Pooks banned from Enturb?
George Orwell
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Beth
If you really want to know, why don't you ask at Enturb rather than
ARS?
Beth
henri
wrote:
It was for "namefagging." Specifically, she "outed" Garry Scarff.
Never mind that he had already outed himself and admitted who he is.
It's a week ban, no big deal. Unlike *some* OG critics, Patty is not
the sort to run screaming and crying for a dogpile of her friends from
other fora to come harass the regulars on EO.
IMO the ban was a mistake, but whatever. It was pursuant to the rule
on top of the Thunderdome that posting personal details of people is
the one forbidden activity. Subsequent to this ban, a number of other
people did exactly the same thing without getting banned. Maybe
because it was moot by that point. I'm not sure, and it doesn't even
matter. It's no big deal.
Apologies to pooks if I got any of this wrong.
I wonder what our friend from the Orwell anonymous remailer hoped to
accomplish with this post.
Ban Information
Ban Date
08-19-2008
Lift Date
08-26-2008
Ban Reason
Take a week to think about not namefagging people.
Banned by
poppins
Rev Dennis L Erlich
TD ban of pooks:
>Take a week to think about not namefagging people.
This kind of vicious totalitarianism in the hallmark of a cult! Outing
Scarff is no capital crime. Yet dig their bloodthirsty punishment.
All hope abandon, ye who wander in.
D
Beth
Well, it's not a capital crime, but it is an Enturb rule, and I'm glad
that they enforce it. In this case, though, I think Henri's right that
Scarff had already outed himself. I know he had already posted a video
in which a Scilon addressed him as "Scarff." After that I am not too
sure about the sequence of events.
Anyway, it's just for a week, so it's a slap on the wrist. I'm glad
she's not banned for good over there.
Beth
R. Hill
"Vicious totalitarianism"? Wow. Exaggerating much? Since when protecting
the wish of people to stay anonymous is "vicious totalitarianism"? If
banning for a week someone as a reminder of the importance of respecting
people's wish to stay anonymous is "vicious totalitarianism," what is
the qualifier for, say, Scientology's disconnection policy?
--
Ray.
Maureen Drueck
In the movie "the night of the living dead" (or "return of..") when
the zombies get out of the shipping drums, they are branded to look
for brains.
Banning someone on the Internet is can be the equivelant of putting
someone in a drum. It doesn't mean right or wrong in the larger sense.
It applies to one part of a fractally larger world.
The adaptation to beat the system by outing is a small price for
someone who thinks the outing is beneficial because in the larger
Internet world, outside of one forum; It's one thunderdome made up up
fractal thunderdomes.
Is there supposed to be a connotation of right or wrong, in character
that we are supposed to adjust as a result?
Taking sides of character, or assigning hate over people whose
entrance into a 'Thunderdome' that connotates "We don't need another
hero" seems the important element over information about a cult?
Maureen
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>"Vicious totalitarianism"? Wow. Exaggerating much? Since when protecting
>the wish of people to stay anonymous is "vicious totalitarianism"? If
>banning for a week someone as a reminder of the importance of respecting
>people's wish to stay anonymous is "vicious totalitarianism," what is
>the qualifier for, say, Scientology's disconnection policy?
Jeeze, learn to recognize a joke!
Nec_V20
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Beth <moontac...@yahoo.com>
Henri,
banning should only be as a very last resort. and not done on a whim.
I remember when you kicked me of the IRC #altreligionscientology
channel for "lurking" but you got that totally wrong. I was present on
the IRC channel, but couldn't post for two reasons:
1) I have two ISP entry points I can log into, one of which is seen as
nefarious on IRC.
2) I upgraded to Firefox 3 and the Chatzilla I used was not
compatible.
So I could sporadically connect and sometimes enter a message but then
I couldn't and it took me quite a few days to work out what was
happening and why.
You of course attributed the worst possible motives to my apparent
presence but lack of posting and instead of asking just kicked my nic.
With regard to freedom of speech and banning I think the OWH Jr. rule
should apply:
QUOTE
Freedom of speech does not mean that you can run into a crowded
theatre and shout "Fire"
UNQUOTE
There are three major negatives associated with banning
1) There is a chilling effect on the rest of the community which may
make the individuals less likely to contribute controversial material
for fear of being deemed "disloyal" and thus banned.
2) The whiners will always try to move the goalposts so that more and
more they are less willing to place their arguments on the marketplace
of discussion but rather to curtail further discussion by eliminating
those whose opinions are not comfortable to them.
3) And this is the most insidious it promotes an environment of
incestuous amplification which basically promotes ignorance and
stagnation.
Ball of Fluff
"Rev Dennis L Erlich" <info...@informer.org> wrote in message
news:ria3b4lu4tlosvans...@4ax.com...
Yes, and Garry does not appear to have wished to stay anonymous.
C
Tom Klemesrud
That defines the circle jerks on IRC #altreligionscientology really good!
Nec_V20
There were another two reasons
3) I got time outs ytying to connect in the first place
4) In trying to sort out the problems I had to sleep and did not want
to got through the connection problems after having successfully
logged in.
There
Maureen Drueck
It is no joke that people who help expose the evil cult of $cientology
somehow receive labels, or are eventually reflected as 'associates" of
other people. As if labels must be assigned to anyone who helps. And
there is no difference between the disconnection because of character
assassination, past present or made up, that ensues.
Is there a way to distance credibility of people from the facts they
bring, so that people and information are not all inclusive of
disconnection because of what group they come?
Case in point: David Irving. His information may very well be correct,
which damns the cult very much. Despite the group he comes or came
from. Who or what he dealth with does not reflect on me or anyone, and
maybe he cannot escape the role he has been given because of the
social disconnection policies that are well alive.
--
"The mystery of Mr. Feinstein's involvement in this strange cause is
not hard
to solve. As he has admitted to the Forward, he was paid to write the
pamphlet by the
Scientologists themselves. The Scientologists are known for being
both extremely wealthy
and extremely generous to those who consent to serve their purposes.
Mr. Feinstein has
thus far declined to reveal exactly what compensation he received but
other such cases
involved sums in excess of $10,000.
What is particularly unsettling is that Mr. Feinstein's pamphlet
appeared
while the Scientologists were in the midst of an aggressive crusade
against the German
government, which they incessantly likened to Adolph Hitler's Third
Reich. As can be
seen from the title of Mr. Feinstein's publication, "Art as Propaganda
Against Jews and
Scientologists in Germany: Echoes of the Past Reverberate in the
Present," it fully joins
in the spirit of the Scientology propaganda effort. The essay is
replete with analogies
likening the "victimization" of Scientologists in Germany today to
the Nazi war against
the Jews.
Mr. Feinstein is being disingenuous when he states that the U.S. State
Department has expressed concerns about Germany's treatment of the
Scientologists. He fails
to inform readers of a crucial fact: the State Department has
unequivocally condemned
the very same Scientology campaign in which he has taken such an
active part.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, for example, has said that
"comparisons between what happened under Nazism and what is happening
now [to Scientologists] are
historically inaccurate and totally distasteful." In 1996, the year
Mr. Feinstein's
pamphlet came out, the State Department's official spokesman declared
that the analogies are
"outrageous" and "wildly inaccurate" and that "we in the U.S.
Government feel a
responsibility to defend the German Government from those charges."
The State Department is hardly alone in this stance. Leaders of major
Jewish
organizations like Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation
League, have also
spoken out. Foxman has called the analogies "an affront to the Jewish
community." Ignatz Bubis,
the leader of Germany's Jewish community, has characterized the
Scientologists' campaign
as "a smear against the memory of the victims of national-socialism."
While I do not believe, as Mr. Feinstein incorrectly imputes to me,
that all
parallels between the Holocaust and other instances of genocide are
ipso facto out of
bounds, the analogies he has drawn between the Scientologists and
Hitler's victims are
an insult to the memory of the Jews of Europe who were driven from
their homes and
murdered in concentration camps. For a professor of Holocaust studies
to indulge in such
comparisons is bad enough. That it was done for money and in the
service of a dangerous
cult makes it a far more serious transgression."
-----
Maureen
The Hitler Card
Alias: Argumentum ad Nazium
Type: Guilt by Association
Exposition:
In almost every heated debate, one side or the other-often both-plays
the "Hitler card",
that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in
some way with Adolf
Hitler or the Nazis in general. No one wants to be associated with
Nazism because it has
been so thoroughly discredited in both theory and practise, and Hitler
of course was its
most famous exponent. So, linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has
become a common form
of argument ascribing guilt by association.
Some instances of the Hitler card are factually incorrect, or even
ludicrous, in ascribing
ideas to Hitler or other Nazis that they did not hold. However, from a
logical point of
view, even if Hitler or other Nazis did accept an idea, this
historical fact alone is
insufficient to discredit it.
The Hitler Card is often combined with other fallacies, for instance,
a weak analogy
between an opponent and Hitler, or between the opposition political
group and the Nazis. A
related form of fallacious analogy is that which compares an
opposition's actions with the
Holocaust. This is a form of the ad Nazium fallacy because it casts
the opposition in the
role of Nazi. Not only do such arguments assign guilt by association,
but the analogy used
to link the opposition's actions with the Holocaust may be superficial
or
question-begging.
Resources:
* Josie Appleton, "I'm right because.you're a Nazi", Spiked,
1/24/2002
* Nigel Warburton, Thinking from A to Z (Second Edition)
(Routledge, 2001), "Bad
Company Fallacy".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/9340e26b6c3419b2?hl=en
Lulu Belle
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Beth <moontac...@yahoo.com>
I didn't know is that Gary Scarff was still around.
There was some speculation that I read not too long ago (I forget
where) that he might have died of AIDs.
Glad to hear he's alive and kicking.
henri
>henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Not really. The reason for the rule is most of the people on the site
are anonymous or pseudonymous (whether or not they're "Anonymous"). So
it's to protect them from being outed by OSA or each other. I think
it was mistaken in this case because Scarff had already outed himself,
but no big deal. It's the ONLY rule in the Thunderdome.
I have the entire world to drop dox on some scumbag if I feel like it.
I just won't do it there.
henri
<info...@informer.org> wrote:
>Jeeze, learn to recognize a joke!
LOL. To be fair, I didn't recognize it either.
Nec_V20
Tom Klemesrud,
the fact that I am German (which henri knows) might also explain his
hatred towards me. N'est pas henri?
Patty Pieniadz
"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:0833b45ll6k8mp9fd...@4ax.com...
>
> It was for "namefagging." Specifically, she "outed" Garry Scarff.
> Never mind that he had already outed himself and admitted who he is.
> It's a week ban, no big deal. Unlike *some* OG critics, Patty is not
> the sort to run screaming and crying for a dogpile of her friends from
> other fora to come harass the regulars on EO.
>
> IMO the ban was a mistake, but whatever. It was pursuant to the rule
> on top of the Thunderdome that posting personal details of people is
> the one forbidden activity. Subsequent to this ban, a number of other
> people did exactly the same thing without getting banned. Maybe
> because it was moot by that point. I'm not sure, and it doesn't even
> matter. It's no big deal.
>
> Apologies to pooks if I got any of this wrong.
It's not my fault! Patricia Greenway made me do it!!!!
NOT.
Your post is accurate. I knew there was a chance I'd get banned for
posting the info on Scarff, but I figured it was more important that the
people he was getting close to knew about him in order for them to make
their own decisions about him.
>
> I wonder what our friend from the Orwell anonymous remailer hoped to
> accomplish with this post.
Ya, it's not like it was a secret.
Obscene Dog
> the fact that I am German (which henri knows) might also explain his
> hatred towards me. N'est pas henri?
I very much doubt your nationality has anything to do with it.
Ted Mayett
<ppie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Your post is accurate. I knew there was a chance I'd get banned for
>posting the info on Scarff, but I figured it was more important that the
>people he was getting close to knew about him in order for them to make
>their own decisions about him.
But no honor. You did not honor their rules about 'no outings'. When
you join something like that, with rules or a single rule, you in
essence agree to honor those rules. But you didn't honor this
agreement, you broke it.
Now if it were me on this thing, I'd tell you something like, thank's
dearie, but I can handle my own affairs. IOW, I'd be more thankful if
you gave some common courtesy and respect.
Banned for a week, hmmm. Doesn't sound that they were happy with the
disrespect you showed for them. Banned for a week, banned for a year,
never banned at all, none of that matters. You have proven yourself
unreliable. No honor, no respect for them.
I'll call them kids all day long, but if I get in their playground I
will honor their rules. I would give them respect. They invite
danger with a rule like 'no outing', but I would honor their decision
to invite danger. But that's me....
--
Ted Mayett
Critical information regarding Scientology:
http://www.solitarytrees.net
Lulu Belle
Patty, I have posted to enturb maybe 3 times.
And rarely read it.
So, what's the deal with Garry?
Is he there only? Here?
Please bring me up to speed.
R. Hill
I understand why Patty did what she did. I understand why the people at
Enturb did what they did. Things can be that simple. But that's me....
--
Ray.
Tom Klemesrud
He does call Tilman Hausherr a "nazi" and then other obscene words. I
know Gandow has referred to him as an "Ubermensch". He probably doesn't
like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubermensch#The_death_of_God_and_the_creation_of_new_values
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> - Show quoted text -
He did out himself. I posted this reply to him on Aug 16th
Re: Epic Wins on Suprise Raid & AGP gets 2 Restraining Orders
"Wow, so you ARE Garry Scarff. I heard Moxon say that and I saw your
post over at ARS (link) New video: AngryGayPope & Scarff visit LRH Way
& Big Blue & another visit from Rick Moxon but now see indeed you are
him. I hope Babbles doesn't find out or she'll spam ARS to no end.
http://forums.enturbulation.org/121-raids/real-time-anon-news-agp-just-got-c-d-letter-25834/6/#post510559
No one banned me. Maybe no one saw it or maybe it has to do with how
you outed him. Either way, he outed himself by that post of his.
Mary
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata, DTS, OD
"Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5c646543-d98b-429f...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Mary
Nobody banned me either, as I was I believe involved in that thread or a
variant regarding the AGP YT vid with Moxon, and have my own experiences
with Scarff. He did out himself.
Tigger
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ditto. This is a very tiny molehill. I've looked at Enturb's
registration rules
which I find to be very well-thought out.
Moderato(s) would have to read every single post to be entirely fair,
but that would be impossible. It sure beats the hell out of a.r.s.
with its anti-psych posts and personal attacks that sometimes gobble
up the whole board and OCMB with its "selective moderation".
Here are the penalties for not following Enturb's rules that must be
accepted to register.
Quote:
User Infractions
The infraction system is used to remind members of the general
Enturbulation guidelines. Accumulating 10 points will earn an
automatic ban for one week. All points are removed after one week
without further incident. Infraction points will be given out based on
the following criteria:
Flaming/Trolling: 1 point
Thread spamming: 2 points
Posting personal information: 5 points
Copywritten material: 5 points
Promoting illegal activity: 8 points
Personal Attack: 3 points
Religious bigotry: 3 points
Contact Us
If you have any issues or problems that need to be addressed by a
moderator or admin here....
End of Quote
Although I don't understand.....if posting personal info costs 5
points and you have to have an accumulation of 10 points for
banning....guess I could always ask Enturb,
couldn't I?
Anyway I support both Patty and Enturb.
Tigger
*******************************************"What you don't see with
your eyes, don't invent with your mouth." Old Jewish Proverb
******************************************
henri
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:52:35 -0400, "Patty Pieniadz"
><ppie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Your post is accurate. I knew there was a chance I'd get banned for
>>posting the info on Scarff, but I figured it was more important that the
>>people he was getting close to knew about him in order for them to make
>>their own decisions about him.
>
>But no honor. You did not honor their rules about 'no outings'. When
>you join something like that, with rules or a single rule, you in
>essence agree to honor those rules. But you didn't honor this
>agreement, you broke it.
Fuck off, Ted.
Out_Of_The_Dark
earthligh...@nor-hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Out_Of_The_Dark" <xscilentolog...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> No one banned me. Maybe no one saw it or maybe it has to do with how
> you outed him. Either way, he outed himself by that post of his.
>
> Mary
>
> Nobody banned me either, as I was I believe involved in that thread or a
> variant regarding the AGP YT vid with Moxon, and have my own experiences
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good. Maybe this will help in correcting the error. Thanks
henri
<exes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Patty, I have posted to enturb maybe 3 times.
>And rarely read it.
>So, what's the deal with Garry?
>Is he there only? Here?
>Please bring me up to speed.
Garry is there and here, posting as "Happy Smurf" and a variety of
other identities in the recent past. He's also appearing IRL at
pickets in Hollywood with Anonymous and most notably, Angry Gay Pope,
a very active picketer of Scientology whose activities can be
explained by his own website, www.angrygaypope.com and who is
currently involved in litigation with the cult due to them suing him
claiming harassment in a pattern familiar to any long-term Scientology
critic.
Anyone who needs to know his history is well informed by this point
and can make an informed decision. My personal view is there's no
need to ostracize him or drive him away from pickets, but I would
certainly hope people are circumspect considering his lengthy and
ambivalent history.
Jommy Cross
<0833b45ll6k8mp9fd...@4ax.com>:
<snip>
>I wonder what our friend from the Orwell anonymous remailer hoped to
>accomplish with this post.
C'mon, you know the answer. Using Funky Dianetics, the Holy Techies will
throw the SPs into confusion.
Incident zero: Ron trolled them
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Ball of Fluff
"Tom Klemesrud" <tom...@netscape.delete.net> wrote in message
news:anisk.7570$Tb5....@fe93.usenetserver.com...
I go into that chatroom sometimes. It's pleasant and good company. I don't
know where you get off calling everyone there "circle jerks".
C
Ball of Fluff
"Patty Pieniadz" <ppie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6he00uF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:0833b45ll6k8mp9fd...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> It was for "namefagging." Specifically, she "outed" Garry Scarff.
>> Never mind that he had already outed himself and admitted who he is.
>> It's a week ban, no big deal. Unlike *some* OG critics, Patty is not
>> the sort to run screaming and crying for a dogpile of her friends from
>> other fora to come harass the regulars on EO.
>>
>> IMO the ban was a mistake, but whatever. It was pursuant to the rule
>> on top of the Thunderdome that posting personal details of people is
>> the one forbidden activity. Subsequent to this ban, a number of other
>> people did exactly the same thing without getting banned. Maybe
>> because it was moot by that point. I'm not sure, and it doesn't even
>> matter. It's no big deal.
>>
>> Apologies to pooks if I got any of this wrong.
>
> It's not my fault! Patricia Greenway made me do it!!!!
I'm sure she did. She's also responsible for global warming, the war in
Iraq, the hanging chads...the list is endless.
;->
C
Tom Klemesrud
Well Claire, circle jerkism is exactly about pleasantness and good
company--enforced by kicks and bans.
Patty Pieniadz
Yes, and then die in a fire.
Ted Mayett
<ppie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:as74b4tfbehsj3nla...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:52:14 -0400, Ted Mayett
>> <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:52:35 -0400, "Patty Pieniadz"
>>><ppie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Your post is accurate. I knew there was a chance I'd get banned for
>>>>posting the info on Scarff, but I figured it was more important that
>>>>the
>>>>people he was getting close to knew about him in order for them to
>>>>make
>>>>their own decisions about him.
>>>
>>>But no honor. You did not honor their rules about 'no outings'. When
>>>you join something like that, with rules or a single rule, you in
>>>essence agree to honor those rules. But you didn't honor this
>>>agreement, you broke it.
>>
>> Fuck off, Ted.
>
>Yes, and then die in a fire.
>
>
Besides, it was totally 100% useless information. DUH. Like you are
so deluded you don't know that *everybody* knows smurf is allegedly or
actually scarff. Of course they know on enturb, info goes back and
forth from here to there and from there to here.
But Patty has a BIG MOUTH.
PATTY IS A BLABBERMOUTH PATTY IS A BLABBERMOUTH
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
But you answer to a greater call don't you Patty? A higher Cause.
You knew there would be a chance of being banned. But you were
willing to chance the pain and punishment because your Cause was just.
You were saving them from something weren't you?
Thinking deeper, that comment recently about 'disinformation
campaign'. Maybe on enturb they figured that scarff did not know,
that they knew, that he was scarff. And they were going to cleverly
feed scarff disinformation. LOL. If it is scarff, you'd have to go a
lot further to fool the man.
All a happy little game, but this isn't really that funny:
>Yes, and then die in a fire.
Well, it is ars after all, and people to say things like this can be
found, and that is a fact.
BALBBERMOUTH BLABBER MOUTH
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
And no honor, no respect, and that is the bottom line.
And I keep making the same stupid error over and over... "Critics are
allowed to criticize other critics, that is what separates us from
them." I keep forgetting, this is only to be typed in and not
actually done. Sigh, I just keep making this same error.
bwaaaaaaaaaaaa
blabber mouth blabbermouth bwaaaaaaaaa
Eldon
Oh jeezus, Ted. Yes, yes... we know Usenet doesn't have a facility for
putting text in italics or bold type, but did you really need that
many caps to emphasize your fucking tantrum?
So Patty got her wrist slapped, and was banned from the Thunderdome
for a week. I can't see that she's all that cut up about it. I thought
she took it pretty philosophically for a recently departed cultist.
QUESTION:
On the day Patty is readmitted to the Thunderdome -- which will be
very soon -- will you just STFU and be done with your whining?
Now, I thought those above examples were appropriate and proper uses
of caps on Usenet -- one word at a time as a subhead or acronym.
If you can't write well enough to get your message across in
conventional upper/lower case, then why not get someone to edit your
posts rather than make a blathering fool of yourself?
Patty Pieniadz
> On Aug 25, 1:29 pm, Ted Mayett
> <ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
Appears mental.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
>
> > Scarff is no capital crime. Yet dig their bloodthirsty punishment.
>
> > All hope abandon, ye who wander in.
>
>
> "Vicious totalitarianism"? Wow. Exaggerating much? Since when protecting
> the wish of people to stay anonymous is "vicious totalitarianism"? If
> banning for a week someone as a reminder of the importance of respecting
> people's wish to stay anonymous is "vicious totalitarianism," what is
> the qualifier for, say, Scientology's disconnection policy?
>
> --
> Ray.
stop thinking ray
(just kiddin')
Consensus Trance
If we understand the mechanism and the motives of the group mind, it
is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our
will without them knowing" Bernay
The sick individual finds himself at home with all other similarly
sick individuals. The whole culture is geared to this kind of
pathology. the result is that the average individual does not
experience the seperatness and isolation the fluffy schizophrenic
person feels. He feels at ease among the the same deformation: in
fact, it is the the fully sane person who feels isolated in the insane
society - and he he may suffer so much from the incapacity to
communicate that it is he who may become psychotic.
Eric Fromm
When in group narcissim, the object is not the individual but the
group to which he belongs..The assertion that "my country" (or nation,
or religion) is the most wonderful, the cultural, the most peace
loving, etc does not douns crazy at all, on the contrary, it sounds
like a an expression of patriotism, faith and loyalty."
Eric Fromm
Ball of Fluff
"Tom Klemesrud" <tom...@netscape.delete.net> wrote in message
news:Vpssk.216$Rs2...@fe105.usenetserver.com...
>>> That defines the circle jerks on IRC #altreligionscientology really
>>> good!
>>
>> I go into that chatroom sometimes. It's pleasant and good company. I
>> don't know where you get off calling everyone there "circle jerks".
>>
>
> Well Claire, circle jerkism is exactly about pleasantness and good
> company--
No, it's not. That's not a circle jerk.
>enforced by kicks and bans.
If a venue is moderated or not fully private in any way, there can be kicks
and bans.
Enturb has such, Beliefnet does, ESMB does, OCMB does.
There've been very few bans on the IRC channel. I think that some people's
beef with those is because of ~who~ was doing the banning, and not the
banning itself.
C
Ball of Fluff
"Ted Mayett" <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1h45b49u9r3ai34bn...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:27:56 -0400, "Patty Pieniadz"
> <ppie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"henri" <he...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:as74b4tfbehsj3nla...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:52:14 -0400, Ted Mayett
>>> <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:52:35 -0400, "Patty Pieniadz"
>>>><ppie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Your post is accurate. I knew there was a chance I'd get banned for
>>>>>posting the info on Scarff, but I figured it was more important that
>>>>>the
>>>>>people he was getting close to knew about him in order for them to
>>>>>make
>>>>>their own decisions about him.
>>>>
>>>>But no honor. You did not honor their rules about 'no outings'. When
>>>>you join something like that, with rules or a single rule, you in
>>>>essence agree to honor those rules. But you didn't honor this
>>>>agreement, you broke it.
>>>
>>> Fuck off, Ted.
>>
>>Yes, and then die in a fire.
>>
>>
>
> Besides, it was totally 100% useless information. DUH. Like you are
> so deluded you don't know that *everybody* knows smurf is allegedly or
> actually scarff.
Good. Then there was no problem and nobody got outed.
> Of course they know on enturb, info goes back and
> forth from here to there and from there to here.
>
> But Patty has a BIG MOUTH.
>
> PATTY IS A BLABBERMOUTH PATTY IS A BLABBERMOUTH
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Not as much as you are.
>
> But you answer to a greater call don't you Patty? A higher Cause.
> You knew there would be a chance of being banned. But you were
> willing to chance the pain and punishment because your Cause was just.
> You were saving them from something weren't you?
No, I think that must be yourself of whom you speak here.
>
> Thinking deeper, that comment recently about 'disinformation
> campaign'. Maybe on enturb they figured that scarff did not know,
> that they knew, that he was scarff. And they were going to cleverly
> feed scarff disinformation. LOL. If it is scarff, you'd have to go a
> lot further to fool the man.
>
> All a happy little game, but this isn't really that funny:
>>Yes, and then die in a fire.
>
> Well, it is ars after all, and people to say things like this can be
> found, and that is a fact.
That's because you're being a prick to Patty and have been doing so for some
time now.
>
> BALBBERMOUTH BLABBER MOUTH
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Oh, jesus wept. Grow up already.
>
> And no honor, no respect, and that is the bottom line.
Like the honor and respect in harassing Patty all over a.r.s.?
>
> And I keep making the same stupid error over and over... "Critics are
> allowed to criticize other critics, that is what separates us from
> them." I keep forgetting, this is only to be typed in and not
> actually done. Sigh, I just keep making this same error.
Maybe you should just killfile her. It would make a refreshing change from
wasting bandwidth with your vendetta.
C
Nec_V20
Tom Klemesrud,
the most anti German sentiment is found in Paris and the north of
France. I have spent very nice holidays in Fouras which is on the west
coast of France (and the best seafood munchies anywhere) and the
people there were great.
My best experience was in the casino in Fouras. The manager had
studied in Germany and we got to talking. He asked me if I wanted to
have a go at the gaming tables and I said "I only make bets that I can
win". He said "Like what?" At that time they were putting in a new keg
of beer and I said, "Well for instance that I can drink the whole of
that keg empty in five minutes". I put down 3000 francs on the table
and he accepted the bet.
So I sat there for five minutes and after they had passed the manager
reached over for the money and I said, "No, now I start drinking". he
looked at me and then we had a laugh, and I though no more about it.
At the end of the evening I was wanting to pay up and the manager
said, "No the keg isn't empty yet".
Right enough I do make the effort to actually speak French and that is
appreciated. We learned about Fouras from our French friend and it is
a bit of the beaten track.
We also spent a couple of our holidays in the south east of France and
had a thoroughly good time there. So all in all my experiences of
France and the French has been overwhelmingly positive.
BTW this one here is very funny:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html
henri
<getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote:
>> Nec_V20 wrote:
>>> I remember when you kicked me of the IRC #altreligionscientology
>>> channel for "lurking" but you got that totally wrong. I was present on
>>> the IRC channel, but couldn't post for two reasons:
[I'm hijacking Claire's response to reply to killfile bait.]
NEC, banning you is NEVER a mistake. The only possible mistake
regarding you and bans is not to do it soon enough.
Nec_V20
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:22:46 -0700, "Ball of Fluff"
>
> >> Nec_V20 wrote:
> >>> I remember when you kicked me of the IRC #altreligionscientology
> >>> channel for "lurking" but you got that totally wrong. I was present on
> >>> the IRC channel, but couldn't post for two reasons:
>
> [I'm hijacking Claire's response to reply to killfile bait.]
>
> NEC, banning you is NEVER a mistake. The only possible mistake
> regarding you and bans is not to do it soon enough.
Henri,
funny how whenever someone gets a little bit of authority many can't
resist becoming what we call in German "ein kleiner Adolf". Another
German phrase which applies specifically to your post is "Der
getroffene Hund bellt".
You made a stupid assumption and attribution based on prejudice.
Having resolved my problems though, I don't really feel like I want to
share - so you really have naff to offer and you're not getting
anything either. So you have squandered a potential resource for
nothing. But I'm sure you'll be happy to know that my system is now
running smoothly again and I found a few tweaks along the way such
that it is now running a bit faster than before.
"Kleinkrämerseele" pretty much sums you up.
Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> - Show quoted text -
hahaha!
Nec_V20
Arnie,
it's Erich Fromm - unless of course you are talking about the tennis
player.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>Arnie,
>>it's Erich Fromm - unless of course you are talking about the tennis
>player.
Don't trouble Werma with facts. His cut-n-pasty drivel is only posted
here for innuendo, after all.
D
Tom Klemesrud
Just back from the honeymoon, and already back at work at ad hominem
attacks on victims of the Scientology cult--the cult that paid you
millions. But for what, holy reverend? What did you provide to them in
return for the money?
Out_Of_The_Dark
wrote:
> Rev Dennis L Erlich wrote:
>
"holey reverend" is more like it. His story and his religion
( whatever it is ) is full of holes.
Ball of Fluff
"Nec_V20" <ARC_Tr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4cb12b54-7a3f-47c9...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I disagree. Henri is a really great guy.
You are, too, but your charms are far more elusive.
C
Nec_V20
wrote:
> "Nec_V20" <ARC_Trian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Claire,
it's his problem not mine.
The weirdest thing? I have agreed with Henri more than disagreed.
Lulu Belle
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:55:36 -0700 (PDT), Lulu Belle
>
> >Patty, I have posted to enturb maybe 3 times.
> >And rarely read it.
> >So, what's the deal with Garry?
> >Is he there only? Here?
> >Please bring me up to speed.
>
> Garry is there and here, posting as "Happy Smurf" and a variety of
> other identities in the recent past. He's also appearing IRL at
> pickets in Hollywood with Anonymous and most notably, Angry Gay Pope,
> a very active picketer of Scientology whose activities can be
> currently involved in litigation with the cult due to them suing him
> claiming harassment in a pattern familiar to any long-term Scientology
> critic.
>
> Anyone who needs to know his history is well informed by this point
> and can make an informed decision. My personal view is there's no
> need to ostracize him or drive him away from pickets, but I would
> certainly hope people are circumspect considering his lengthy and
> ambivalent history.
It is kind of weird that he's resurfaced after this long. I don't
think he's been around this stuff in a number of years.
Maybe he recently became unemployed, and has a lot of time on his
hands.
There's a lot of THAT going around....
henri
Well, to play Devil's advocate, a lot of people have shown up
recently. The activities of Anonymous have re-energized a lot of
people who had become inactive, and emboldened a fair number of new
people who previously didn't have the courage or desire to act. He
could have been lurking, just seen AGP protesting on YouTube, and been
inspired.
I don't think he's some stone evil bastard who deliberately sets out
to fuck people over for OSA. I think he's just easily pliable and
tends to do what pleases whoever he's hanging with at that moment.
That has led him into some truly reprehensible behavior in the past.
OSA knows this and will cajole and ply him. Maybe since the last time
he's been around, he's reformed himself. Who knows?
But people should be basing their analysis on the actual history, not
on the surface appearances. If they know that and choose to turn
their back they have nobody but themselves to blame if ill results.
Actually, people tend to be too trusting of all sorts of people, not
just Scarff, who they shouldn't. Even Anonymous/Chanology people do
this. People are untrustworthy in lots of different ways.