Attention Anonymous Members
Nina.R...@yahoo.com
thinking you are doing something helpful. My previous postings with
examples of how some of the great religions of the world have helped
our world, were not for the purpose of comparison. They were to
remind one and all of the tremendous growth mankind has made due to
these and many other beneficial contributions. You need to know the
leaders behind Anonymous are not only out to destroy Scientology, but
all religions. Look back and see the previous responses they have
made where they themselves mock faith and the belief in God.
You are protesting against Scientology today, tomorrow it may be your
own church they decide to badger.
Jeff L
The "church" of Scientology is no church.
Fear Not
You know as much about religion as you know about Psychiatry.
Scientology is not a religion!!
How much money do you have in the bank?
How much money have you given to Scientology?
How much money did you give them for the Super Power building?
Get your money back.
You have been doing this for quite some time now on ARS.
You have not convinced one person here of your drivel,
and you have not inflicted one effective blow.
It hasn't worked for you. You should be taken off lines or retrained.
Perhaps with all your talk about Psychiatry, you have become PTS.
Jeff L
Nina doesn't actually read ARS, so she won't get your message.
I do, however, find it intriguing that she's jumped ship from the usual
anti-psych spam and less usual RFW spam and addressed Anonymous
directly. The "church" must be feeling quite enturbulated today.
smith....@yahoo.com
Ya, jeff and tom just ignore you.
All I can say is that if my religion goes the way of Scientology, I'll
be out there protesting my self.
This is new ground for Nina, and it shows just what dumbasses they are
if they think that for one second this will dissuade anybody.
To the OSA dudes who are reading this: FLUNK!!! AGAIN!!!
Tom Newton
<5b68bc87-4522-43a0...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>
Fear Not <tpl...@msn.com> wrote:
> Nina You know as much about religion as you know about
> Psychiatry. Scientology is not a religion!!
Yes it is. Obviously.
The funny thing is, that in other posts you will claim that
it isn't science.
Can't have it both ways: If it isn't science it's a religon.
DUH!
Poor dumb "Anonymous".
They think that if they just repeat the same nosnsense
often enough, somehow magically it will come true.
And think that we don't notice that they contradict
themselves with regularity.
<snip>
Tom
--
The Truth will set you free:
http://www.sethcenter.com
e-tard
> The funny thing is, that in other posts you will claim that
> it isn't science.
>
> Can't have it both ways: If it isn't science it's a religon.
>
LOL! What makes you think there isn't a third premise, Tom? If it
isn't a science, and it isn't a religion, it's obviously A SCAM.
Hahahaha, you really need to take a basic logic course at your local
community college.
Jeff L
You are either too stupid to understand logic, or you hope that others
are too stupid. I won't let this strawman pass. But I can't be
bothered to do yet another point-by-point rebuttal on this bullshit,
so I'll just refer you to my previous post:
In <e667188c-4368-4a01...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
on May 1, 2:21 am, mess, Jeff L <jeffrey.lat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I almost missed this gem courtesy of my filter. (Applied filter
> "General Idiocy" to message from Tom Newton <t...@server.invalid> -
> Scientology is a Religion Because It Has No Scientific Basis [was: No
> scientific basis] at 5/1/2008 1:10:01 AM)
>
> Tom, you assert that you just defeated Anonymous withlogic, yet you
> still demonstrate that you do not understandlogic.
>
> Your "logic" is as follows:
>
> 1. If something is not science, it must be religion.
> 2. Scientology is not science
> 3. Scientology, thus, is religion.
>
> The flaw here is in point #1, which cannot be taken as true. It cannot
> be taken as true because a good deal of things lie outside of the
> scope of science, and yet are also demonstrably not religious beliefs.
> History, for one. You cannot prove via the scientific method that
> Abraham Lincoln was assassinated (as the scientific method requires
> observations to be repeatable) but you'd be a fool to deny that he
> was.
>
> Your logical premises, however, would lead to the conclusion that
> historical facts are thus religious beliefs. As such a conclusion is
> obviously bullshit and cannot be taken as true, it indicates a problem
> with one of the premises used to build that conclusion.
>
> Thus, Tom, I have taken the time to debunk your "argument" by
> demonstrating actuallogic. You may now proceed to your typical "I'm
> not reading anything you or your sockpuppets have to say" lies and
> accusations.
AnonymousNasty
Don't forget about the money laundering too...lurk moar, troll less!
$CIENTOLOGY KILL$
peters...@gmail.com
> On 2008-05-11, in
> <5b68bc87-4522-43a0-bf3f-7f2aa5b14...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>
>
> Fear Not <tpl...@msn.com> wrote:
> > Nina You know as much about religion as you know about
> > Psychiatry. Scientology is not a religion!!
>
> Yes it is. Obviously.
>
> The funny thing is, that in other posts you will claim that
> it isn't science.
>
Because it isn't. It is partly plagiarized, mostly made up by Hubbard.
It isn't science because Hubbard said it is: It isn't science because
it isn't by all standards.
> Can't have it both ways: If it isn't science it's a religon.
>
> DUH!
>
Your "logic" fails. It is neither science nor religion. It is a
company,selling supposedly self improvement courses at extremely high
rates. The truth is, it uses mind control techniques to brainwash and
indoctrinate gullible people to make them ronbots. They are made to
believe they are better than normal people, but in fact are abused for
their money. Without it you are of no use for the CULT.
> Poor dumb "Anonymous".
>
> They think that if they just repeat the same nosnsense
> often enough, somehow magically it will come true.
>
What you call "nonsense" is practiced every day by the CULT: Fair
Game, Disconnection to name two.
> And think that we don't notice that they contradict
> themselves with regularity.
>
Name one example please.
> <snip>
>
> Tom
>
> --
> The Truth will set you free:http://www.sethcenter.com
Peter
"After an in-depth examination, an Investigative
Commission titled "So-called Sects and Psycho-Groups" set up by the
German Bundestag
(Parliament) described the organization in its final report as an anti-
constitutional movement
with a criminogenic structure."
barb
> Many of you are young college students who have been duped into
> thinking you are doing something helpful. My previous postings with
> examples of how some of the great religions of the world have helped
> our world, were not for the purpose of comparison. They were to
> remind one and all of the tremendous growth mankind has made due to
> these and many other beneficial contributions.
"Tremendous growth?" You mean, like the destruction of the famous
library at Alexandria by primitive Christian folk? Or the Dark Ages,
when superstition dictated one's every move?
BTW, I didn't bother to read your posts, as I know they are meant to
generate noise.
You need to know the
> leaders behind Anonymous are not only out to destroy Scientology, but
> all religions. Look back and see the previous responses they have
> made where they themselves mock faith and the belief in God.
"They?" They who? Our leaders? We don't have leaders. The ARSCC(wdne)
never had any, and you couldn't grasp that.
Now you're playing the same old silly song for the new kids on our block.
Didn't work with OG. Ain't gonna work with anonymous. Isn't doing the
same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome a definition of
insanity?
>
> You are protesting against Scientology today, tomorrow it may be your
> own church they decide to badger.
When other churches cross the line between their practices and other
people's civil rights, that church might have to expect us.
Don't forget, it's not the beliefs of Scientology we protest, but the
actions.
Your argument is full of fail.
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
It's Poodlin' Time!
“I think that the protections that we enjoy for freedom of worship exist
so long as we don’t step over the line. When religious worship and
belief cross over into things like fraud, victimization of others and
the disruption of the political arena, that protection is no longer
appropriate.”
--Robert Goff
Professor Emeritus, UCSC
barb
...and that's not a badger...
barb
Nina's mask is, errr, slipping. Is that a bivalve I see before me, the
siphon toward my hand?
ThetansR...@gmail.com
e-tard and squeaky broke her I think. She should consider turning
state's evidence before others get there first, and there are no more
deals to be struck.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> "Tremendous growth?" You mean, like the destruction of the famous
> library at Alexandria by primitive Christian folk? Or the Dark Ages,
> when superstition dictated one's every move?
Did the Christians destroy the LoA? I know the last major conflict
was about 640 AD between Christians and Muslims, but near as I'm aware
there is no real evidence that one faction actually destroyed it.
I'm all for blaming a religious conflict for the loss the the library,
since it seems this last conflict was responsible for a major
unrecoverable loss. I simply am unaware of any evidence that would
support a single party was exclusively responsible.
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata, DTS, OD
"IntergalacticExpandingPanda" <intergalactic...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
news:dcf607f8-3838-4881...@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Wiki am yer friendz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
Or any university, for instance in Ohio...
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9
..
There we go. Anony vs Mormons
e-tard
> http://anonymoushategroup.blogspot.com/2008/05/fbi-does-not-consider-...
>
> There we go. Anony vs Mormons
More like you vs. Mormons. Everyone else is keeping their eyes on the
target.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
earthligh...@nor-hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Did the Christians destroy the LoA? I know the last major conflict
> > was about 640 AD between Christians and Muslims, but near as I'm aware
> > there is no real evidence that one faction actually destroyed it.
>
> > I'm all for blaming a religious conflict for the loss the the library,
> > since it seems this last conflict was responsible for a major
> > unrecoverable loss. I simply am unaware of any evidence that would
> > support a single party was exclusively responsible.
>
> Wiki am yer friendz.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
>
> Or any university, for instance in Ohio...http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9
"Although the actual circumstances and timing of the physical
destruction of the Library remain uncertain, it is however clear that
by the Eighth century CE, the Library was no longer a significant
institution and had ceased to function in any important capacity." --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
"So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? Unfortunately most of the
writers from Plutarch (who apparently blamed Caesar) to Edward Gibbons
(a staunch atheist or deist who liked very much to blame Christians
and blamed Theophilus) to Bishop Gregory (who was particularly anti-
Moslem, blamed Omar) all had an axe to grind and consequently must be
seen as biased. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in
destroying some part of the Library's holdings." --http://
ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9
I'm all for being corrected and informed, but seems to me that my
stance of not knowing who exactly did it seems to be consistent with
present historical understanding.
pooky621a
<intergalacticexpandingpa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 4:38 pm, "\"Rev\" Norle Enturbulata, DTS, OD" <not-
>
> earthligh...@nor-hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Did the Christians destroy the LoA? I know the last major conflict
> > > was about 640 AD between Christians and Muslims, but near as I'm aware
> > > there is no real evidence that one faction actually destroyed it.
>
> > > I'm all for blaming a religious conflict for the loss the the library,
> > > since it seems this last conflict was responsible for a major
> > > unrecoverable loss. I simply am unaware of any evidence that would
> > > support a single party was exclusively responsible.
>
> > Wiki am yer friendz.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria
>
> > Or any university, for instance in Ohio...http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9
>
> "Although the actual circumstances and timing of the physical
> destruction of the Library remain uncertain, it is however clear that
> by the Eighth century CE, the Library was no longer a significant
>
> "So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? Unfortunately most of the
> writers from Plutarch (who apparently blamed Caesar) to Edward Gibbons
> (a staunch atheist or deist who liked very much to blame Christians
> and blamed Theophilus) to Bishop Gregory (who was particularly anti-
> Moslem, blamed Omar) all had an axe to grind and consequently must be
> seen as biased. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in
> destroying some part of the Library's holdings." --http://
> ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=9
>
> I'm all for being corrected and informed, but seems to me that my
> stance of not knowing who exactly did it seems to be consistent with
> present historical understanding.
Yeah, basically no one knows who did it, when it happened, or what
have you. Its around in some form by the 7th century, then simply
falls off the record. Both Caesar and Augustus are accused of
destroying "some" of it, but its still around till the muslims invade.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
> Many of you are young college students who have been duped into
> thinking you are doing something helpful. My previous postings with
> examples of how some of the great religions of the world have helped
>
> You are protesting against Scientology today, tomorrow it may be your
> own church they decide to badger.
shore story
I bet when you did TR-0 you thought you were learning to confront?
that was a shore story too
Recall Hubbard telling you to do his stuff exactly as he described
it... now you will know WHY..
Hypnosis for Salesmen (c) 1960
Introduction
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosisforsalesmen/hfs04.jpeg
Chap 2 - How to Hypnotize
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosisforsalesmen/hfs07.jpeg
The Eye-to-Eye technique (TR 0)
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosisforsalesmen/hfs08.jpeg
The simple technique above altered by "Ron" so HE would not need to
hypnotize you, himself, became TR-0, I challenge anyone who has done
TR0 to read this, think about it..compare the symptoms of hypnosis as
described in this little book for salesmen, to what you, yourself
observed while doing TR0, and start THINKING again..
We were HAD by a CON MAN...
Chap3 The stages of Hypnosis
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosisforsalesmen/hfs13.jpeg
Chap 12 - Don't Give The Buyer a Choice (sound familiar?)
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosisforsalesmen/hfs47.jpeg
What Hubbard described as CCHR's are the "You-do-as-I-do" Hypnosis
Technique
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosisforsalesmen/hfs22.jpeg
Browse the entire book in image form
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/hypnosisforsalesmen/
The truth shall set you free
(eventually even you whomever you are "Nina Reye")
regards
Arnie Lerma
Gore Vidal on meeting L Ron Hubbard
"He exuded evil, malice, and stupidity"
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> http://anonymoushategroup.blogspot.com/2008/05/fbi-does-not-consider-...
>
"Before you make your decision about Paul Fetch based upon that one
letter, consider what he says about Mormonism. Paul Fetch has made
statements about the Mormon Church, and now,coincidentally, they are
experiencing "Anonymous" leaks of their Church documents:" --http://
anonymoushategroup.blogspot.com/2008/05/fbi-does-not-consider-paul-
fetch-to-be.html
Righto... this is where you lack intellectual integrity. First you
assert Paul Fetch's letter about Mormonism has something to do with
Anonymous, and further state that the FBI "does not consider Paul
Fetch to be the leader of Anonymous".
If you are going to be paranoid... try to be consistent.
e-tard
spammed threads that were copy/pastes of religious texts from around
the world: Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and so on. I responded to each
(as is my habit), telling her to not compare Scientology to
respectable religions like the above-mentioned faiths, and advising
her to turn State's evidence before it was too late. I appended each
with a clip from the court cases I and others have assembled. Nina has
not posted in 5 days. This does not mean she will never post again,
of course, but it's significant that she broke character and then
stopped posting after this, don't you think? You've all had a 5 day
vacation from Nina's threads. Maybe counter-spamming does work. It
does require persistence, and it does mess up the flow of ARS to some
people's great consternation, but I've always felt that you can't go
wrong when you append lies with THE TRUTH. I'm not asking for a pat on
the back, credit, or any thank you, because as I've said, I'm not sure
Nina stopped posting because of me, nor was it my solitary effort, or
even my own original idea. Many others helped me in the planning and
execution, and still more waited in the wings in case their help was
needed, and I thank them all for their help in this venture. All I ask
is that those of you who are concerned about spam on ARS to not
interfere with the efforts of myself and my family. Patience is a
virtue, you know. A great thank you to those regulars who have showed
such patience.
kennethno...@gmail.com
So, what should they do Nina? Spam Scientology boards with anti-
psychiatry propaganda like you do?
Anyway, Scientology is no church or religion. It's an evil con/cult
of a business with a sole purpose of taking members money. Real
religions and churches are not like this. Also, Anonymous and most
critics are not protesting anyone's beliefs here. They are protesting
Scientology's censorship on the Internet and the dangerous cult that
is killing and destroying people's lives.
Wake up Nina! Wake up!
..
pooky621a
> FBI doesn't consider him to be so. We do.
Anonymous doesn't consider you to be so. In fact, no one considers
you to be anything to anyone. You exude fail like fat people sweat.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
Considering in the Scientology mecca org staff phoned the police
claiming a boom box was a bucket of acid, I doubt that anyone is going
to believe another line of crap.
The Badger
> own church they decide to badger.
I'm The Badger, and my lawyer will be in touch with you regarding your
blatant and malicious infringement of my copyright.
The Badger
<intergalacticexpandingpa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you are going to be paranoid... try to be consistent.
...
But isn't that Tom Newton's blog? Why would he start being consistent
now???
The Dark Lord
--
For every action, there is an equal and opposite Reaction
http://uk.youtube.com/user/TheDarkLord404
"The Badger" <Stealt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e442449f-e4d3-463c...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...