Anonymous is dying. Buttersquash cabaL infiltration is killing it.
parallax
McPherson legal camp, then used by Patricia Greenway and the
Buttersquash Cabal to drive a wedge through the heart of the anti--
Scientology community; dividing those who admired and supported the
efforts of Bob Minton, and the ones who supported that the
infiltrators of Minton's Lisa McPherson Trust – Patricia Greenway,
(for one) – in order to destroy it for her masters at the church of
Scientology.
When the members of this conspiracy were last summonsed to Florida to
the Greenway house, it must've been decided then: a "hill 10" target
of infiltrating whyweprotest.net, the anonymous movement, and
Chanology..
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/anonymous-is-dying.77267/#post-1432954
OP confirms it: Anonymous is dying.
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Anonymous
community when this thread confirmed that WWP site traffic has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
Internet traffic. Coming on the heels of a recent Alexa survey which
plainly states that WWP has lost more users, this news serves to
reinforce what we've known all along. Anonymous is collapsing in
complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in
the recent February global protest numbers.
You don't need to be a Herro to predict Anonymous' future. The hand
writing is on the wall: Anonymous faces a bleak future. In fact there
won't be any future at all for Anonymous because Anonymous is dying.
Things are looking very bad for Anonymous. As many of us are already
aware, Anonymous continues to drive away its user base. Red ink flows
like a river of blood.
Anon vs CoS is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its
IRL protesters. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time
Chanology protesters King Nerd and Skeptic1337 only serve to
underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt:
Anonymous is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
Chanology leader da5id states that there are over 9000 users of WWP.
How many users of WWP are there? Let's see. The number of WWP versus
ESMB posts on forums is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there
are about 9000/0 = unknown, because da5id can't divide by zero. WWP
posts on forums are about half of the volume of ESMB posts. Therefore
there are about 700 users of WWP. A recent article put Chanology at
about 80 percent of the Anonymous membership. Therefore there are
(9000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 Anonymous users. This is consistent with the
number of deleted or moderator-edited posts online.
Due to the troubles of AnonOrange and AGP, abysmal donations and so
on, WWP went out of business and was taken over by Marblecake who push
another troubled agenda. Now Marblecake is also dead, its corpse
turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Anonymous has steadily declined in user
base. Anonymous is very sick and its long term survival prospects are
very dim. If Anonymous is to survive at all it will be among nerdy
dilettante protesters. Anonymous continues to decay. Nothing short of
a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical
purposes, Anonymous is dead.
Fact: Anonymous is dying.
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/anonymous-is-dying.77267/#post-1432988
let me rephrase:
WWP is dying, mainly because the mods killed it with the new
cancerridden design.
But if you have been on anonops lately, you know that anonymous is far
away from dying at all.
Sputnik
[Herp, derp, I'm a butthurt kook who got kicked off WWP.]
phil scott
> Just like a decade ago when the information was leaking out from Lisa
> McPherson legal camp, then used by Patricia Greenway and the
> Buttersquash Cabal to drive a wedge through the heart of the anti--
> Scientology community; dividing those who admired and supported the
> efforts of Bob Minton, and the ones who supported that the
> infiltrators of Minton's Lisa McPherson Trust – Patricia Greenway,
> (for one) – in order to destroy it for her masters at the church of
> Scientology.
>
> When the members of this conspiracy were last summonsed to Florida to
> the Greenway house, it must've been decided then: a "hill 10" target
> of infiltrating whyweprotest.net, the anonymous movement, and
> Chanology..
>
>
> let me rephrase:
> WWP is dying, mainly because the mods killed it with the new
> cancerridden design.
>
> But if you have been on anonops lately, you know that anonymous is far
> away from dying at all.
oh horse pucky... anonymous and 4 chan are ten thousand times
larger.. totally anonymous... totally accessible to anyone... totally
diverse, none on the same page except for one thing... exposing
crap. with documents. duh.
the criminal cut opts are *welcomed by anonymous and 4chan and etc to
join in the fray ..so is the wind, the water, every cop, judge, truck
driver and hacker on earth.
Grow up cult boy.
Phil scott
The Alien Krlll
> parallax<parall...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Herp, derp, I'm a butthurt kook who got kicked off WWP.]
How do you know who he is henri - leader of Buttersquash? Somebody tell
you that, that has mod status on WWP? A Buttersquash mod?
That would simply prove the parallax view of WWP is correct. AND, they
are leaking IP's and users email addrs to outsiders like you, attorney
Clark.
Also Buttersquash is known as ...
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/usenet/goon-squad-follies.html
Attorney Clark goes by the name of "ptsc" here in the archives.
(Caution: obscene language). Patty Peniadz (pooks) is listed as the
goon "Cerridwen."
Read a few of these posts and see for yourself. It reads just like WWP
reads today, with all the same venom.
This Cabal has a 24 hour chat channel where Clark regularly kicks and
bans visitors. Undernet #altreligionscientology
You might find WWP moderator "Miranda" there using the nickname "Mirele"
and talking about her cats. (Her website avatar is a picture of Julie
Newmar from the 1960s TV show "Batman." On that show – that only an old
folk could remember – Julie Newmar plays "Catwoman.") On the OSA goons
squad Follies site you might find Mirele listed as Deana Holmes.
You will also find xenubarb, and attorney Scott Pilutik (tikk), there
all the time, and at the same time logged on to WWP.
Yes, WWP IS dying. That is precisely the plan.
parallax
> Sputnik wrote, On 2/27/2011 12:11 PM:
>
>
> > [Herp, derp, I'm a butthurt kook who got kicked off WWP.]
>
> How do you know who he is henri - leader of Buttersquash? Somebody tell
> you that, that has mod status on WWP? A Buttersquash mod?
>
> That would simply prove the parallax view of WWP is correct. AND, they
> are leaking IP's and users email addrs to outsiders like you, attorney
> Clark.
>
> Also Buttersquash is known as ...
>
>
> Attorney Clark goes by the name of "ptsc" here in the archives.
> (Caution: obscene language). Patty Peniadz (pooks) is listed as the
> goon "Cerridwen."
>
> Read a few of these posts and see for yourself. It reads just like WWP
> reads today, with all the same venom.
>
> This Cabal has a 24 hour chat channel where Clark regularly kicks and
> bans visitors. Undernet #altreligionscientology
>
> You might find WWP moderator "Miranda" there using the nickname "Mirele"
> and talking about her cats. (Her website avatar is a picture of Julie
> Newmar from the 1960s TV show "Batman." On that show that only an old
> folk could remember Julie Newmar plays "Catwoman.") On the OSA goons
> squad Follies site you might find Mirele listed as Deana Holmes.
>
> You will also find xenubarb, and attorney Scott Pilutik (tikk), there
> all the time, and at the same time logged on to WWP.
>
> Yes, WWP IS dying. That is precisely the plan.
1 Samuel 24:13 As the old saying goes, 'From evildoers come evil
deeds,' so my hand will not touch you.Proverbs 20:11 Even a child is
known by his actions, by whether his conduct is pure and right.Matthew
7:20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.Matthew 12:33 "Make
a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its
fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit.Luke 6:43 "No
good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.Luke
6:44 Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs
from thornbushes, or grapes from briers.Galatians 5:22 But the fruit
of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness,James 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have
deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith
by what I do.James 3:12 My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a
grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
The Alien Krlll
Bob Minton once described Rob Clark as, "The keyboard commando who once
almost shit his pants at the suggestion he testify in court."
heh.
xenubarb
> Sputnik wrote, On 2/27/2011 12:11 PM:
>
>
> > [Herp, derp, I'm a butthurt kook who got kicked off WWP.]
>
> How do you know who he is henri - leader of Buttersquash? Somebody tell
> you that, that has mod status on WWP? A Buttersquash mod?
>
> That would simply prove the parallax view of WWP is correct. AND, they
> are leaking IP's and users email addrs to outsiders like you, attorney
> Clark.
>
> Also Buttersquash is known as ...
>
>
> Attorney Clark goes by the name of "ptsc" here in the archives.
> (Caution: obscene language). Patty Peniadz (pooks) is listed as the
> goon "Cerridwen."
>
> Read a few of these posts and see for yourself. It reads just like WWP
> reads today, with all the same venom.
>
> This Cabal has a 24 hour chat channel where Clark regularly kicks and
> bans visitors. Undernet #altreligionscientology
>
> You might find WWP moderator "Miranda" there using the nickname "Mirele"
> and talking about her cats. (Her website avatar is a picture of Julie
> Newmar from the 1960s TV show "Batman." On that show that only an old
> folk could remember Julie Newmar plays "Catwoman.") On the OSA goons
> squad Follies site you might find Mirele listed as Deana Holmes.
>
> You will also find xenubarb, and attorney Scott Pilutik (tikk), there
> all the time, and at the same time logged on to WWP.
>
> Yes, WWP IS dying. That is precisely the plan.
LOL...not only are you so stupid you think Miranda and Mirele are the
same person, you think WWP is dying! Silly clam, we're not about stats
and numbers, we're about results.
And if you should ever happen to pull your head out of that fecal
encrusted tunnel you keep it in, you might...look around and see
direct proof of results.
FBI investigations, Narconon investigations, Carly Crutchfield profile
yanked from Aussie development magazine, Rex Fowler story,
ummmm....and oh so much moar!
But you just go on thinking you're somehow winning by hiding from the
evidence that you're not.
The Ostrich Defense is acceptable to us.
You won't see the boot about to kick your ass with your head stuck in
your rectum! (do say hi to Lemmiwinks, thanks)
The Alien Krlll
Then you – as a member of the Buttersquash Cabal– knows who Miranda is?
Otherwise… Just sayin.
> And if you should ever happen to pull your head out of that fecal
> encrusted tunnel you keep it in, you might...look around and see
> direct proof of results.
so stinking gross!
>
> FBI investigations, Narconon investigations, Carly Crutchfield profile
> yanked from Aussie development magazine, Rex Fowler story,
> ummmm....and oh so much moar!
No Barb, you are stealing credit from Marty Rathbun's blog and Marty
Rathbun. taking credit for an unfortunate murder should be beneath you.
>
> But you just go on thinking you're somehow winning by hiding from the
> evidence that you're not.
"The evidence that I'm not"? Oh you must have me on this one! I
thought I was :-)
> The Ostrich Defense is acceptable to us.
> You won't see the boot about to kick your ass with your head stuck in
> your rectum! (do say hi to Lemmiwinks, thanks)
Are you drinking camphor again Barb? Smoking Salvia?
John Dorsay
> On Feb 27, 10:58 am, The Alien Krlll <E...@Teegeeack.con> wrote:
<snip>
> LOL...not only are you so stupid you think Miranda and Mirele are the
Hi barbz! The Alien Krill is none other than your old friend and
admirer Kook Tom Klemesrud, who recently revealed his secret of
drinking himself sober. Pretty much says everything, I think.
> same person, you think WWP is dying! Silly clam, we're not about stats
> and numbers, we're about results.
>
> And if you should ever happen to pull your head out of that fecal
> encrusted tunnel you keep it in, you might...look around and see
> direct proof of results.
He just needs to chug a few more six packs of Miller Lite to sober
himself up.
> FBI investigations, Narconon investigations, Carly Crutchfield profile
> yanked from Aussie development magazine, Rex Fowler story,
> ummmm....and oh so much moar!
>
> But you just go on thinking you're somehow winning by hiding from the
> evidence that you're not.
> The Ostrich Defense is acceptable to us.
> You won't see the boot about to kick your ass with your head stuck in
> your rectum! (do say hi to Lemmiwinks, thanks)
Nice to see you!
John
parallax
> On 2/27/2011 6:50 PM, xenubarb wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 10:58 am, The Alien Krlll <E...@Teegeeack.con> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > LOL...not only are you so stupid you think Miranda and Mirele are the
>
> Hi barbz! The Alien Krill is none other than your old friend and
> admirer Kook Tom Klemesrud, who recently revealed his secret of
> drinking himself sober. Pretty much says everything, I think.
How do you know that?
>
> > same person, you think WWP is dying! Silly clam, we're not about stats
> > and numbers, we're about results.
>
> > And if you should ever happen to pull your head out of that fecal
> > encrusted tunnel you keep it in, you might...look around and see
> > direct proof of results.
>
> He just needs to chug a few more six packs of Miller Lite to sober
> himself up.
Ad hominem attacks? One of the many tools of the disinformation
specialist.
> > FBI investigations, Narconon investigations, Carly Crutchfield profile
> > yanked from Aussie development magazine, Rex Fowler story,
> > ummmm....and oh so much moar!
Another tool of disinformation is to seize all the publicly available
information that anybody could easily find, if they would have taken
the time, and throw it into one treasure trove, implying that all the
work has been done and there is no more information to be learned,
hiding the most vulnerable information of their clients. That was done
with the Reed Slatkin webpage. It's very telling to look at what was
so obvious, and was left out.
> Nice to see you!
>
> John
You really seem like a prick, John.
John Dorsay
> On Feb 27, 6:51 pm, John Dorsay <restimula...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Nice to see you!
>>
>> John
>
> You really seem like a prick, John.
Whatever, Tom.
*Plonk* yet another Kook Tom K sock.
John
Tom Klemesrud
I'm sick of you dragging my name through the mud. Check your IP
addresses fool! I am in Texas, not Wisconsin.
Jeez. I second the prick thing.
John Dorsay
Okay, Tom, if you insist.
First, please don't get all butthurt on us now when I identify your
trailer park.
# whois 67.65.219.126
PIONEER RV RESORT-050720234121 SBC06706521912029050720234123
(NET-67-65-219-120-1) 67.65.219.120 - 67.65.219.127
And now, please don't get all butthurt on us when I identify your
other ip address as one of them kewl anonymous proxies, perfect for
posting via google groups,.
# curl 65.23.153.193
[!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.or g/TR/html4/loose.dtd"]
[HTML]
[HEAD]
[META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859
-1"]
[TITLE]ERROR: No web site here[/TITLE]
[STYLE type="text/css"]
[!--BODY{background-color:#ffffff;font-family:verdana,san
s-serif}PRE{font-family:sans-serif}--]
[/STYLE]
[/HEAD]
[BODY]
[H1]ERROR: No web site here[/H1]
[p]In order to use your new proxy subscription you need to configure
your web br owser's proxy settings.[br/]
You can find the link to the configuration manual in the email with
proxy detail s sent to you by our system.[br/]
If you need help please reply to the welcome email and describe your
problem. We will get back shortly.
[/p]
[/BODY]
[/HTML]
Thanks for playing, Tom.
Why don't you grab another dozen cold ones and enjoy your Big Win!
John
parallax
You asshole! I use a paid Firefox proxy. I am assigned to one port
out of a possible 65,000. I will never browse the web without going
through this Firefox proxy, because assholes out there like you! I
will never take off the condom. I can see right through you agent
Dorsay.
Because I use this proxy site, then that proves that someone else is
me. I guess that's kinda like playing dumb in the 25 rules of
disinformation?
It's amazing that you think by repeating things over and over again,
somehow they will be believable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BpkKecHWiM
http://yowusa.com/war/2008/war-2008-08b/1.shtml
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules
are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional
disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly
by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the
criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are
a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't
happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty
Lobby) when CIA agent Marita Lorenz 'confession' testimony regarding
CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John
Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt lost
his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby's newspaper, The
Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day and were sued for
the story). See Mark Lane's remarkable book, Plausible Denial, for the
full confessional transcript.
Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are
aware of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such
attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely
complicit in a cover up. In this case, it would be the entire Time-
Warner Media Group, among others. This author is relatively certain
that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case from among those
having intelligence community ties.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can
be used to show the topic as being critical of some otherwise
sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!'
gambit.
Example: 'How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were
murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America's finest and best
trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal
requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could
want to appoint.'
Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with
disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in
fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other
examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse of power that demands
attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to
address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 - become
incredulous and indignant)?
3. Create rumor mongers.
Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue
or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory
terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which
works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the
public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If
you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to
certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which
can have no basis in fact.
Example: You can't prove his material was legitimately from French
Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his 'proof' that
flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn't. All he
really had was the same old baseless rumor that's been floating around
the Internet for months.'
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI
interview statement to media and a similar statement by a Congressman,
neither of which had actually seen Pierre's document. As the FBI is
being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre
claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI
would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you
to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger's
credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best
you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material
found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it
must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require
addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these
issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 - create rumor mongers)?
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you
can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to
look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on
your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or
select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their
significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the
charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion
of the real issues.
Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that
spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight
800, a straw man is used. The disinformationalist, later identified as
having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: 'If these images
exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don't exist, and never
did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls flat.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and
unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen
them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce
them would violate national security with respect to intelligence
gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why
do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics
(rule 4 - use a straw man)?'
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate
opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing',
'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals',
'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so
forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining
the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
Example: 'You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The
Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess
we know your politics -- does your Bible have a swastika on it? That
certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing
conspiracy theory.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis
of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source
responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream
media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Willis
DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding slanderous
statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against the
messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in
the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of
such disinformation tactics (rule 5 - sidetrack opponents with name
calling and ridicule)?'
6. Hit and Run.
In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the
opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be
fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in
Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream
of new identities can be called upon without having to explain
criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack,
never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response,
for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
Example: 'This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics
come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black
helicopters.' Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won't
seem curious if the author is never heard from again.
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog
or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism,
and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters.
If you do not like reading 'this crap', why do you frequent this NG
which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion? Why do you refuse
to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 -
hit and run)?'
7. Question motives.
Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the
opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This
avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
Example: 'With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks
like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his
credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that
this is so. If you think what has been presented are 'lies', why not
simply so illustrate? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use
of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 - question motives)?'
8. Invoke authority.
Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present
your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are
'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues
or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
Example: 'You obviously know nothing about either the politics or
strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71.
Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started
with a pair of souped up big-block V-8's (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D.
with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams -- for 850
combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-
drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird
has ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been
trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of
China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China.
I'm not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by
American pilots.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to
provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite
sources. You simply cite 'Jane's-like' information to make us think
you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address the
issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 - invoke
authority)?'
9. Play Dumb.
No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid
discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make
any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or
support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
Example: 'Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic.
Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try
again.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. You evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while
others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no
trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by
use of such disinformation tactics (rule 9 - play dumb)?'
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of
high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or
were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future
should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be
foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt
with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent
charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually
then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply
being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the
better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
Example: 'Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the
NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it
down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't
revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if
new information is irrelevant to truth. Why do you refuse to address
the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate
charges with old news)?'
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and
'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was
made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it
all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just
isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even
publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already
'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and
respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without
addressing more serious issues.
Example: 'Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more
time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness
of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so
concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now
believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be
used.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an
attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public
Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with
the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy it makes us feel, so
much so that we are to ignore more important matters being discussed.
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 11 - establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?'
12. Enigmas have no solution.
Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and
the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too
complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to
begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the
actual issues.
Example: 'I don't see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered
since you can't prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would
have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that
went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would
have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA,
the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and on.
It's hopeless. Give it up.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring
to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. You
eat an elephant one bite at a time. Why do you refuse to address the
issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 - enigmas have
no solution)?'
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an
apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
Example: 'The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market
where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story --
often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any
evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing,
they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven't
reported it, so there can't have been any prior knowledge. Put up or
shut up.'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported
CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a
courtroom testimony 'confession' by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a
liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told
us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest story of the
Century, but they didn't print it, did they? Why do you refuse to
address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 -
Alice in Wonderland logic)?'
14. Demand complete solutions.
Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand
completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule
10.
Example: 'Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent
as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned
and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?'
Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in
order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any
evidence of Ray's innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any
alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth,
can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use
of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 - demand complete solutions)?
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with
contingency conclusions in place.
Example: 'The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a
catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to
explode.'
Proper response: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by
this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter's Magic Bullet from the
Warren Report. This was eloquently defeated in court but media blindly
accepted it without challenge. Thus rewarded, disinformationalists do
not shrink from its application, even though today, thanks in part to
the movie, JFK, most Americans do now understand it was fabricated
nonsense. Thus the defense which works best may actually be to cite
the Magic Bullet.
'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your
imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter's Magic
Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic
bullet was invented. You invent a cargo door problem when there has
been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support
it, and in fact, actual photos of the cargo door hinges and locks
disprove you. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 15 - fit facts to an alternate
conclusion)?'
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.
If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address
the issue.
Example: 'You can't say Paisley is still alive... that his death
was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately
placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can't
you accept the Police reports?' This is a good ploy, since the dental
records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long
and the teeth weren't his were lost right after his wife demanded
inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it --
all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.
Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished
materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter,
particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up other criminality.
However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the
discussion, you can respond... 'You are avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in
contention ONLY because of highly suspicious matters such as the
simultaneous and mysterious vanishing of three sets of evidence. The
suspicious nature itself tends to support the primary allegation. Why
do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 16 - vanish evidence and witnesses)?'
17. Change the subject.
Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a
way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial
comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable
topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with
you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to
avoid discussing more key issues.
Example: 'There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering
through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton
knowledge of it because it simply didn't happen. This is merely an
attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a
disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with
nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to
swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.' Assistant's
response. 'You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what's wrong
with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping
the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands
on...' One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice,
to jump in defensively on that one...
Proper response: 'You are both avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by
attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response to a new topic
-- a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe
such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is
not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate politics NGs.
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?'
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw
them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look
foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material
somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues
in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how
'sensitive they are to criticism.'
Example: 'You are such an idiot to think that possible -- or are
you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the 'gubment' is
cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only
justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.' After a
drawing an emotional response: 'Ohhh... I do seem to have touched a
sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What's the matter? The truth too hot for
you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends
Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help...'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without
discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute
which defeats my argument, let's here it -- preferably without snide
and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking
so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all
you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such
disinformation tactics (rule 18 - emotionalize, antagonize, and goad
opponents)?'
19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs.
This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the
material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the
opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it
may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld,
such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing
issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be
critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are
acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other
authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Example: 'All he's done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch
of witnesses who aren't qualified. Where's his proof? Show me wreckage
from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!'
Proper response: 'You are avoiding the issue with disinformation
tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for
the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters
for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr.,
reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the
Associated Press -- as being able to tell us anything useful about the
facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E.
Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special
Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles
Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the
bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited
officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the
crash investigative team -- as a qualified party in this matter, and
thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, -- about as
good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren't qualified. Then you demand us
to produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence
held by FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified
to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be
damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs
be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?.
Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation
tactics (rule 19 - ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?'
20. False evidence.
Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and
manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful
tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works
best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose,
and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white
Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the
assassination. This was a handy 'confession', since Jack and Earl were
both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now
known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination (see
below.)
Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless
you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is
known today than earlier in time... 'You are avoiding the issue with
disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have been
designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita
Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty
Lobby, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and others, met
with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to
distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose
'Solidarist confession' was meant to sidetrack any serious
investigation of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you refuse to
address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 -
false evidence)?'
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered
investigative body.
Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all
sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence
and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For
instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand
Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an
unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is
achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually,
this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also
be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who
violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law,
denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the
power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated
to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence
which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions
other than facts actually suggested.
Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this
tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application,
particularly with respect to any possible cover up. This happened
locally in Oklahoma, and as a result, a new Grand Jury has been called
to rehear evidence that government officials knew in advance that the
bombing was going to take place, and a number of new facts which
indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done the deed
without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such as
available ONLY to the military or intelligence community, such as
CIA's METC technology. Media has refused to cover the new Oklahoma
Grand Jury process, by they way.
22. Manufacture a new truth.
Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence
existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific,
investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes
favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can
do so authoritatively.
Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family
Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall
into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership
include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Read
The Professional Paranoid or Psychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by
Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that (in
a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus
on, by means of their own "research findings", that there is no such
thing as Mind Control.
Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in
the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the
opponent organization, you are not well equipped to fight this tactic.
23. Create bigger distractions.
If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive
issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events
such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to
distract the multitudes.
Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing
trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence
community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other
skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the
Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored
murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever
disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing
government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to
talk about -- or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans
shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the
whole gun control thing?
Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public
debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the
'news flap' or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your
opponents.
24. Silence critics.
If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from
circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address
issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and
detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of
blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially,
emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire
theories with respect to flight 800 -- send in FBI agents to
intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be
subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of
failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up
charges. If this doesn't work, you can always plant drugs and bust
them.
Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you
think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and
fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance
policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any
unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence
information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid
dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for
suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to
cave in or run (same thing.)
25. Vanish.
If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and
you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the
kitchen.
Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you
don't, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way
of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.
Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this
method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was
by foul play or deceit as part of a deliberate cover up.
Tom Klemesrud
It's like this parallax. If the possibility exists that Tom Klemesrud
is using one of the hundred thousand proxy servers all over the world on
one of the 65,000 ports of each one -- If that possibility exists --
then that's enough proof for this litigation specialist for the Ontario
nurses union, to continue dragging my name through the mud, to derail
the thread.
It really is pathetic and shines a dim light on that Canadian Union.
John Dorsay
> parallax wrote, On 2/27/2011 8:58 PM:
<snip>
>> You asshole! I use a paid Firefox proxy. I am assigned to one port
>> out of a possible 65,000. I will never browse the web without going
>> through this Firefox proxy, because assholes out there like you! I
>> will never take off the condom. I can see right through you agent
>> Dorsay.
>>
>> Because I use this proxy site, then that proves that someone else is
>> me.
>
> It's like this parallax. If the possibility exists that Tom
> Klemesrud is using one of the hundred thousand proxy servers all
> over the world on one of the 65,000 ports of each one -- If that
> possibility exists -- then that's enough proof for this litigation
> specialist for the Ontario nurses union, to continue dragging my
> name through the mud, to derail the thread.
>
> It really is pathetic and shines a dim light on that Canadian Union.
Tom, if you are going to get all butthurt every time someone points
out your latest Klemsock, maybe you should quit using them.
On the other hand, then you wouldn't be able to pretend there was
someone dumb enough to agree with your stupid theories. So maybe you
should carry on socking.
For what it's worth, I only see your sock puppet drool second hand,
except when you make a new sock. So if you didn't post your
delusional nonsense in reply to sentient posters (like barbz, for
example), I would never see your gibberish and would therefore never
comment on your sock puppetry. But if you do, I will. That's how
free speech works.
I'm not the ONA guy, btw. I've already told you my name, address and
phone number. How much more information about me do you want? You
could just ask, you know.
Enjoy cyberstalking me anyway!
John
parallax
Amazing. You've been proven a liar and still you can continue like
some kind of expert! Where did you study the black art of
disinformation?
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata THC, OD
is far from over. Wishful thinking on your part, most likely.
Postulating doesn't "work" either, twit.
"parallax" wrote in message
news:0b35d38f-3bb7-4b02...@o14g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
The Alien Krlll
>
> I'm not the ONA guy, btw. I've already told you my name, address and
> phone number. How much more information about me do you want?
I suggest you return home immediately, but cautiously. There is an
imposter living in your house, eating your food, talking on your
telephone, and driving your car.
The good news is that he is current with the utility bills.
Hartley Patterson
>
> Just like a decade ago when the information was leaking out from Lisa
> McPherson legal camp, then used by Patricia Greenway and the
> Buttersquash Cabal to drive a wedge through the heart of the anti--
> Scientology community;
Hi! Pardon me from giggling once again.
As a protester against the evil cult, I measure progress by how the cult
is doing, not its enemies. If the cult were to vanish tomorrow so would
they.
Enemies come and go. The Cult Awareness Network and the Lisa McPherson
Trust are no more, but the cult continues to decline. As the late Robert
Young put it, the baton is handed on to others.
How is the cult doing? Worse. Falling membership, empty orgs, wider public
and media awareness of its crimes, decreasing ability to frighten ex-
members into silence, rival organisations setting up, every indicator says
to me that the cult is on a downhill slope.
In 1997, there was one (1) regular street protest group. I know because I
was a member! It had four (4) core members.
In 2011, there are more, and all have more members than that. I can only
speak for London, but here the big crowds of 2008 are no longer actually
needed, they did their damage and different tactics are now being used.
Just as the 'Old Guard' inspired Chanology, so both in turn led to the
Independents. There are more of us and less of them every day.
--
ARS FAQ
Please read before posting
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk/faq.htm
Roger Larsson
> Just like a decade ago when the information was leaking out from Lisa
> McPherson legal camp, then used by Patricia Greenway and the
> Buttersquash Cabal to drive a wedge through the heart of the anti--
> Scientology community; dividing those who admired and supported the
> efforts of Bob Minton, and the ones who supported that the
> infiltrators of Minton's Lisa McPherson Trust – Patricia Greenway,
> (for one) – in order to destroy it for her masters at the church of
> Scientology.
>
> When the members of this conspiracy were last summonsed to Florida to
> the Greenway house, it must've been decided then: a "hill 10" target
> of infiltrating whyweprotest.net, the anonymous movement, and
> Chanology..
>
>
> let me rephrase:
> WWP is dying, mainly because the mods killed it with the new
> cancerridden design.
>
> But if you have been on anonops lately, you know that anonymous is far
> away from dying at all.
A group dealing with shit (scientology) maybe just want to catch some
fresh air before they return to the battle?
Kat
> Just like a decade ago when the information was leaking out from Lisa
> McPherson legal camp, then used by Patricia Greenway and the
> Buttersquash Cabal to drive a wedge through the heart of the anti--
> Scientology community; dividing those who admired and supported the
> efforts of Bob Minton, and the ones who supported that the
> infiltrators of Minton's Lisa McPherson Trust – Patricia Greenway,
> (for one) – in order to destroy it for her masters at the church of
> Scientology.
>
> When the members of this conspiracy were last summonsed to Florida to
> the Greenway house, it must've been decided then: a "hill 10" target
> of infiltrating whyweprotest.net, the anonymous movement, and
> Chanology..
>
>
> let me rephrase:
> WWP is dying, mainly because the mods killed it with the new
> cancerridden design.
>
> But if you have been on anonops lately, you know that anonymous is far
> away from dying at all.
WWP is shit. A lot of anons haunt local forums and completely bypass
WWP and its retarded drama, retarded mods and retarded policies that
allow known scilons to post there even when proof of who they are is
submitted. I haven't visited in probably close to a year, possibly
more.I encounter enough mouth breathers in Warcraft, I don't need to
bump into them when I'm actually doing something important with my
time.
This does not mean the movement is dead. It just means the novelty
wore off and the ppl who really don't give a rats ass about
scientology have buggered off. It also means that less non anons are
referred there. Within my few months of protesting at Dupont Circle,
the locals all knew who we were and what we were about. They had
already visited the websites we told them about, decided scientology
was evil and moved on with their lives.
You know what IS in it's death throws tho? The cult.
Voltaire's Child
"John Dorsay" <restim...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ikf15j$glb$1...@arscc.eternal-september.org...
Another ~dozen~? Thought cases had 24 cold ones...let's see, a couple of
those a night...
C
John Dorsay
> Another ~dozen~? Thought cases had 24 cold ones...let's see, a
> couple of those a night...
... and he'd be as sober as a judge! You missed the thread where he
explained how he drinks less alcohol by drinking more light beer. If
he drinks 22 and a half cans of Miller Lite in a few hours, then he
is as sober as Peach is after 3 Diet Pepsis. Or something like that.
No, I'm not making it up. I'm just leaving out a lot of tedious detail.
John
realpch
No no, I believe he had me drinking some kind of wine which is 30%
alcohol. I took a look at the bottles in the supermarket, and I didn't
see any like that, though I think I did see one that had 18%.
:-p
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
The Alien Krlll
> No no, I believe he had me drinking some kind of wine which is 30%
> alcohol. I took a look at the bottles in the supermarket, and I didn't
> see any like that, though I think I did see one that had 18%.
>
> :-p
>
> Peach
Duh
Buy the wine, and put it in a wine press. Compress it 50% and you will
get 30% ... although now just half a bottle left.
I think Peaches you should switch to smoking Salvia and give up drinking
strong wine.
Out_Of_The_Dark
Mary
On Mar 1, 1:06 pm, Kat <ladyas...@comcast.net> wrote:
> WWP is shit. A lot of anons haunt local forums and completely bypass
> WWP and its retarded drama, retarded mods and retarded policies that
> allow known scilons to post there even when proof of who they are is
> submitted. I haven't visited in probably close to a year, possibly
> more.I encounter enough mouth breathers in Warcraft, I don't need to
> bump into them when I'm actually doing something important with my
> time.
>
> This does not mean the movement is dead. It just means the novelty
> wore off and the ppl who really don't give a rats ass about
> scientology have buggered off. It also means that less non anons are
> referred there. Within my few months of protesting at Dupont Circle,
> the locals all knew who we were and what we were about. They had
> already visited the websites we told them about, decided scientology
> was evil and moved on with their lives.
>
> You know what IS in it's death throws tho? The cult.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Voltaire's Child
Oh, I heard about it...too funny...
C
John Dorsay
ROFLMFAO :)
John