Jonathon Barbera claims Anonymous censors
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
are engaging in a flagging campaign against pro Scientology channels.
If this is true, this should stop. Freedom of speech is a basic human
right. Inalienable, it can't be taken away, to anyone. It's an ideal
you must accept and give to others even if you disagree with their
views.
However he has yet to point out evidence of his claim. In fact I
don't know of any pro-scientology channels with the exception of
1) Ones that repost professionally produced material. While flagging
these doesn't affect an individual's right to free speech, it serves
to help promote what a corrupt organization Scientology is.
2) Videos that support infringing on the individual's rights, such as
flagging videos that are not pro-Scientology. I don't support
flagging campaigns that serve to suppress opinions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keI15rhmJrM is my commentary of one
example.
3) Channels that violate copyrights of others in an attempt to
impersonate others and slander, liable, smear, and defame them.
I am not aware of any pro-Scientology channels that promote an
individual view point.
While I would not support flagging Scientology channels simply because
it's a criminal corrupt organization, Scientology is an organization
with Billions of dollars at it's disposal, with it's own video studio
and freely distributes DVDs with their views.
Jonathon Barbera would claim it's hypocritical to be upset with the
censoring of Mark Bunker's XenuTV and XenuTV1 accounts. Bunker is an
individual without the resources of a Mega Cooperation. He has only
his camera, his voice, and depends on public websites such as YouTube
to get his message out. Scientology has studios, media production
facilities, hundreds of stores, and PAYS FOR ADVERTISING on YouTube.
It is a great travesty of justice when a mega corp uses all it's power
and resources to suppress views and opinions of an individual. What
organization would do this, what church?
Jonathon Barbera has the right to his opinion, but respectfully the
man must have his head in the sand to not recognize the injustice
here. However, if he can provide some solid evidence that any
Anonymous member is engaged in a flagging campaign against a
Scientology channel that doesn't serve to infringe on other people's
rights, as promised I will make a video on the subject and share with
my 46 subscribers.
This is the problem when you suppress the opinion of a person with
some popularity and a history of standing up for basic human rights.
There is no one left of any worth to stand up for you when your rights
are being violated.
We share a planet.
It's the dawn of our global civilization.
Let your ideas spread like fire across the globe, and accept critical
review.
Samiro...@lycos.com
IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
> Jonathon Barbera made the disturbing assertion that Anonymous members
> are engaging in a flagging campaign against pro Scientology channels.
He is right.
True. This evidence against Anonymous is all over the net.
When the www.religiousfreedomwatch.org reported about the Anonymous,
their website was hacked off the net once again.
Keep on posting facts, Jonathon!
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> IntergalacticExpandingPanda wrote:
> > Jonathon Barbera made the disturbing assertion that Anonymous members
> > are engaging in a flagging campaign against pro Scientology channels.
>
> He is right.
>
> True. This evidence against Anonymous is all over the net.
If this is TRUE, then you wouldn't mind posting a link to it.
You can't just say something is true. Pics or it didn't happen.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> When thewww.religiousfreedomwatch.orgreported about the Anonymous,
> their website was hacked off the net once again.
Pics or it didn't happen. And we know Scientology promotes those
pics. If you recall Mark Bunker actually took it upon him self to
speak out AGAINST this as it was a suppression of free speech.
For all I know RFW took their OWN site down and claimed it was due to
evil anonymous or more likely, it's a 100% fiction
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/religiousfreedomwatch.org
It's hard to tell since RFW's site is not listed in the top 100,000
sites ranked by alexa, but it doesn't look like they had any downtime,
surge in activity.
While I don't approve of the RFW site, I wouldn't support any action
to bring it down. It shows everyone what real scumbags the leaders of
Scientology are. What Church would create files on critics, hire PIs
to investigate them, and generate a website about them? Hell, what
organization. But hey, if they want to generate their own negative
stigma about them selves, I'm NOT going to stop them.
Tom Newton
<8ed90843-ba53-452a...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.co
m> IntergalacticExpandingPanda
<intergalactic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jonathon Barbera made the disturbing assertion that Anonymous
> members are engaging in a flagging campaign against pro
> Scientology channels.
>
> If this is true, this should stop. Freedom of speech is a basic
> human right. Inalienable, it can't be taken away, to anyone.
> It's an ideal you must accept and give to others even if you
> disagree with their views.
Are you sane? The whole purpose of "Anonymous" is to suppress
the free speech rights of the Church of Scientology.
They can't do it because they are incompetent, ignorant, lazy,
cowardly, and obvious wackjobs who can't rally support among
the public.
But that's what the _want_ to do.
<snip>
Tom Newton
--
The Truth will set you free:
http://www.sethcenter.com
Stephen Durkin
> On 2008-04-22, in
> <8ed90843-ba53-452a-adc9-74df782bf...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.co
> m> IntergalacticExpandingPanda
>
> <intergalacticexpandingpa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Jonathon Barbera made the disturbing assertion that Anonymous
> > members are engaging in a flagging campaign against pro
> > Scientology channels.
>
> > If this is true, this should stop. Freedom of speech is a basic
> > human right. Inalienable, it can't be taken away, to anyone.
> > It's an ideal you must accept and give to others even if you
> > disagree with their views.
>
> Are you sane? The whole purpose of "Anonymous" is to suppress
> the free speech rights of the Church of Scientology.
>
> They can't do it because they are incompetent, ignorant, lazy,
> cowardly, and obvious wackjobs who can't rally support among
> the public.
>
> But that's what the _want_ to do.
>
> <snip>
>
> Tom Newton
The whole purpose of the Church of "Anonymous" of Scientology is to
rally support to suppress incompetent, ignorant, lazy, cowardly, and
obvious public wackjobs who can't do the free speech rights because
they are sane. Are you it? They can't do. But that's what they
_want_ among the <snip>.
Mot Notnew
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> Are you sane? The whole purpose of "Anonymous" is to suppress
> the free speech rights of the Church of Scientology.
How is Anonymous suppressing the Scientology's free speech? We had a
short lived DDoS attack, where Scientology managed one over a period
OF YEARS. After the DDoS we had a series of world wide protests, none
of which suppressed the rights of Scientology or Scientologists.
> But that's what the _want_ to do.
Near as I can see, the ultimate goal is freedom of information, not
suppression of others.
Again, provide evidence to your claims.
Jeff L
> For all I know RFW took their OWN site down and claimed it was due to
> evil anonymous or more likely, it's a 100% fiction
> http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/religiousfreedomwatch.org
For a period of about two weeks, RFW was inaccessible from many(but not
all) internet connections. But the site was never taken down. It
responded to pings; it was still up. Port 80 was just configured to
refuse connections, but apparently they couldn't even get THAT right.
Tom Newton
<86fedd3a-1d1e-4b92...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
> Samiro...@lycos.com <Samiro...@lycos.com> wrote:
Facts are what "Anonymous" is short on. If they had any they
wouldn't meed to try to bring the Church of Scientology down with
a vicious gossip campaign, they'd be able to use the courts like
honest and law-abiding people do.
"Anonymous" is a criminal organization, and their time is coming.
They'll get theirs.
And because they are foolish enough to believe their own
bullshit, it will take them by surprise.
But that's okay. A lot of them will have a long time to think
about it while they are sitting in jail.
And the rest will have their wages garnished for decades to pay
civil damages and court costs.
These clueless social vandals just don't realize that libel and
hate speech are not protected.
They think they can say anything about anyone.
And they also think they can't be tracked down, which cracks me
up.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
> Facts are what "Anonymous" is short on. If they had any they
> wouldn't meed to try to bring the Church of Scientology down with
> a vicious gossip campaign, they'd be able to use the courts like
> honest and law-abiding people do.
However, use of the courts is exactly what criminal cults like
Scientology use. "primary purpose of a lawsuit is to harass and to
discourage, not to win" --LRH
However, if they have any information that is incorrect, why not
provide the correct information.
Opti
that'll be the day...
Tom Newton like Shrek, half as adorable.
Jonathon Barbera
<intergalactic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jonathon Barbera made the disturbing assertion that Anonymous members
>are engaging in a flagging campaign against pro Scientology channels.
>
>If this is true, this should stop. Freedom of speech is a basic human
>right. Inalienable, it can't be taken away, to anyone. It's an ideal
>you must accept and give to others even if you disagree with their
>views.
>
>However he has yet to point out evidence of his claim.
How can I? My removed videos are removed.
You can see this private Scientologist's account was suspended:
http://www.youtube.com/defendscientology
I think the problem is that you are approaching this with the
fanaticism of a brainwashed crusader.
The evidence that this is generally true for "Anonymous" was the
shitloads of hate mail I received from them. They knew I hadn't been
in the church for 15 years. They knew that my concern was their
inability to differentiate between the church and the religion.
However, the hate mail kept piling up because "Anonymous" can only
hate.
Now, I don't know what Catholic or Christian church sent you, but you
might reconsider their effect on your mind. Look at BOTH sides for a
change. Read some books about cults such as the Margaret Singer book
which Psyborgue recommended. You need it.
I'm not involved with any group or church. Can any of you make the
same claim?
Alexia Death
organized flagging campaign against pro-sci sources. they are not. the
only vids flagged are the ones that offend the morals of individual
anons. And you must do something really nasty to offend /b/.
Alexia Death
Oh, and I say it can be hardly called censorship if body public
decides collectively that something is harmful to the society as a
whole and expresses that by pointing it out to the system hosting the
material. The eventual removal is the decision the hosting system...
Jeff L
> http://www.youtube.com/defendscientology
>
> I think the problem is that you are approaching this with the
> fanaticism of a brainwashed crusader.
>
> The evidence that this is generally true for "Anonymous" was the
> shitloads of hate mail I received from them. They knew I hadn't been
> in the church for 15 years. They knew that my concern was their
> inability to differentiate between the church and the religion.
> However, the hate mail kept piling up because "Anonymous" can only
> hate.
>
> Now, I don't know what Catholic or Christian church sent you, but you
> might reconsider their effect on your mind. Look at BOTH sides for a
> change. Read some books about cults such as the Margaret Singer book
> which Psyborgue recommended. You need it.
>
> I'm not involved with any group or church. Can any of you make the
> same claim?
Jonathan, here you accuse "Anonymous" of sending you "hate messages" due
to your religious belief, but at the same time, you would belittle the
Christian belief.
You accuse EVERYONE ELSE of bigotry and bias, while at the same time
projecting your own. What evidence have you that the poster you were
responding to is a Christian? And even if you do have evidence, what
reason have you to attack their religious belief?
Hypocrite.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
wrote:
> How can I? My removed videos are removed.
I for example can site a video from the old ToryMagoo69 identifying
them selves as OSA, and calling for more flagging.
I saw your videos, or at least 3 of them. One had bad audio
addressing the difference between being critical of the organization
and the religion.
> You can see this private Scientologist's account was suspended:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/defendscientology
How do you know it was a private Scientologist. I happen to somewhat
remember the channel as reposting stuff professionally produced.
> I think the problem is that you are approaching this with the
> fanaticism of a brainwashed crusader.
No, that's not the problem at all. If I was a brainwashed crusader I
wouldn't accept the possibility that you could be correct. I asked
for some form of proof to justify your position.
I for example downloaded a flagging video, and sited it in a video.
> The evidence that this is generally true for "Anonymous" was the
> shitloads of hate mail I received from them. They knew I hadn't been
> in the church for 15 years. They knew that my concern was their
> inability to differentiate between the church and the religion.
> However, the hate mail kept piling up because "Anonymous" can only
> hate.
How do you know the hatemail is from anonymous. As I recall you
promoted the idea that anyone who follows Christ is part of a cult.
Christ followers make up no small percent of the population.
> Now, I don't know what Catholic or Christian church sent you, but you
> might reconsider their effect on your mind. Look at BOTH sides for a
> change. Read some books about cults such as the Margaret Singer book
> which Psyborgue recommended. You need it.
Now who's brainwashed. As a good rule of thumb, it's very very very
rude to presume someone's religious affiliation without prior
knowledge. You should know better. Second just because someone
disagrees with you doesn't make them a part of some Catholic or
Christian conspiracy. I site the Catholics because they are the
largest church. I'm perfectly happy criticizing the Catholics or any
other organization.
> I'm not involved with any group or church. Can any of you make the
> same claim?
Actually I can. I'm not a joiner. I'm not part of Anonymous nor a
member of any Church.
While I am not convinced defendScientology was the work of a
individual Scientologist, I can say material on your channel seemed to
be unique, and actually very creative. I would be interested in the
software you used to generate it. You can always open up a new
YouTube channel... Mark Bunker can not... he tried and in spite
following YT rules, he was banned.
However... if you would be so kind as to provide a link to your old
channel, so I may verify the suspension, I would be more than happy to
upload your videos to my channel with a note attached that you are an
pro Scientology SP whose channel was suspended. You should be able to
use mediafire or some such to provide the videos.
Jonathon Barbera
I tried to explain how Jesus WASN'T a pedophile! They flagged the
video anyhow. It had some 400 views in less than 3 hours and had been
removed after only 4 hours of being on youtube.
I didn't cuss or anything! No pictures of crucifixes or anything. I
had screenshots of my 1996 posting of the fake OT VIII ("Jesus was a
lover of young men and boys").
In fact, here's the actual transcript of my video:
this is a message to Anonymous and all others who protest Scientology
why do you believe that Scientologists think Jesus was a pedophile?
why do you believe that Scientologists are anti-Christian?
people are quoting from a fake confidential OT level
I of all people know it is a fake
I was the one who posted it frequently to the internet back in the mid
1990s
I have provided a link to one example from 1997
but earlier postings also exist
I am sorry now for the trouble it has caused
at the time I was young and critical of Scientology
I had just left the church and I was blaming the church for my
problems
in the heat of resentment at the Church of Scientology, I posted the
fake OT level
I knew it was anti-Christian
but at the time I was anti-Christian because I was a devout atheist,
having turned to atheism after leaving the Church of Scientology
I have since given up my strict materialism for spirituality
I no longer blame the Church of Scientology for my problems
I no longer blame God or Christianity for my problems
I apologize to the Christians and the Scientologists that I have
harmed and misled
I apologize to Anonymous and the Church of Scientology
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
>Jonathon Barbera wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/defendscientology
>>
>> I think the problem is that you are approaching this with the
>> fanaticism of a brainwashed crusader.
>>
>> The evidence that this is generally true for "Anonymous" was the
>> shitloads of hate mail I received from them. They knew I hadn't been
>> in the church for 15 years. They knew that my concern was their
>> inability to differentiate between the church and the religion.
>> However, the hate mail kept piling up because "Anonymous" can only
>> hate.
>>
>> Now, I don't know what Catholic or Christian church sent you, but you
>> might reconsider their effect on your mind. Look at BOTH sides for a
>> change. Read some books about cults such as the Margaret Singer book
>> which Psyborgue recommended. You need it.
>>
>> I'm not involved with any group or church. Can any of you make the
>> same claim?
>
>Jonathan, here you accuse "Anonymous" of sending you "hate messages" due
>to your religious belief, but at the same time, you would belittle the
>Christian belief.
>
You are so close, but you missed the mark!
Aye, I do belittle Christianity. That's true. However, I DO NOT send
hate mail to Christians! I DO NOT go to alt.religion.christianity and
attack every Christian poster there! I DO NOT flag pro-Christian
videos on youtube out of existence!
See? Now do you get your "Anonymous" hypocrisy?
I keep my anti-Christian sentiments away from Christians. I don't
stick it in their faces on their own web sites, news groups, mail
boxes and ad nauseam!
Christians are suckers. Catholics are doubly brainwashed. Who on the
Scientology newsgroup is offended? NO ONE! This isn't the Christian
newsgroup. If you are a Christian, go to your own group and stay
there.
Jonathon Barbera
<intergalactic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 23, 12:12 am, Jonathon Barbera <jonathonbarb...@ispname.net>
>wrote:
>
>> How can I? My removed videos are removed.
>
>I for example can site a video from the old ToryMagoo69 identifying
>them selves as OSA, and calling for more flagging.
>
>I saw your videos, or at least 3 of them. One had bad audio
>addressing the difference between being critical of the organization
>and the religion.
>
>> You can see this private Scientologist's account was suspended:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/defendscientology
>
>How do you know it was a private Scientologist. I happen to somewhat
>remember the channel as reposting stuff professionally produced.
>
Anyone can repost anything. The last video "defendscientology" did
post even claimed to be from "OSA". I commented that it was not really
from "OSA". A day later the whole account was suspended. Who knows?
Maybe "OSA" handled him like they did Mark? (Speculation only.)
In any case, you must have missed "defendscientology's" big
announcement one day that he was a notorious internet troll and had
written a book containing logs of his chats with Anonymous.
Recently, defendscientology did a skype (voice) interview with Crazy
Delaney from youtube.
>> I think the problem is that you are approaching this with the
>> fanaticism of a brainwashed crusader.
>
>No, that's not the problem at all. If I was a brainwashed crusader I
>wouldn't accept the possibility that you could be correct. I asked
>for some form of proof to justify your position.
>
>I for example downloaded a flagging video, and sited it in a video.
>
I can get you a screenshot of my last removed video from youtube where
it says that it was rejected as inappropriate. Will that count as
evidence? I could repost the video and wait for my account to get
suspended. But that wouldn't be worth my effort.
>> The evidence that this is generally true for "Anonymous" was the
>> shitloads of hate mail I received from them. They knew I hadn't been
>> in the church for 15 years. They knew that my concern was their
>> inability to differentiate between the church and the religion.
>> However, the hate mail kept piling up because "Anonymous" can only
>> hate.
>
>How do you know the hatemail is from anonymous. As I recall you
>promoted the idea that anyone who follows Christ is part of a cult.
>Christ followers make up no small percent of the population.
>
The "Anonymous" haters make no secret of their loyalties. Remember, on
youtube, a user account is visible and often his or her favorites and
subscriptions are known. I can very easily see who is "Anonymous" and
who isn't just from their connections.
>> Now, I don't know what Catholic or Christian church sent you, but you
>> might reconsider their effect on your mind. Look at BOTH sides for a
>> change. Read some books about cults such as the Margaret Singer book
>> which Psyborgue recommended. You need it.
>
>Now who's brainwashed. As a good rule of thumb, it's very very very
>rude to presume someone's religious affiliation without prior
>knowledge. You should know better. Second just because someone
>disagrees with you doesn't make them a part of some Catholic or
>Christian conspiracy. I site the Catholics because they are the
>largest church. I'm perfectly happy criticizing the Catholics or any
>other organization.
>
Then do so.
>> I'm not involved with any group or church. Can any of you make the
>> same claim?
>
>Actually I can. I'm not a joiner. I'm not part of Anonymous nor a
>member of any Church.
>
Then you're preaching to the choir with me.
>While I am not convinced defendScientology was the work of a
>individual Scientologist, I can say material on your channel seemed to
>be unique, and actually very creative. I would be interested in the
>software you used to generate it. You can always open up a new
>YouTube channel... Mark Bunker can not... he tried and in spite
>following YT rules, he was banned.
>
In general, as a civil libertarian, I disagree with censorship.
However, in the case of the Church of Scientology, I would
half-jokingly say that national security interests take precedent over
an individual's right to free speech. Loose lips sink ships, right?
Jeff L
> Aye, I do belittle Christianity. That's true. However, I DO NOT send
> hate mail to Christians! I DO NOT go to alt.religion.christianity and
> attack every Christian poster there! I DO NOT flag pro-Christian
> videos on youtube out of existence!
Fair enough. And neither do I send hate mail to Scientologists, nor
attack every Scientologist poster on alt.religion.scientology, nor flag
pro-Scientologist videos on Youtube.
Jonathon Barbera wrote:
> See? Now do you get your "Anonymous" hypocrisy?
I'm not anonymous, Jonathon. Please proceed to look up the word
"anonymous" in the dictionary of your choice. Then proceed to examine
the name and email address I am tying to each post. You may then proceed
to place your foot into your mouth (or other orifice of your choice).
Jonathon Barbera wrote:
> I keep my anti-Christian sentiments away from Christians. I don't
> stick it in their faces on their own web sites, news groups, mail
> boxes and ad nauseam!
This isn't your own newsgroup. This is a forum for discussion ABOUT
Scientology, and this implies both pro- and anti-Scientology viewpoints.
I'd expect the same were I to review the index of
alt.religion.christianity. Now, granted, the anti-Scientologist
sentiment here dominates, and likely moreso than the anti-Christian
discussion there. There is, naturally, a very good reason for this, but
if I stated it bluntly, you'd accuse me of bigotry, because in your
world, only anti-Scientologists are the evil ones.
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
>Jonathon Barbera wrote:
In "my world". Sheesh! I'm neither "Anonymous" nor "Scientologist".
Jeff L
> In "my world". Sheesh! I'm neither "Anonymous" nor "Scientologist".
You subscribe to Scientologist philosophy, and continue to exercise the
tech outside of the church, correct? That would, at least in my opinion
and by my definition, indicate that you are a Scientologist.
For the record, Jonathon, I'm not in the least bit concerned about what
you believe. I'll be the first to admit that of the actual teachings of
Scientology, I am not well-informed. I understand Incident II, but
that's really about as deep as my knowledge runs. That is, however,
sufficient for me to reject it out-of-hand as a belief that I,
personally, would be willing to subscribe to. Yet you are free to
believe as you wish and to practice your belief as you see fit; I do not
seek to stop you, nor could I even if I sought to.
What I'm concerned about is the actual practices of the Church of
Scientology. Quite specifically, "fair game", and the dangerous aspects
of some of their front groups such as CCHR and Narconon.
Fredric L. Rice
wrote:
>Jonathon Barbera made the disturbing assertion that Anonymous members
>are engaging in a flagging campaign against pro Scientology channels.
If people would IGNORE the trolls, they would go away.
---
http://wikileaks.se/wiki/Scientology_threatens_Wikileaks_over_secret_cult_bibles
Jeff L
A troll often has malicious intent, or otherwise derives pleasure from
disrupting discussion forums. I personally am of the opinion that
Jonathan isn't a troll, he's just a sorely misguided idiot. Ignoring him
probably wouldn't be a bad idea, granted...
Psyborgue
Oh hell yes I'd call it censorship. It's called "tyranny of the
majority".
barb
Yep.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe your crap is so very lame people are
offended by its lameness?
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
It's Poodlin' Time!
“I think that the protections that we enjoy for freedom of worship exist
so long as we don’t step over the line. When religious worship and
belief cross over into things like fraud, victimization of others and
the disruption of the political arena, that protection is no longer
appropriate.”
--Robert Goff
Professor Emeritus, UCSC
Psyborgue
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:21:07 -0700 (PDT), IntergalacticExpandingPanda
>
> >Jonathon Barbera made the disturbing assertion that Anonymous members
> >are engaging in a flagging campaign against pro Scientology channels.
>
> >If this is true, this should stop. Freedom of speech is a basic human
> >right. Inalienable, it can't be taken away, to anyone. It's an ideal
> >you must accept and give to others even if you disagree with their
> >views.
>
> >However he has yet to point out evidence of his claim.
>
> How can I? My removed videos are removed.
>
> You can see this private Scientologist's account was suspended:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/defendscientology
That guy's account was suspended for outing Anons on video. It's a
violation of the ToS (which I would disagree with since I believe the
benefits of unrestricted free speech outweigh the downsides). I truly
doubt he was an "private scientologist". Right or wrong, however,
what do you expect a leaderless collective to do when attacked?
> I think the problem is that you are approaching this with the
> fanaticism of a brainwashed crusader.
>
> The evidence that this is generally true for "Anonymous" was the
> shitloads of hate mail I received from them. They knew I hadn't been
> in the church for 15 years. They knew that my concern was their
> inability to differentiate between the church and the religion.
> However, the hate mail kept piling up because "Anonymous" can only
> hate.
It's sad if you truly are getting hate mail, but the whole is not
responsible for the actions of the individuals. I'm anonymous
sometimes. Does that mean I suddenly become hate-filled when I post
anonymously?
> Now, I don't know what Catholic or Christian church sent you, but you
> might reconsider their effect on your mind. Look at BOTH sides for a
> change. Read some books about cults such as the Margaret Singer book
> which Psyborgue recommended. You need it.
PFFFTtt *coffee dripping from nose*. Hold on *goest to check
headers*. Well holy shit. I'm pretty damn convinced now you're not a
member of the RTC. There is no way in hell they would recommend that
book.
I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment of the Catholic Church,
though (leaders are democratically elected, there are no hidden
teachings /onion layers/ to the dogma, etc.), but it's your assessment
and you're free to have it. I don't always agree with Singer either.
> I'm not involved with any group or church. Can any of you make the
> same claim?
I can.
WolfyRik
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:12:42 -0700 (PDT), Alexia Death
>
> >This claim is based on bullshit assumption that anon is doing some
> >organized flagging campaign against pro-sci sources. they are not. the
> >only vids flagged are the ones that offend the morals of individual
> >anons. And you must do something really nasty to offend /b/.
>
> I tried to explain how Jesus WASN'T a pedophile! They flagged the
> video anyhow. It had some 400 views in less than 3 hours and had been
> removed after only 4 hours of being on youtube.
>
Prove it.I'm guessing you can't. You've always been a liar.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
wrote:
> Anyone can repost anything. The last video "defendscientology" did
> post even claimed to be from "OSA". I commented that it was not really
> from "OSA". A day later the whole account was suspended. Who knows?
> Maybe "OSA" handled him like they did Mark? (Speculation only.)
The thing with Mr. Bunker is that he was suspended for prior actions
on XenuTV, not XenuTV1. He wasn't what we would call a repeat
offender, and was summarily banned in the first place on his first or
second strike. Ordinary YT users get 3 or more 'strikes' before
suspension.
>
> In any case, you must have missed "defendscientology's" big
> announcement one day that he was a notorious internet troll and had
> written a book containing logs of his chats with Anonymous.
>
> Recently, defendscientology did a skype (voice) interview with Crazy
> Delaney from youtube.
Perhaps you can link to this material. You spend much more time in
this group, it's rather safe to assume you read more posts than I do.
> >I for example downloaded a flagging video, and sited it in a video.
>
> I can get you a screenshot of my last removed video from youtube where
> it says that it was rejected as inappropriate. Will that count as
> evidence? I could repost the video and wait for my account to get
> suspended. But that wouldn't be worth my effort.
Now it's becoming clear. You had one video removed and were
suspended. Bunker was targeted in a flagging campaign.
I'll at least take it as evidence that you were suspended, though just
a link to your channel would do that, which you have not done yet.
> The "Anonymous" haters make no secret of their loyalties. Remember, on
> youtube, a user account is visible and often his or her favorites and
> subscriptions are known. I can very easily see who is "Anonymous" and
> who isn't just from their connections.
No you can't. Really you can't. You may "think" you can, but that's
really just you painting the world. All you can see are those people
who have videos critical of Scientology.
> >> Now, I don't know what Catholic or Christian church sent you, but you
> >> might reconsider their effect on your mind. Look at BOTH sides for a
> >> change. Read some books about cults such as the Margaret Singer book
> >> which Psyborgue recommended. You need it.
>
> >I'm perfectly happy criticizing the Catholics or any
> >other organization.
>
> Then do so.
This newsgroup deals with Scientology. This isn't your special
newsgroup. I don't obey your commands.
> >Actually I can. I'm not a joiner. I'm not part of Anonymous nor a
> >member of any Church.
>
> Then you're preaching to the choir with me.
I'm an individual with my own views. I reserve the right to be
critical of the actions of Anonymous.
> >While I am not convinced defendScientology was the work of a
> >individual Scientologist, I can say material on your channel seemed to
> >be unique, and actually very creative. I would be interested in the
> >software you used to generate it. You can always open up a new
> >YouTube channel... Mark Bunker can not... he tried and in spite
> >following YT rules, he was banned.
>
> In general, as a civil libertarian, I disagree with censorship.
> However, in the case of the Church of Scientology, I would
> half-jokingly say that national security interests take precedent over
> an individual's right to free speech. Loose lips sink ships, right?
"Ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for
the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his
condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by
nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space,
without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in
which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of
confinement or exclusive appropriation. " --- Thomas Jefferson
13Aug1813 to Isaac McPherson
Religion is not property.
You case sounds like you had "a" video flagged. I see no evidence
that you were part of a flagging campaign by Anonymous or even a
specific Christian group. I would believe a group of Christians might
have been offended by the whole Jesus was a pedophile business even if
you were trying to say he wasn't. I would have to see the video in
question but it sounds unfortunate, and an action I disagree with, but
not necessarily a conspiracy.
You'll need to post links to the facts you presented in your post to
be taken seriously.
an...@anon.penet.fi
<jonatho...@ispname.net> wrote:
>
>I'm not involved with any group or church. Can any of you make the
>same claim?
I thought you were leaving and not coming back?
But you can't, you need this place to validate yourself.
Sad really.
--
No good deed will go unpunished
Opti
Tom Newton
<6548a3a9-a937-421b...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.co
m> Opti <optic...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jonathon and myself are here.
If you don't like it you can sit on it and rotate.
No, I'm not going to read whatever childish insults that you and
your kindergarden sockpuppets are going to post in response to
this.
We are here and a dickless punk like you can't do anything about
it.
Any more than you can do anything about the Church of Scientology.
All you can do is fart on the Internet for someone else to smell.
Tom
Alexia Death
I doubt barb would like to fuck Jonathon... I doubt any woman would...
Not after he has shared his world view anyway...
capricious
> On 2008-04-24, in
> <6548a3a9-a937-421b-b241-3efc3e761...@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.co
You and your facination with dicks, it just keeps shining through.
Do you love the cock Tom? It's okay and all.. homosexuality is much
more widely accepted these days. You can tell us, we won't judge you.
Sam Buckland
> No, I'm not going to read whatever childish insults that you and
> your kindergarden sockpuppets are going to post in response to
> this.
Yes, you will. Just like always. You simply can't
HELP yourself. You're a lemming.
cin...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:21:07 -0700 (PDT), IntergalacticExpandingPanda
>
Defend Scientology was b& because he had videos identifying members of
anonymous!
It is against the law to indentify somone like that without there
permission.
It was also dangerouse considering what was going on. Some crazy scilo
could have tracked us down!
But thats probaly what scientology wanted!
Opti
lol...sorry if it could be taken in that light. Sorry Barb. Jonathon
go fuck yourself.
Wouldn't alt.religion.satanism be a better newsgroup for you?
barb
Ewww...now I gotta live with that picture in my head. Got a hammer I can
borrow?
He belongs in alt.religion.whaaahwaaahwhaaa.phonypersecution
Android Cat
> Opti wrote:
>> Jonathon go fuck yourself.
>> Wouldn't alt.religion.satanism be a better newsgroup for you?
>
> Ewww...now I gotta live with that picture in my head. Got a hammer I
> can borrow?
>
> He belongs in alt.religion.whaaahwaaahwhaaa.phonypersecution
alt.jonathon.dee.dee.dee?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUQfvRaF6SI
--
Ron of that ilk.
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
A "fucking" war is what you want, then a "fucking" war is what you
get.
Jonathon Barbera
You're a fucking retard, Alexia. (Just admit it, it might be
therapeutic.)
In fact, Barb Graham is older than my mother. I do not have any
quasi-Oedipus complexes that need dramatizing. Barb Graham will have
to find someone else.
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
>On 24 abr, 14:29, Alexia Death <alexiade...@gmail.com> wrote:
You go fuck yourself, fuckhead.
>Wouldn't alt.religion.satanism be a better newsgroup for you?
I'm not a Satanist, fuckhead. Although, I do respect the LaVey
Satanists, I have no intention of joining their group or participating
in their ceremonies.
I do highly recommend Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible. I suggest you read
it right away if you're a stupid, fucking Christian or Catholic on
this newsgroup. (Catholics are doubly brainwashed, so they NEED to
read it!)
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
>Opti wrote:
>> On 24 abr, 14:29, Alexia Death <alexiade...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 24, 9:55 pm, Opti <optical...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24 abr, 13:41, a...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:12:51 -0700, Jonathon Barbera
>>>>> <jonathonbarb...@ispname.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm not involved with any group or church. Can any of you make the
>>>>>> same claim?
>>>>> I thought you were leaving and not coming back?
>>>>> But you can't, you need this place to validate yourself.
>>>>> Sad really.
>>>>> --
>>>>> No good deed will go unpunished
>>> I doubt barb would like to fuck Jonathon... I doubt any woman would...
>>> Not after he has shared his world view anyway...
>>
>> lol...sorry if it could be taken in that light. Sorry Barb. Jonathon
>> go fuck yourself.
>> Wouldn't alt.religion.satanism be a better newsgroup for you?
>
>Ewww...now I gotta live with that picture in my head. Got a hammer I can
>borrow?
>
Go fuck yourself, loser. You're way too old for me.
>He belongs in alt.religion.whaaahwaaahwhaaa.phonypersecution
I'm not a Scientologist. At least Scientologists aren't as stupid as
the fucking brain-dead Christians and Catholics who have been
gradually moving in on ars. Don't they get that their Christ is just
Santa Claus in disguise? (Welcome to fantasy land, population: one
gullible mark!)
Jonathon Barbera
<androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>barb wrote:
>> Opti wrote:
>>> Jonathon go fuck yourself.
>>> Wouldn't alt.religion.satanism be a better newsgroup for you?
>>
>> Ewww...now I gotta live with that picture in my head. Got a hammer I
>> can borrow?
>>
>> He belongs in alt.religion.whaaahwaaahwhaaa.phonypersecution
>
>alt.jonathon.dee.dee.dee?
Fuck you, Ron Sharp. When did anyone give you permission to even look
my way? You're one of the lowliest people on this whole fucking
newsgroup. Why hasn't fuckhead Mary McConnell convinced you to kill
yourself yet? (Has she tried in e-mail or elsewhere? Let us know
before you do kill yourself so we can know who pushed you over the
fucking edge!)
Jonathon Barbera
I don't know if he did that or not. I remember a video where he
cut-out a picture of a parrot and then put a fucking Anonymous jerk
under it like the face was the parrot's head! LOL!
Anyhow, how is he any different than Barb Graham attempting to post a
google earth photo of the neighborhood where she thought I lived? I
think that's far more fucking evil than anything defendscientology
ever did! He may have outed some names, but she was dishing out
(incorrect) addresses with little regard to the consequences!
Jonathon Barbera
Rice) wrote:
>IntergalacticExpandingPanda <intergalactic...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>Jonathon Barbera made the disturbing assertion that Anonymous members
>>are engaging in a flagging campaign against pro Scientology channels.
>
>If people would IGNORE the trolls, they would go away.
>
You are such a fucking retarded idiot! I can't believe Mary McConnell
hasn't convinced you to kill yourself yet! You're so gullible that
you'd probably do it on the first hint from "her".
No one here on ars isn't a troll! There aren't any legitimate
in-church Scientologists here. There aren't any real "critics" here
other than some fucking idiot who strolled in recently and thinks
people criticizing the church here are who they claim to be.
Hey, Fredric, maybe you should take a page from the brain-dead fucking
Christians and Catholics and go worship a dead and dying martyr who
can't solve his own problems let alone anyone else's! (Because you're
emulating that fuckhead great already.)
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
You're the misguided fucking idiot! Why do you have to be so
self-deluded to think...
Wait, you're not one of those brain-dead fucking Christians or
Catholics here on ars only to spread hate are you?
Confess now or I'll continue blaspheming against your fuckhead God.
Jonathon Barbera
You and I agree on this. I call it "mob mentality". The majority
drowns out the minority views, cultures, beliefs and practices until
everyone is homogenous.
Jonathon Barbera
I have the video in my account. I can easily screenshot the fucking
thing, but you wouldn't believe it even if I did because you're a
brain-dead Christian/Catholic who is so brainwashed that he can't
understand the difference between empirical evidence and what the
preacher/priest said.
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
>Jonathon Barbera wrote:
>> In "my world". Sheesh! I'm neither "Anonymous" nor "Scientologist".
>
>You subscribe to Scientologist philosophy, and continue to exercise the
>tech outside of the church, correct? That would, at least in my opinion
>and by my definition, indicate that you are a Scientologist.
>
>For the record, Jonathon, I'm not in the least bit concerned about what
>you believe. I'll be the first to admit that of the actual teachings of
>Scientology, I am not well-informed. I understand Incident II, but
>that's really about as deep as my knowledge runs. That is, however,
>sufficient for me to reject it out-of-hand as a belief that I,
>personally, would be willing to subscribe to. Yet you are free to
>believe as you wish and to practice your belief as you see fit; I do not
>seek to stop you, nor could I even if I sought to.
>
You insist on being a fucking idiot just out of spite! I've repeatedly
explained how Incident II represents less than 1% of Scientology and
is really taken completely out of context when not studied with the
first 17 years of research which led up to it.
You're trying to tell me that I'm a "Scientologist". This is
laughable. You then try to tell me that Scientology is "Incident II".
Yet this makes you look the complete fool!
MOST Scientologists never make it onto OT III. Scientologists outside
of the church aren't expected to ever go onto the OT levels. I'm not
on them and have no plans to do them.
So, if OT III is rarely studied or used, then what are all of those
other people doing in Scientology? You don't have any clue because you
really don't know the FIRST thing about Scientology!
>What I'm concerned about is the actual practices of the Church of
>Scientology. Quite specifically, "fair game", and the dangerous aspects
>of some of their front groups such as CCHR and Narconon.
Then go protest the fucking church and stop pissing off the freezone
and Ron's Org people whose beliefs and practices you continue to
insult.
I don't give a shit either way.
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
You're a self-claimed member of ARSCC.
Either you can't help but be a lying fuckhead or your brain-dead
memory is fading so fast that you didn't know you belonged to a group!
And don't give me the bullshit about "wdne". It's a cult and you're
one of it's most loyal lap dogs.
Jonathon Barbera
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:12:51 -0700, Jonathon Barbera
><jonatho...@ispname.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm not involved with any group or church. Can any of you make the
>>same claim?
>
>I thought you were leaving and not coming back?
I never said this. Why do you insist on being such a fucking liar? Is
it because you're so poor and pathetic that instead of doing something
constructive with yourself, you can't do anything else but hate people
on a newsgroup? Drink another beer and flame someone on the fucking
idiot box internet eh?
Jonathon Barbera
<psyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 23, 9:12 am, Jonathon Barbera <jonathonbarb...@ispname.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Now, I don't know what Catholic or Christian church sent you, but you
>> might reconsider their effect on your mind. Look at BOTH sides for a
>> change. Read some books about cults such as the Margaret Singer book
>> which Psyborgue recommended. You need it.
>
>PFFFTtt *coffee dripping from nose*. Hold on *goest to check
>headers*. Well holy shit. I'm pretty damn convinced now you're not a
>member of the RTC. There is no way in hell they would recommend that
>book.
>
I just received it in the mail today! I haven't had time to start
reading, but I expect to do so within the next few days.
>I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment of the Catholic Church,
>though (leaders are democratically elected, there are no hidden
>teachings /onion layers/ to the dogma, etc.), but it's your assessment
>and you're free to have it. I don't always agree with Singer either.
>
It should be obvious that the Roman Catholic priests molest all of
those children in order to implant traumatic incidents early in their
childhood to use as a control mechanism later. Anyone who has been
reading about cult or experimental CIA mind control as long as I have
know about the various mechanisms used.
>> I'm not involved with any group or church. Can any of you make the
>> same claim?
>
>I can.
Then you're preaching to the choir.
Jeff L
> You insist on being a fucking idiot just out of spite! I've repeatedly
> explained how Incident II represents less than 1% of Scientology and
> is really taken completely out of context when not studied with the
> first 17 years of research which led up to it.
You've entirely ignored my argument based on Incident II. I'm well aware
that it's not a central belief. I'm also well aware that many
Scientologists have never heard of it.
My concern, however, is that Hubbard even saw fit to include it in his
writings. Why is this, you might ask? Because it is ridiculous on it's
face, and reads like bad science fiction. Considering that Hubbard was a
bad science fiction writer, this is suspect.
I've argued this with you before, and you entirely ignored my point and
went back to your own (false) premise - that those who focus on Xenu are
somehow under the impression that the Scientology religion centers upon it.
The reason people focus on the ridiculous aspects of Scientology - such
as the Xenu saga - is precisely because in the ridiculous aspects of a
religion, the religion is called into question. To use an example you
might be familiar with, if a person was seeking to discredit the
Christian religion, would they point to the moral doctrine? No. Would
they point to the various documented miracles? Possibly, but probably
not. Would they point to those elements which appear to fly in the face
of science and reason, such as the documentation of Noah's flood and the
creation? Hell yes.
Well, the Xenu saga appears to fly in the face of reason. It's the same
principal.
Jeff L
> You're the misguided fucking idiot! Why do you have to be so
> self-deluded to think...
Why do I think you're a misguided idiot, Jonathon? Because I've raised
numerous arguments towards you that you have failed to respond to in any
meaningful way, preferring to fall back onto circular logic, and when
called on it, ad hominem,
I lost a great deal of respect for you when you overtly displayed your
own hypocrisy and inability to reason.
Alexia Death
wrote:
Oh boy... Somebody amputated your sense of humor, go beat that
person.
Holding monologues here is not making you look any saner.
Android Cat
Hitting the kiddie cocaine pretty hard these days, aren't you. Did you
score a big shipment down at the playground?
Jonathon Barbera
wrote:
>Jonathon Barbera wrote:
> > You insist on being a fucking idiot just out of spite! I've repeatedly
>> explained how Incident II represents less than 1% of Scientology and
>> is really taken completely out of context when not studied with the
>> first 17 years of research which led up to it.
>
>You've entirely ignored my argument based on Incident II. I'm well aware
>that it's not a central belief. I'm also well aware that many
>Scientologists have never heard of it.
>
>My concern, however, is that Hubbard even saw fit to include it in his
>writings. Why is this, you might ask? Because it is ridiculous on it's
>face, and reads like bad science fiction. Considering that Hubbard was a
>bad science fiction writer, this is suspect.
>
Um, you do know that Xenu and Incident II are a popular Christian myth
simply with the names of the characters changed, right?
I guess "bad science fiction" goes back thousands of years in the
western world.
Jonathon Barbera
<androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
More dead agenting bullshit from one of the groups number one liars.
Can you even help yourself, dumbass? Or is it something which you are
incapable of stopping?
You are one of the most worthless posters here. Instead of actually
contributing ANYTHING meaningful to any discussion at all, you are
dead agenting non-stop like the typical Christian/Catholic mind
control victim. Is that your hang-up, Ron Sharp? Or is your brain
fried from personal self-abuse?
Jonathon Barbera
Calling yourself "Alexia Death" didn't help your credibility, either.
I had rather hoped you were one of the relatively amusing alt.slack
types, but, alas, you are another putrid liar with no opinion other
than the one stamped into the mind by Christian/Catholic
indoctrination.
Did it hurt much? Oh well. Who cares.
Alexia Death
wrote:
Oh my, attacking my name? I wonder why they all do that after running
out of arguments... Don't they know how desperate it looks? I must
have hit some nerve somewhere...
Now, on the assumption of my Christian indoctrination... I take
offense at that.
FYI, I'm a child of a communist minded atheist and a naturalist raised
in the soviet union where all religions(except communism, and even
that did not stick) was held in contempt. All my looks into religions
have been cursory and on my own initiation. And I have looked into
many of them. And in the end I have found all organized religions
lacking. My view on god, religion and afterlife is that I'll find out
when I die if they exist or not. And you can keep the eternal life,
this temporary one is is annoying enough so anybody selling paradise
can GTFO.
Jonathon Barbera
Then you are smarter than average. Good for you. They will cherish you
on alt.slack where you belong.
I will insult you half as much in the future. You're still retarded,
but, hey, at least you're not a brainwashed fuckhead Christian or
Catholic, right?
What do Santa Claus and the Christ have in common? Both are fantasy
characters. Both demand worship and "offerings". Both fail to deliver
on the "prayers".
Fortunately, you don't have to worry yourself with all of that
foolishness.
BarbaraSc...@excite.com
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:19:06 -0700, Jeff L <jeffrey.lat...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Jonathon Barbera wrote:
> > >http://www.youtube.com/defendscientology
>
> >> I think the problem is that you are approaching this with the
> >> fanaticism of a brainwashed crusader.
>
> >> The evidence that this is generally true for "Anonymous" was the
> >> shitloads of hate mail I received from them. They knew I hadn't been
> >> in the church for 15 years. They knew that my concern was their
> >> inability to differentiate between the church and the religion.
> >> However, the hate mail kept piling up because "Anonymous" can only
> >> hate.
>
> >> might reconsider their effect on your mind. Look at BOTH sides for a
> >> change. Read some books about cults such as the Margaret Singer book
> >> which Psyborgue recommended. You need it.
>
> >> same claim?
>
> >to your religious belief, but at the same time, you would belittle the
> >Christian belief.
>
> You are so close, but you missed the mark!
>
> Aye, I do belittle Christianity. That's true. However, I DO NOT send
> hate mail to Christians! I DO NOT go to alt.religion.christianity and
> attack every Christian poster there! I DO NOT flag pro-Christian
> videos on youtube out of existence!
>
> See? Now do you get your "Anonymous" hypocrisy?
>
> I keep my anti-Christian sentiments away from Christians. I don't
> stick it in their faces on their own web sites, news groups, mail
> boxes and ad nauseam!
>
> Christians are suckers. Catholics are doubly brainwashed. Who on the
> Scientology newsgroup is offended? NO ONE! This isn't the Christian
> newsgroup. If you are a Christian, go to your own group and stay
> there.
Hi, Jonathan. :)
The Christians will not serve the world as they accepted p$ychiatry
and don't look how p$ychs make terrorists.
But Jesus isn't your enemy but would rather kick the anti-religious
people out of the Christian and other churches.
---
Abusive transsexual BRIAN J, BRUNS aka BURNS aka "Bri", "Brielle" or
"Brielle-Jillian", born on
06/24/81, a "registered sex slave: and owner/webmaster of the abusive
AHBL ("Abusive Host Blocking
List") website and the SOSDG ("Summit open source development group")
is a CONVICTED FELON. (Felon Indictment # I-1577-02,S-2423-02 and
SAPD. Police Report # 05071019). INMATE; BRUNS, BRIAN # 445064.
The AHBL SOSDG is allegedly "non-profit" but stops free speech,
blackmails ISPs and defames people.
Bruns lies that the ABHL is non-profit. He hosted the sex pages of his
master "Lady-Arielle" who offers one hour of her perversion for over
$300,-- profit on the SOSDG server!
Bruns actually HACKED the computers of his former employer Access
Highway (http://
accesshighway.com). Bruns was many months incarcerated and has a FBI
file. Realists think that Bri (also called "the cheese") never will
change but will go back to prison.
COMMACK MAN INDICTED FOR HACKING
http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/da/press/2002/06_26_02.htm
Read also this:
http://groups.google.com/group/rattle-users/browse_thread/thread/920c521a661d867a
Bruns retaliates and smears my name also in anonymous Blogspot that is
filled with factual lies about me for which he can be sued. It
wouldn't be the first defamation lawsuit brought against him.
MY OTHER STALKER IS TILMAN JOERG HAUSHERR FROM GERMANY, BERLIN,
EMPLOYED BY SIEMENS, WHICH HAS COZY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GERMAN
SECRET SERVICE OPC.
Hausherr posted that it is a good idea to hurt American tourism.
Click here for information on Tilman Hausherr:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/media-newsroom/tilman-hausherr/
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/media-newsroom/tilman-hausherr/
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/intolerance-hate/whistle-blowers/the-clearwater-letters/tilman-hausherr/
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/kids.htm#Debate_with_Tilman_Hausherr
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Hausherr&btnG=Google+Search&domains=BERNIE.CNCFAMILY.COM&sitesearch=BERNIE.CNCFAMILY.COM
http://www.alarmgermany.org/tilman.htm
Here are factual criminal records about Hausherr's friend, the
habitual offender, defamer and forger Korey Jerome Kruse from Olathe,
Kansas. I am very certain that Kruse defames himself in ridiculous
postings saying about himself that he is convicted Nazi spy, etc. to
DISTRACT from his REAL rotten activities and criminal past, which is
here:
http://stalkerkoreykruse.wordpress.com/
http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-156307.html
He also is suspect no. 1, stalking and defaming me on Wikipedia under
ID Anynobody and other IDs.
Jonathon Barbera
There you go. They simply put a "Christian" veneer on their
psychiatry. They get down on their knees to pray, but then they get up
and swallow their handful of pills. That's Christianity in actual
practice today.
>But Jesus isn't your enemy but would rather kick the anti-religious
>people out of the Christian and other churches.
>
They've taken the "Christianity" out of their churches. They are
modern hypocrites. Jesus would condemn them as a generation of vipers.
"Anonymous" is the type who would fault a Scientologist for healing
someone because he doesn't have a medical license. Sound familiar?
Jesus was condemned by the religious leaders for healing people on the
Sabbath. They want to follow the letter of the law and completely
abandon the spirit in which it was written.
Alfred E. Neumann
news:qn841453173h6q4fv...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:12:18 -0700 (PDT),
> BarbaraSc...@excite.com wrote:
>
>>On Apr 23, 4:16 am, Jonathon Barbera <jonathonbarb...@ispname.net>
>>wrote:
>>Hi, Jonathan. :)
>>
>>The Christians will not serve the world as they accepted p$ychiatry
>>and don't look how p$ychs make terrorists.
>>
>
> There you go. They simply put a "Christian" veneer on their
> psychiatry. They get down on their knees to pray, but then they get up
> and swallow their handful of pills. That's Christianity in actual
> practice today.
>
>>But Jesus isn't your enemy but would rather kick the anti-religious
>>people out of the Christian and other churches.
>>
>
> They've taken the "Christianity" out of their churches. They are
> modern hypocrites. Jesus would condemn them as a generation of vipers.
>
> "Anonymous" is the type who would fault a Scientologist for healing
> someone because he doesn't have a medical license. Sound familiar?
> Jesus was condemned by the religious leaders for healing people on the
> Sabbath. They want to follow the letter of the law and completely
> abandon the spirit in which it was written.
Birds of a feather...
It is always a delight to see such big minds come together
Alfred E. Neumann
>
> It should be obvious that the Roman Catholic priests molest all of
> those children in order to implant traumatic incidents early in their
> childhood to use as a control mechanism later. Anyone who has been
> reading about cult or experimental CIA mind control as long as I have
> know about the various mechanisms used.
>
Are these insights brought to you by the practice of Scientology or have
you been that delusional before?
Jeff L
> Um, you do know that Xenu and Incident II are a popular Christian myth
> simply with the names of the characters changed, right?
>
> I guess "bad science fiction" goes back thousands of years in the
> western world.
Now you're being ridiculous, Jonathon.
The Christian mythos has no account of an alien overlord stacking up
billions of bodies around volcanoes, dropping in hydrogen bombs, and
clustering those souls together. The Christian account far from asserts
that all the problems in the world are caused by alien souls clung to
our bodies. Nor does the Christian mythos advertise that I will catch
pneumonia and DIE because I read certain "forbidden" parts of the text.
If you're trying to compare the Xenu bullshit to Christian belief in the
Devil, you're FAR off base. But I'd expect nothing less from you.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
wrote:
> "Anonymous" is the type who would fault a Scientologist for healing
> someone because he doesn't have a medical license. Sound familiar?
> Jesus was condemned by the religious leaders for healing people on the
> Sabbath. They want to follow the letter of the law and completely
> abandon the spirit in which it was written.
The FDA faulted Scientology for making medical claims. They are
required to slap a warning on the e-meter that it's not designed for
medical purposes. Hubbard tried to push Dianetics as psychology and
was denied.
The problem isn't with Scientologists healing people... it's the claim
that they can without any objective data, such as through detox
rundowns, introspection rundowns, touch assists. The problem is their
continued push to get people to discontinue taking prescribed
medications without any medical qualifications. It's one thing to be
concerned with the quanity of medication prescribed, but it's quite
another to give someone "medical advice" without having any
qualifications as a doctor.
Surly you can see this as being a problem.
obscene dog
<androi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jonathon Barbera wrote:
>> Fuck you, Ron Sharp. When did anyone give you permission to even look
>> my way? You're one of the lowliest people on this whole fucking
>> newsgroup. Why hasn't fuckhead Mary McConnell convinced you to kill
>> yourself yet? (Has she tried in e-mail or elsewhere? Let us know
>> before you do kill yourself so we can know who pushed you over the
>> fucking edge!)
>
>Hitting the kiddie cocaine pretty hard these days, aren't you. Did you
>score a big shipment down at the playground?
He's on a mission tonight.
Over 300 new messages and I bet most of them are from him!
I shouldn't complain... if he's molesting ARS, he's not writing shitty
books or "producing" mind-numbing videos for $ciTube.
--
Don't get in front of me.
What the... Oh, shi-
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
wrote:
> It should be obvious that the Roman Catholic priests molest all of
> those children in order to implant traumatic incidents early in their
> childhood to use as a control mechanism later. Anyone who has been
> reading about cult or experimental CIA mind control as long as I have
> know about the various mechanisms used.
This is just wow...
There are a ton of cases where Scientology ministers molested kids,
and I would be very very interested to see how the percent of
Scientology pedophiles compares to real religions. As for the
conspiracy of silence, I'd go with the same explanation why the
leaders of Scientology elected to remain silent on the issue, bad
publicity, which has got to be worse for Scientology since they are
opposed to psychiatry.
As to why there were pedophile priests... I don't know... but it's not
a condition that is exclusive to being a priest. I would be pleased
to question whether the church's attitude toward sexuality is healthy
and a possible contributing factor.
But whether this is a core mission of the church, to induce trauma as
a control mechanism... respectfully you lack any evidence to backup
that assertion and remains a conspiracy theory. A more likely
explanation is there are some sick fucks who are attracted to
positions of authority to put them selves in a better position to get
their rocks off.
It's amazing to me that anyone would come up with a complex conspiracy
to something that has a more simple explanation.
Scientology is a cult
$d8fea49f$11...@PRIMUS.CA:
>>> alt.jonathon.dee.dee.dee?
>>
>> Fuck you, Ron Sharp. When did anyone give you permission to even look
>> my way? You're one of the lowliest people on this whole fucking
>> newsgroup. Why hasn't fuckhead Mary McConnell convinced you to kill
>> yourself yet? (Has she tried in e-mail or elsewhere? Let us know
>> before you do kill yourself so we can know who pushed you over the
>> fucking edge!)
>
> Hitting the kiddie cocaine pretty hard these days, aren't you. Did you
> score a big shipment down at the playground?
hmmm... can we get confirmation that this is indeed Jonny Bawwwwwwbera?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Scientology is a cult
> A "fucking" war is what you want, then a "fucking" war is what you
> get.
We finally made him snap!
Scientology is a cult
> You are one of the most worthless posters here.
Stop hitting yourself.
Scientology is a cult
>>lol...sorry if it could be taken in that light. Sorry Barb. Jonathon
>>go fuck yourself.
>
> You go fuck yourself, fuckhead.
no u
>>Wouldn't alt.religion.satanism be a better newsgroup for you?
>
> I'm not a Satanist, fuckhead. Although, I do respect the LaVey
> Satanists, I have no intention of joining their group or participating
> in their ceremonies.
LRH thure worthipped thetan.
> I do highly recommend Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible. I suggest you read
> it right away if you're a stupid, fucking Christian or Catholic on
> this newsgroup. (Catholics are doubly brainwashed, so they NEED to
> read it!)
b-b-b-BUT RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE!!!!!oneeleven!!!onehundredelevenpointone!!!
Scientology is a cult
> Um, you do know that Xenu and Incident II are a popular Christian myth
> simply with the names of the characters changed, right?
>
> I guess "bad science fiction" goes back thousands of years in the
> western world.
Yes, I do recall the part in the bible where the devil solved
overpopulation by blowing up souls in volcanoes, only to be eventually
arrested by angels. Unfortunately, the souls became stuck to primitive
humans.
Oh wait, that's a line of absolute bullshit. I'm sorry, but it serves me
right for trying to figure out what the fuck goes on in your empty little
skull.
Scientology is a cult
>>This isn't your own newsgroup. This is a forum for discussion ABOUT
>>Scientology, and this implies both pro- and anti-Scientology viewpoints.
>>I'd expect the same were I to review the index of
>>alt.religion.christianity. Now, granted, the anti-Scientologist
>>sentiment here dominates, and likely moreso than the anti-Christian
>>discussion there. There is, naturally, a very good reason for this, but
>>if I stated it bluntly, you'd accuse me of bigotry, because in your
>>world, only anti-Scientologists are the evil ones.
>
> In "my world". Sheesh! I'm neither "Anonymous" nor "Scientologist".
What you are, however, is an arrogant little shit.
Scientology is a cult
>>I'm not sure if I agree with your assessment of the Catholic Church,
>>though (leaders are democratically elected, there are no hidden
>>teachings /onion layers/ to the dogma, etc.), but it's your assessment
>>and you're free to have it. I don't always agree with Singer either.
>>
>
> It should be obvious that the Roman Catholic priests molest all of
> those children in order to implant traumatic incidents early in their
> childhood to use as a control mechanism later. Anyone who has been
> reading about cult or experimental CIA mind control as long as I have
> know about the various mechanisms used.
Tell us more about how superior you are to all of us.
Jeff L
Hey Jonathon, I'm still awaiting a rational response to this argument.
So far I've seen you loop into circular logic, devolve into ad hominems,
and attempt to derail the discussion with irrelevant comparisons to
other religions. Have you a sound defense?
WolfyRik
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:33:16 -0700 (PDT), WolfyRik
>
>
>
> <Wolfy...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 23, 10:09 am, Jonathon Barbera <jonathonbarb...@ispname.net>
> >wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 00:12:42 -0700 (PDT), Alexia Death
>
> >> <alexiade...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >This claim is based on bullshit assumption that anon is doing some
> >> >organized flagging campaign against pro-sci sources. they are not. the
> >> >only vids flagged are the ones that offend the morals of individual
> >> >anons. And you must do something really nasty to offend /b/.
>
> >> I tried to explain how Jesus WASN'T a pedophile! They flagged the
> >> video anyhow. It had some 400 views in less than 3 hours and had been
> >> removed after only 4 hours of being on youtube.
>
> >Prove it.I'm guessing you can't. You've always been a liar.
>
> I have the video in my account. I can easily screenshot the fucking
> thing, but you wouldn't believe it even if I did because you're a
> brain-dead Christian/Catholic who is so brainwashed that he can't
> understand the difference between empirical evidence and what the
> preacher/priest said.
Check it out, I totally baited a cultie! Bwahaha thanks for proving
again what a REAL bigot and hypocrite is jonoclam. Firstly, I'm no
kind of christian, but your brainwashed mind probably won't accept
that. Secondly prove it please! Really! If you havea video with proof,
lets see it! I'm begging you, show us this video!
Of course, you won't, because you can't. You're still lying. Poor
jonoclam.
IntergalacticExpandingPanda
wrote:
> I have the video in my account. I can easily screenshot the fucking
> thing, but you wouldn't believe it even if I did because you're a
> brain-dead Christian/Catholic who is so brainwashed that he can't
> understand the difference between empirical evidence and what the
> preacher/priest said.
Respectfully Scientology at the best of times is based on anecdotal
evidence. You can see this in any of the videos where members claim
Scientology is scientific and they go on to say how the evidence is
based on a feeling that something good is happening (subjective, not
quantitative), and concluding that it must be Scientology that is
responsible.
You had a video which was removed within hours of it being posted. We
don't have the message from YT sited, so we have to take your word for
it. Links to the video in question would be handy. You also say you
were suspended. Links to older videos or the channel (http://
www.youtube.com/JonathonBarbera still exists) would be handy to verify
this. I'd do it my self, but Jonathon is a very prolific poster and
I'd have to sort through 500+ messages just to find the YT link.
A-1) Jonathon failed to provide the suspension message
A-2) Jonathon failed to provide links to the suspended video
A-3) Jonathon failed to provide a link to the channel
A-4) Jonathon failed to provide a link to any action suggesting a
group flagging campaign
However, I just managed to find one of the videos that Jonathon posted
to this group... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzyPJj_1ST8 . YT has
a message that says "This video has been removed by the user."
Fortunately in the same post we have a link to another video, well the
same one with better audio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o8ThcMMCDA
"This is a private video. If you have been sent this video, please
make sure you accept the sender's friend request."
B-1) The suspected channel still exists, with no videos
B-2) One video Jonathon posted says "removed by user" the other is a
"private video"
B-1 might be incorrect, I don't actually know the name of Jonathon's
channel, I vaguly remember it being his name no space, but B-1 I won't
say is a fact. B-2 isn't truly conclusive since it may be possible YT
is reporting actions when the account was active. But B-1 and B-2 are
are at least valid links to know videos by this user that don't report
"Account has been suspended"
C-1 This is a Christian conspiracy
C-2 This is an Anonymous conspiracy
C-3 This is a Church of Scientology conspiracy
C-4 This is a Jonathon conspiracy
C-1 is possible. But as seen above, one can look at Jonathon's claims
objectively and see there is nothing to support it.
C-2 is possible... however his only evidence was "DefendScientology"
was removed as part of a flagging campaign. The video in question, I
believe, was showing the name and address of one anonymous member.
There is only one reason to share that information, to intimate and
harass someone who has every legal right to anonymous free speech
under the first amendment. I would question posting the home address
of any CoS member.
C-3 is possible. Jonathon claims to be an SP, and we presume CoS
monitors this group, and know for a fact they maintain a list of SPs.
There is no evidence to support this was a CoS action, but as long as
we are entertaining conspiracy theories we can't rule these guys out.
Jonathon's material did address ideas that were in the Fishman
affidavit, something CoS tried to supress for 10 years.
C-4 is most likely. All this speculation could have been avoided had
he taken the time to provide evidence in the form of a YT e-mail,
links to videos that say they were removed due to terms of service
violations, links to attempts to remove his videos. What we do have
is positive feedback from YT suggesting the channel still exists, with
one video removed and one video changed to private.
So was Jonathon the victim of censorship? There is NOTHING to support
this claim.
Was Mark Bunker and Tory Magoo the victim of censorship? Absolutely.
1) Each user was suspended
2) Bunker received an e-mail claiming ownership by the Church of
Scientology
3) Claims of suspending Tory existed in this group, and claims of
going after Bunker next exist in this group.
4) Bunker may have reposted two Colbert clips, but users normally
don't get suspended for two DMCA complaints.