Open Letter to Anonymous

12 views
Skip to first unread message

cultxpt

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 5:09:47 PM1/22/08
to
[This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've
decided to take on Scientology through harassment, DOS attacks, and
dirty tricks]

Dear Anonymous,

It's understandable that people get upset over the things the
Church of Scientology has done online and off. They harass, sue, play
dirty tricks on people, lie, etc. They tried to shut down a.r.s.
They spam our newsgroup to this day.
So I can see why you'd think damn it, it's time somebody shut them
down!
I'll just give you my insight for whatever it's worth. I've been a
public critic of Scientology since 1987. I've been on a.r.s. since
1994. My actions are pretty well known, and in fact you can go to
youtube and watch a lot of our protests and such, or go to
lisamcpherson.org and see some more of my activism. Also, I'm older.
I'm 52. So if it's of any value, here's an old, experienced critic's 2
cents.
The internet has already taken a big whack out of Scientology. Free
speech has allowed us critics to expose many of the lies and horrible
actions of Co$ for all the world to see. We've protested, right at
their front door. We've been on radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. So
it's not like you have to jump in and reinvent the wheel, or assume
nobody's been doing anything.
We've been quite successful because of the Golden Rule of the
Internet; Free Speech for Everybody. In fact, whenever Co$ has
attacked our free speech, it has spawned dozens and dozens of new
critics who would not otherwise have cared about this cult. Most of
us, and indeed most netizens, value free speech almost religiously.
So, as I understand it, one of your first methods for dealing with
Scientology is to shut down their web sites. This goes against the
Golden Rule. By silencing them in one format, all you've done is make
a martyr out of the cult. Martyrdom is GOOD for Scientology. It's
something for the members to rally around. It's proof that they're in
the right because they're being persecuted. Externally, it makes some
people ask "why is a church being attacked?" So you've lost me at
hello.
The weapons we choose are important. Our weapons as critics are
reason, evidence, argument, and free speech. If we "win" [and by win I
mean, Co$ renounces its practices and policies that hurt people], then
we've won the argument over their policies and actions. However, if
YOU win using dirty tricks, harassment, and such, then you still
haven't won over their arguments. You've just pounded them into
submission. Their arguments stand.
We're supposed to be the good people. They're supposed to be the
bad people. If both sides are being creepy, then the public will just
look on this as a battle between two creepy groups and not be very
interested. If, however, one side is moral, honest, and just, and the
other side STILL beats up on them just for speaking out, there you
have a story. It is this CONTRAST between us and them that is part of
our message. The nicer we are, the better the contrast, the more
easily it is to see which side is the right side.
I'm very confident that we as critics have severely hampered
Scientology. I don't believe our goal is to destroy Scientology as
yours seems to be [here I'd better say, I don't represent anybody but
myself]. Our goal is to get them to stop locking people up until
they're dead, to stop pretending they're doctors, to stop destroying
families. If they want to believe in Xenu, fine. No problem. We can
still debate that, but believing in weird things is no reason for some
group to fear attack.
If you don't believe my mamby-pamby methods work, consider all the
cases in history where such actions did work; Gandhi, Martin Luther
King, Jr., Vaclav Havel, etc. These people didn't harass. They didn't
pull dirty tricks. They were straightfoward, honest, moral, and they
won. I believe their methods work admirably well on Scientology as
well.
So my wish for you is that you stop a while, listen to some of us
who've already been out there on the front lines working to expose
Scientology, and reconsider your methods. You seem to be coming onto
the stage presuming that us experienced critics never got anything
done since Scientology still exists. You're quite wrong. I hope
you'll take time to listen.

Jeff Jacobsen
for the ARSCC[wdne]

Message has been deleted

Mike

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 5:38:05 PM1/22/08
to
On Jan 22, 2:26 pm, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not
> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.

That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were
bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other
gullible idiots (like Tory) into believing that there was some really
BIG SCARY HACKER DUDES that can shut down big bad old scentology.org.
Give me a break. What a yawn. All they did was slow the site down. And
they never even did a very good job at it. I also watched their most
frightening youtube vid with the voice makeover and the scary cloud
sequence. Really well done. I mean, I was terrified beyond belief.
I'll have nightmares for days now <rolls eye>

anonym...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 5:40:22 PM1/22/08
to
On Jan 22, 4:26 pm, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:09:47 -0800 (PST).
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID:
> <a0379f0b-b694-45ed-aa07-464e96c64...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> And the Organization Header:http://groups.google.com.
> The famous author: cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com>.
> Wrote on the subject: Open Letter to Anonymous:
> Don't be so fucking naive Jeff. These people are not really interested in
> the fight against Scientology. They're more interested in testing their
> tech to take down web sites.
>
> Had it not been Scientology, it would have been any other site of their
> choice.

>
> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not
> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.

"Anonymous" and other so called /i/nsurgents have no moral stake in
this question. They don't care about you or the years of fighting you
have put in against Scientology. They're more or less like a group of
kids with a loaded gun; they don't care where they point it, as long
as it makes a commotion they're happy. Most of them don't know
anything much at all about Scientology or the history behind it, and
don't particularly care. as FTSOH mentioned.

Magoo

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 5:44:48 PM1/22/08
to

"Mike" <michaelm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:15d0f0a9-c064-4835...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 22, 2:26 pm, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not
>> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
>
> That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were
> bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other
> gullible idiots (like Tory)

If I'm such an "Idiot" as you OSA floormats constantly push,
why is it you keep having to drop my name in here and there,
and lie about me CONSTANTLY? Why can't you be honest?
WTH? MY ASS!
You can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Tory/Magoo~~

JAFAW

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 5:48:03 PM1/22/08
to

"FTSOH" <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:r6rcp3dsktvp2cakv...@news2.lightlink.com...

> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:09:47 -0800 (PST).
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID:
> <a0379f0b-b694-45ed...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

> And the Organization Header: http://groups.google.com.
> The famous author: cultxpt <cul...@gmail.com>.

> Wrote on the subject: Open Letter to Anonymous:
>
> Don't be so fucking naive Jeff. These people are not really interested in
> the fight against Scientology. They're more interested in testing their
> tech to take down web sites.
>
> Had it not been Scientology, it would have been any other site of their
> choice.
>
> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not
> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
>
>

It's the types who just like to "fight the fight" with little or no interest
in the cause.

However, I think what Jeff said was worth saying because I do think there
are some that actually believe their own propaganda.


Message has been deleted

Magoo

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 5:54:04 PM1/22/08
to

"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Ilulj.74$QH2...@newsfe05.lga...

I didn't say they're big scarry dudes: I said Scientology would
play that card---and I still wouldn't doubt it, at all, if they need it.
Scientology WILL lie, cheat, steal, destroy someone utterly IF they feel the
person is even speaking out against them, telling true things.
(That was written by L. Ron Hubbard in a policy called "Fair Game":
You can lie, cheat, steal, destroy someone utterly").

THAT is sick: THAT is idiotic! And you following it, is even worse--
way worse. The Executives you follow could care less about you:
The SECOND any public "Legal flap" happens, your ass will be held out, along
with Joel Phillips (If you're not him)--to dry---and will anyone blink? Have
you blinked about me? I rest my case.

My sympathies to you and your smug gang of Internet floormats,
AND TC,

Tory/Magoo~~~
>
>


Mike

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 6:14:10 PM1/22/08
to
On Jan 22, 2:44 pm, "Magoo" <mago...@charter.net> wrote:
> "Mike" <michaelmitchel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:15d0f0a9-c064-4835...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jan 22, 2:26 pm, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not
> >> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
>
> > That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were
> > bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other
> > gullible idiots (like Tory)
>
> If I'm such an "Idiot" as you OSA floormats constantly push,
> why is it you keep having to drop my name in here and there,
> and lie about me CONSTANTLY? Why can't you be honest?
> WTH? MY ASS!
> You can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!

The truth is, Tory, you are nutty and gullible. Here, take this one
seriously:

"Message to Scientology"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ

Report back at how these are a bunch of real serous hackers who are
going to shut down Scientology and break the organization, so we can
have a good chuckle at your silliness. The only one who believe this
is you, sadly enough.

Bye for now.

Magoo

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 6:15:23 PM1/22/08
to

"TruthSetsYouFree" <TruthSet...@invalid.host> wrote in message
news:1hscp31l4l3ir1ptm...@nntp.aioe.org...
> Give it up Tory. You calling everyone who calls you for your lack of
> intelligence (sorry for being blunt but you just are't the smartest
> cookie in the package) an OSA floormat, just isn't believable.

And you are the smartest cookie in the package? I never said I was, I never
will. I don't give a damn who is smarter, who is not. Bottom line, I try to
speak as honestly as I can. If I missed, you can just say so, without the
inval/"you're not this/"you are an idiot" etc.
That isn't needed, either way.

So who are YOU? Do I know you? No, I don't.
So I hope you're happy you've shown who you are, whatever label is put on
it, YOU show you---and no thanks, I don't want to be with people who slime
others, just because of their viewpoints. If I was wrong re "OSA" ---I hope
one thing comes of it: *I* Prove how deep the mind control in Scientology
really is. It isn't because I'm "not smart"---it's due to one thing: Being a
part of a Top Secret OSA Int Gang of immoral, unethical, lying creeps:
PERIOD.
>
> Instead you should perhaps learn to evaluate things before you post your
> not so intelligent comments.

And I will. You should learn to give your "constructive Criticism" in a
better way, which honestly educates, vs. the name calling you've shown.

There is no special new group on the critics
> side this time either. It's just kiddies playing with Internet attack
> tools. They don't give a shit about Scientology pro or con, or the
> critics "cause".

Call them kiddies, I promise you heads rolled within the Cult.
Kiddies....and TC being laughed at around the world, is that just
"kiddies" too? I don't think so, darlin.
>
> Tomorrow they get bored and will move on to another organization to
> attack. Scientology isn't their first target, this is an ongoing
> Internet-wide problem.

I don't give a rats ass about this attack deal---I know it isn't a big deal.
My point is it's ONE of a THOUSAND things SCIENTOLOGY has done to create
more of their own enemies, but you missed that, didn't you Mr. Smart man.
>
> Geeze Tory. THINK THINK THINK.
Is this some montra you hope will change things? LOL---
think, Think, Think.............Didn't Hubbard say "thinkingness" was
very low on the scale of Know-to-Mystery?
>
> Now you can react and call me OSA too.

Ok, OSA Too.

Tory/Magoo~~ P:)


Magoo

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 6:20:37 PM1/22/08
to

"Mike" <michaelm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3188d255-68db-40af...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 22, 2:44 pm, "Magoo" <mago...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "Mike" <michaelmitchel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:15d0f0a9-c064-4835...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jan 22, 2:26 pm, FTSOH <FT...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just
>> >> not
>> >> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
>>
>> > That is exactly correct. It's just a group of miscreant kids who were
>> > bored and decided to cause a little trouble online and frighten other
>> > gullible idiots (like Tory)
>>
>> If I'm such an "Idiot" as you OSA floormats constantly push,
>> why is it you keep having to drop my name in here and there,
>> and lie about me CONSTANTLY? Why can't you be honest?
>> WTH? MY ASS!
>> You can't HANDLE THE TRUTH!
>
> The truth is, Tory, you are nutty and gullible. Here, take this one
> seriously:
>
> "Message to Scientology"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCbKv9yiLiQ
>
> Report back at how these are a bunch of real serous hackers who are
> going to shut down Scientology and break the organization, so we can
> have a good chuckle at your silliness. The only one who believe this
> is you, sadly enough.

YOU are the moron, not I. I said if anything, this is merely a distraction>
The *real* bad news for Scientology isn't these hackers---it's Tom Cruise
showing how mind controlled he is.
THAT is the message, and Andrew's book, which Scientology is
having a heart attack about. (If it was all "not true, just gossip"--
why would they care?)

So you push putting me down, and once again, I'll tell you what I've said
since I left (and even before, when I was "in"):
SCIENTOLOGY C R E A T E S their own enemies.

Laugh all you want, and then go LOOK into your empty orgs,
and Think about how you CANNOT speak to little ol me.

Isn't THAT amazing?
Sorry, man, you lose, again.

Tory/Magoo~~~
>
>


Emma

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 6:24:12 PM1/22/08
to
It's just Sten Arne Zerpe being his usually trolling self.

Ignore him Tory.

- Emma


"Magoo" <mag...@charter.net> wrote in message

news:nOulj.93$So7...@newsfe06.lga...

Message has been deleted

Emma

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 6:31:11 PM1/22/08
to

"TruthSetsYouFree" <TruthSet...@invalid.host> wrote in message
news:msucp3hr6hf3iebi7...@nntp.aioe.org...

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:24:12 +1100.
> "Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> Wrote:
>>It's just Sten Arne Zerpe being his usually trolling self.
>>
>>Ignore him Tory.
>>
>>- Emma
>
> Oh, Michelle Ryan from Melbourne Australia comes crawling out of the
> woodworks :-)
>
>
>

You can only "out" a person once Sten. Your intimidation tactics don't work
any more.

- Emma (Michelle Ryan from Melbourne Australia)


John

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 6:34:27 PM1/22/08
to

"Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote in message
news:5vncm0F...@mid.individual.net...

He's just envious of where you live :)

Message has been deleted

Emma

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 6:42:38 PM1/22/08
to

"TruthSetsYouFree" <TruthSet...@invalid.host> wrote in message
news:vdvcp39t7a5fb808t...@nntp.aioe.org...
> Neither does yours you insane fuck.
>
> PS. You seems to lose friends one by one nowadays.
>
> Sent any logs to OSA recently? At least I posted mine openly on ARS, but
> you sent yours exclusively to OSA.
>
> Yeah yeah...
>
>

You SAY you posted them directly to ARS but no one ever figured out who sent
the 4000 hours of logs to OSA about the same time your RFW page came down.

So Sten Arne Zerpe/Truth sets you free/FTSOH/George Feodor or any other
names you use to troll & flame ars, why don't you tell us how they got those
logs?

Or better still, explain why your RFW page was removed.

Yeah..yeah!


Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 6:57:59 PM1/22/08
to
On Jan 22, 6:42 pm, "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> wrote:
> "TruthSetsYouFree" <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host> wrote in message

>
> news:vdvcp39t7a5fb808t...@nntp.aioe.org...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:31:11 +1100.
> > "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> Wrote:
>
> >>"TruthSetsYouFree" <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host> wrote in message

> >>news:msucp3hr6hf3iebi7...@nntp.aioe.org...
> >>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:24:12 +1100.
> >>> "Emma" <emmm...@bonbon.net> Wrote:
> >>>>It's just Sten Arne Zerpe being his usually trolling self.
>
> >>>>Ignore him Tory.
>
> >>>>- Emma
>
> >>> Oh, Michelle Ryan from Melbourne Australia comes crawling out of the
> >>> woodworks :-)
>
> >>You can only "out" a person once Sten. Your intimidation tactics don't
> >>work
> >>any more.
>
> >>- Emma (Michelle Ryan from Melbourne Australia)
>
> > Neither does yours you insane fuck.
>
> > PS. You seems to lose friends one by one nowadays.
>
> > Sent any logs to OSA recently? At least I posted mine openly on ARS, but
> > you sent yours exclusively to OSA.
>
> > Yeah yeah...
>
> You SAY you posted them directly to ARS but no one ever figured out who sent
> the 4000 hours of logs to OSA about the same time your RFW page came down.
>
> So Sten Arne Zerpe/Truth sets you free/FTSOH/George Feodor or any other
> names you use to troll & flame ars, why don't you tell us how they got those
> logs?
>
> Or better still, explain why your RFW page was removed.
>
> Yeah..yeah!

good one Emma

Hey sten, FOAD

regards
arnie

Alert

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 7:11:01 PM1/22/08
to
On Jan 23, 10:38 am, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host>
wrote:

> Neither does yours you insane fuck.

So *this* is what it's all about, aye Sten?

Revenge?

I dont get on with emma, and we've had some serious conflicts over the
last year and a half. So its not as if Im jumping in because I am one
of her friends or have some sort of loyalty.

Im jumping in because youre a bully, plain and simple. You are
reminicient of another keyboard wannabe hardarse (ARS poster no longer
posting) that took pride in knocking down a woman in the street.

You are a gutless wonder. You are filled with hatred and revenge and
it consumes your every fibre.

If criticising the cult delivers *your* kind of cognative abilities,
then you are the poster boy of why criticising the cult can also rape
the psyche of a critic, just like hubbard rapes the psyche of his
adherents.


>
> PS. You seems to lose friends one by one nowadays.

"Don't believe your friends when they ask you to be honest with them.
All they really want is to be maintained in the good opinion they have
of themselves."
--Albert Camus


Dont ever come to Australia and drink in a Pub, you'd probably get a
glassing within 5 minutes of opening your mouth.

You are a bully.


barb

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 7:25:27 PM1/22/08
to

I will reiterate the statement I made earlier. You can't look at both
sides if one side is down.

--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne

buy my book!
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1198812

read my page! (thanks, R. Hill!)
http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/graham1.html

visit my store!
http://www.cafepress.com/birdville

Hartley Patterson

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 7:34:19 PM1/22/08
to
cul...@gmail.com:

> [This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've
> decided to take on Scientology

A separate community to ourselves? Yes. A group? No, the people you are
addressing operate like ourselves, as anarchist activists. There are no
leaders, only opinion formers.

And they don't read Usenet, so while I applaud most everything you say
Anonymous won't see it.

The following visited in the given order might help.

Past Wikipedia, adult and offensive content, not work or school safe!
Plus, lots of disinformation and smoke screens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan
http://www.4chan.org/
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Scientology
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/PROJECT_CHANOLOGY

So what I'm getting to is, don't take what Anonymous says as
authoritative. We all speak for ARSCC(wdne), so that should be
understandable.

--
FREEDOM is a trademark owned by
Religious Technology Center
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/stolgy_0.htm

Magoo

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 8:42:51 PM1/22/08
to

"Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote in message
news:5vnc8tF...@mid.individual.net...

> It's just Sten Arne Zerpe being his usually trolling self.
>
> Ignore him Tory.

That is disgusting that this person is Sten-Arne.
What is his deal? Does he work with OSA? He sure acts like
he does---and what *did* happen to all those logs?
I'd like to know, too, SA: Did you send them to Gavino?
(Don't yell, spare me I'm an idiot--you already said that, so just
ANSWER THE QUESTION MR. SWEDE: Did you, or didn't you?
That *would* explain your super sensitiveness to my mentioning......
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....osa.).

Man, and to think I used to really like you. I'm sorry for you--
you've lost that lovin' feeling, that's for sure! :)

Oh well---march on SA, and thanks, Emma for pointing out who this anon is.
What a shame---he really helped me, back when I was first waking up. I doubt
he was trying to, but either way, he did. Now?
Psssssfffffffft, as Tommy boy would say.

Tory/Magoo~

Hartley Patterson

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 9:30:45 PM1/22/08
to
mag...@charter.net:

> So who are YOU? Do I know you? No, I don't.

Long time ARS poster (1996-1991 as 'Anti-Cult'), ran the first video
archive and preserved a lot of stuff that would otherwise have been lost.
Sten also trolls and pokes fun at people, but we all love him really.

--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com

Magoo

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 9:58:32 PM1/22/08
to

"Hartley Patterson" <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.2200b7319...@news.thundernews.com...

> mag...@charter.net:
>
>> So who are YOU? Do I know you? No, I don't.
>
> Long time ARS poster (1996-1991 as 'Anti-Cult'), ran the first video
> archive and preserved a lot of stuff that would otherwise have been lost.
> Sten also trolls and pokes fun at people, but we all love him really.

hmmmmmmmmm....it's odd he uses different nicks and trolls,
putting down various critics. I've seen that somewhere else,
let's see....where was that? hmmmm....where DID I see that?
:)
I guess love isn't on my mind tonight, but I'm glad you and your
pals love that kind of thing.

Tory/Magoo~~

Friendly Xenu

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 12:29:06 AM1/23/08
to
cultxpt <cul...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jeff Jacobsen
>for the ARSCC[wdne]

I agree 100%. On all points. The Scientology crime syndicate is
going to proclaim the DDOS as the act of "religious persecution by
bigots," of course. Before the crime syndicate just spewed their
claims every time one of their ringleaders went to prison. Now the
crooks can point to some idiot script kiddies and say, See?!

---
"The majority of military bases in this country are named after
Confederate officers: Eisenhower, Nimitz. The list of southerners
in our military is legion." -- Republinazi Ann Coulter, Jan 18, 2008

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

WolfyRik

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 5:56:29 AM1/23/08
to
On Jan 23, 9:32 am, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host>
wrote:
> Oh, another one from the prison colonies :-)
>
> Bwahahahah.,....

Ok who let their child onto their computer? I'm looking at you Joel.
Seriously do you think that anyone is going to pay attention to a rude
foulmouthed little racist like you? The moment you started attacking
people you gave yourself away. Tory, Alert and the rest are far better
people than you'll ever be. No matter how much you grow-up. And since
they've all appeared around the world in public denunciation of the
cult of scientology, I hardly think you can question them as critics
not to mention the fact of their constant chess game with the cult
more than proves their intelligence is far greater than yours. In case
you hadn't noticed; they're still in the game and they're WINNING.

The fact that a TV reporter recently corrected themselves when they
almost called scientology a religion, is evidence of that. Then
there's the now popular media activity of calling scientology a cult,
really quite openly as more evidence. And almost every time
$cientology is mentioned in the mainstream papers, the xenu story and
OT3 are told or at least referenced.

Ball of Fluff

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 10:11:18 AM1/23/08
to

"WolfyRik" <Wolf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:308c6014-8c03-4627...@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...


That's not Joel. That's Sten Arne.

C

www.claireswazy.com


Ball of Fluff

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 10:14:03 AM1/23/08
to

"TruthSetsYouFree" <TruthSet...@invalid.host> wrote in message

news:kc2ep35l8e41m6hks...@nntp.aioe.org...


> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:11:01 -0800 (PST).

> Oh, another one from the prison colonies :-)
>
> Bwahahahah.,....

Sten, you do sometimes go after people. I like you in spite of that,
though, as you've been decent to me. But, yeah, you do that sometimes. You
know you have a temper.

But Alert lecturing other people on bullying is like Stalin lecturing Pol
Pot on being a tad bit rough on the population...

(Physician, heal thyself.)

C

www.claireswazey.com


Message has been deleted

Seth...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 4:09:15 AM1/24/08
to
On Jan 22, 5:09 pm, cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've
> Jeff Jacobsen
> for the ARSCC[wdne]


Jeff,

You do raise some concerns about the method of anon which are very
understandable. Yes, first of all there really is a group of people on
the internet who have decided to band together and attack the
Scientology websites. First, as an anon, I can speak for all anon in
that we respect all that you have done against the CoS, and greatly
appreciate the efforts you put fourth, and also the efforts of
everyone over at Operation Clambake. Let me explain to you some of the
tenets of Project Chanology, to help you understand some of the
idealism behind this. Firstly, we do not target scientologists or
single anybody out. We do not threaten people or resort to any sort of
terrorism in that way at all, nor do we want to make any one person
fear for their safety in any way. That would be disgusting and make us
no better then them. What we have been doing is targeting the "Church"
itself as an organization, because, contrary to what many of you
believe, we all do have a very large moral stake in this. We actually
do care deeply about stopping the CoS and are in it for the long haul.
What you guys don't know is that scientology.org has been under attack
since the 15th, and after 10 days and some decent press, our numbers
have only increased, and every day I hear the same thing a hundred
times: "I'm not stopping, I'm in it for the long haul." I believe it,
I know I'm in it for the long haul myself. The raid actually has it's
own radio station online. This is happening because we are honestly
sick of the shit, as you can see in our official press release on
digg.com, wherein we link to lisamcpherson.org and other such sites.
We're tired of wondering why the hell a "church" needs a secret
police, and what the hell Scientology's children are going to grow up
like. This is where anon parallels with many of you. Where we differ,
clearly, are in our methods. Like I said, we greatly respect yourself
and the other protesters, even to the point of heroism; however for
all the effort that was put in, the CoS is still fucking standing. The
OSA is still harassing people and threatening people, still hiring
private eyes, the Church still gets gullible people to join all the
time, and still gets press whenever it so chooses, and the RTC still
extorts hundreds of thousands of dollars from each CoS member.

So what is anonymous really doing to stop this, you ask. We're not
hurting people, or harassing people or following them around bull
baiting them to provoke a response, or trying to get them to do
something illegal so that we can sue. Scientology has over 800
websites registered to it, and believe me we know every single one,
but we chose to attack...one? Does that sound like we're trying to
silence them to you? No, that's not the objective, otherwise we'd be
doing that instead. What we have been doing is taking down
scientology.org and a small handful of other high profile sci sites,
clogging the dianetics hotline, wasting ink in their fax machines
(they shut down all their fax machines very often these days), staging
in person protests (see youtube videos), and distributing their
"secret" information (all top level scientology documents for high
level OT's only happened to get leaked on digg.com and in various
other places). Basically, anon is making the high level administrators
at the CoS spend a whole bunch of time and money, and making the job
of receptionist at a CoS totally horrible. Petty but very persistent
and taxing annoyances.

We are doing it for a few reasons- one is press, of course, to further
grow our numbers and to raise much more awareness about what the CoS
does. When we have everyone listening, we can really hurt them with
the reality of what they do. I'd have to argue that the media loves a
"creepy vs. creepy" fight, as you put it. Yes, people do want to see
that, especially when the media along with most people have already
settled on the fact that the CoS is bad (thanks once again to the
people like you, heroes). You argue that such an attack on Scientology
allows them to play the martyr card, which we all know they love to do
so much. They say they are being persecuted but, aren't they?
Shouldn't they be persecuted to the deaths and harassment? Or for
breaking into government buildings in search of files on some SP's
like you and me? Aren't they already being persecuted by all the
negative media, all the protesters, the talk show hosts, comedy shows,
T-Shirt companies, stand up comedians, anti-scientology websites,
etc..? The answer is yes of course, because when you do something
wrong, you should fucking be persecuted. We are hurting, specifically,
the exact members of Scientology which should be hurt- the higher ups,
and the rtc (burn me at the stake should I EVER capitalize the rtc).

Aside from press, another reason for this attack is to show them what
a real backlash is, negative reinforcement. "Censor people again, and
you're going to have a bad day, and all the lawyers and money in the
world aren't going to be able to help you." is the message here. Clear
and simple, they won't listen otherwise, as we've seen, and the
government seems to get bought out every time, as we've seen. No more
free rides for them, they pay the piper just like everybody else.
We're dirtier and more vulgar then the older protesters, yes, but we
are also more potent.

I understand also that it is indeed the contrast of the CoS vs. the
protesters which is one of the strongest arguments. Two points here,
one, we are anonymous, we can be anybody. Only anonymous hackers hack.
Other anonymous work on press, other anonymous work on organization,
other anonymous work on webhosting, other anonymous make annoying
phone calls, other anonymous visit both allied and enemy message
boards, other anon write script for programs, it goes on and on.
There's literally thousands of us, each different from the next.
Second point- compared to scientologists, the actions of anonymous
will never fall below a favorable spectrum in the eyes of the public.
We need people to stand behind us as well, we will make sure of that.

In closing:

A Scientologist tried to bull bait an anon. She asked the anon "What
are your crimes?" to which the anon replied "well, in my previous
incarnation I was L. Ron Hubbard, and I tricked a bunch of people into
believing a bunch of BULLSHIT for profit." The scientologist freaked
out. It's a new game, new methods, and playtime is over. We only wish
we had your support.

banchukita

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 6:47:15 AM1/24/08
to

I'm sure you are sincere in your goal to not hurt individual
Scientologists, and go after the organization rather than people.
But will you be there for the Scientologists like the one above who
'freaked out?' 'Cause that's pretty much what happened to Lisa. Only
she couldn't find anyone to talk to about it.

It's not enough to cause chaos; if you're truly in it for the long
haul, you're there for the cleanup, too. Perhaps that's one reason
why our methods differ. I'm sorry, I still think Gandhi Tech rules.

If anon took the energies it is distributing as sand in gears and
applied them to informing the people who we all pay to do something
about it - district attorneys, state's attorneys, surgeon general,
FBI, media etc.-- and letting THEM know how you feel, that might be
useful. Y'all certainly have more energy than us "older" [cough]
protestors. Using your skillz to obtain internal documents might also
be useful to support your arguments.

-maggie, human being

barb

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 10:14:22 AM1/24/08
to

Every day, worried parents of substance abusers search the web, seeking
a rehab facility. Try googling 'drug rehab.' You will find dozens of
sites, some listed as Narconon, others that are posed as informational
websites that link to Narconon. People pay from $20,000-$30,000 UP FRONT
to get their kid in. But, Narconon is Scientology, and their massive web
presence keeps the raw meat coming in.

I'm just sayin'.

Hartley Patterson

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 1:49:08 PM1/24/08
to
Seth...@gmail.com:

> You do raise some concerns about the method of anon which are very
> understandable. Yes, first of all there really is a group of people on
> the internet who have decided to band together and attack the
> Scientology websites. First, as an anon, I can speak for all anon in
> that we respect all that you have done against the CoS, and greatly
> appreciate the efforts you put fourth, and also the efforts of
> everyone over at Operation Clambake.

Well, no. I've read quite a lot of abuse about the "holier than thou
f*cktards who've been trying for 15 years and got nowhere" on *chan
threads. OK, we're used to abuse from the ignorant, I'd suppose Anonymous
has it's fair share of them.

I loved it when an anon posted, I think it was Gorilla Goals and some
HCOBs, up on a blog and then another anon wondered if maybe someone should
check to see if any of this stuff had been stolen already...

> Does that sound like we're trying to
> silence them to you? No, that's not the objective, otherwise we'd be
> doing that instead.

I have been pointing out on ARS that Anonymous is likely to engage in
disinformation and smoke screens. We do some of that ourselves, but we go
about it differently. When talking to the media we try to stick to the
truth because that's amongst our chief weapons. It helps that the bad hats
are compulsive liars.

Some of us are going to condemn any violation of Freedom of Speech because
that's what brought them here, initially with the rmgoup, then more
trickle onto ARS with every cult attack on an Internet flagship - Google,
Slashdot etc. Statements like 'we're going to drive Scientology off the
Internet' are to us stupid because that has never been part of our
strategy. We want them there, a visible target to throw custard pies at.

> Aside from press, another reason for this attack is to show them what
> a real backlash is, negative reinforcement.

Won't work. Absolutely not. These are not rational people, they are
fanatics, they will NOT listen to reason. Slap them down and they will
shift their tactics and come back. They expect bad publicity, they expect
opposition, it's already factored in to the cult's mythology. What you are
giving them is, for them, positive reinforcement.

Anyway, nice of you to drop in, reasoned arguments are always welcome on
ARS.

--
alt.religion.scientology FAQ
Please read before posting
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/faq.htm

Rev Dennis L Erlich

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 3:37:41 PM1/24/08
to
Hartley Patterson <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>Anyway, nice of you to drop in, reasoned arguments are always welcome on
>ARS.

Yah, rare as they are these days, it's nice to read something other
than the usual cheerleading.

Dennis

banchukita

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 3:41:33 PM1/24/08
to
On Jan 24, 1:49 pm, Hartley Patterson <hptt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
> Sethd...@gmail.com:

It might also be useful to consider that the whole 'at war' concept is
Scientology's. If you want to let them frame the argument, well, then
you have to pretend there is a war, too, when actually they're the
ones at war with the rest of the world.

I think it's more effective to point out that there really is no 'war'
and no 'enemy,' But that's just me.

-maggie, human being

Hartley Patterson

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 5:31:36 PM1/24/08
to
info...@informer.org:

Hip hip hooray to that! Oh, wait...

Hartley Patterson

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 5:34:16 PM1/24/08
to
banch...@yahoo.com:

> It might also be useful to consider that the whole 'at war' concept is
> Scientology's. If you want to let them frame the argument, well, then
> you have to pretend there is a war, too, when actually they're the
> ones at war with the rest of the world.

I'm going to blame Wendy Grossman for her 'alt.scientology.war' article
for Wired, way back whenever it was.

Android Cat

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 6:23:15 PM1/24/08
to
Hartley Patterson wrote:
> banch...@yahoo.com:
>
>> It might also be useful to consider that the whole 'at war' concept
>> is Scientology's. If you want to let them frame the argument, well,
>> then you have to pretend there is a war, too, when actually they're
>> the ones at war with the rest of the world.
>
> I'm going to blame Wendy Grossman for her 'alt.scientology.war'
> article for Wired, way back whenever it was.

alt.scientology.war December 1, 1995, Wendy M. Grossman, Wired 3.12, Wired
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.12/alt.scientology.war.html

However, the meme was already in play before then:

A battle of beliefs waged in megabytes August 3, 1994, Wayne Garcia, Column
One, St. Petersburg Times
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/51853616.html?dids=51853616:51853616&FMT=FT

Scientologists Fight To Zip Some Loose Computer Lips January 3, 1995, Anne
Gearan, AP, Seattle Times
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2097536&date=19950103

Scientology Critics Claim Harassment For Using Internet August 26, 1995,
Jennifer Bjorhus, Seattle Times
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=2138183&date=19950826

Scientologists Lose a Battle on the Internet September 14, 1995, James
Brooke, New York Times
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5DC153DF937A2575AC0A963958260

Stalking the Net October 4, 1995, Alan Prendergast, Denver Westword News,
Village Voice Media
http://www.westword.com/1995-10-04/news/stalking-the-net/full

The story of Scientology versus the Net is not a tale of friendly
nethead-to-nethead hostilities like 1993's kittens-in-the-microwave flame
war between alt.tasteless and rec.pets.cats. This is mortal combat between
two alien cultures - two worlds whose common language masks the gulf between
them. A flame war with real guns. A fight that has burst the banks of the
Net and into the real world of police, lawyers, and armed search and
seizure. Ultimately, however, the drama doesn't matter: the real issues here
are the boundaries of free speech and the future of copyright and
intellectual property in the face of a technology that can scatter copies
across the world in seconds. The Church of Scientology will not be the last
organization, controversial or otherwise, that seeks to protect its
interests against the Net. Technology doesn't care about the motives of its
users.
-alt.scientology.war, Wired magazine 3.12, December 1995

--
Ron of that ilk.


Friendly Xenu

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 11:25:03 PM1/24/08
to
Hartley Patterson <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Seth...@gmail.com:

>Well, no. I've read quite a lot of abuse about the "holier than thou
>f*cktards who've been trying for 15 years and got nowhere" on *chan
>threads. OK, we're used to abuse from the ignorant, I'd suppose Anonymous
>has it's fair share of them.

}:-} I got two such people on my YouTube channel proclaim that the
ARSCC hasn't done "anything" to stop Scientology. But they support
the script kiddies so they're probably High School kids.

barb

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 12:53:00 AM1/25/08
to
We were getting there without help. We've made huge progress in the past
decade. We've seen hundreds of articles, news clips, documentaries; and
every one of them brought information people could use to protect
themselves from the lure of Scientology.

We shattered the orb of fear Scientology lurked inside. South Park took
it to a whole new level. I dropped my jaw when Stan said, "Scientology
is a big, fat global SCAM!"

Then Scientology did its usual dumb thing, shot itself in the foot, and
tried to have that episode removed from the lineup. I think Comedy
Central suspected something like that would happen, because that episode
played on Wed, Thursday, and Saturday of that week. And the fact that
Scientology tried to get the episode yanked was great internet fodder!

They're stupid that way.
Try to remove ARS, heck. That just brought in Netizens.
Try to remove South Park? Heh. Fat chance!
And now, this Tom Cruise clip.
Try to remove that, and all of a sudden the might of the internet
suddenly becomes aroused. And it's not the tame, stodgy internet of the
old critics. They're fast, covert and ruthless. I like that.

We've pushed the Big Clam this far, we might be over the hump on the way
to Scientological oblivion. We've done a lot in the past years. Our
annoying sense of ethical behavior is the reason progress has been so
slow. Maybe these guys will kick it up a notch!

Seth...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 5:36:24 AM1/25/08
to
thank you maggie for your input, we actually do have some things in
the works with various government agencies and organizations of the
press.

Bruce Scott TOK

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 5:53:05 AM1/25/08
to
Maggie wrote:

>It might also be useful to consider that the whole 'at war' concept is
>Scientology's. If you want to let them frame the argument, well, then
>you have to pretend there is a war, too, when actually they're the
>ones at war with the rest of the world.

That's actually true. But merely speaking truth to contradict what they
say or sell? To them that's a war. To most of us it is just casual
discussion.

--
ciao,
Bruce

drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/

banchukita

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 7:01:05 AM1/25/08
to
On Jan 25, 5:53 am, Bruce Scott TOK <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-

Header@[127.1]> wrote:
> Maggie wrote:
> >It might also be useful to consider that the whole 'at war' concept is
> >Scientology's.  If you want to let them frame the argument, well, then
> >you have to pretend there is a war, too, when actually they're the
> >ones at war with the rest of the world.
>
> That's actually true.  But merely speaking truth to contradict what they
> say or sell?  To them that's a war.  To most of us it is just casual
> discussion.
>

There is far less fear in joining a casual discussion than there is in
realizing you're the target of an attack by a faceless group that
wants to bring you and your organization down. Scientology is all
about fear anyway - fear of not doing the tech right, fear of losing
your friends and family if you allow your mind to follow a questioning
route, fear of the BTs all over your body, fear of your own memories
and experiences.

I don't understand how more - or maybe "moar" - fear is going to
change things and not just make it worse.

-maggie, human being

Rev Norle Enturbulata, XYZZY

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 8:04:52 AM1/25/08
to

"banchukita" <banch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb324e7e-ecfd-4dc6...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

There's a monumental difference between [1] a group of people who don't like
being around you because your opinions cause clashes with them too often;
and [2] a group of people who prefer you dead simply because your opinions
potentially cause their house of cards to collapse.

It was Hubbard who said Scientology was always 'at war' with the 'wog'
world, and that the 'stakes' were for 'nothing less than the planet' or
something very similar. That a non-organization of some definition has
declared same upon them - and by this obviously we're referring to 'anon'
and not the creators of 'South Park' ("the 100-year war for the universe has
only just begun!").

Think how the non-Scientology world will feel when lots of taxpayers' money
gets spent on 'fighting' Scientology's 'war for the planet'. I'm reminded
of what Yamamoto said in 1941 about having 'wakened a great beast and filled
him with a terrible resolve': Scientology shows its true face to the world
every time it 'wages war' on someone, and Hubbard said they had to do so.
Some things are inevitable. Let's see what happens.

--
http://tinyurl.com/yre7c6
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/panorama-scientology-and-me/
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology
http://xenu.com-it.net/txt/ildikoe.htm
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.scientology-lies.com
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
http://www.scientology-kills.org

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
*
* "....I don't see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy
have done anything for man but push him further into the mud."
* - L. Ron Hubbard, "Keeping Scientology Working", 7 Feb 1965


Bruce Scott TOK

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 8:39:17 AM1/25/08
to
Maggie wrote:

>There is far less fear in joining a casual discussion than there is in
>realizing you're the target of an attack by a faceless group that
>wants to bring you and your organization down. Scientology is all
>about fear anyway - fear of not doing the tech right, fear of losing
>your friends and family if you allow your mind to follow a questioning
>route, fear of the BTs all over your body, fear of your own memories
>and experiences.

I fully agree with that and it is why with the exception of critical
discussion any hostile activity against the people or organisation of
Scn is not only wrong it is also counterproductive. What you want in a
discussion with someone you thing is wrong is to create cognitive
dissonance between what they expect/believe and what is actually visible
in front of them. Give them space to think, make it civil, polite,
compassionate, even when they don't give that back to us --- hence we,
as individuals each for their own personal reasons and from their own
personal perspective, take the high moral ground. Make it possible for
them not to fear. For example, Tory's experiences show that only with
such an approach was it possible for her to make good her exit from the
cult.

I don't think "Anonymous" understand that. Even if they are what their
supporters say they are and not "script kiddies" they don't seem to
understand that attacking an organisation which has psychological means
as one of its foundations is not a good way to deal with it.

They are playing into the hands of Scn. I don't think they are agents
provocateurs like some more nervous people seem to do. Just that for
all the boasting they don't really know what they're dealing with.

barb

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 9:33:47 AM1/25/08
to
C'mon. Somewhere, deep down inside, there's a secret chuckle over
Scientology getting a taste of its own medicine. (organic herbal
medicine, of course)

barb

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 9:39:39 AM1/25/08
to

They'll find out soon enough, won't they. I bet Eugene Ingram and ol'
Cartoon Face Edwin Richardson are working overtime trying to find out
who the hell these people are! Should they succeed in uncovering a few,
well, I wouldn't want to be in those guys' shoes!

banchukita

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 12:13:44 PM1/25/08
to

Sure, part of me would like to. But I think of the look on that boy's
face in the video I saw yesterday, when he was denying that Mary Sue
Hubbard went to jail. The guys who were passing out the flyers were
not offering help, but laughed as they walked away.

Scientology isn't getting a taste of its own medicine, but uninformed
individuals are, without understanding why. Sure this might plant a
seed. But who is this kid going to turn to for help?

-maggie, human being
> --
> barb
> Chaplain, ARSCCwdne
>
> buy my book!http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1198812


>
> read my page! (thanks, R. Hill!)http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/graham1.html
>

> visit my store!http://www.cafepress.com/birdville- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

barb

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 12:49:16 PM1/25/08
to

You can't offer help. They KNOW their "truth" is the right truth. You
might plant a seed, but there's little point in trying to establish
dialog with a cult puppet running Ron's program.


>
> Scientology isn't getting a taste of its own medicine, but uninformed
> individuals are, without understanding why. Sure this might plant a
> seed. But who is this kid going to turn to for help?

You don't think this isn't keeping DM up at night? He's getting a taste,
and I bet he doesn't like it much.

As far as the indoctrinated young man, he can always look at teh
internets. Whether his programming will allow him that option remains to
be seen.
>
> -maggie, human being

--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne

read my page! (thanks, R. Hill!)

Rev Norle Enturbulata, XYZZY

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 12:53:57 PM1/25/08
to

"banchukita" <banch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:025d5b8b-b4dd-48dc...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

All quite valid concerns, but that question is better asked of Scientology,
who is the entity not providing that necessary help. It is not the fault of
the anon group or any critics, that Scientology is a cold, heartless,
sadistic cult.

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"


realpch

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 3:30:21 PM1/25/08
to
Seth...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>



> A Scientologist tried to bull bait an anon. She asked the anon "What
> are your crimes?" to which the anon replied "well, in my previous
> incarnation I was L. Ron Hubbard, and I tricked a bunch of people into
> believing a bunch of BULLSHIT for profit." The scientologist freaked
> out. It's a new game, new methods, and playtime is over. We only wish
> we had your support.

Not too likely from this quarter at least. One must examine one's methods.

Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com

barb

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 6:05:16 PM1/25/08
to
realpch wrote:
> Seth...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> A Scientologist tried to bull bait an anon. She asked the anon "What
>> are your crimes?" to which the anon replied "well, in my previous
>> incarnation I was L. Ron Hubbard, and I tricked a bunch of people into
>> believing a bunch of BULLSHIT for profit." The scientologist freaked
>> out. It's a new game, new methods, and playtime is over. We only wish
>> we had your support.
>
> Not too likely from this quarter at least. One must examine one's methods.
>
> Peach

We are not anonymous. We are not legion. And most importantly, we are
not cohesive on all things, just some things. We all agree that
Scientology is Bad, m'kay?

jessicat

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 7:23:04 PM1/25/08
to
"Anonymous" and other so called /i/nsurgents have no moral stake in
this question. They don't care about you or the years of fighting you
have put in against Scientology. They're more or less like a group of
kids with a loaded gun; they don't care where they point it, as long
as it makes a commotion they're happy. Most of them don't know
anything much at all about Scientology or the history behind it, and
don't particularly care. as FTSOH mentioned.


/B/ROTHERS:
anonymou...@gmail.com posting here is an OSA plant

jessicat

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 7:26:35 PM1/25/08
to
> anonymoushivem...@gmail.com posting here is an OSA plant

first bit was a quote from the douchebag, not part of my post, epic
fail

barb

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 8:08:47 PM1/25/08
to

FSM knows that the cult wouldn't want these two groups exchanging
information. Let's instill fear. The Anonymous is a gang of immoral
hax0rs who don't give a rat's ass about established critics.

Got it. What a great script! It's exactly the type of thing I'd expect
an OSA plant would say. If plants could talk.

barb

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 8:11:44 PM1/25/08
to
FTSOH wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:09:47 -0800 (PST).
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID:
> <a0379f0b-b694-45ed...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> And the Organization Header: http://groups.google.com.
> The famous author: cultxpt <cul...@gmail.com>.
> Wrote on the subject: Open Letter to Anonymous:
> Don't be so fucking naive Jeff. These people are not really interested in
> the fight against Scientology. They're more interested in testing their
> tech to take down web sites.
>
> Had it not been Scientology, it would have been any other site of their
> choice.
>
> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not
> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
>
>

These sorts of things are prone to go off in unexpected directions, so
you never know.

wheat...@googlemail.com

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 8:43:03 PM1/25/08
to
The people that have published the videos so far are new to it, the
movement is advancing. I'm heading to the London base of operations to
protest and hand out fliers on the 10th. If you think that there are
fliers and discussions that should be had then I am more than willing
to talk about them. I am trying as hard as possible to not be ignorant
to the situation and I will educate all of the anon I encounter.

- so far I know of the Apollo incident
- facts about L.Ron and his more than extravagant claims
- The Snow White project.

I also know about the various deaths caused but I don't know them
enough to be able to quote them verbatim so I'm doing more research on
it.
I'm aware of my legal rights and limitations and I will make aware to
everyone I can of those facts, but more information is required.

We are in the UK and so subject to UK law, so it would be helpful to
know everything possible. So please, provide Anon with the information
they should possess but the real life protests. Thanks for your time.

Ren

Friendly Xenu

unread,
Jan 25, 2008, 9:01:25 PM1/25/08
to
barb <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote:

>You don't think this isn't keeping DM up at night? He's getting a taste,
>and I bet he doesn't like it much.

No, I think David is LOVEING every minute of it. He finally gets
to legitimately say his crime syndicate is being harassed. The god
damned crook is going to milk this for every cent he can.

---

Message has been deleted

barb

unread,
Jan 26, 2008, 12:58:59 AM1/26/08
to
Maybe, but his inner control freak ain't lovin' it.
Message has been deleted

Seth...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 28, 2008, 3:50:17 AM1/28/08
to
On Jan 26, 7:11 am, TruthSetsYouFree <TruthSetsYouF...@invalid.host>
wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:11:44 -0800.
> barb <xenub...@netscape.net> Wrote:
>
>
>
> >FTSOH wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:09:47 -0800 (PST).
> >> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> >> With the Message-ID:
> >> <a0379f0b-b694-45ed-aa07-464e96c64...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>

> >> And the Organization Header:http://groups.google.com.
> >> The famous author: cultxpt <cult...@gmail.com>.
> Hehe, yeah. The most recent unexpected direction being that the whole
> fucking 2007 OT-Summit is now available as a torrent it seems. I do soo
> wonder who the fuck leaked that one. Must be a Scieno in good standing at
> least, since I'm sure those DVD's aren't exactly sold on the street.
>
> That, or the "Anonymous" group, is now in total control of the Scn's
> servers where they store all those DVD's.
>
> Anyhow, should this one come in the hands of the media (which I see no
> reason why it shouldn't since it's now a torrent with hundreds of sources
> and seeds), it will become another big fucking "OhmyGod, these people are
> totally insane", since Tom Cruises rants is just a summer breeze compared
> to what they say in this 2007 OT-Summit DVD. (Not that I've downloaded it
> of course, that would probably be illegal or something :-) )
>
> Oh Davey Boy, what the hell are you going to do about all this? You've
> lost all control you ever thought you had...
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

That one was absolutely anon, it was taken from the servers along with
the other documents which include pretty much everything L. Ron ever
wrote down on a piece of paper. It's the same information that the rtc
charges ridiculous amounts of money to their followers for, and it's
part of our knowledge is free campaign. We will be handing out printed
texts of the most "secret" information during our in person protests,
and we will be removing small bits of text here and there to void the
legal copyrights. Even strong critics of anon can't argue that a part
of them doesn't get happy hearing things like this.

To those who have been replying here after my initial reply- I ask
that you please read the statements I have made on behalf of anon. You
can clearly see from them that we are not a rag tag group of "kids
with a loaded gun", many of us are QUITE educated on scientology, and
quite serious about what we are doing. I'm going to have to ask that
you leave your judgments about anon until the end. Many of you became
aware of anonymous only after we chose to publicize our internet
attacks, so I ask that you let our future actions speak louder then my
word, should you choose not to take me at it.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages