but in this case, when I'm referring to Anonymous, I mean
specifically the subset of non-OG Scientology protesters or attackers
who came either from the chans or from the same general subculture of
net pranksters, trolls, media creators, etc. This group creates a lot
of memes and media, from things with nearly universal popularity (and
loathing) like lolcats, which go mainstream, and end up repeated even
by people who have no idea where they came from or why they are being
repeated, to rank shock media so vile that goatse is a Hallmark
greeting card by comparison.
I'd say one general principle you see repeated throughout this class
of people is that there are no rules whatsoever. Expression should be
ABSOLUTELY free, in every sense of the word. The purest form of this
would not recognize any kind of rule of law over expression.
Another major class of new protesters would include people from the
SomethingAwful forums. I wouldn't say this is all of that class, but
it's exemplary. The SA fora charge $10 for an account, they are
moderated to hell and back, and the moderators are accused of being
fascists. Rich "Lowtax" Kyanka runs the site. People are generally
recognized by name, are proud of that, and there's a pecking order of
participants.
Memes and media come out of SomethingAwful as well, and there's a lot
of crossover between these groups. They've shared the same enemies in
the past. For example, the raids on the loathesome ebaumsworld.com
were partly Anonymous and partly SomethingAwful (among lots of other
people either ripped off by or otherwise pissed at ebaum or simply
along for teh lulz).
Now, the mods on enturbulation.org are often either from the SA forums
class or in general, people of similar temperament. The fora are
pretty aggressively moderated and with a lot of the same "flair"
generally associated with SA fora. Take fora moderated in this way,
fill them up with channers and Anons, and the resultant civil war is
almost predictable, at least in retrospect. You have two different
views of forum behavior, and one class of people is effectively the
ruling class of this forum, while the other is increasingly irritated
at being treated like foot soldiers and peons, and one of their many
slogans is Not Your Personal Army.
Then there's yet another twist. The first Anonymous video message to
Scientology and the first three themes for the protests were cooked up
in a collective that has come to be known as Marblecake, because of
one of the names for irc channels they used. Opinions on this group
vary widely. Some consider them a sinister, secretive cabal bent on
controlling Anonymous. Others, including participants, portray them
as simply a creative collective who brainstormed and came up with good
ideas, which were then adopted at large on their own merits because
they were good ideas. Critics of the Marblecake group, on the other
hand, accuse MC of astroturfing and using sock puppets to manufacture
support for their ideas, "leadarfagging," and otherwise being bad in a
variety of ways.
I won't go into the full repertoire of arguments, but this thread
gives a good rundown before degenerating into pure drama:
http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/what-dicks-marblecake-what-do-they-do-19749/
I consider the posts of Consensus on this thread to be the most
useful. (Note: I'd probably be considered a Marblecake sympathizer,
despise at least one of MC's main critics, am generally impressed with
the couple known MC individuals I've encountered, but am not directly
involved in any of this. My analysis is not completely neutral,
though.)
It's telling about where the fault line is in this current internecine
conflict that Marblecake has been effectively accused of being the
means by which the enturbmods try to control Anonymous, despite the
fact that they're almost entirely distinct groups. There is very
little crossover between participants in the group of enturbmods and
MC participants, and most of those have quit one group or the other.
In fact, it seems there's been a fair amount of conflict between MC
and the enturbmods (I won't go into it).
To be fair, there does appear to have been at least some minor amount
of astroturfing by MC, and at least some of the participants in MC had
allowed their success to go to their heads, but the lightning rod for
the critics was someone called darr, who has since departed. A
semi-factual and only moderately defamatory ED page:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Darr (I won't explain ED any more
except to say that it's a wiki which exists to house whatever libel,
lies, parodies, clowning, trolling, random garbage, and despicable
shit the people who do it feel like putting there, and being a wiki,
that's anyone who hasn't actually been banned.) That ED page is cited
not for being purely factual but simply for reflecting the attitudes
of the people who created it.
Effectively, darr became the major target of attack. An MC defector,
WB, outed her by calling up Flag to let them know who she was and this
effectively ended her participation in MC and in Chanology in general.
This particular incident is what a lot of the MC threads are about, as
it's viewed by some as treason. (I can't say I view it as anything
other than completely shitty behavior myself.)
Now, into this backdrop, let's talk about Thunderdome. Thunderdome, I
would say, is like the /b/ of enturbulation. What's /b/ ? Fucked if
I know. I doubt anyone else could really define it. It's a board on
the chans (there's often a /b/ on any given chan) meant for anything
and everything.
What's a chan? A chan is a kind of imageboard based on the original
Japanese version, 2chan. Basically, it's somewhat like Usenet on a
server. That's a gross oversimplification, because there are obvious
differences. One is that a lot of the content is pictures. Threads
have a lot more posts than you see on Usenet, and pop up to the top
when a new post is made to them (unless you deliberately stop this
with SAGE which is a way of responding to a thread while expressing
contempt for it). Threads also vanish into the ether eventually, just
like on a Usenet server, but unlike Usenet, there are no permanent
repositories, at least no official ones.
The original American one is 4chan, and the original /b/ is there as
well. http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html (warning Not Safe for
Human Consumption). It's rough and tumble. It's wild and woolly, and
I have no idea why these sites aren't raided by the police on a daily
basis.
Anyway, the Thunderdome is the equivalent of this on Enturbulation.
It's more moderated, but it's effectively an anything goes forum.
Against this backdrop of social tension, a few of the enturbmods, with
little debate, decided to remove Thunderdome for a variety of reasons.
Maybe they just viewed it as the cancer that is killing Enturbulation.
Maybe they're right. Maybe they view the kind of content it attracts
as bad for the image of Enturbulation, which has tried to present a
more respectable face to the public and attract a broad cross-section
of Scientology critics and protesters, while minimizing the bad PR
aspects of other participants like Anonymous, but (and this is a big
but) while being entirely willing to use the work of people like
Anonymous and wanting them along for the ride.
Think of, for instance, the Democratic or Republican Party wanting the
support of often more radical party activists but at the same time,
not wanting to be seen in public with them. Enturbulation has tried
to become the respectable face of anti-Scientology activism, and many
of the original Anonymous types are not happy with what they see as
having had their work appropriated, having been manipulated by a
secretive, shadowy cabal trying to control everything, and having the
largest forum of activism controlled and moderated by an elite from an
entirely different social group.
Throw in deleting Thunderdome with little public discussion and by a
half dozen mods effectively acting alone, and all this tinder lying
around waiting to be set off has burst into a roaring bonfire.
This post grossly oversimplifies events, reflects my own prejudices,
is probably wrong in a number of important respects, and should
otherwise be taken with a handful of salt. I'm posting it solely
because nobody else here has shown any signs of wanting to post a
comprehensible explanation.
henri
<Barry...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>POST NBR 3 - Finally everything (almost) came back to order. TD was
>restored. The SP list (miserable users hack) canceled. the responsible mods
>demoted, and a script was added to note when and if a post is being edited
>by someone else. The following post summarize the end situation, points to
>the resolution and to the remaining problems to address.
>http://forums.enturbulation.org/372084-post411/
They put back TD literally within hours of deleting it, but it didn't
stop the drama, IMO because the drama isn't really about TD.
xenu...@gmail.com
John
"Thirsty Thetan" <bmac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g3qtud$aih$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>> Jonnie Tyler wrote:
>>>
> http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulation-19717/2/
>>
>> And *this* is why we have distributed messaging systems like Usenet that
>> no one controls...
>>
>> (If only people would stop using limited, busted, POS interfaces like
>> GoogleGroups with no filter capability.)
>>
>
> I tried the killfile for a while, but found that although it did cut down
> on
> the noise, I missed out on some damn fine entertainment from the likes of
> Tom Newton, et al.
>
> I realize many people find Tom and other trolls annoying, but to me they
> nicely demonstrate the level of insanity/stupidity of the cult and its
> defensive tactics and mindset.
I don't. Because TN *isn't a member of the CoS*. He's a troll. He's not
displaying a cultic mindset, he's displaying a troll mindset.
Jonnie Tyler
news:8qo26497kq2e1jki9...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:23:27 +0800, "Jonnie Tyler"
> <Barry...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulation-19717/2/
>
> [WARNING: MAY CONTAIN BULLSHIT. I AM TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING I'M NOT
> REMOTELY AN EXPERT ON. IF WRONG, CUT ME SOME SLACK. THIS SHIT IS
> COMPLICATED.]
>
> There's a culture clash between various elements of the recent
> anti-Scietnology activists. There's "Anonymous," which largely
> emerged from the chans.
True though I was surprised reading the thread how they want to
differenciate themselves from channers, that though this is the origin there
are so many of them now that are not channers. Reading further down, though,
I see that this is the point you are also making. Nevertheless the chan
culture still goes strong throughout the thread.
<Large snips from a large but interesting though sometimes abstruse
explanation>
> I'd say one general principle you see repeated throughout this class
> of people is that there are no rules whatsoever. Expression should be
> ABSOLUTELY free, in every sense of the word. The purest form of this
> would not recognize any kind of rule of law over expression.
Reading the thread it seems pretty clear that all the posters in enturb
agree that there should be moderation. Their arguments is not that it should
be completely free (apart maybe for the Dome, sort of), rather that the
moderation should be transparent or at least that a consensus be reached
before taking action for major decision like removing a whole section of the
site - and of course that shit like the SP list or Stealth edit should never
happen.
<more snipedisnips>
> Then there's yet another twist. The first Anonymous video message to
> Scientology and the first three themes for the protests were cooked up
> in a collective that has come to be known as Marblecake, because of
> one of the names for irc channels they used. Opinions on this group
> vary widely. Some consider them a sinister, secretive cabal bent on
> controlling Anonymous. Others, including participants, portray them
> as simply a creative collective who brainstormed and came up with good
> ideas, which were then adopted at large on their own merits because
> they were good ideas. Critics of the Marblecake group, on the other
> hand, accuse MC of astroturfing and using sock puppets to manufacture
> support for their ideas, "leadarfagging," and otherwise being bad in a
> variety of ways.
An important contention was that MC turned the group into invitation only,
this of course going hand in hand with the contention that they became
elitist and tried to become de facto leaders of a leaderless group:
http://forums.enturbulation.org/371514-post169/
"Marblecake was a channel on partyvan that, at the start, was just a place
where some protest organizers got together and coordinate, help each other
out with funds and getting permits and shit. As I understood, at that point,
it was open to anyone. One day, however, I tried to join and found it was +i
(invitation only). I SAjoined myself in there and, immediately, a couple of
people freaked out and started spamming "WHO THE FUCK IS CORE??" After it
was cleared up that it was a legit person, it was explained that they had to
be very careful about who joined the channel. I took all this with a pinch
of salt, but I was increasingly disturbed by how shit escalated in the
channel. Key quotes like "Chanology would fall apart without us" and "Your
normal Anon is an idiot" from darr and co. were quite worrying. Eventually,
WB and dr3k tore it all apart and they fled to ED IRC. Last I heard, darr
had quit Chanology and Marblecake was over. There's no "cabal" anymore,
unless I'm horribly mistaken."
All in all, that was a major shitstorm and had core not allowed free
expression through an uncensored thread, I am pretty sure enturb as a forum
would have died, with droves of people leaving the site.
Jonnie Tyler
Yes - it was more about mods taken things in their own hands to an
unacceptable degree and doing things on the back of posters without their
knowledge and consent., plus posting posters pm and making fun of them. It
is clear TD was only restored temporarily pending further discussions. LE,
the owner of the site, has come heavily under fire. Apparently he was the
source of another shirstorm regarding donations (about which I haven't read
anything and not going to) so there's loss of trust running around. As of
yet, he has not made an appearance to give his 2c (or more) on the TD issue.
Jonnie Tyler
> All in all, that was a major shitstorm and had core not allowed free
> expression through an uncensored thread, I am pretty sure enturb as a
> forum would have died, with droves of people leaving the site.
("That" referring to the TD thread of course not the Marblecake one.)
t_shuffle
"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:8qo26497kq2e1jki9...@4ax.com
I'd say that's a pretty accurate account.
TL;DR:
This is why we can't have nice things.
AnonymousNasty
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:23:27 +0800, "Jonnie Tyler"
>
> >http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulati...
> I consider the posts of Consensus on this thread to be the most
> useful. (Note: I'd probably be considered a Marblecake sympathizer,
> despise at least one of MC's main critics, am generally impressed with
> the couple known MC individuals I've encountered, but am not directly
> involved in any of this. My analysis is not completely neutral,
> though.)
>
> It's telling about where the fault line is in this current internecine
> conflict that Marblecake has been effectively accused of being the
> means by which the enturbmods try to control Anonymous, despite the
> fact that they're almost entirely distinct groups. There is very
> little crossover between participants in the group of enturbmods and
> MC participants, and most of those have quit one group or the other.
> In fact, it seems there's been a fair amount of conflict between MC
> and the enturbmods (I won't go into it).
>
> To be fair, there does appear to have been at least some minor amount
> of astroturfing by MC, and at least some of the participants in MC had
> allowed their success to go to their heads, but the lightning rod for
> the critics was someone called darr, who has since departed. A
You wrote a fuckin thesis here guy, but thanks something to read in
the bathroom............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.whyweprotest.net/
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
http://www.goanonymous.org/
http://www.youfoundthecard.com/
http://www.taxexemptchildabuse.net/
http://www.exscientologykids.com/
http://www.xenu.net/
http://www.enturbulation.org/
http://www.factnet.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive your crimes.
We do not forget your victims.
Expect Us Forever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparing Scientology to a motorcycle gang is a gross, unpardonable
insult to bikers everywhere. Even at our worst, we are never as bad as
Scientology."
-ex-member, Thunderclouds motorcycle "club"
$cientology Kill$ and $o doe$ Dianetic$
realpch
Well, thanks. Really saves time. Which I then wasted over on ED.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
realpch
Well, thanks. Really saves time. Which I then wasted over on ED.
dharm...@gmail.com
>
> And *this* is why we have distributed messaging systems like Usenet that no
> one controls...
>
> (If only people would stop using limited, busted, POS interfaces like
> GoogleGroups with no filter capability.)
>
> --
> Ron of that ilk.
I use google groups, and I have a filter that works fine. The problem
is that everyone expects that they get a free service and that the
service should do everything for them, without them having to lift a
finger. Fucking lazy, if you ask me.
My killfile works very well. Then again, I'm also able to do a simple
google search for "Google Groups KillFile", so perhaps for those who
find it difficult to use google it might seem like there isn't a
killfile available. *shrug*
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata, DTS, OD
"Jonnie Tyler" <Barry...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
Nothing really worth being concerned about unless you just want to make
noise and be the center of someone's attention span.
When will "Jonnie" post something other than a url or a troll statement?
--
SP Goodman
The Usually Right "Reverend" Norle Enturbulata DDT, DTS
*
http://www.flickr.com/photos/enturbulata
http://www.youtube.com/user/Enturbulata
http://tinyurl.com/yre7c6
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.scientology-lies.com
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
http://www.scientology-kills.org
*
* " 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
*
* "Rather than give psychotics such treatment it would be far kinder to kill
them immediately and completely..."
* - L. Ron Hubbard, "Science of Survival", p117
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
wrote:
> http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulati...
This is what is happenning, and by the same folks that bring it to
ARS:
Wild Accusation and Black Magic
Wild accusation and black magic, like all the other taming tools of
Totalitaria, are nothing new, but in primitive civilizations and in
prehistoric times the craft of black magic was rather simple. The
shaman had merely to destroy or mutiliate a small statuette of the
accused criminal, to point or thrust a special stick at the man
himself, or to curse and berate him with furious words and gestures in
order to bring his victim to collapse and death. In his blind
acceptance of the magic ritual, the victim was possessed by fear, and
often he gave himself up to the spell and just died (Malinowski).
This magic slaying of the foe has plural psychological implications.
The victim of the magic spell was often looked upon as the
representative of the tribal god, the internalized authority and
father. He must be killed because his very existence aroused guilt and
remorse among his people. His death may silence the inner voices in
every man which warn against impending downfall. Sometimes the victim
comes from a different tribe than that of his accusers. In this
situation, the stranger is an easier scapegoat, and punishing him
serves to still the clash of ambivalent feelings in the members of the
killing tribe. Hate for an outsider checks and deflects the hate and
aggression each man feels toward his own group and toward himself. The
more fear there is in a society, the more guilt each individual member
of the society feels, the more need there is for internal scapegoats
and external enemies. INTERNAL CONFUSION LOOKS FOR DISCHARGE IN
OUTSIDE WARS.
In Totalitaria, the air is full of gossip, calumny, and rumor. Any
accusation, even if it is false, has a greater influence on the
citizenry than subsequent vindication. Bills of particulars, made out
of whole cloth are manufactured against innocents, especially against
former leaders, who have been able to develop some personal esteem and
loyalty among their friends and followers. Trumped-up charges made
against us always revive unconscious feelings of guilt and induce us
to tremble.
In our analysis of the psychological forces that lead prisoners of war
and other political victims to confession and betrayal, we saw how
strongly the sense of hidden guilt and doubt in each man impels him
under strain to surrender to the demands and ideologies of the enemy.
This same mechanism is at work constantly among the citizens of
Totalitaria. Accusations against others remind him of his own inner
rebellions and hostilities, which he does not dare to bring out into
the open, and so the accused, even when he is innocent, becomes the
scapegoat for his private sense of guilt. Cowardice makes the other
citizens of our mythical country turn away from the victim lest they
be accused themselves.
The very fact that character assassination is possible reveals the
frailty and sensitivity of human sympathy and empathy. Even in free,
democratic societies, political campaigns are often conducted in an
atmosphere of extravagant accusation and even wilder counter
accusation. The moment the strategy of wild accusation, with all its
disagreeable noises of vituperation and calumny, begins, we forget the
strategic intention behind the words and find ourselves influenced by
the shouting and name calling. "Maybe," we say to ourselves, "there is
something in this story." This, of course, is just what the slanderer
wants. In the minds of the politicians the illusion still persists
that the end justifies the means. But campaigns of slander produce
paradoxical results because the very fact that an unfounded accusation
has been made weakens the moral sense of both listener and accuser.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/mc-ch7.html
THE RAPE OF THE MIND: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide,
and Brainwashing, by Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D., Instructor in
Psychiatry, Columbia University Lecturer in Social Psychology, New
School for Social Research, Former Chief, Psychological Department,
Netherlands Forces, published in 1956, World Publishing Company. (Out
of Print)
Tom Newton
henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:23:27 +0800, "Jonnie Tyler"
><Barry...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/dear-enturbulation-19717/2/
>
> [WARNING: MAY CONTAIN BULLSHIT. I AM TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING I'M NOT
> REMOTELY AN EXPERT ON. IF WRONG, CUT ME SOME SLACK. THIS SHIT IS
> COMPLICATED.]
>
> There's a culture clash between various elements of the recent
> anti-Scietnology activists. There's "Anonymous," which largely
> emerged from the chans. They come from an anarchistic perspective
> which rejects hierarchy and leadership.
They pretend to reject leadership, but without the leadership of
the so-called "Old Guard", who organize the 'protests' and maintain
the websites and provide the basic hate propganda, they wouldn't
exist.
> They reflect, to some degree, the kind of fora from which many
> of them emerged, i.e. basically no moderation, anything goes,
> judging ideas on their merits and with no regard for their
> origin,
Or their validity or rationality or accuracy.
> hostility toward self-importance, and more
> than a fair amount of random viciousness. These are the people who
> took down pedophile Chris Forcand. However, they've also hounded
> retarded or otherwise weird people off YouTube for no particular
> reason.
And driven almost everyone but anti-Scientology fanatics off this
newsgroup with their vicious attacks, as well as most of their
critics.
> They range from the scum of the net to some pretty fine people.
At a ratio of about 10/.01.
> In fact, the very same people may be responsible for scummy
> as well as noble actions depending on their mood that day. A lot of
> these people are the people who did the original DDoS against
> Scientology, who have shown up at protests, who have done other
> prankish activity against Scientology, and presumably, at least some
> of the alleged death threats, bomb threats, whatever, came from this
> general class of people. I wouldn't say all of it by any means.
I doubt very much that the DDoS attacks were carried out by the
same people who wave signs on the sidewalk.
> I think Scientology manufactured a lot of that stuff,
Though you can't even begin to prove it, as is the case with almost
everything 'Anonymous' says about Scientology.
> gets a lot of flack and prank calls in general, with or
> without Anonymous, and some of it was just random due to the
> attention Anonymous was getting. That, however, is kind of part
> of Anonymous anyway. It's whoever jumps in. And when I say
> Anonymous does this or that, I mean that it's entirely possible
> people from other factions are also Anonymous. It's entirely
> possible OG (that's Old Guard or "us") are also Anonymous at
> this point.
They are the leaders of 'Anonymous'. The ones that are visible and
the ones who are not.
>
> This is grossly oversimplified itself.
No, it is the opposite, and largely typical 'Anonymous' bullshit.
> There are parts of Anonymous who view the Scientology raids
> themselves as a complete violation of the very idea of
> Anonymous, or who despise the moralfags and their principles,
> ideas about abiding by the law in protests, reject the idea of
> protests itself, and particularly loathe the influx of people
> who specifically showed up and started calling themselves
> Anonymous solely because of the raids themselves. These would
> be the sort who would deliberately do things like raiding
> epilepsy forums with flashing graphics just to fuck with the
> moralfags. Anonymous merely being the class of people who call
> themselves that, it's pretty amorphous, but in this case, when
> I'm referring to Anonymous, I mean specifically the subset of
> non-OG Scientology protesters or attackers who came either
> from the chans or from the same general subculture of net
> pranksters, trolls, media creators, etc. This group creates
> a lot of memes and media, from things with nearly universal
> popularity (and loathing) like lolcats, which go mainstream,
> and end up repeated even by people who have no idea where they
> came from or why they are being repeated, to rank shock media
> so vile that goatse is a Hallmark greeting card by comparison.
Be nice if you translated that into English.
> I'd say one general principle you see repeated throughout
> this class of people is that there are no rules whatsoever.
> Expression should be ABSOLUTELY free, in every sense of the
> word. The purest form of this would not recognize any kind of
> rule of law over expression.
Including truth/accuaracy/validity/rationality.
Yet everything they do is dependent on the computers and
communications and energy infrastructure created by corporations
that embody everything they claim to despise. And this includes
most of the software they use, too.
My god but you are a windbag.
I've had enough. 80 lines of mostly bullshit, some of which only
a serious troll could even follow, and no point in sight.
But you did warn us.
Next time, try a rough draft first, and then think about it
and then reduce it to about 20 lines of intelligent content.
I realize that thinking before you post is not the troll way,
but if you want anyone to take you seriously you better learn
how.
<snip>
Tom
Piltdown Man
henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote...
<snip>
> There's a culture clash between various elements of the recent
> anti-Scietnology activists. There's "Anonymous," which largely
> emerged from the chans. They come from an anarchistic perspective
> which rejects hierarchy and leadership. They reflect, to some degree,
> the kind of fora from which many of them emerged, i.e. basically no
> moderation, anything goes, judging ideas on their merits and with no
> regard for their origin, hostility toward self-importance, and more
> than a fair amount of random viciousness.
My impression of "Anonymous" is entirely different from yours. They've
always seemed to me to be a highly cliquey, status-conscious, in-group vs.
out-group outfit, with a strict and often viciously enforced (but obviously
ever-changing) pecking order. An online version of the image of the
American high-school social environment I've built up from exports of
American pop culture (mercifully, not having had to experience it myself).
That they emerged from forums where there is no moderation, no
"leadership", and anything goes, is of course not true. All web-based
forums by definition have owners who run the show, and who can yank or
manipulate stuff they don't like. As this latest fracas over
enturbulation.org has so clearly demonstrated.
> These are the people who took down pedophile Chris Forcand.
Out of purely historical interest, I'd like to know more about this. I've
tried to look, but all I can find is page after page of claimed "Anonymous"
members beating themselves on the chest about how they supposedly "took
down" this dread pedophile through their online vigilantism. Does anyone
have any links to a proper source, you know, something written by a real
grown-up journalist in something intended for grown-up readers, which
details just what role "Anonymous", as a purported group, supposedly played
in anything to do with this person?
<snip>
> Then there's yet another twist. The first Anonymous video message to
> Scientology and the first three themes for the protests were cooked up
> in a collective that has come to be known as Marblecake, because of
> one of the names for irc channels they used. Opinions on this group
> vary widely. Some consider them a sinister, secretive cabal bent on
> controlling Anonymous. Others, including participants, portray them
> as simply a creative collective who brainstormed and came up with good
> ideas, which were then adopted at large on their own merits because
> they were good ideas. Critics of the Marblecake group, on the other
> hand, accuse MC of astroturfing and using sock puppets to manufacture
> support for their ideas, "leadarfagging," and otherwise being bad in a
> variety of ways.
Thanks for this background information, and the rest of your summary. I
didn't have the time, nor the inclination, to delve this deeply into the
boring sparring of a loose collection of adolescent cliques. Your summary
confirms what I suspected since I first heard of them.
henri
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote...
><snip>
>> There's a culture clash between various elements of the recent
>> anti-Scietnology activists. There's "Anonymous," which largely
>> emerged from the chans. They come from an anarchistic perspective
>> which rejects hierarchy and leadership. They reflect, to some degree,
>> the kind of fora from which many of them emerged, i.e. basically no
>> moderation, anything goes, judging ideas on their merits and with no
>> regard for their origin, hostility toward self-importance, and more
>> than a fair amount of random viciousness.
>My impression of "Anonymous" is entirely different from yours. They've
>always seemed to me to be a highly cliquey, status-conscious, in-group vs.
>out-group outfit, with a strict and often viciously enforced (but obviously
>ever-changing) pecking order. An online version of the image of the
>American high-school social environment I've built up from exports of
>American pop culture (mercifully, not having had to experience it myself).
Where are you talking about? From what I've seen, "true" Anonymous
generally didn't maintain any kind of pecking order. In fact, people
who even used a name or tried to maintain any continuity of identity
at all were generally mocked as namefags. Now that people are
actually meeting each other and interacting on a recurring basis,
either on irc or other places with recurrent nicknames, you have
something else. I'm not sure what's going on really constitutes
"Anonymous" any more. (Namefagged now has also taken on the meaning
of someone who has been outed by Scientology or anyone else.)
>That they emerged from forums where there is no moderation, no
>"leadership", and anything goes, is of course not true. All web-based
>forums by definition have owners who run the show, and who can yank or
>manipulate stuff they don't like. As this latest fracas over
>enturbulation.org has so clearly demonstrated.
>> These are the people who took down pedophile Chris Forcand.
>Out of purely historical interest, I'd like to know more about this. I've
>tried to look, but all I can find is page after page of claimed "Anonymous"
>members beating themselves on the chest about how they supposedly "took
>down" this dread pedophile through their online vigilantism. Does anyone
>have any links to a proper source, you know, something written by a real
>grown-up journalist in something intended for grown-up readers, which
>details just what role "Anonymous", as a purported group, supposedly played
>in anything to do with this person?
You should be able to find numerous news articles about Forcand's
bust. Here's a news broadcast: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rHohvluf3mc
I also don't know how they got so many nude pictures and chat logs and
other details of his behavior if they weren't involved. So far as I
can tell, their claims are consistent with what has been reported in
the news, including news that didn't mention them.
As much as the result is "good," so far as I can tell, though some of
the people involved may have been outraged by Forcand's behavior, I
think most wouldn't claim any noble purpose, but simply that they did
it for the lulz (of which there were plenty such as the ED page on the
guy).
While that's itself another divisive issue, i.e. many Anons don't
consider themselves or what they're doing good or noble and are
irritated (to say the least) at those who do.
>> Then there's yet another twist. The first Anonymous video message to
>> Scientology and the first three themes for the protests were cooked up
>> in a collective that has come to be known as Marblecake, because of
>> one of the names for irc channels they used. Opinions on this group
>> vary widely. Some consider them a sinister, secretive cabal bent on
>> controlling Anonymous. Others, including participants, portray them
>> as simply a creative collective who brainstormed and came up with good
>> ideas, which were then adopted at large on their own merits because
>> they were good ideas. Critics of the Marblecake group, on the other
>> hand, accuse MC of astroturfing and using sock puppets to manufacture
>> support for their ideas, "leadarfagging," and otherwise being bad in a
>> variety of ways.
>Thanks for this background information, and the rest of your summary. I
>didn't have the time, nor the inclination, to delve this deeply into the
>boring sparring of a loose collection of adolescent cliques. Your summary
>confirms what I suspected since I first heard of them.
What's going on on Enturbulation now reminds me more of what happened
on ars circa 1995-1996. In the case of ars, however, the lunatics
eventually took over the asylum.
I hope that doesn't happen on enturb, but if it does, oh well. It
seems in these situations, the original conflagration attracts the
most people. Then cohesive groups start to form out of the basically
random collections of people who join in the first skirmishes. Toxic
interpersonal chemistry slowly builds up, eventually blowing up in
ugly ways. The casual fringe players eventually blow off, if I might
make a grandiose comparison, like the outer layers of an exploding
star.
Eventually you're left with a hard, dense core. . .or several such.
ARS might be compared to a white dwarf star, if I were going to extend
the metaphor. Perhaps Anonymous/Enturbulation is a binary system of
two blue giants. I think the conceit begins to break down at that
point, though.
Jonnie Tyler
> On 28 Jun 2008 00:27:05 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
> What's going on on Enturbulation now reminds me more of what happened
> on ars circa 1995-1996.
Am not sure what you are referring to here. Are you speaking of Kobrin
trying to nuke ARS? Or attemps at rogue cancels?
By definition, ARS being unmoderated and unmoderable, I don't see how
something similar could happen.
> In the case of ars, however, the lunatics
> eventually took over the asylum.
>
> I hope that doesn't happen on enturb, but if it does, oh well. It
> seems in these situations, the original conflagration attracts the
> most people. Then cohesive groups start to form out of the basically
> random collections of people who join in the first skirmishes. Toxic
> interpersonal chemistry slowly builds up, eventually blowing up in
> ugly ways. The casual fringe players eventually blow off, if I might
> make a grandiose comparison, like the outer layers of an exploding
> star.
>
> Eventually you're left with a hard, dense core. . .or several such.
> ARS might be compared to a white dwarf star, if I were going to extend
> the metaphor. Perhaps Anonymous/Enturbulation is a binary system of
> two blue giants. I think the conceit begins to break down at that
> point, though.
I think it has more to do with posters of envergure (that is, stature)
leaving the fold than an invasion of lunatics. There has always been loads
of lunatics in ARS, but at least in the olden days there were also many
thoughtful posters who actually had something to say and a way to say it.
There still are, but not that many. You get the feeling that the previous
ones moved somewhere else, or that they just lost interest. I think the
later is more likely.
It seems indeed that enturbulation.org is the new lively focus of CoS
dissent and, comparatively, and compared to what it was before, ARS is dead
(though still a fascinating waste of time).
I think you are right to say it won't stay that way. People get burned out
and other lose interest or find out that the situation is not as simple as
it looks and that the CoS is not going to go away as easily as they thought
it would. Only time will tell...