Bernie Takes Another Look
Tigger
Bernie Takes another look at Scientology and Anonymous
Another Look at Scientology 2: Operation Drop the Masks
http://anotherlookatscientology2.blogspot.com/2008/12/operation-drop-masks.html
thorazin...@gmail.com
I'm sure Bernie would love nothing more than for Anonymous to unmask.
failpage is fail
John Dorsay
I did note with amusement that "Comment moderation has been enabled.
All comments must be approved by the blog author."
(https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2128985062086958087&postID=8991774339240589146)
Isn't this blogger the very same barmpot who managed to convince
some of the more gullible OCMB posters that he might be a victim of
prior restraint just because of his contrary POV?
The Blathering Belgian may not be any more subtle than he was a
decade ago, but his command of irony still impresses me.
John
barbz
Bernie mistakes the mission to be extracting practicing Scientologists
from the grasp of the cult. Pity he can't see that our main success is
in keeping the raw meat from their doors; but then, he'd have no reason
to call for the Great Unmasking.
--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
"Our belief in freedom of religion has made it impossible, (With a
helping hand from well placed Scientologists in government, of course!)
to recognize when a criminal conspiracy pretends to be a religion."
--Brett Bellmore
barbz
Does he command irony, or is he merely its unwitting victim?
Monica Pignotti
> thorazineshuf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 7:17 am, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >> and offers suggestions for talking to Scientologists
>
> >> Bernie Takes another look at Scientology and Anonymous
>
> >> Another Look at Scientology 2: Operation Drop the Masks
>
> >>http://anotherlookatscientology2.blogspot.com/2008/12/operation-drop-...
>
> > I'm sure Bernie would love nothing more than for Anonymous to unmask.
>
> > failpage is fail
>
> I did note with amusement that "Comment moderation has been enabled.
> All comments must be approved by the blog author."
>
> Isn't this blogger the very same barmpot who managed to convince
> some of the more gullible OCMB posters that he might be a victim of
> prior restraint just because of his contrary POV?
>
> The Blathering Belgian may not be any more subtle than he was a
> decade ago, but his command of irony still impresses me.
>
> John
He does that to keep out spam. I don't know if you've ever had a blog
but I have a blog and spammers are common (I mean actual spammers like
the viagra promoters and such). Turning on "Moderation" helps keep
spam out. If you have a look at his blog, you'll see that he has not
filtered out critical comments and has welcomed them.
Monica
Eldon
> thorazineshuf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 7:17 am, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >> and offers suggestions for talking to Scientologists
>
> >> Bernie Takes another look at Scientology and Anonymous
>
> >> Another Look at Scientology 2: Operation Drop the Masks
>
> >>http://anotherlookatscientology2.blogspot.com/2008/12/operation-drop-...
>
> > I'm sure Bernie would love nothing more than for Anonymous to unmask.
>
> > failpage is fail
>
> Bernie mistakes the mission to be extracting practicing Scientologists
> from the grasp of the cult. Pity he can't see that our main success is
> in keeping the raw meat from their doors; but then, he'd have no reason
> to call for the Great Unmasking.
Good observation. He's quite solicitous about establishing a dialog
with current committed Scilons, which might not be a bad idea in
principle. But of course they'll leave out of necessity anyway once
the evil cult is unable to keep its doors open.
henri
<restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I did note with amusement that "Comment moderation has been enabled.
>All comments must be approved by the blog author."
>(https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2128985062086958087&postID=8991774339240589146)
>Isn't this blogger the very same barmpot who managed to convince
>some of the more gullible OCMB posters that he might be a victim of
>prior restraint just because of his contrary POV?
It would indeed be the very same Hercule Barmpot of the Missing
Marbles.
henri
wrote:
>Good observation. He's quite solicitous about establishing a dialog
>with current committed Scilons, which might not be a bad idea in
>principle. But of course they'll leave out of necessity anyway once
>the evil cult is unable to keep its doors open.
His real point is to repackage OSA propaganda, wrapped in a thin candy
coating of moderation, like a turd M&M.
John Dorsay
> John Dorsay wrote:
>> thorazin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Dec 11, 7:17 am, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>>> and offers suggestions for talking to Scientologists
>>>>
>>>> Bernie Takes another look at Scientology and Anonymous
>>>>
>>>> Another Look at Scientology 2: Operation Drop the Masks
>>>>
>>>> http://anotherlookatscientology2.blogspot.com/2008/12/operation-drop-...
>>>>
>>> I'm sure Bernie would love nothing more than for Anonymous to unmask.
>>>
>>> failpage is fail
>>
>> I did note with amusement that "Comment moderation has been enabled.
>> All comments must be approved by the blog author."
>> (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2128985062086958087&postID=8991774339240589146)
>>
>>
>> Isn't this blogger the very same barmpot who managed to convince
>> some of the more gullible OCMB posters that he might be a victim of
>> prior restraint just because of his contrary POV?
>>
>> The Blathering Belgian may not be any more subtle than he was a
>> decade ago, but his command of irony still impresses me.
>>
>>
>> John
>
> Does he command irony, or is he merely its unwitting victim?
If I may amend the first part of your question to read "Does he
unwittingly command irony", then "yes" and "yes".
There is more to the Barmpot than his remarkable deductive processes ;)
John
Tigger
Lord love a duck, can't you all confront the message instead of
attacting the messenger? What did Bernie post that you disagree with
and why?
Re: the wearing of masks....
not even the Scientologists did that when they picketed OLD CAN.
Historicallly, masks are associated with thieves and secret societies
like the KKK .
IMO...Hiding behind masks would suggest to the world at large that
critics either are cowards and/or have something to hide .
Haven't we had enough of the branding of people as OSA? Does anyone
have any proof that Bernie is OSA? Do you Henri? If so, where is
it? Just because you disagree with and/or mad at him does not make
him OSA. If he has errors, disinformation or lies on his website,
provide him or Don Carlo with evidence that proves that.
What Bernie had to say about you, Henri and your rants about him being
OSA. IMO, rather remarkable after what you've said about him and
critics you've disagreed with.
Bernie posted via Monica on OCMB
Quote:
16. "Regarding Rob Clark's false "bomb threat" - I believe Rob is one
of the most valued critics in this movement. today. His analysis and
translation of legal briefs made the LMT/Minton affair accessable to
many people.."
I agree with umike, Don.
PTSC is on my reading list when I read ARS. He is intelligent and very
knowledgeable and can see several sides of an argument, including
engage in self-criticism. But then, that's when he does not have
personal issues. When he does, as is the case with me and my page on
him, he is just raging mad and unable to articulate any arguments
without frothing at the mouth. It blinds him to the point he did not
even see that I addressed Claire's change of mind right there on the
very page where he claimed I didn't..
In a way I can understand his anger after I documented the fake bomb
threat episode, though maybe some day he will realize that that's not
the best way to deal with
And FYI, I did not document this as a personal attack, but as an
example on how some of the claims being made can be false or
fabricated and how some critics can uncritically buy into it. It's
true that I could soften up some of my rhetoric on this page, though.
I won't argue the other points about this with you now. I'll do that
it if and when we ever get to debate about it here. ........End of
Quote
Tigger
*********************************************
"One must not go by feelings, but by facts."
Hercule Poirot ("Dumb Witness", 1937)
********************************************
Tigger
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah. I submitted a comment on this one and it was
posted.
Another Look at Scientology 2: Tom Cruise on a BlitzKrieg
http://anotherlookatscientology2.blogspot.com/2008/12/tom-cruise-on-blitzkrieg.html
Tigger
Alert
Tigger wrote:
>
<snipepd>
What is rather elronic is, that you now champion Bernie, like a crack
whore champions her dealer.
Oh yeah, Bernie is just so accurate with the facts, eh?
Well, do tell, why in one of Bernie's most recent blogs about "What Is
Scientology Tops Google in 2008", he goes on to say it actually rated
as sixth? Also odd, the link in the blog, nowhere within it does it
state the "what is scientology" rated sixth at all.
Here Bernie, http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2008/index.html
maybe you can glean the facts somewhere from the actual link to
Zietgeist 2008 index.
phil scott
bogus bernie is bogus.... he begins by proposing that anonymous had
failed... wrong anonymous has been a stunning success.
then he smears the OG as never having accomplished anything....
wrong,, we took the orgs from 50 to 100 students each night in 1990
to less than 2 or 3 in most cases. We have been very successful...
then anonynous came and added world class icing on the caek.
and... then bernie suggested unmasking to make anonymous targetable,
suggesting that we are trying to get existing scns to leave...when
none of that is the case... we simply want to inform..
leaving us with the conclusion.... bogus bernie is bogus.... as
always. wall to wall fail.
Phil scott
John Dorsay
> Lord love a duck, can't you all confront the message instead of
> attacting the messenger? What did Bernie post that you disagree with
> and why?
<snip>
> Bernie posted via Monica on OCMB
>
> Quote:
<snip>
> In a way I can understand his [rob's] anger after I documented the fake bomb
> threat episode, though maybe some day he will realize that that's not
> the best way to deal with
Weren't you saying something about attacking the messenger, Tigger?
Isn't that exactly what the Barmpot is doing with this sleazy but
typical bit of innuendo that you quoted? Do I need to analyze it
for you or do you understand why normal people consider this message
obnoxious and have little but contempt for its author?
John
Tigger
> Tigger wrote:
>
> <snipepd>
>
> What is rather elronic is, that you now champion Bernie, like a crack
> whore champions her dealer.
Au contraire. Just because I'm not championing the personal attacks
on Bernie does not mean I am championing Bernie, although he did make
some sense in his post about the way to awaken the critical thinking
in a Scientologist's brain. Which IMO can not be accomplished by
enforcing what the "church" has told Scientologists about
critics. A few kind, understanding words can accomplish more than
any amount of accusations, taunts and condemnations. Ask Tory who
helped her leave Scientology and how he did it.
>
> Oh yeah, Bernie is just so accurate with the facts, eh?
>
I never said that. I have said that there should be a debate/
decussion between Bernie and Don Carlo to
ascertain and do away with any disstortions, etc. either one may have
posted.
> Well, do tell, why in one of Bernie's most recent blogs about "What Is
> Scientology Tops Google in 2008", he goes on to say it actually rated
> as sixth? Also odd, the link in the blog, nowhere within it does it
> state the "what is scientology" rated sixth at all.
Perhaps he meant it tops the scientology category, which
may not mean what you seem to think it means. Hfave you eveer tried
asking someone to explain what they mean instead of hitting them in
the face with an accusation?
>
> Here Bernie,http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2008/index.html
> maybe you can glean the facts somewhere from the actual link to
> Zietgeist 2008 index.
BTW, didn't I just read your same post on OCMB?
Tigger
John Dorsay
That's not what the Barmpot's blog says. It says "Comment
moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the
blog author." The presence of a few selected critical comments
certainly does *not* disprove censorship.
Irony, thy name is Barmpot.
John
Alert
Tigger
Why did you snip it? Perhaps you are the one who dosen't
understand. That was in response to Henri's attack on him.
Bernie's message addresses Henri's attack on him, compliments Henri
for his good qualities and his intelligence and finds an excuse for
Henri's angry (over the top)attack. You must admit that when Henri
becomes annoyed and/or angry with people for whatever reason, , he
often goes ballistic.
Tigger
P.S. Don't forget.....Tom Cruise is supposed to be on Leno tonight....
11:35 p.m. EST I think......about 14 minutes from now.
Alert
Tigger wrote:
> On Dec 11, 8:11�pm, Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Tigger wrote:
> >
> > <snipepd>
> >
> > What is rather elronic is, that you now champion Bernie, like a crack
> > whore champions her dealer.
> Au contraire. Just because I'm not championing the personal attacks
> on Bernie does not mean I am championing Bernie,
What do "personal attacks on Bernie" have to do with anything.
Under your philosophy, >I< am launching a personal attack on *you*
> although he did make
> some sense in his post about the way to awaken the critical thinking
> in a Scientologist's brain. Which IMO can not be accomplished by
> enforcing what the "church" has told Scientologists about
> critics. A few kind, understanding words can accomplish more than
> any amount of accusations, taunts and condemnations. Ask Tory who
> helped her leave Scientology and how he did it.
See, you just through rubbish out that has nothing to do with what I
stated. Now, you have to try use Magoo as some some of vessel of
justification
> >
> > Oh yeah, Bernie is just so accurate with the facts, eh?
> I never said that.
Can you explian the words indrerrence or imply?
> I have said that there should be a debate/
> decussion between Bernie and Don Carlo to
> ascertain and do away with any disstortions, etc. either one may have
> posted.
What you have said/inferred/implied is, that Bernie is being refused
entry into OCMB based on who he is.
>
> > Well, do tell, why in one of Bernie's most recent blogs about "What Is
> > Scientology Tops Google in 2008", he goes on to say it actually rated
> > as sixth? Also odd, the link in the blog, nowhere within it does it
> > state the "what is scientology" rated sixth at all.
> Perhaps he meant it tops the scientology category, which
> may not mean what you seem to think it means.
Oh, so now you saying what Bernie meant?
Can you enlighten me on how this can be interpreted in any other way
than what it states?
"What Is Scientology Tops Google in 2008"
Can you then tell me what "he meant" with this:
"In search queries prefixed by the words "what is..", "What is love"
tops the list, while Scientology is sixth."
> Hfave you eveer tried
> asking someone to explain what they mean instead of hitting them in
> the face with an accusation?
What accusation about Bernie.?
You mean how he used his blog to try say the "What is scientology"
topped its category, even though bernie goes on to say it actually
ranked sixth, even though nowhere can it be found (by me at least)
that what bernie states is accurate
There's no need for explanation, the words are succinctly clear.
"What Is Scientology Tops Google in 2008"
"In search queries prefixed by the words "what is..", "What is love"
tops the list, while Scientology is sixth."
What is Scientology tops Google in 2008, yet, prefixed words of "what
is" delivers scientology as sixth according to bernie.
> >
> > Here Bernie,http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2008/index.html
> > maybe you can glean the facts somewhere from the actual link to
> > Zietgeist 2008 index.
> BTW, didn't I just read your same post on OCMB?
Yep, and I guess Im taking a leaf from your book in mirroring posts in
OCMB and ARS
>
> Tigger
Alert
Should read>
Can you explian the words inferrence or imply?
John Dorsay
> On Dec 11, 9:42 pm, John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tigger wrote:
>> > Lord love a duck, can't you all confront the message instead of
>> > attacting the messenger? What did Bernie post that you disagree with
>> > and why?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Bernie posted via Monica on OCMB
>>
>> > Quote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > In a way I can understand his [rob's] anger after I documented the fake bomb
>> > threat episode, though maybe some day he will realize that that's not
>> > the best way to deal with
>>
>> Weren't you saying something about attacking the messenger, Tigger?
>> Isn't that exactly what the Barmpot is doing with this sleazy but
>> typical bit of innuendo that you quoted? Do I need to analyze it
>> for you or do you understand why normal people consider this message
>> obnoxious and have little but contempt for its author?
>>
>> John
>
> Why did you snip it? Perhaps you are the one who dosen't
> understand. That was in response to Henri's attack on him.
I snipped it because the sleazy innuendo speaks for itself.
If it makes you happy, I will restore the entire context.
> Bernie posted via Monica on OCMB
>
> Quote:
>
> 16. "Regarding Rob Clark's false "bomb threat" - I believe Rob is one
> of the most valued critics in this movement. today. His analysis and
> translation of legal briefs made the LMT/Minton affair accessable to
> many people.."
>
> I agree with umike, Don.
>
> PTSC is on my reading list when I read ARS. He is intelligent and very
> knowledgeable and can see several sides of an argument, including
> engage in self-criticism. But then, that's when he does not have
> personal issues. When he does, as is the case with me and my page on
> him, he is just raging mad and unable to articulate any arguments
> without frothing at the mouth. It blinds him to the point he did not
> even see that I addressed Claire's change of mind right there on the
> very page where he claimed I didn't..
>
> In a way I can understand his anger after I documented the fake bomb
> threat episode, though maybe some day he will realize that that's not
> the best way to deal with
There. If anything, it looks even sleazier in context.
> Bernie's message addresses Henri's attack on him, compliments Henri
> for his good qualities and his intelligence and finds an excuse for
> Henri's angry (over the top)attack.
The entire Barmpot quote is nothing but a back-handed compliment
followed by ad hominem and sleazy innuendo. There is NO RESPONSE AT
ALL to any criticism. I understand Bernie quite well, thanks.
John
t_shuffle
"Tigger" <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:c4f47c24-5862-4b7e...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com
Oh shit.. I had no idea that there were still people who took Bernie
seriously. Wow. That's disheartening. Please don't breed.
t_shuffle
"phil scott" <ph...@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:f7ecafb9-cc37-47ec...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com
BOGUS BERNIE IS BOGUS
Android Cat
> Tigger wrote:
>
> The entire Barmpot quote is nothing but a back-handed compliment
> followed by ad hominem and sleazy innuendo. There is NO RESPONSE AT
> ALL to any criticism. I understand Bernie quite well, thanks.
"More wonderful Belgian logic from the master detective\\\\\\\defective."
-- Dave Bird.
--
Ron of that ilk.
realpch
Peaches rolls her eyes...
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
Tigger wrote:
[..]
> Re: the wearing of masks....
> not even the Scientologists did that when they picketed OLD CAN.
> Historicallly, masks are associated with thieves and secret societies
> like the KKK .
> IMO...Hiding behind masks would suggest to the world at large that
> critics either are cowards and/or have something to hide .
>
Yes Monica.
Now, please, take this back to Bernie's site. Maybe he'll publish a comment
from you agreeing violently with him
Best Regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 829 985
"..stay here incognito." "Or, incognita, as the case may be ..." 'Orlando'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFJQioDimJs3AlyPBIRAsgVAKCeokfa4cxknp1qh6AKrt/a8fhoAQCfYjgQ
7W3NdzEguJ/uPShVVXhDJQk=
=e8Wq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hartley Patterson
> not even the Scientologists did that when they picketed OLD CAN.
> Historicallly, masks are associated with thieves and secret societies
> like the KKK .
> IMO...Hiding behind masks would suggest to the world at large that
> critics either are cowards and/or have something to hide .
Except... that I've read a lot of press coverage of Anonymous and hardly
ever seen that suggested, I've been to every monthly protest since
February and never heard it from the public or the police. I have heard it
from Scientologists (!), but then it fits with the official cult policy
that their critics all have 'crimes to hide'.
A more accurate attack on Anonymous would have been to call them
anarchists, a term whose meaning has been successfully twisted by our
Lords and Masters into something inherently bad.
IMO the mask was a successful meme that connected with a younger
generation familiar with its origin (the V for Vendetta graphic novel and
movie). It may be that it connected better in the UK - we burn Guy Fawkes
every November 5th on bonfires. We used to burn the Pope, but that's a tad
Religiously Incorrect these days.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
It worked a treat with the cult, who were unable to follow Tech which
insists that the leaders must be identified BEFORE counter attacking. And
"why the masks?" leads into an explanation of Fair Gaming.
Oh, and as for wearing disguises - Boston Tea Party? Damn traitorous
Yankees... And the modern British SAS, who famously are all anonymous?
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Tigger
> Tigger wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 8:11 pm, Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Tigger wrote:
>
> > > <snipepd>
>
> > > What is rather elronic is, that you now champion Bernie, like a crack
> > > whore champions her dealer.
> > Au contraire. Just because I'm not championing the personal attacks
> > on Bernie does not mean I am championing Bernie,
>
> What do "personal attacks on Bernie" have to do with anything.
Your claim that I was championing "Bernie like a crack whore champions
her dealer" which "implies" several things.
>
> Under your philosophy, >I< am launching a personal attack on *you*
>
Well what and how you posted strongly "suggests" that.
> > although he did make
> > some sense in his post about the way to awaken the critical thinking
> > in a Scientologist's brain. Which IMO can not be accomplished by
> > enforcing what the "church" has told Scientologists about
> > critics. A few kind, understanding words can accomplish more than
> > any amount of accusations, taunts and condemnations. Ask Tory who
> > helped her leave Scientology and how he did it.
>
> See, you just through rubbish out that has nothing to do with what I
> stated. Now, you have to try use Magoo as some some of vessel of
> justification
Au contraire. It has to do with several of your claims and
"implications". It also has to do with Bernie's "message" and the
fact that several people have not addressed what Bernie said, the
"topic" of this thread (something which you claim to abhor) but have
personally attacked him. It also explains why I think what some of
what he said makes sense, which you claim was "championing", which
implies something else.
>
>
>
> > > Oh yeah, Bernie is just so accurate with the facts, eh?
> > I never said that.
>
> Can you explian the words indrerrence or imply?
Do you mean explain their origin
or do you mean explain what they mean (as in define)? Imply means to
"suggest"something. You'll have to "explain" indrerrence unless you
made a typo and meant inference, which means to suggest or "imply"
something which may or may not be true.
>
> > I have said that there should be a debate/
> > discussion between Bernie and Don Carlo to
> > ascertain and do away with any distortions, etc. either one may have
> > posted.
>
> What you have said/inferred/implied is, that Bernie is being refused
> entry into OCMB based on who he is.
Which, if it were the decision of several posters on OCMB and a.r.s.
would be the case, wouldn't it?
>
>
>
> > > Well, do tell, why in one of Bernie's most recent blogs about "What Is
> > > Scientology Tops Google in 2008", he goes on to say it actually rated
> > > as sixth? Also odd, the link in the blog, nowhere within it does it
> > > state the "what is scientology" rated sixth at all.
> > Perhaps he meant it tops the scientology category, which
> > may not mean what you seem to think it means.
>
> Oh, so now you saying what Bernie meant?
Can you "explain" PERHAPS? No, I am "suggesting" what he "might" have
meant. If you really want to know what Bernie meant, you should ask
him.
> Can you enlighten me on how this can be interpreted in any other way
> than what it states?
>
> "What Is Scientology Tops Google in 2008"
>
> Can you then tell me what "he meant" with this:
>
> "In search queries prefixed by the words "what is..", "What is love"
> tops the list, while Scientology is sixth."
>
No, I can't "tell" you what Bernie meant. And neither can you.
Bernie can tell you and maybe so can this, which BTW was not posted by
Bernie and suggests that "What is Scientology?" being tops is not the
bad
thing you "implied" it was.
Top search terms for 2008 include "What is Scientology" -
alt.religion.scientology | Google Groups
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/c6368b9a54a91dd0?hl=en
> > Have you ever tried
> > asking someone to explain what they mean instead of hitting them in
> > the face with an accusation?
>
> What accusation about Bernie.?
> You mean how he used his blog to try say the "What is scientology"
> topped its category, even though bernie goes on to say it actually
> ranked sixth, even though nowhere can it be found (by me at least)
> that what bernie states is accurate
> There's no need for explanation, the words are succinctly clear.
You are "implying" some things which were not what I have said,
implied or meant.
>
> "What Is Scientology Tops Google in 2008"
>
> "In search queries prefixed by the words "what is..", "What is love"
> tops the list, while Scientology is sixth."
>
> What is Scientology tops Google in 2008, yet, prefixed words of "what
> is" delivers scientology as sixth according to bernie.
>
>
>
> > > Here Bernie,http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2008/index..html
> > > maybe you can glean the facts somewhere from the actual link to
> > > Zietgeist 2008 index.
> > BTW, didn't I just read your same post on OCMB?
>
> Yep, and I guess Im taking a leaf from your book in mirroring posts in
> OCMB and ARS
O.k., but I am only going to reply to your
statements, implications, inferences, suggestions, etc. in this post
here on a.r.s. no matter how much you bitch about it on OCMB
>
Tigger
>
>
>
>
> > Tigger- Hide quoted text -
Tigger
> "Tigger" <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
LOL....too late. I've already "bred". I have two lovely daughters
in San Francisco and Albania.
When what a person says makes sense and it is what experts on cults
have said about what seems to work and doesn't work in dealing with
cultists, why shouldn't what that person said be taken seriously in
that specific situaion? If Bernie wants to present his side of the
case and has been invited to do so by Don Carlo, who has posted tons
of his analysis of Bernie's website...... does one agreeing that that
should happen mean that one is taking "seriously" (which implies
"believing") each and every thing that Bernie has posted?
Tigger
barbz
Yeah, it's funny how some people who call themselves 'critics' of
Scientology are yammering the same line as the cult about the masks.
We know why Scientology would like anonymous to unmask. But what of
people like Monica? She can't pretend she doesn't know about fair game.
And yet, she would urge people to voluntarily expose themselves to it.
Makes no sense to me at all. But then, a person who as fallen for not
one, but two cults presenting themselves as an academic expert makes
little sense as well.
Hartley Patterson
> Yeah, it's funny how some people who call themselves 'critics' of
> Scientology are yammering the same line as the cult about the masks.
Since I called Monica for starting a sentence "It's interesting that.."
and going off into her pet subject, I'll call you on "It's funny how..."
Neither mean what they say. And that's false logic, having the same
opinion as someone about one thing does not in itself imply anything about
their other opinions.
:-)
> We know why Scientology would like anonymous to unmask. But what of
> people like Monica? She can't pretend she doesn't know about fair game.
I'd qualify that as "we know how the cult can make good PR out of masked
protesters".
There's nothing inherently bad about suggesting that a particular tactic
might be counter productive, or that received wisdom might be wrong. There
are some who think that picketing Gold at this time is not good for
example.
I guess the cult would love to track down the person who first suggested
masks, just as they tracked down the guy who started ARS and demonised him
even though he played no further part in proceedings. I'd venture to
suggest that apart from the hardline NO LEADERFAGS Anon the masks were
quickly seen as being both intensely annoying to the cult and a good
publicity gimmick, the actual anonymity thing soon blurred except for new
recruits.
Quaoar
The masks are street theater ("theatre" for you). IMO the unified
masking was genius, making the masking theatrical, and the protesting
interesting to the public.
Q
Quaoar
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:38:50 -0500, John Dorsay
> <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I did note with amusement that "Comment moderation has been enabled.
>> All comments must be approved by the blog author."
>
>> Isn't this blogger the very same barmpot who managed to convince
>> some of the more gullible OCMB posters that he might be a victim of
>> prior restraint just because of his contrary POV?
>
> Marbles.
Someone reported on OCMB, I think, that Bernie has 1400 pages on his
site. That is an herculean effort for a site that has very little
traffic. It is likely that the only reason his site has traffic is
discussions amongst critics.
Q
efish
Tigger <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote:
> > He does that to keep out spam. I don't know if you've ever had a blog
> > but I have a blog and spammers are common (I mean actual spammers like
> > the viagra promoters and such). Turning on "Moderation" helps keep
> > spam out. If you have a look at his blog, you'll see that he has not
> > filtered out critical comments and has welcomed them.
> >
> > Monica- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yeah. I submitted a comment on this one and it was
> posted.
that's because you are his way in, once again. to foment as much discord as
possible. you and monica. because you are the ones believing his bullshit.
he is as ever; a sleazy, duplicitous bastard.
bernie's a germ, he's a bacteria - he seeks his way in to infect once again.
dance with him if you wish, i just hope that someone keeps the disinfectant
ready.
and that's all i have to say on the subject.
regards
-ef
Monica Pignotti
> In article <2d640bcd-298c-43ee-85d5-bc0ef4d95...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
Bernie, unlike many people here, has been consistently civil in his
discussions with others, even people he disagrees with. Can anyone
here say that they tried to post a response to his blog and he refused
to post it? I very much doubt it because he has some very strong
responses to some of his postings that he has allowed in. Calling him
a "germ" and "bacteria" really isn't a very convincing counter-
argument, ef.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> Hartley Patterson wrote:
> > Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net:
As I have repeatedly stated, I don't buy that "fair game" excuse
because people picketed for years before that against Scientology, not
wearing any masks. If Scientology wants to learn someone's identity,
they will and it is very naive to assume otherwise. But we've been
through this whole discussion before. The only thing new since that
time is that some anons have now been unmasked and outed, as
predicted.
Monica
Tigger
> In article <2d640bcd-298c-43ee-85d5-bc0ef4d95...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > He does that to keep out spam. I don't know if you've ever had a blog
> > > but I have a blog and spammers are common (I mean actual spammers like
> > > the viagra promoters and such). Turning on "Moderation" helps keep
> > > spam out. If you have a look at his blog, you'll see that he has not
> > > filtered out critical comments and has welcomed them.
>
> > > Monica- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yeah. I submitted a comment on this one and it was
> > posted.
>
> that's because you are his way in, once again. to foment as much discord as
> possible. you and monica. because you are the ones believing his bullshit.
Hey Sweetpea,
I am not inclined to believe ANYUBODY'S bullshit and that includes
yours. If/when it is confirmed (that means proved) what is
bullshit and what is not, then I'll be ready to make a judgement.
That's why a debate/discussion between Don Carlo and Bernie would be a
good thing. BTW are you related to Geroge W. Bush?.
>
> he is as ever; a sleazy, duplicitous bastard.
>
> bernie's a germ, he's a bacteria - he seeks his way in to infect once again.
> dance with him if you wish, i just hope that someone keeps the disinfectant
> ready.
>
> and that's all i have to say on the subject.
LOL.....now do you feel better?
Tigger
********************************************************"
"One must go by facts, not by feelings,"
Hercule Poirot ("Dumb Witness", 1937)
********************************************************
> regards
> -ef
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>As I have repeatedly stated, I don't buy that "fair game" excuse
>because people picketed for years before that against Scientology, not
>wearing any masks.
And many of them got harassed for it or worse. Some people choose to
avoid that.
>If Scientology wants to learn someone's identity,
>they will and it is very naive to assume otherwise.
And as I've pointed out, and you've repeatedly ignored because of your
fundamental dishonesty, they must expend significant resources to do
so.
>But we've been
>through this whole discussion before. The only thing new since that
>time is that some anons have now been unmasked and outed, as
>predicted.
Well, duh. Didn't exactly take a mental wizard to predict the
obvious. I predict Scientology will claim to have millions of members
some time in the next year.
Way to go Nostradumbass.
barbz
> xenu...@netscape.net:
>
>> Yeah, it's funny how some people who call themselves 'critics' of
>> Scientology are yammering the same line as the cult about the masks.
>
> Since I called Monica for starting a sentence "It's interesting that.."
> and going off into her pet subject, I'll call you on "It's funny how..."
> Neither mean what they say. And that's false logic, having the same
> opinion as someone about one thing does not in itself imply anything about
> their other opinions.
>
> :-)
>
>> We know why Scientology would like anonymous to unmask. But what of
>> people like Monica? She can't pretend she doesn't know about fair game.
>
> I'd qualify that as "we know how the cult can make good PR out of masked
> protesters".
>
> There's nothing inherently bad about suggesting that a particular tactic
> might be counter productive, or that received wisdom might be wrong. There
> are some who think that picketing Gold at this time is not good for
> example.
>
> I guess the cult would love to track down the person who first suggested
> masks, just as they tracked down the guy who started ARS and demonised him
> even though he played no further part in proceedings. I'd venture to
> suggest that apart from the hardline NO LEADERFAGS Anon the masks were
> quickly seen as being both intensely annoying to the cult and a good
> publicity gimmick, the actual anonymity thing soon blurred except for new
> recruits.
>
--
Alert
Tigger wrote:
> \On Dec 11, 10:45 pm, Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Tigger wrote:
> > > On Dec 11, 8:11 pm, Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Tigger wrote:
> >
> > > > <snipepd>
> >
> > > > What is rather elronic is, that you now champion Bernie, like a crack
> > > > whore champions her dealer.
>
> > > Au contraire. Just because I'm not championing the personal attacks
> > > on Bernie does not mean I am championing Bernie,
> >
> > What do "personal attacks on Bernie" have to do with anything.
> Your claim that I was championing "Bernie like a crack whore champions
> her dealer" which "implies" several things.
Im not "implying" anything at all. How you can get "several things"
from my statement is almost funny, almost.
So, again "What do "personal attacks on Bernie" have to do with
anything" with relation to what I said to you?
> >
> > Under your philosophy, >I< am launching a personal attack on *you*
> Well what and how you posted strongly "suggests" that.
It's not a suggestion at all
> > > although he did make
> > > some sense in his post about the way to awaken the critical thinking
> > > in a Scientologist's brain. Which IMO can not be accomplished by
> > > enforcing what the "church" has told Scientologists about
> > > critics. A few kind, understanding words can accomplish more than
> > > any amount of accusations, taunts and condemnations. Ask Tory who
> > > helped her leave Scientology and how he did it.
>
> > See, you just through rubbish out that has nothing to do with what I
> > stated. Now, you have to try use Magoo as some some of vessel of
> > justification
>
> Au contraire. It has to do with several of your claims and
> "implications". It also has to do with Bernie's "message" and the
> fact that several people have not addressed what Bernie said, the
> "topic" of this thread (something which you claim to abhor) but have
> personally attacked him. It also explains why I think what some of
> what he said makes sense, which you claim was "championing", which
> implies something else.
And all of the above, and the above the above(ie, what I stated that
had you respond above) has nothing to do with anything beyond you
trying to solidify yourself with irrelevent names to the point at hand
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Oh yeah, Bernie is just so accurate with the facts, eh?
>
> > > I never said that.
> > Can you explian the words indrerrence or imply?
> Do you mean explain their origin
> or do you mean explain what they mean (as in define)? Imply means to
> "suggest"something. You'll have to "explain" indrerrence unless you
> made a typo and meant inference, which means to suggest or "imply"
> something which may or may not be true.
You know what I wrote(or even meant with the typo), but yet, you wont
address that you are trying to say what bernie "meant", that flyes in
the face of his own blog RE "what is scientology tops Google 2008"
>
> >
> > > I have said that there should be a debate/
> > > discussion between Bernie and Don Carlo to
> > > ascertain and do away with any distortions, etc. either one may have
> > > posted.
> > What you have said/inferred/implied is, that Bernie is being refused
> > entry into OCMB based on who he is.
>
> Which, if it were the decision of several posters on OCMB and a.r.s.
> would be the case, wouldn't it?
LMAO!!
You really do think people are so stupid. You will not address that
little factoid of a huge backlog of account activations. Admin applies
admin.
But that doesnt stop you from obfuscating the matter on a continuing
basis, just like in the above
> >
> >
> > > > Well, do tell, why in one of Bernie's most recent blogs about "What Is
> > > > Scientology Tops Google in 2008", he goes on to say it actually rated
> > > > as sixth? Also odd, the link in the blog, nowhere within it does it
> > > > state the "what is scientology" rated sixth at all.
> > > Perhaps he meant it tops the scientology category, which
> > > may not mean what you seem to think it means.
> > Oh, so now you saying what Bernie meant?
> Can you "explain" PERHAPS? No, I am "suggesting" what he "might" have
> meant. If you really want to know what Bernie meant, you should ask
> him.
No, *you* are the person saying what he "meant", regardless of what is
stated in his blog
Gawd, youre like a dog chasing it's tail
> > Can you enlighten me on how this can be interpreted in any other way
> > than what it states?
> > "What Is Scientology Tops Google in 2008"
> > Can you then tell me what "he meant" with this:
> > "In search queries prefixed by the words "what is..", "What is love"
> > tops the list, while Scientology is sixth."
> No, I can't "tell" you what Bernie meant.
Aha, but it wont stop you with your semantics to try your "perhaps",
"meant" and "sugessting"
> And neither can you.
I dont have or try to. I dont even try read between the lines.
Should I have again posted what bernie states as fact, irregardless of
the facts according to Goohle itself?
> Bernie can tell you and maybe so can this, which BTW was not posted by
> Bernie
You know Im talking about Bernie's blog that states "What is
Scientology" topped its category for 2008, then goes into say it
actually ranked sixth, that the sixth designation given by bernie
cannot be found(by me anywayz)
> and suggests that "What is Scientology?" being tops is not the
> bad
> thing you "implied" it was.
PMSL. Oh, so now Im saying/implying/inerring that what is scientology
ranking high is a bad thing? BAHAHAHAA
The only "bad thing" is the bernie thinks everyone is so stupid as to
not see how he does what he does.
>
> Top search terms for 2008 include "What is Scientology" -
> alt.religion.scientology | Google Groups
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/c6368b9a54a91dd0?hl=en
>
No, this link http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2008/index.html
doesnt show "What is Scientology" topping its category for 2008, nor
does it show a ranking of sixth, contrary to what bernie blogged about
Google 2008 web searches
> > > Have you ever tried
> > > asking someone to explain what they mean instead of hitting them in
> > > the face with an accusation?
> >
> > What accusation about Bernie.?
> > You mean how he used his blog to try say the "What is scientology"
> > topped its category, even though bernie goes on to say it actually
> > ranked sixth, even though nowhere can it be found (by me at least)
> > that what bernie states is accurate
> > There's no need for explanation, the words are succinctly clear.
> You are "implying" some things which were not what I have said,
> implied or meant.
All I have really stated is that you act like bernies whore, and by
you trying to obfuscaste the facts of the Google 2008 results,
contrary to what bernie blogged about it, makes you look really
addicted to being a puppet on a string.
>
>
> >
> > "What Is Scientology Tops Google in 2008"
> > "In search queries prefixed by the words "what is..", "What is love"
> > tops the list, while Scientology is sixth."
> > What is Scientology tops Google in 2008, yet, prefixed words of "what
> > is" delivers scientology as sixth according to bernie.
> > > > Here Bernie,http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2008/index..html
> > > > maybe you can glean the facts somewhere from the actual link to
> > > > Zietgeist 2008 index.
> > > BTW, didn't I just read your same post on OCMB?
> > Yep, and I guess Im taking a leaf from your book in mirroring posts in
> > OCMB and ARS
> O.k., but I am only going to reply to your
> statements, implications, inferences, suggestions, etc. in this post
> here on a.r.s.
I infer nothing about bernies blof about Google results and "what is
scientology".
It is bernie whom implies scientology and the what os category topped
its category, then went on to say it ranked sixth, even though the
2008 Year-End Google Zeitgeist page says nothing of the sort.
I guess that is why bernie didnt use the link itself, eh?
> no matter how much you bitch about it on OCMB
Oh, you mean when I last posted in the OCMB thread with "Why not
address it here, since I made the post to you here?
Or are you hoping for moar support in ARS?
Coz gee, looks like that ol' groupthink monster is at it again in
A.R.S"
> >
> Tigger
Have at it tigger
faceplam.jpg
barbz
You don't buy fair game? Maybe it's because you've never experienced it.
It is not something I'd go out of my way to attract, and I don't blame
the unidentified anonymous for wanting to remain that way.
As for fair game goes with me:
http://www.vyuz.com/100306_cos1.php
Do you really think people should voluntarily subject themselves to this
kind of cult harassment?
t_shuffle
"Tigger" <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4e4a319d-5068-4555...@g17g2000prg.googlegroups.com
> LOL....too late. I've already "bred". I have two
> lovely daughters in San Francisco and Albania.
>
> When what a person says makes sense and it is what
> experts on cults have said about what seems to work and
> doesn't work in dealing with cultists, why shouldn't what
> that person said be taken seriously in that specific
> situaion? If Bernie wants to present his side of the
> case and has been invited to do so by Don Carlo, who has
> posted tons of his analysis of Bernie's website......
> does one agreeing that that should happen mean that one
> is taking "seriously" (which implies "believing") each
> and every thing that Bernie has posted?
>
> Tigger
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
I was teasing about the not breeding thing. I just view Bernie as a slightly
more advanced version of Truthseeker; something to maybe be poked with a
stick for a bit, then ultimately ignored.
t_shuffle
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
message
news:95454d46-f607-484f...@b41g2000pra.googlegroups.com
> snip
> As I have repeatedly stated, I don't buy that "fair game"
> excuse because people picketed for years before that
> against Scientology, not wearing any masks. If
> Scientology wants to learn someone's identity, they will
> and it is very naive to assume otherwise. But we've been
> through this whole discussion before. The only thing new
> since that time is that some anons have now been unmasked
> and outed, as predicted.
>
> Monica
"If Scientology wants to learn someone's identity, they will and it is very
naive to assume otherwise."
How very creepy of you, Monica.
Tigger
>
> No, this linkhttp://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist2008/index.html
LOL.....I've "HAD" it with you.
Why don't you go take a long walk off a short pier......a swim might
sober you up. I doubt it, but one can always hope
Tigger
>
> faceplam.jpg- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Monica Pignotti
> "Monica Pignotti" <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> messagenews:95454d46-f607-484f...@b41g2000pra.googlegroups.com
Hey don't shoot the messenger. I am only stating the facts here.
Scientologists have years of experience investigating people and so if
they want to find out who someone is, they will. It's "creepy" of me
to point this out? Nonsense.
Monica
Tigger
YAHOO! CALLING ALL BERNIE BASHERS!
Didn't someone say Bernie was a Belguim? If so, that means English
(like Peter and Roger) is not his native language. Due to language
and CULTURE, what you/we perceive may not be what he means. All we
native English or American speakers may be missing his point.
Heck sometimes the Brits and the Yanks don't even understand each
other.
When I worked in the Dean's office at the Univ. of Maryland, an
English gal in the Business College came in one day and asked for some
"rubbers". LOL.....now you know what all we American gals thought.
But in England rubbers (at that time anyway) were what the Brits
called erasers. (Jump in here Hartley, if that ain't so.)
Anyway the moral of this story. If you have a question about what
"someone" means, ask that "someone", especially if your native
language (and culture) is different from that "someone". People can
make terrible asses out of themselves if they ASSume. (I
know.....I've been there.)
Tigger
*******************************************************
Who knows what lurks in another person's mind?
Not even THE SHADOW knows.
*******************************************************
Eldon
Ah, so it's hopeless! ALL the Anons will eventually be identified by
the stellar OSA investigators no matter what -- right? Even if they
wear masks and skulk back to their cars, nothing can prevent their
being unmasked, right? So they should just identify themselves
voluntarily, save Scientology some trouble, and accept whatever
harassment comes their way. Right? Isn't that what you just said?
You really take the caek, Monica. Did you tap your haid too hard, too
frequently, trying to get those body thetans to leave? Did that give
you a concussion?
You're sounding an awful lot like Roadrunner these days.
Monica Pignotti
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:41:43 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
>
> >As I have repeatedly stated, I don't buy that "fair game" excuse
> >because people picketed for years before that against Scientology, not
> >wearing any masks.
>
> And many of them got harassed for it or worse. Some people choose to
> avoid that.
The ones who got harassed were doing far more than just picketing.
> >If Scientology wants to learn someone's identity,
> >they will and it is very naive to assume otherwise.
>
> And as I've pointed out, and you've repeatedly ignored because of your
> fundamental dishonesty, they must expend significant resources to do
> so.
Huh? What does that have to do with "fundamental dishonesty" or is
that just a gratuitous insult on your part? Of course they must expend
"significant resources". Duh. That supports my point. They simply do
not have the resources to go after every insignificant person who
pickets. They only go after people who are real threats, who do much
more than just picket. They aren't going to go after some random
protester unless the person is doing more than just that.
> >But we've been
> >through this whole discussion before. The only thing new since that
> >time is that some anons have now been unmasked and outed, as
> >predicted.
>
> Well, duh. Didn't exactly take a mental wizard to predict the
> obvious. I predict Scientology will claim to have millions of members
> some time in the next year.
>
> Way to go Nostradumbass.
Your gratuitous insults do nothing to support your case, Rob Clark. I
could respond with some very accurate insults about you, but I'll take
the high road and let your need to flame speak for itself. My point is
that Scientology does not go after the average picketer. People have
been picketing for years and most have not been fair gamed. They only
go after people who do more than that and for those people, wearing a
mask is not going to stop Scientology from discovering their identity.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
Alert is just very frustrated because he cannot control what people
post here. He hasn't learned to accept the fact that people will post
here as they see fit to post, and there is nothing he can do about it.
It must be very difficult for him to have no control over others.
Eldon
> YAHOO! CALLING ALL BERNIE BASHERS!
>
> Didn't someone say Bernie was a Belguim?
That's Belgian. As in a citizen of Belgium.
> If so, that means English
> (like Peter and Roger) is not his native language.
Yes, Bernie's native language ould be Dutch or French (or, as Piltdown
Man once pointed out even German). In this case, probably Dutch, but
that's just my guess. Anyhow, everybody in Belgium and Holland learns
English as a second language anyway. Just as they do in Norway,
Iceland and other smallish countries where the native language won't
get you very far.
> Due to language
> and CULTURE, what you/we perceive may not be what he means. All we
> native English or American speakers may be missing his point.
Nah, Bernie is quite clear in his use of "international" English, and
also every bit as obfuscatory as Roadrunner when he wants to talk in
circles.
>
> Heck sometimes the Brits and the Yanks don't even understand each
> other.
Yes, and now insert cute idiomatic anecdote to illustrate the point
even if it doesn't quite work. But in fact, Americans can read The
Economist -- and Brits can read Forbes -- just fine, and do regularly.
But keep yer pecker up anyway.
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Dec 12, 7:36 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:41:43 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
>> <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >As I have repeatedly stated, I don't buy that "fair game" excuse
>> >because people picketed for years before that against Scientology, not
>> >wearing any masks.
>> And many of them got harassed for it or worse. Some people choose to
>> avoid that.
>The ones who got harassed were doing far more than just picketing.
This is, frankly, fucking bullshit. And you know it is. I've read
many accounts of people getting followed and having their plates taken
down, and other things, who did nothing more than picket. You either
just don't know what you're talking about and are talking anyway, or
you're lying.
>> >If Scientology wants to learn someone's identity,
>> >they will and it is very naive to assume otherwise.
>> And as I've pointed out, and you've repeatedly ignored because of your
>> fundamental dishonesty, they must expend significant resources to do
>> so.
>Huh? What does that have to do with "fundamental dishonesty" or is
>that just a gratuitous insult on your part?
Because you know, full well, that Scientology expends inordinate
resources to track down its critics, and nevertheless, you have the
fucking gall to dump a load of horseshit like that on the newsgroup.
You should be ashamed of yourself for perpetrating such nonsense.
>Of course they must expend
>"significant resources". Duh. That supports my point. They simply do
>not have the resources to go after every insignificant person who
>pickets.
And they know exactly who is doing what without figuring out who they
are, how exactly? What someone else is doing other than picketing is
by no means obvious from their simple attendance at a picket. You may
have to catch a lot of small fish with no other significance in order
to chart out what you think the connections are between critics.
>They only go after people who are real threats, who do much
>more than just picket. They aren't going to go after some random
>protester unless the person is doing more than just that.
You are utterly crazy if you think that Scientology really is
completely rational in determining who "real threats" are, and
distinguishing between them and random critics. Scientology has,
quite often, developed an obsessive focus on some critic who is not
particularly significant, based on reasons known only to them.
Where was the "real threat" posed by "Rogue Agent," who did nothing
more than pseudonymously criticize Scientology? They tracked him
down, and went to extreme effort to do so. Where was the "real
threat" there?
They hunted down Daniel Davidson and instituted academic disciplinary
proceedings against him. This was just for having a website that was
mildly critical of Scientology by today's standards.
What the fuck did TarlaStar do to deserve being tracked down by
Scientology? Was she a "true threat?"
I've just picked examples you were around during and might actually
remember.
The fact is, you're either suffering from dementia and loss of memory,
or you're flat out lying. Or you have adopted Scientology's viewpoint
and consider any criticism of Scientology whatsoever a "true threat."
>> >But we've been
>> >through this whole discussion before. The only thing new since that
>> >time is that some anons have now been unmasked and outed, as
>> >predicted.
>> Well, duh. Didn't exactly take a mental wizard to predict the
>> obvious. I predict Scientology will claim to have millions of members
>> some time in the next year.
>> Way to go Nostradumbass.
>Your gratuitous insults do nothing to support your case, Rob Clark.
Like I give a shit. They make *me* feel better, and maybe they amuse
some other people too. The argument is sound whether or not I throw
in an insult or two. You crying about my insults doesn't make your
bullshit argument any sounder either.
>I
>could respond with some very accurate insults about you, but I'll take
>the high road
Lying your ass off isn't "the high road." Being completely full of
shit and pontificating isn't "the high road." Cry all you like about
my nasty, nasty insults. Being rude isn't as bad as presenting
fundamentally dishonest garbage on this newsgroup as if it has
anything to do with reality.
>and let your need to flame speak for itself. My point is
>that Scientology does not go after the average picketer. People have
They go after any low-hanging fruit they can, especially when they're
trying to gather intelligence on a group they're unfamiliar with.
>been picketing for years and most have not been fair gamed. They only
>go after people who do more than that and for those people, wearing a
>mask is not going to stop Scientology from discovering their identity.
Actually, it might, so long as they combine it with other caution. I
don't care how many PIs they hire, they don't have enough to track
every single person down if they all leave separately in different
directions. Also, many people don't have enough connection to
Scientology or anything else for there to be any way at all to track
them down if they don't do it right from a protest. OSA isn't
magical.
Of course they're going to get some people. They're not going to get
them all, and never have. If you think otherwise, you're engaging in
magical thinking, but then you're kind of an expert at that, aren't
you, being a gullible serial cult victim much of your life. In fact,
it seems like a good chunk of your academic publications are
retracting previous academic publications because the previous
publications were written to promote various quack therapies you've
been involved with.
realpch
That's incorrect from my point of view. They tried to identify and home
picket most of the SF Org picketers.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
barbz
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:20:02 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
> <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 12, 7:36 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:41:43 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
>
>>> <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>> As I have repeatedly stated, I don't buy that "fair game" excuse
>>>> because people picketed for years before that against Scientology, not
>>>> wearing any masks.
>
>>> And many of them got harassed for it or worse. Some people choose to
>>> avoid that.
>
>> The ones who got harassed were doing far more than just picketing.
>
> This is, frankly, fucking bullshit. And you know it is. I've read
> many accounts of people getting followed and having their plates taken
> down, and other things, who did nothing more than picket. You either
> just don't know what you're talking about and are talking anyway, or
> you're lying.
I have done nothing but picket and write. Monica is talking out of her
ass, pretending to be the expert she isn't.
henri
>Monica Pignotti wrote:
>> Your gratuitous insults do nothing to support your case, Rob Clark. I
>> could respond with some very accurate insults about you, but I'll take
>> the high road and let your need to flame speak for itself. My point is
>> that Scientology does not go after the average picketer. People have
>> been picketing for years and most have not been fair gamed. They only
>> go after people who do more than that and for those people, wearing a
>> mask is not going to stop Scientology from discovering their identity.
>That's incorrect from my point of view. They tried to identify and home
>picket most of the SF Org picketers.
What would you know? You're just some picketer. Aren't you aware
Monica has DEGREES? ReSPECT her authoriTAH!
efish
Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> They simply do
> not have the resources to go after every insignificant person who
> pickets. They only go after people who are real threats, who do much
> more than just picket. They aren't going to go after some random
> protester unless the person is doing more than just that.
not true! they went after me too. and i'm a fucking nobody.
worse than that, the first time they went after me was 2 weeks after i first
posted here.
i guess that made me a real threat, eh monica.
regards
-ef
kennethno...@gmail.com
> On Dec 11, 2:01 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 1:38 pm, John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > thorazineshuf...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Dec 11, 7:17 am, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
> > > >> and offers suggestions for talking to Scientologists
>
> > > >> Bernie Takes another look at Scientology and Anonymous
>
> > > >> Another Look at Scientology 2: Operation Drop the Masks
>
> > > >>http://anotherlookatscientology2.blogspot.com/2008/12/operation-drop-...
>
> > > > I'm sure Bernie would love nothing more than for Anonymous to unmask.
>
> > > > failpage is fail
>
> > > I did note with amusement that "Comment moderation has been enabled.
> > > All comments must be approved by the blog author."
>
> > > Isn't this blogger the very same barmpot who managed to convince
> > > some of the more gullible OCMB posters that he might be a victim of
> > > prior restraint just because of his contrary POV?
>
> > > decade ago, but his command of irony still impresses me.
>
> > > John
>
> > He does that to keep out spam. I don't know if you've ever had a blog
> > but I have a blog and spammers are common (I mean actual spammers like
> > the viagra promoters and such). Turning on "Moderation" helps keep
> > spam out. If you have a look at his blog, you'll see that he has not
> > filtered out critical comments and has welcomed them.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> posted.
>
>
> http://anotherlookatscientology2.blogspot.com/2008/12/tom-cruise-on-b...
>
> Tigger
Everytime I've posted on "Bernie's Blog" ......... it somehow never
gets posted.
EVERYTIME someone posts on my Blog http://stopscientology.blogspot.com
or forum http://stopscientology.yuku.com I ALWAYS allow the posting.
Even if it's a link to selling Dianetic books.
Bernie, deletes any postings that show the "Church" of Scientology in
a negative light. It's that simple. Wake up. Stop defending this
OSA troll and get a new angle...... it's boring.
--
Boycott Valkyrie!
http://www.boycottvalkyrie.com
henri
So what academic qualifications do you have that makes you qualified
to disagree with Monica about things that happened to you? Oh, they
happened to you. . .[sneer]. How plebeian. So clearly you have no
objectivity, and should defer to Monica's greater knowledge.
barbz
When she starts exhibiting signs of greater knowledge, respect for her
contributions might surface. As it is, her half-baked, blanket
observations have her chasing her tail here like someone tied a string
of cans to it.
Eldon
> In article <cdc4222e-08b6-4b54-9994-bcce1f1e2...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > They simply do
> > not have the resources to go after every insignificant person who
> > pickets. They only go after people who are real threats, who do much
> > more than just picket. They aren't going to go after some random
> > protester unless the person is doing more than just that.
>
> not true! they went after me too. and i'm a fucking nobody.
>
> worse than that, the first time they went after me was 2 weeks after i first
> posted here.
It appears that was around December 1, 2001 when you started a thread
with a news article about the John Fashanu/David Lebeau "bid to
destroy Bob Minton." So maybe they were curious about why you showed
up at that time.
It's hard to say what might raise a red flag, considering their
chronic state of paranoia. Naturally, Monica has no idea either, yet
she presumes the authority to tell people they should put themselves
in harm's way. That's nothing short of treacherous, considering how
much harassment has occurred when Scientology has managed to "unmask"
people.
l.l.lipshitz
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
<cdc4222e-08b6-4b54...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
[...]
| Huh? What does that have to do with "fundamental dishonesty" or is
| that just a gratuitous insult on your part? Of course they must expend
| "significant resources". Duh. That supports my point. They simply do
| not have the resources to go after every insignificant person who
| pickets. They only go after people who are real threats, who do much
| more than just picket. They aren't going to go after some random
| protester unless the person is doing more than just that.
like those minatory anons who conferred with the
police and applied for permits to picket?
[...]
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
people are not only innately stupid,
they are ambitiously so. -kk
Hartley Patterson
> It's hard to say what might raise a red flag, considering their
> chronic state of paranoia.
We can make some reasonable guesses. Picketing Gold Base counts for more
than the Mission in Hicksville. Keywords like 'deprogrammer" and "money"
are going to attract interest. But it also depends very much upon which
staff members are on your case. Some will proactively attack, others will
be keeping their heads down.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Android Cat
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:20:02 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
> <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> <cdc4222e-08b6-4b54...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
> [...]
>
>> Huh? What does that have to do with "fundamental dishonesty" or is
>> that just a gratuitous insult on your part? Of course they must
>> expend "significant resources". Duh. That supports my point. They
>> simply do not have the resources to go after every insignificant
>> person who pickets. They only go after people who are real threats,
>> who do much more than just picket. They aren't going to go after
>> some random protester unless the person is doing more than just
>> that.
>
> like those minatory anons who conferred with the
> police and applied for permits to picket?
Or like the random *non-protestors* who were tangled in Scientology's round
up of the usual suppressives?
Court again rebuffs Scientology's lawsuit
March 13, 2008, Robert Farley, St. Petersburg Times
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/article416511.ece
But in its zeal to identify those who threatened the church, Scientology
misfired, according to one woman who says she got fingered just because she
works at Starbucks, near the church's headquarters.
Rosalie Fair, 19, said she had simply come to check her work schedule on
Feb. 10 when a group of about 200 protesters from the Internet activist
group Anonymous demonstrated in downtown Clearwater.
Fair said she has "nothing at all" to do with Anonymous. In fact, she said
she went out of her way to avoid the protest because most of her customers
are Scientologists and she didn't want to be mistaken as participating.
A St. Petersburg College student, Fair said she was troubled to learn she
was one of 26 people listed as members of Anonymous in a Scientology lawsuit
filed this week. It sought a restraining order to keep Anonymous members 500
feet from any Scientology buildings in a second round of planned protests
tonight and Saturday.
--
Ron of that ilk.
Tigger
On Dec 13, 1:49 pm, Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 8:06 pm, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > YAHOO! CALLING ALL BERNIE BASHERS!
>
> > Didn't someone say Bernie was a Belguim?
>
> That's Belgian. As in a citizen of Belgium.
>
> > If so, that means English
> > (like Peter and Roger) is not his native language.
>
> Yes, Bernie's native language could be Dutch or French (or, as Piltdown
> Man once pointed out even German). In this case, probably Dutch, but
> that's just my guess. Anyhow, everybody in Belgium and Holland learns
> English as a second language anyway. Just as they do in Norway,
> Iceland and other smallish countries where the native language won't
> get you very far.
Yes, but there still can be a difference in things cultural, idioms,
slang, etc. and different (or several) meanings for the same word,
even in different regions of the same state or country. BTW I
wasn't talking about the whole website. I was referring to the Google
rating issue about which Alert has been having hissyfits.
>
> > Due to language
> > and CULTURE, what you/we perceive may not be what he means. All we
> > native English or American speakers may be missing his point.
>
> Nah, Bernie is quite clear in his use of "international" English, and
> also every bit as obfuscatory as Roadrunner when he wants to talk in
> circles.
It always amuses me (somewhat) when someone presumes/assumes they know
the "real" reason why something happens and then "tops" it off with
an insulting remark.
>
>
>
> > Heck sometimes the Brits and the Yanks don't even understand each
> > other.
>
> Yes, and now insert cute idiomatic anecdote to illustrate the point
> even if it doesn't quite work. But in fact, Americans can read The
> Economist -- and Brits can read Forbes -- just fine, and do regularly.
> But keep yer pecker up anyway.
Well guess what, Sweetiepie......your contribution doesn't "quite
work" either. Bernie is neither an American or a Brit.
BTW, what do you mean "keep yer pecker up"? Where I come from, that
phrase could have a different meaning than what you meant it to
mean. So....does it relate to a chicken or that "gadget" between the
legs of a male animal? :o)
Tigger
P.S. Here's a bit of Albanian "trivia" for ya.....When speaking to an
Albanian.....Don't use the English word "car", which to an Albanian
sounds like the Albanian word for the male pecker.
When an Albanian shakes his/her head from side to side, it means
YES. When he/she shakes it up and down, it means NO.
So remember Eldum, when in Albania if a girl shakes her head up and
down.....that means NO! :o)
(Ann Landers) Tigger
>
>
>
>
>
> > When I worked in the Dean's office at the Univ. of Maryland, an
> > English gal in the Business College came in one day and asked for some
> > "rubbers". LOL.....now you know what all we American gals thought.
> > But in England rubbers (at that time anyway) were what the Brits
> > called erasers. (Jump in here Hartley, if that ain't so.)
>
> > Anyway the moral of this story. If you have a question about what
> > "someone" means, ask that "someone", especially if your native
> > language (and culture) is different from that "someone". People can
> > make terrible asses out of themselves if they ASSume. (I
> > know.....I've been there.)
>
> > Tigger
>
> > *******************************************************
> > Who knows what lurks in another person's mind?
> > Not even THE SHADOW knows.
> > *******************************************************- Hide quoted text -
Fredric L. Rice
>and offers suggestions for talking to Scientologists
>Bernie Takes another look at Scientology and Anonymous
>Another Look at Scientology 2: Operation Drop the Masks
"Bernie" is such an insane Scientology cultist he makes Cruise look sane.
---
"From my house I can see Belgium" -- President Sarkozy
Tigger
Just found this in my google alerts.....It should answer
questions..... among other things.....about Bernie, his website,
comments on it and the misunderstanding about "tops", which BTW he
corrected after it was brought to his attention when he read this
thread. Which could have been done without all of Alert's
hissyfits if he had just ask Bernie (in an adult manner) and explained
what "tops"means to native English/Americans.
Another Look at Scientology 2: About Bernie
http://anotherlookatscientology2.blogspot.com/2008/12/about-bernie.html
Moral of story. Ask before assuming conculsions and making an ass
out of yourself.
realpch
Well, I guess that's her job. Me, I'm just an ordinary slob.
; )
henri
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to demand that you back up this post of a
news article with some academic credentials. Aren't you aware that
Monica Pignotti has DEGREES dammit? She's on a first name basis with
Very Important People too. You'll have to do better than these silly
"facts" if you're going to try to contradict the superior Knowingness
of the Monica.
"Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan
Monica Pignotti
I am "telling people" no such thing. People are free to do whatever
they want to. I am only presenting my position about some of the
problems with wearing mask and pointing out what should be obvious to
anyone even remotely familiar with Scientology's propensity to
investigate people. I can understand adolescents responding to my
postings stomping their feet and shouting words to the effect, "Dont
tell me what to do!!!!!" but when a supposedly mature adult does it, I
have to wonder. So, I have to once again state the obvious that I am
simply a poster expressing an opinion and have no desire to tell
anyone what to do -- only a complete fool would think that was
possible anyway. My point is that if people are planning to become
prominent anti-Scientology activists, if they think that wearing a
mask will provide protection, they are very naive and will soon learn
otherwise although Scientology certainly doesn't have the resources to
go after every protester and tends to focus on the real threats such
as recently departed high profile ex-members, journalists, and others
who may for some reason pose a specific threat. I'm not telling people
what to do. I am simply expressing an opinion. I thought that it was
unnecessary for me to point out the obvious, that people are
completely free to disregard everything I am posting here and go out
and do as they please. Reality will impose its own consequences for
newbies who will have to learn the hard way, but I certainly won't and
cannot force anyone to do anything, nor do I have any desire to. I'll
sit back and watch reality run its course.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:28:51 -0500, "Android Cat"
>
>
>
> <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >l.l.lipshitz wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:20:02 -0800 (PST), Monica Pignotti
> >> <cdc4222e-08b6-4b54-9994-bcce1f1e2...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
Now you're sounding like Ladybird. She at least has an excuse, since
she spent a good part of her adult life in an authoritarian group and
that kind of behavior doesn't just go away on its own. You presume to
criticize OCMB when your own behavior towards people who disagree with
you is no better. The only reason I brought up my degrees was to
defend myself when people were posting misinformation about me. It is
becoming very obvious that for people such as you and Ladybird who are
bent on smearing me, it makes no difference how I respond, you will
find a way to put a negative spin on it. So be it. it says far more
about you than it does about me. I have never said I have "superior
knowingness" and I am about the least authoritarian person anyone
would ever want to meet, which is why I didn't do well at all as a
Scientology SO member. These are things you and others have chosen to
project onto me.
Monica
realpch
The really hilarious thing is, that's always been my position. I've
never thought that mask wearing can hold out in the long run against an
unpleasant organization determined to find out who is behind the mask.
Just makes it more trouble for that organization. And of course, Monica,
I have said that I never would wear a mask for the purpose of hiding my
identity, however, as an engaging and humorous visual statement, those
Guy Fawkes masks are brilliant. And of course, everyone learns as they
go along. Well, a lot of people do, anyway.
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>My point is that if people are planning to become
>prominent anti-Scientology activists, if they think that wearing a
>mask will provide protection, they are very naive and will soon learn
If they're wearing a mask, becoming prominent is exactly what they
DON'T want to do, you dumbass! And in fact, in general, the view of
most people who take the whole Anonymous concept seriously is that
people who *do* want to be prominent are ASSHOLES. Witness how
AnonOrange and AGP are viewed by many.
>otherwise although Scientology certainly doesn't have the resources to
>go after every protester and tends to focus on the real threats such
>as recently departed high profile ex-members, journalists, and others
>who may for some reason pose a specific threat. I'm not telling people
>what to do. I am simply expressing an opinion.
And I'm expressing the opinion that your opinion shows you to be
completely misinformed, to have literally zero understanding of what
you're criticizing, and not only to lack the slightest scintilla of a
clue, but to actually be proud of your own ignorance.
This particular post shows exactly what you don't understand.
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Dec 14, 2:18 pm, henri <he...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> >A St. Petersburg College student, Fair said she was troubled to learn she
>> >was one of 26 people listed as members of Anonymous in a Scientology lawsuit
>> >filed this week. It sought a restraining order to keep Anonymous members 500
>> >feet from any Scientology buildings in a second round of planned protests
>> >tonight and Saturday.
>> I'm sorry, I'm going to have to demand that you back up this post of a
>> news article with some academic credentials. Aren't you aware that
>> Monica Pignotti has DEGREES dammit? She's on a first name basis with
>> Very Important People too. You'll have to do better than these silly
>> "facts" if you're going to try to contradict the superior Knowingness
>> of the Monica.
>> "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan
>Now you're sounding like Ladybird. She at least has an excuse, since
>she spent a good part of her adult life in an authoritarian group and
>that kind of behavior doesn't just go away on its own.
Now you're whining and crying. The fact is, you said something that
was a steaming load of bullshit. Specifically, that Scientology only
goes after people who are "true threats." Anyone who has any
experience with the subject whatsoever knows otherwise, or is
deliberately sticking their head in the sand.
And since we're talking about people who sound like other people, you
sound like Gordon Melton. Way to be a cult apologist.
>You presume to
>criticize OCMB when your own behavior towards people who disagree with
>you is no better.
That's not what I criticize them for, dimwit. I criticize them for
fucking STUPIDITY. Sure, they're nasty about it, too, but their
nastiness merely compounds their stupidity. It isn't my main gripe
about the site.
>The only reason I brought up my degrees was to
>defend myself when people were posting misinformation about me.
Oh, sure it was. Every idiot on Usenet who tries to make up for the
inadequacy of their argument, or just having been flat out wrong about
something, has some excuse for posting their degrees, IQ scores, penis
size, whatever. They're all bullshit.
>It is
>becoming very obvious that for people such as you and Ladybird who are
>bent on smearing me, it makes no difference how I respond, you will
>find a way to put a negative spin on it.
Waaaaaah! Waaaaaah!
>So be it. it says far more
>about you than it does about me. I have never said I have "superior
>knowingness" and I am about the least authoritarian person anyone
>would ever want to meet, which is why I didn't do well at all as a
>Scientology SO member. These are things you and others have chosen to
>project onto me.
I have an idea. Instead of crying and moaning and bitching about how
mean everyone is, how about instead of that you defend your fucking
bullshit about Scientology only going after people who are "true
threats."
Because that was bullshit. Crying about being called on it is not
impressing anyone.
Tigger
>
> - Show quoted text -
Henri, if you don't like whining, crying and bullshit.....
why don't you stop? IMO you are the one who is doing the most
whining, crying and bullshitting. If you're going to be a lawyer,
isn't it about time you thought about presenting your case without
being such a foul-mouthed drama queen?
Tigger
Eldon
I don't know why he got the idea Piltdown Man thought he was German
Belgian. P.M. hasn't posted here, and I merely mentioned he said that
was a minor Belgian language. I guessed Bernie started out speaking
Dutch, but he's French. OK, I said it was a guess.
I found the OCMB thread a lot more interesting than anything Bernie
had to say, though I think he should be allowed to post there. Of
course, he can post here, so why are you fronting for him anyway?
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=29657
efish
Eldon <Eldo...@aol.com> wrote:
> It appears that was around December 1, 2001 when you started a thread
> with a news article about the John Fashanu/David Lebeau "bid to
> destroy Bob Minton." So maybe they were curious about why you showed
> up at that time.
nope, it was way before then. i got involved for real when the cult went after
troutman, Lord of Satire, whom i really liked humourspar with. that's what
started me writing here; funning around with troutman.
and when he got scared off, it angered me so much that i decided to stick
around... and to read up on the subject. see, me, i don't scare easy.
but in any case, a couple of weeks after my first posting (innocuous, as it
was)... the harassment started. at first, just to let me know that they knew
where i lived, address, phonenumber and such. you know, so that i would know i
was being, ah, investigated.
in time... other things happened. enough so that i became very aware of the
extent of the paranoia and megalomania inherent (and bred into) this most odious
and vicious of organizations.
regards
-ef
Android Cat
> And since we're talking about people who sound like other people, you
> sound like Gordon Melton. Way to be a cult apologist.
Funny you should mention Gordon Melton. (I'm reading this after my post on
him.)
It seems like being an important NRM scholar is like being a top person in
the field of Creation Science...
Tigger
Dear Eldon,
What do you mean by fronting? I post several things that come in on
google alerts and I've not "fronting" for Scientology, Narconon, the
San Francisco Chronicle Sarah Palin or anybody else. Voicing my
opinion about something is not fronting either EVEN if my opinion
disagrees with your opinion.
You assume too much, Lord Eldum.
Tigger
Eldon
Your opinion is not a concern of mine. You are presenting Bernie's
opinions and links secondhand when he could post them himself. That's
what I meant by "fronting."
So why doesn't he speak for himself? There's nothing stopping him from
posting here, yet he's whining about not having been approved to post
on OCMB. Duh.
It would be more legitimate for you to front for him on that board if
you're allowed to.
realpch
<snip>
> Your opinion is not a concern of mine. You are presenting Bernie's
> opinions and links secondhand when he could post them himself. That's
> what I meant by "fronting."
>
> So why doesn't he speak for himself? There's nothing stopping him from
> posting here, yet he's whining about not having been approved to post
> on OCMB. Duh.
<snip>
I don't why he just doesn't come here and chat with that fellow from
OCMB. Sure would beat waiting around to get his posting account, which
takes a long time for everybody now, or so they say.
t_shuffle
"Tigger" <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:84648993-c3cf-49f2...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com
>
> Henri, if you don't like whining, crying and bullshit.....
> why don't you stop? IMO you are the one who is doing
> the most
> whining, crying and bullshitting. If you're going to
> be a lawyer,
> isn't it about time you thought about presenting your
> case without
> being such a foul-mouthed drama queen?
>
> Tigger
From where I'm sitting, it looks like Henri has pretty much nailed it here.
The whining and crying I've seen has been mostly from you, and the bullshit
has been nearly all Monica. As far as being foul-mouthed, well, sometimes
the shit one reads is so outrageous that it pretty much demands a foul
response.
barbz
Troutman, Defender of Sticks, is one of the funniest posters I've ever
read. His work is still up on Dave Bird's old site, if that is still
around even if Dave is not.
How Dave would have loved 2008! I bet Troutman is loving it too,
wherever he is...
barbz
Eldum? You're not helping your case by resorting to stupid, childish
namecalling. What are you, Bernie's mommy? If he hasn't got the balls to
post here, why are you his tool? You've always been pretty much an
intellectual wasteland, Tigger. I see that you and Monica have been
wasting an awful lot of time on this useless thread that is, well, a
waste of time better spent elsewhere. Bernie himself is a waste of time,
the cowardly, dishonest little apologist that he is. Let him bring it
here. We'll be happy to establish a dialogue with him. Does being his
waterboy make you feel important and useful?
Hartley Patterson
> I don't why he just doesn't come here and chat with that fellow from
> OCMB. Sure would beat waiting around to get his posting account, which
> takes a long time for everybody now, or so they say.
Don Carlos only posts on OCMB, so it would be a dialog by megaphone.
t_shuffle
"barbz" <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Cwk1l.6363$iY3....@newsfe14.iad
I'd oblige him here. He quotes me on his new blog; he should play in the
same sandbox he's drawing from.
Alert
Monica Pignotti wrote:
> Alert is just very frustrated because he cannot control what people
> post here.
How do you equate me pointing out the obvious in Bernie's blog, that
Bernie was forced to make the requisite changes to try solidify the
'apparency' he presents as a "moderate critic", into me being
frustrated firstly, and me secondly trying to control what people
post?
> He hasn't learned to accept the fact that people will post
> here as they see fit to post, and there is nothing he can do about it.
Oh deary me. Is all this from you what is referenced as being
'projection' by someone that lives in such a perpetual state of
denial?
> It must be very difficult for him to have no control over others.
More projection on your part?
If Iv'e learned *anything* from you Monica, it is the absolute meaning/
understanding of the term "intellectual dishonesty". I already knew
about NPD *snort*
Thank you!
P.S
faceplam.jpg
Android Cat
All the world is loving Troutman!
realpch
Doesn't want to muck around with us here, is that it?
: D
Monica Pignotti
You wouldn't know honesty, Alert, if it bit you in the butt.
I consider any slams from you the highest compliment, so thank you!
Tigger
> Eldon wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Your opinion is not a concern of mine. You are presenting Bernie's
> > opinions and links secondhand when he could post them himself. That's
> > what I meant by "fronting."
>
> > So why doesn't he speak for himself? There's nothing stopping him from
> > posting here, yet he's whining about not having been approved to post
> > on OCMB. Duh.
>
> <snip>
>
> I don't why he just doesn't come here and chat with that fellow from
> OCMB. Sure would beat waiting around to get his posting account, which
> takes a long time for everybody now, or so they say.
You all seem to be maissing an important point. "that fellow" is Don
Carlo who has been posting ONLY on OCMB for 8 plus years. He does
not want to post on a.r.s. because he has family in CO$ and also
doesn't have the time. He issued an invitation to Bernie to post
where he posts and where he has posted many criticisms of Bernie's
website over several years. If someone invited you to tea at their
house, would you go to someone else's house down the street?
Tigger
******************************************************
"Attrocities, Inspector, occur by an effort of the collective will,
because all it takes to turn us into Devils is the fear of being an
outsider."
"The Hanging Garden", Ian Rankin
********************************************************
***********************************************************
Hartley Patterson
> > Don Carlos only posts on OCMB, so it would be a dialog by megaphone.
> Doesn't want to muck around with us here, is that it?
>
> : D
A lot of people only post on 'their' forums. As this thread is all about,
this creates a problem when someone is being gangbang secchecked and
doesn't for whatever reason respond.
Eldon
Well, you're right, but for some reason, Tigger and Monica don't
consider it a waste of time. No matter how many people point out
obvious fallacies and ideological skews, they continue to come back
with ad hominem kindergarten bullshit.
> Bernie himself is a waste of time,
> the cowardly, dishonest little apologist that he is.
Awwww... you know how hard it is to translate from "Belgian" into
English as a second language -- almost as tricky as Vietnamese or
Hungarian. ;--)
Tigger
> "Tigger" <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
But you're sitting on the same side Henri is, aren't you?
i.e. you agee with his opinions on this issue.
Have you ever tried sitting on the other side?.....i.e.
walking a mile in that person's shoes?
If your right to an opinion had been challenged by a lot of people and
a bunch of BS was posted about you, what would you do? Monica was
NOT bragging....she was stating facts about where she was coming from
in RESPONSE to personal attacks by people like Ladybird and Dorothy
Gale on OCMB and others here on a.r.s. who had a different opinion.
Perhaps I could have been more diplomatic when promoting freedom of
speech and FACTS. But that does not excuse Henri or anyone else for
presenting their cases in a less than mature manner and posting
personal attacks, some of which are pure bullshit.
Tigger
******************************************************
"Attrocities, Inspector, occur by an effort of the collective will,
because all it takes to turn us into
Devils is the fear of being an outsider."
"The Hanging Garden" Ian Rankin
*******************************************************
John Dorsay
> On Dec 14, 7:28 pm, realpch <real...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Eldon wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Your opinion is not a concern of mine. You are presenting Bernie's
>> > opinions and links secondhand when he could post them himself. That's
>> > what I meant by "fronting."
>>
>> > So why doesn't he speak for himself? There's nothing stopping him from
>> > posting here, yet he's whining about not having been approved to post
>> > on OCMB. Duh.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I don't why he just doesn't come here and chat with that fellow from
>> OCMB. Sure would beat waiting around to get his posting account, which
>> takes a long time for everybody now, or so they say.
>
>
> You all seem to be maissing an important point. "that fellow" is Don
> Carlo who has been posting ONLY on OCMB for 8 plus years. He does
> not want to post on a.r.s. because he has family in CO$ and also
> doesn't have the time. He issued an invitation to Bernie to post
> where he posts and where he has posted many criticisms of Bernie's
> website over several years. If someone invited you to tea at their
> house, would you go to someone else's house down the street?
Here is a much more accurate analogy, Tigger.
"If you were a guest in someone else's home, and you wanted to meet
a friend for tea but couldn't obtain an invitation for your friend
because the homeowner was way behind in issuing invitations, would
you meet with your friend in the public park down the street, or
would you dispatch complete idiots to the park where they would
whine incessantly that your friend was the victim of discrimination?"
Hope that helps,
John
John Dorsay
> rea...@aol.com:
>
>> > Don Carlos only posts on OCMB, so it would be a dialog by megaphone.
>
>> Doesn't want to muck around with us here, is that it?
>>
>> : D
>
> A lot of people only post on 'their' forums. As this thread is all about,
> this creates a problem when someone is being gangbang secchecked and
> doesn't for whatever reason respond.
The only problem is the cognitive deficiency of the idiots who think
there is a divine right to post in private fora.
People here are free to ignore, flame, or support the morons'
messengers when they show up here to whine about it, and the
messengers themselves are equally free to engage in their whining.
I don't think this is a problem at all. Quite the contrary, I think
this is a Good Thing.
John
R. Hill
Speaking of honesty:
About the following article:
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/131687
You said the article mentions "mask," and yet I just can't find it. I
asked you to please quote the passage where the word appears (so that I
can verify that it is relevant to the part you quoted), you never did.
And I also asked you why did you snip three *key paragraphes* from the
same article which you claim supports your view that "masked Anonymous"
are "creepy"? I quote you:
"Interesting that even people satirizing Scientology don't think well
of Anonymous."
You quoted this excerpt from the article:
/=====
“We’re not making fun of Scientology. That’s where people are confused,”
he says, temporarily forgetting the talking-puppet E-meter on the table
behind him.
\=====
But you snipped the following excerpts from the article:
/=====
It stands to reason that most Scientologists would disagree with
Minyard’s assessment. While it was being staged in New York in 2004, the
church sent a letter to Jarrow asking him to desist with the production.
Considering the church’s litigious history, it wasn’t a letter he
disregarded lightly. The church has brought lawsuits against countless
critics, and in 2007, British journalist John Sweeney claimed that he
was harassed and surveilled by Scientology operatives while making an
unflattering documentary about the church.
Scientologists may be particularly sensitive to the staging of Jarrow’s
play in the Valley. Hubbard lived in Phoenix in the early 1950s during
the formative years of the Church, delivering the first speeches that
eventually would evolve into his self-help Dianetics philosophy.
There have been charges of Scientololgy-bashing. May says the production
received its first piece of “hate mail” from a fellow member of the
Valley theater scene who accused the producers of religious bigotry.
(Though recognized as a tax-exempt religion in the United States,
Scientology still lacks recognition in many countries, including Germany
and Great Britain.)
\=====
Then you quoted this excerpt from the article:
/=====
“The play definitely isn’t pro-Scientology,” allows May, who adds that
he and the other producers will keep an eye out for “creepy anonymous
protesters who will show up and try to scare the kids.”
\=====
Those passages you snipped strongly suggest the producer are referring
to Scientologists protesting the play: "There have been charges of
Scientololgy-bashing. May says the production received its first piece
of “hate mail” from a fellow member of the Valley theater scene who
accused the producers of religious bigotry".
So far for me it looks like this: You were so eager to find support
about your view that "masked Anonymous" are such a negative thing, that
in your bias, you misread the article and thought it supported your
view. If not, correct me. If yes, then you have to admit you are also
subject to the bias you often accuse others.
--
Ray.
Tigger
On Dec 14, 9:52 pm, barbz <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Eldon wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 12:23 am, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 4:41 pm, Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 14, 7:03 pm, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >>>> Just found this in my google alerts.....It should answer
> >>>> questions..... among other things.....about Bernie, his website,
> >>>> comments on it and the misunderstanding about "tops", which BTW he
> >>>> corrected after it was brought to his attention when he read this
> >>>> thread. Which could have been done without all of Alert's
> >>>> hissyfits if he had just ask Bernie (in an adult manner) and explained
> >>>> what "tops"means to native English/Americans.
> >>>> Another Look at Scientology 2: About Bernie
> >>>>http://anotherlookatscientology2.blogspot.com/2008/12/about-bernie.html
> >>>> out of yourself.
> >>> I don't know why he got the idea Piltdown Man thought he was German
> >>> Belgian. P.M. hasn't posted here, and I merely mentioned he said that
> >>> was a minor Belgian language. I guessed Bernie started out speaking
> >>> Dutch, but he's French. OK, I said it was a guess.
> >>> I found the OCMB thread a lot more interesting than anything Bernie
> >>> had to say, though I think he should be allowed to post there. Of
> >>> course, he can post here, so why are you fronting for him anyway?http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=29657
> >> Dear Eldon,
>
> >> What do you mean by fronting? I post several things that come in on
> >> google alerts and I've not "fronting" for Scientology, Narconon, the
> >> San Francisco Chronicle Sarah Palin or anybody else. Voicing my
> >> opinion about something is not fronting either EVEN if my opinion
> >> disagrees with your opinion.
>
> > Your opinion is not a concern of mine. You are presenting Bernie's
> > opinions and links secondhand when he could post them himself. That's
> > what I meant by "fronting."
>
> > So why doesn't he speak for himself? There's nothing stopping him from
> > posting here, yet he's whining about not having been approved to post
> > on OCMB. Duh.
>
> > It would be more legitimate for you to front for him on that board if
> > you're allowed to.
> >> You assume too much, Lord Eldum.
>
> >> Tigger
Hi Barb,
>
> Eldum? You're not helping your case by resorting to stupid, childish
> namecalling.
It was a joking play on spelling because
Eldon (geesh, I thanked him..:o) corrected my misspelling and
misapplication of the word "Belgium". You do a lot of word
playing....so I'm surprised you didn't get it.
?What are you, Bernie's mommy? If he hasn't got the balls to
> post here, why are you his tool? You've always been pretty much an
> intellectual wasteland, Tigger. I see that you and Monica have been
> wasting an awful lot of time on this useless thread that is, well, a
> waste of time better spent elsewhere. Bernie himself is a waste of time,
> the cowardly, dishonest little apologist that he is. Let him bring it
> here. We'll be happy to establish a dialogue with him.
LOL....the same old "barb" I see. Speaking of "stupid childish
namecalling.".......Get the drift?
One more time:
Don Carlo, (who has posted on OCMB for 8 plus years and only wants to
post on OCMB because of family in CO$ and time restraints) has posted
many criticisms of Bernie's website over the years. He (Don C.)
invited Bernie to debate/discuss his (D.C.'s posts) and his (Bernie's)
website on OCMB.
Apparently Roan, the moderator, is currently considering a suggestion
I made that there be a closed thread where only the two debaters (D.C.
& B.) could debate/discuss. Another thread for "comments", sans
personal attacks on either debater, would/could be started for anyone
who wanted to comment on the information provided.
Why would either Don Carlo or Bernie, who apparently want a calm,
reasonable discussion about facts, want to post on a.r.s. especially
when there have been such blatant attacks and bullshit already.
Isn't it time for critics to get practical? Will
treating Bernie like dirt and calling him OSA, etc. "encourage" him to
change his apparent opinion of critics? Will it get his website
updated with proven facts? Will it make critics seem less "evil" than
Scientologists? Will any wannabe and/or newly out Scientologist want
to express an opinion on a.r.s. or OCMB, however rational and factual
it may be, if it disagrees with the prevailing collective party
line?
>Does being his
> waterboy make you feel important and useful?
LOL....I'm neither a 'waterboy' or a water girl. I'm expressing my
opinion. And if you feel my opinion is a waste of time, no one is
forcing you to read it.
Didn't you post, Barb, something about the "pickets" were not to get
anyone out of CO$, but to keep people from joining? If so, wouldn't
it be more practical to give "factual" talks at schools, PTA's, clubs,
churches, Toastmasters, etc. without masks than to harass
Scientologists where they live? Does picketing and or/partying
afterward make you feel important and useful?
> --
Tigger
******************************************
"Atrocities , Inspector, occur by an effort of
the collective will, because all it takes to turn us into Devils is
the fear of being an outsider.
"The Hanging Garden", Ian Rankin
********************************************
> barb
> Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
>
> "Our belief in freedom of religion has made it impossible, (With a
> helping hand from well placed Scientologists in government, of course!)
> to recognize when a criminal conspiracy pretends to be a religion."
> --Brett Bellmore- Hide quoted text -
Tigger
> "barbz" <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
So are you playing in the CO$ sandboxes?
Tigger
Calling Bernie names like OSA, etc. does not point out obvious
fallacies and ideological skews. But a debate/discussion between Don
Carlo and Bernie could point out such on BOTH sides.
Tigger
********************************************************
bushonic and/or hubwardian...... someone who badmouths an "enemy" and
refuses to engage in productive talks with the so-called "enemy".
***********************************************************
> > Bernie himself is a waste of time,
> > the cowardly, dishonest little apologist that he is.
>
> Awwww... you know how hard it is to translate from "Belgian" into
> English as a second language -- almost as tricky as Vietnamese or
> Hungarian. ;--)
>
>
>
> > Let him bring it
> > here. We'll be happy to establish a dialogue with him. Does being his
> > waterboy make you feel important and useful?
>
> > --
> > barb
> > Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
>
> > "Our belief in freedom of religion has made it impossible, (With a
> > helping hand from well placed Scientologists in government, of course!)
> > to recognize when a criminal conspiracy pretends to be a religion."
> > --Brett Bellmore- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tigger
Another Look at Scientology 2: R.I.P. Dave Bird
http://anotherlookatscientology2.blogspot.com/2008/12/rip-dave-bird.html