The internet has declared war on Scientology
wheat...@googlemail.com
not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring
is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times
whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
Just thought I'd share.
cultxpt
I'd say most of us critics would be against that (though of course
this is all individuals and we have no spokesperson). Just because
Scientology is creepy, doesn't mean we have to be creepy back.
barb
That's a dumb idea. How can people look at both sides if one side is gone?
--
barb
Chaplain, ARSCCwdne
buy my book!
http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=1198812
read my page! (thanks, R. Hill!)
http://www.xenu-directory.net/critics/graham1.html
visit my store!
http://www.cafepress.com/birdville
Android Cat
*rolls eyes* followed by *face palm*
(1) Scientology isn't the brightest, but they do pay for decent Internet
support on their main sites.
(2) Most hax0r kiddies seem to think that defacing Wiki pages full of
sourced information is striking a blow against Scientology, somehow.
That said, I wouldn't cry if anything happened to
www.religiousfreedomwatch.org :-)
--
Ron of that ilk.
Out_Of_The_Dark
Yesterday or the day before someone else posted about some supposid
young hackers jamming up the scientology site. I doubt anyone here
even knows who is doing that. I agree with Barbz. Just because
Scientology tries toshut down the critics does not mean that critics
try to shut down the cult. The internet may be Scientology's worst
enemy but it was the critic's fight for the right to free speech that
made that happen. To condone ilegal activities to suppress the
scientology's right to free speech would be hypocritical and wrong.
I suggest you go report your news to the cult itsself.. They have
enough money, computer specialists, and PI's to track down the
culprits if such exist.
Mary McConnell
Thursday, January 17, 2008
"The World's Largest Global Scam" is The Church of Scientology
http://free-from-scientology.blogspot.com/2008/01/tom-cruise-and-church-of-scientology.html
Rev. Norle Enturbulata, COD
<wheat...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ca1cbafa-7281-40c1...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
And you're not a Scientologist, right? Got any documentation of this or at
least some memo from someone doing the cult's webmastering?
I put forth that if someone in the hacking arena decided to do what
Scientology has attempted to do on a variety of critical sites (It's called
a Denial Of Service attack, btw), they certainly wouldn't do it by sitting
there hitting Refresh/F5.
How do you think one would "infiltrate it on a physical level"? Walking in
the door, pretending to take a so-called 'personality test', and then sneak
into some place where the servers are... See, that doesn't work either.
Share THAT. And share THIS. The entire non-clam planet seems to be doing
so:
http://gawker.com/345563/tom-cruise-uncut-the-freedom-medal-award-ceremony
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/panorama-scientology-and-me/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2535187,00.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology
http://xenu.com-it.net/txt/ildikoe.htm
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.scientology-lies.com
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
http://www.scientology-kills.org
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
* " You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way
you can control anybody is to lie to them."
* -- L. Ron Hubbard, "Technique 88"
*
* "...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her
crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes
exist...."
* L. Ron Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", November 5, 1967
*
* "All men shall be my slaves! All women shall succumb to my charms! All
mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!"
- L. Ron Hubbard, "Personal Affirmations"
Hartley Patterson
> Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or
> not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
> face of the internet by members of various websites.
Anyone who does that has as little understanding of freedom and of
Scientology as the cult.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Dilbert Perkins
My guess this is just Scientology trying to play victim (again).
Friendly Xenu
>face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring
>is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times
>whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
>Just thought I'd share.
Human rights and civil rights activists oppose your core criminality,
Mary, and trying to play pretend only marks you and your crime syndicate
as the crooks that you are.
No offense intended.
---
When you're a Scientologist, and you drive by an accident, you know
you have to do something about it, because you know you're the only
one who can really help. -- Heterosexual Tom Cruise describing his
magic powers.
wheat...@googlemail.com
hotmail.com> wrote:
> <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ca1cbafa-7281-40c1...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or
> > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
> > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring
> > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times
> > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
>
> > Just thought I'd share.
>
> And you're not a Scientologist, right? Got any documentation of this or at
> least some memo from someone doing the cult's webmastering?
>
> I put forth that if someone in the hacking arena decided to do what
> Scientology has attempted to do on a variety of critical sites (It's called
> a Denial Of Service attack, btw), they certainly wouldn't do it by sitting
> there hitting Refresh/F5.
>
> How do you think one would "infiltrate it on a physical level"? Walking in
> the door, pretending to take a so-called 'personality test', and then sneak
> into some place where the servers are... See, that doesn't work either.
>
> Share THAT. And share THIS. The entire non-clam planet seems to be doing
>
> http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/panorama-scientology-and-me/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2535187,00.htmlhttp://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientologyhttp://xenu.com-it.net/txt/ildikoe.htmhttp://www.xenu.nethttp://www.xenutv.comhttp://www.scientology-lies.comhttp://www.whyaretheydead.nethttp://www.scientology-kills.org
>
> Rev. Norle Enturbulata
> "Church" of Cartoonism
> *
> * " You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way
> you can control anybody is to lie to them."
> * -- L. Ron Hubbard, "Technique 88"
> *
> * "...Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her
> crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes
> exist...."
> * L. Ron Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", November 5, 1967
> *
> * "All men shall be my slaves! All women shall succumb to my charms! All
> mankind shall grovel at my feet and not know why!"
> - L. Ron Hubbard, "Personal Affirmations"
well what they are doing is technically legal and is the process of
leaching bandwidth by downloading the website thousands of times a
minute. This would have the affect of taking down the site as the
bandwidth is slowly leached away. Those videos and links that you have
posted are also being used and spread by people undertaking this
action. What is also taking place is the faxing of documents
containing the truths of Scientology to their centres, maybe they'll
be ignored but maybe they won't.
The sites have already been compromised already, again you don't need
to have access to the servers to do anything. Simple USB stick based
key loggers will suffice for the acquisition of data.
The people are taking a pro-active step, something that should be
encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally within the
confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the truth of
As for playing victim, I would say that it is certainly not the case.
They are being attacked and it isn't a scam on their half.
The Chanology link that was posted earlier will inform you of the
proposed plans. I can categorically say that I am not a scientologist
although of course I don't know how I can prove this. i suppose
iterating that L Ron Hubbard was an epic level douche bag won't
convince it does need to be said.
anothers...@hotmail.com
<wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 7:46 pm, "Rev. Norle Enturbulata, COD" <not-earthli...@nor-
>
>
>
>
>
> hotmail.com> wrote:
> > <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ca1cbafa-7281-40c1...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or
> > > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
> > > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring
> > > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times
> > > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
>
> > > Just thought I'd share.
>
> > And you're not a Scientologist, right? Got any documentation of this or at
> > least some memo from someone doing the cult's webmastering?
>
> > I put forth that if someone in the hacking arena decided to do what
> > Scientology has attempted to do on a variety of critical sites (It's called
> > a Denial Of Service attack, btw), they certainly wouldn't do it by sitting
> > there hitting Refresh/F5.
>
> > How do you think one would "infiltrate it on a physical level"? Walking in
> > the door, pretending to take a so-called 'personality test', and then sneak
> > into some place where the servers are... See, that doesn't work either.
>
> > Share THAT. And share THIS. The entire non-clam planet seems to be doing
> > so:http://gawker.com/345563/tom-cruise-uncut-the-freedom-medal-award-cer...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Harrassment like this is not ok. Yes, scientology is a scam (IMO) but
squelching their free speech is as bad as them squelching ours.
You wrote: "The people are taking a pro-active step, something that
should be encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally
within the confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the
truth of"
Much like the publicizing of ... what?
BeKissedUnde...@googlemail.com
<wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> F
http://www.scientologytoday.org/experts/eng/dericquebourg01.pdf
wheat...@googlemail.com
> On Jan 18, 8:50 pm, "wheaths...@googlemail.com"
>
>
>
> <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 7:46 pm, "Rev. Norle Enturbulata, COD" <not-earthli...@nor-
>
> > hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:ca1cbafa-7281-40c1...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or
> > > > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
My bad, it's quite late here (7:27am) and I've not slept. Much like
the publication of pamphlets and other materials revealing their
terrible practices. As far as squelching their freedom of speech that
is not what is occurring, they are well within their rights to express
themselves as they wish, but the internet is a strange place and if
you say something expect people to react to it. There are many actions
that could have been undertaken, an actual DDoS is something different
to what is actually happening. It would also have been possible for
the front page to have been vandalised or attempts at damaging their
machine. What is happening is that today their site got really popular
and each time it is refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from
scientology and prevents them from harming other individuals. At best
their page will run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to
pay a couple of bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month.
anothers...@hotmail.com
<wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Harrassment like this is not ok. Yes, scientology is a scam (IMO) but
> > squelching their free speech is as bad as them squelching ours.
>
> > You wrote: "The people are taking a pro-active step, something that
>
> > should be encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally
> > within the confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the
> > truth of"
>
> > Much like the publicizing of ... what?
>
> My bad, it's quite late here (7:27am) and I've not slept. Much like
> the publication of pamphlets and other materials revealing their
> terrible practices. As far as squelching their freedom of speech that
> is not what is occurring, they are well within their rights to express
> themselves as they wish, but the internet is a strange place and if
> you say something expect people to react to it. There are many actions
> that could have been undertaken, an actual DDoS is something different
> to what is actually happening. It would also have been possible for
> the front page to have been vandalised or attempts at damaging their
> machine. What is happening is that today their site got really popular
> and each time it is refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from
> scientology and prevents them from harming other individuals. At best
> their page will run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to
> pay a couple of bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am not sure how your post justifies an attack on a site on the
internet.
What do you mean "their site got really popular and each time it is
refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from scientology and
prevents them from harming other individuals. At best their page will
run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to pay a couple of
bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month" ?
This post started with a claim that people were attacking and now it's
"their site got really popular" - ??
I am a scientology critic and I believe it is a harmful organization.
But I will not condone the willful squelching of free speech.
wheat...@googlemail.com
> On Jan 18, 11:34 pm, "wheaths...@googlemail.com"
>
>
>
> <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Harrassment like this is not ok. Yes, scientology is a scam (IMO) but
> > > squelching their free speech is as bad as them squelching ours.
>
> > > You wrote: "The people are taking a pro-active step, something that
>
> > > should be encouraged and as for freedom, they are operating legally
> > > within the confines of US and UK law. Much like the publicising the
> > > truth of"
>
> > > Much like the publicizing of ... what?
>
> > My bad, it's quite late here (7:27am) and I've not slept. Much like
> > the publication of pamphlets and other materials revealing their
> > terrible practices. As far as squelching their freedom of speech that
> > is not what is occurring, they are well within their rights to express
> > you say something expect people to react to it. There are many actions
> > that could have been undertaken, an actual DDoS is something different
> > to what is actually happening. It would also have been possible for
> > the front page to have been vandalised or attempts at damaging their
> > machine. What is happening is that today their site got really popular
> > and each time it is refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from
> > scientology and prevents them from harming other individuals. At best
> > their page will run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to
> > pay a couple of bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I am not sure how your post justifies an attack on a site on theinternet.
>
> What do you mean "their site got really popular and each time it is
> refreshed a fraction of a cent is taken away from scientology and
> prevents them from harming other individuals. At best their page will
> run really slow for a few hours, at worst they have to pay a couple of
> bucks extra for their bandwidth bill this month" ?
>
> This post started with a claim that people were attacking and now it's
> "their site got really popular" - ??
>
> I am a scientology critic and I believe it is a harmful organization.
> But I will not condone the willful squelching of free speech.
There are steps that can go from here that will lead to the classic
debate about how far can you take free speech, if it's okay with you
I'd like to skip that part.
By 'their site got really popular' all the people who are attacking
the website is doing is reloading images that they have hosted on
their own site, as they intended them to be. I also understand that
you think that free speech is being impeded here but I view it as the
removal of a internet community and a way of saying 'we don't want you
hear, please move on' much like if a paedophile or other danger to a
community would be urged to move on. Much like shouting fire in a
crowded theatre is illegal because it endangers peoples lives, the
website and their presence on the internet is also a danger.
(please excuse my rather crude prose, I know what I want to say in my
head but I don't know how to express it)
To You
'Scientology' has declared war on the world, and that since
long, and ever more vehemently they have declared so.
Not that they are succeeding of course. But nevertheless, it is what Tom
Cruise in his 2004 'Scientology performance,' and to 'Scientologists,' was
all about.
Etc., as other have already observed.
'
Specifically, the reality is, that 'Scientology' has stifled the
publication of the book about Tom Cruise, around the world except they
were not able to in America and Canada.
Defending the right of Hitler to be democratically chosen?
I mean, how insane do you want to be made by the darkest of
darkest Criminal Minds, such as (l. ron hubbard and his) 'Scientology?'
Over to you...
__________________________________________________________
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
wheat...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Jan 19, 7:44 am, anothersurfer...@hotmail.com wrote:
[.......]
>> This post started with a claim that people were attacking and now it's
>> "their site got really popular" - ??
>>
>> I am a scientology critic and I believe it is a harmful organization.
>> But I will not condone the willful squelching of free speech.
>
> There are steps that can go from here that will lead to the classic
> debate about how far can you take free speech, if it's okay with you
> I'd like to skip that part.
Evasion noted.
>
> By 'their site got really popular' all the people who are attacking
> the website is doing is reloading images that they have hosted on
> their own site, as they intended them to be. I also understand that
> you think that free speech is being impeded here but I view it as the
> removal of a internet community and a way of saying 'we don't want you
> hear, please move on' much like if a paedophile or other danger to a
> community would be urged to move on. Much like shouting fire in a
> crowded theatre is illegal because it endangers peoples lives, the
> website and their presence on the internet is also a danger.
>
> (please excuse my rather crude prose, I know what I want to say in my
> head but I don't know how to express it)
Well, no sale. Sorry.
There is - IMHO - absolutly no need to stop the websites of the criminal
organisation known as the "church" <spit> of $cientology from reaching the
public. I, too, am in this battle because of freedom of speech and that
includes the freedom of the clams to say whatever they want to say. (I also
want them to be held responsible...) I find the high moral ground a nice
place to be, in this case, and I would never suppose that I personally
could decide for others what should, and should not, be on the internet.
People who are trying to remove $cientology from the internet are being as
bad the cult itself is when it in turn tries to shut up critics. The clams
are using legal tactics, too, when they take down websites.
Putting up intelligent comment and spreading information is what I think
will be the small (very!) contribution of the internet to the downfall of
the criminal cult. Trying to mess with the clam websites is to adopt the
tactics of the enemy, it is to censor expression and it gives the clams an
excellent chance to paint every critical voice on the internet as a
criminal who opposes freedom of speech.
To the peope who are doing this: please consider doing something else.
Best regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 829 985
"Flogging will continue until the mood of the crew improves" 'Blue Ice'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHkdqWimJs3AlyPBIRAp31AKChngEu1T1PR7Mgc7Iso5rsYeZgBQCeNtmZ
u4Gu/tswBcLGX5GAhWcYMgs=
=Fdw1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hartley Patterson
> I also understand that
> you think that free speech is being impeded here but I view it as the
> removal of a internet community and a way of saying 'we don't want you
> hear, please move on' much like if a paedophile or other danger to a
> community would be urged to move on.
Crap.
1) A weekend of fun won't remove them. The attention deficit kiddies will
get bored and give up by Monday.
2) The cult will have been handed a propaganda gift. They will tell
everyone that a hate group has been attacking them because of the hate
stirred up by the critics. They have done this before, most recently when
they allegedly received threatening hate Emails on the day of the picket
filmed by the Panorama TV programme last year.
lawt...@hotmail.com
> wheaths...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or
> > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
> > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring
> > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times
> > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
>
> > Just thought I'd share.
>
> That's a dumb idea. How can people look at both sides if one side is gone?
Both sides?
I've trawled the internet for a few days, there is no other side.
There's the anti-Sci side and that's it. The pro-Sci side seems
to be either air-filled crap, bernie and some pages on clambake.
One side has already gone or was never there.
Lawtears
lawt...@hotmail.com
<snip>
You've got to be joking, right? I mean about the size
of the internet's contribution to the downfall of this cult.
Last week, my complete knowledge of Sci was a
disparaging comment my mother made 15 years ago
and that Tom Cruise was one.
My generation of people and younger will all be using
the internet as a source of information. As the best
source of pro-information is clambake, not many kids
are going to be taken in by it.
Sci is it's own black pr machine.
Note that the Sci web site is not a source of information.
It's a fishing rod designed to try to get you closer than a
web connection away. The information isn't there. That's
the point!
With kid intake near zero and (inevitable) death of
current members, the internet will ensure that
active Sci will be gone in a lifetime.
Someone will write an ebook about it. LRH wouldn't be
worried though. He was rich when he died, so Sci
achieved his goals.
Lawtears
My thetan is bigger than yours. Wanna see?
Jommy Cross
<wheat...@googlemail.com> wrote in msg
<ca1cbafa-7281-40c1...@f10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or
>not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
>face of the internet by members of various websites.
Various websites are the same as teh internets now? Shouldn't the title be
"some lame wannabe script kiddies have declared war on Scientology, part
99"?
>What is occurring
>is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times
Is this what counts as imaginative in script kiddy land these days? A lame
DOS attack from the last century?
>whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
Ninja script kiddies! You've social engineered your way into the data
center as an aircon tech, right? Your faultless reconnaissance takes you
swiftly to the right cabinet, and you pull cable LRH666 just long enough to
install the subminature bridge right? Then you tell the guys on the desk
as you sign out your dispatcher screwed up and you should be on the floor
above, right? Now you control all traffic to the server. Muahahahahaha!
Yeah, riiiight. You mean a dictionary attack on the site admin.
In this situation I'm more sympathetic to Church of $cientology sysops than
I am to your friends. It takes a lot of concentrated stupid to get me to do
that, so I guess you've achieved something.
>
>Just thought I'd share.
"I get fairly frantic when I consider the idiocy of these louts."
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>You've got to be joking, right? I mean about the size
>of the internet's contribution to the downfall of this cult.
It was the "place to stand" Archimedes mentioned. Truth was the
lever.
>Last week, my complete knowledge of Sci was a
>disparaging comment my mother made 15 years ago
>and that Tom Cruise was one.
That's really getting up to speed on a subject.
>My generation of people and younger will all be using
>the internet as a source of information. As the best
>source of pro-information is clambake, not many kids
>are going to be taken in by it.
It'll carry the same social stigma as being a tattooed skinhead.
>Sci is it's own black pr machine.
>Note that the Sci web site is not a source of information.
>It's a fishing rod designed to try to get you closer than a
>web connection away. The information isn't there. That's
>the point!
Anyone with half a brain will feel creeped out by their propaganda.
>With kid intake near zero and (inevitable) death of
>current members, the internet will ensure that
>active Sci will be gone in a lifetime.
I see it! The cyst was punctured when the "sakred sekrits" got out.
The puss has been draining away since then. Society's own protective
mechanisms will relegate it to its rightful place in the Smithsonian
Scam Museum.
>Someone will write an ebook about it. LRH wouldn't be
>worried though. He was rich when he died, so Sci
>achieved his goals.
And he had thousands of little spiritual slaves to do his bidding.
What more could a megolomaniac ask for in life.
Glad to see you cluedin.
D
barb
No no no. There is a pro-Scientology side. You will find it under
scientology.org. There are a lot of more covert sites as well, many
attached to Scientology front groups.
Air-filled crap? Absolutely! But, without that air-filled crap, you
would lack perspective on the cult's use of air-filled crap rather than
real content and documentation. Having read Scientology's main site, you
might notice lots of happy testimonials that are as meaningless as Tom
Cruise's ramblings, tons of anecdotal accounts, and nothing of any real
substance. Just a lot of lies and false promises.
Having seen that and recognizing it for what it is, you can proceed to
critical websites with a bit more perspective. And an ability to
recognize air-filled crap when you encounter it.
barb
Raw meat intake might be dropping off, but Scientologists are breeding
their own next gen slaves. Kind of like Sea World's orcas, you know?
wheat...@googlemail.com
potential converts from the danger that Scientology presents?
It might be a script kiddie denial of service attack, but it is not
illegal. The way that it is being undertaken is an attempt to damage
Scientology within a legal confine. The physical access is dubious.
I'd like to move on.
Scientology has better spokesmen than the anti-side. People will look
at Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise and be attracted to it. They'll go to a
centre and have their lives destroyed by it.
Rev. Norle Enturbulata, COD
<wheat...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:489d1f5d-920f-4134...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Do you not think that as sane individuals we have a duty to protect
> potential converts from the danger that Scientology presents?
>
> It might be a script kiddie denial of service attack, but it is not
> illegal. The way that it is being undertaken is an attempt to damage
> Scientology within a legal confine. The physical access is dubious.
> I'd like to move on.
>
> Scientology has better spokesmen than the anti-side. People will look
> at Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise and be attracted to it.
Yeah, if they want to find out if the Org is as wacked as Laughing Tom.
--
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/panorama-scientology-and-me/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2535187,00.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology
http://xenu.com-it.net/txt/ildikoe.htm
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.com
http://www.scientology-lies.com
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
http://www.scientology-kills.org
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
Red Mage Moogle
> Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or
> not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
> face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring
> is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times
> whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
>
> Just thought I'd share.
>
That's a bit rash, don't you think?
It's like the spam issue...this is a case where it's better to fight
fire with WATER rather than fire.
--
RMM, servant of Xenu
zidane_tribal_64(at)hotmail(dot)com
http://www.myspace.com/redmagezidane
aol im: RedMageZidane
talk to me sometime!
Now stand aside, worthy adversary!
Red Mage Moogle
That still doesn't give hackers any justification to vandalize Scn's
sites. To silence them is to do what we as critics try to prevent:
stopping free speech. As much as I dislike the clams, they too should be
given a chance to speak their piece. 'Coz, in this case, to fight fire
with fire would be hypocrisy.
Red Mage Moogle
> Do you not think that as sane individuals we have a duty to protect
> potential converts from the danger that Scientology presents?
>
In this day and age, it is not enough to shield people from seeing these
things, but more necessary to help educate them to understand what these
things are and how best to deal with them. You can't protect someone by
hiding them away from it all.
> It might be a script kiddie denial of service attack, but it is not
> illegal. The way that it is being undertaken is an attempt to damage
> Scientology within a legal confine. The physical access is dubious.
> I'd like to move on.
>
Then don't help with it. DoS attacks may not be illegal but that doesn't
make them right.
> Scientology has better spokesmen than the anti-side. People will look
> at Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise and be attracted to it. They'll go to a
> centre and have their lives destroyed by it.
>
That depends on whether or not they're hoodwinked by Scn so easily.
Android Cat
> wheat...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> It might be a script kiddie denial of service attack, but it is not
>> illegal. The way that it is being undertaken is an attempt to damage
>> Scientology within a legal confine. The physical access is dubious.
>> I'd like to move on.
>>
>
> Then don't help with it. DoS attacks may not be illegal but that
> doesn't make them right.
I wonder who told these n00bs that a DDoS attack wasn't illegal? (And why
do they /believe/ that person?)
It seems to be a strange factoid that clings to bunches like Anonymous and
Something Awful just like the idea that if you ask an undercover cop "Are
you a cop?" that the cop is forced to answer truthfully. (I think the
police plant that one themselves. It must make their work a lot easier!)
I think groups like this are ready for recruitment by a cult: mob action, no
individual thought, unquestioning belief...
--
Ron of that ilk.
cultxpt
Will you try to silence Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes too?
RolandRB
> On Jan 18, 11:56 am, "wheaths...@googlemail.com"
>
> <wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or
> > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
> > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring
> > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times
> > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
>
> > Just thought I'd share.
>
> this is all individuals and we have no spokesperson). Just because
> Scientology is creepy, doesn't mean we have to be creepy back.
I am *not* against this sort of action. Scientology is a highly-
destructive cult that robs minds and ruins lives. The authorities in
various countries haven't got the guts to put a stop to it so it is
left to the public to take action against them to disrupt their
activities.
Henri Ladd
There is a certain form of governance on the Internet made up by those
who occupy it. The Internet is not a regulated-by-regulators, but by
the summation of the multitude of opinions all over the world.
Certainly the Church of Scientology has been the single-worst Netizen
ever seen.
Tom Cruise in his macho, I-am-rich-and-tough way, has said Suppressive
Persons don't spread suppression to his face or even in his vicinity.
However this attack on the Scientology Internet presence, seems to be
exactly in his vicinity.
Here is the first news article I've seen about it.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_website_being_attacked_by_hackers
Skipper
<hen...@nowhere.com> wrote:
$cientology has one thing going for it in trying to silence critics,
money. That doesn't work against Netizens once you've pissed off enough
people with consistent offensive behavior in public. There is no
greater friend of the destruction of $cientology than Tom Cruise. God
bless his little ass for all the ire against the cult he's stirred up.
Android Cat
>
> There is a certain form of governance on the Internet made up by those
> who occupy it. The Internet is not a regulated-by-regulators, but by
> the summation of the multitude of opinions all over the world.
>
> Certainly the Church of Scientology has been the single-worst Netizen
> ever seen.
>
> Tom Cruise in his macho, I-am-rich-and-tough way, has said Suppressive
> Persons don't spread suppression to his face or even in his vicinity.
> However this attack on the Scientology Internet presence, seems to be
> exactly in his vicinity.
>
> Here is the first news article I've seen about it.
>
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_website_being_attacked_by_hackers
Hardly a news article. It looks more like a wank-off by the participants,
using dubious sources. (Shit, I'd love to be able to use a Usenet article
in a Wikipedia reference, WTF?!)
Alert
><snipped fro brevity>
> It looks more like a wank-off by the participants,
<more brevity snippage>
Yes, yes it is.
The whole lot of it and what it's in relation to.
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
lawt...@hotmail.com wrote:
I should have been more precise.
The contribution of the content on the internet is huge - if that content
has TOM CRUISE written all over it.
The content on the internet that, e.g., I myself provide is competely
insignificant.
Hint: "The Internet" is a medium, not a message.
(The only exception that I see is a purely academic function of enhancing
the flow of information which in turn is useful in order to expose the
lying and deceitfulnes in courts of law where that sort of thing is
actually illegal.)
> Last week, my complete knowledge of Sci was a
> disparaging comment my mother made 15 years ago
> and that Tom Cruise was one.
>
> My generation of people and younger will all be using
> the internet as a source of information. As the best
> source of pro-information is clambake, not many kids
> are going to be taken in by it.
How many hits/week before the Tom ruise video came up, how many after?
I love Operation Clambake dearly, but the general public are only drawn to
internet critical content when the regular media start playing Tom Cruise
material.
I'm not complaining, mind you :-)
>
> Sci is it's own black pr machine.
>
> Note that the Sci web site is not a source of information.
> It's a fishing rod designed to try to get you closer than a
> web connection away. The information isn't there. That's
> the point!
>
> With kid intake near zero and (inevitable) death of
> current members, the internet will ensure that
> active Sci will be gone in a lifetime.
>
> Someone will write an ebook about it. LRH wouldn't be
> worried though. He was rich when he died, so Sci
> achieved his goals.
Sorry, I only got this book this week, but you've pushed me into quoting
from it
"Until now, Scientologists have been able to keep the stories a secret,
generally by suing. However, as more inquiries into Scientology are made,
as more news stories about the organization are printed, and as more
criticism against Scientology is levied, Scientologists may discover that
law suits are ineffectual. Instead of trying to hide what is going on in
their house, they may have to clean it up."
Scandal of $cientology, preface. Tower books. 1971
http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/tsos/sos.html
what appened next is history (the author was lucky to get away with her
life - literally)
http://www.lermanet.com/paulette-cooper/
>
> Lawtears
>
> My thetan is bigger than yours. Wanna see?
Well, I notice that you've chosen to tell me all about that rather than
address the issue of whether script kiddies trying to impede access to the
websites of the criminal organisation known as the "church" <spit> of
$cientology is a good, an average or a bad idea...
Don't worry about my disagreeing with you - discussions between people who
disagree is part of productive life among civilised individuals (that's why
it's disallowed in cults)
Best regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 829 985
"This is al fresco?" "The best there is!" 'The Producers'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHkxz5imJs3AlyPBIRAgpNAJ9LLcAwKxm4k6HKLtqtHGr2QAJDNQCgs+Qz
cRVNBuh3Z0ZHohHyog8Z6ho=
=y/2C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
LaserClam
>
> I am *not* against this sort of action. Scientology is a highly-
> destructive cult that robs minds and ruins lives. The authorities in
> various countries haven't got the guts to put a stop to it so it is
> left to the public to take action against them to disrupt their
> activities.
Have you noticed any one else
who has ruined someone's life?
RolandRB
There's a few nasty cults like yours around but for some, their
members are able to converse in a semi-reasonable manner, unlike your
own cult and yourself as an example.
banchukita
<wheaths...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or
> not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
> face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring
> is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times
> whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
>
> Just thought I'd share.
I think it's wrong to remove or deface Scientology, Inc's website.
But it also seems to me that it's sorta been the other way around --
Scientology, Inc. declared 'war' on the internet when some of these
young hackers were in diapers.
Scientology framed the 'war' mindset. When you live by the
Cancelpoodle...
-maggie, human being
Eldon
Yeah, a little disruption will only be payback for their messing with
Mark Bunker's XenuTV channel on YouTube. Eventually they'll both be
back up anyway, but tit for tat and all that.
Alert
<wheaths...@googlemail.com>
<snipped for bfrevity>
> There are many actions
> that could have been undertaken, an actual DDoS is something different
> to what is actually happening.
You mean like this:
long term plans for project chanology 08/01/17(Thu)14:23 No. 6962
"i said in 4chan that this needs to be a war of attrition if we're to
have any kind of success and fame."
So it's about fame then?
Here is a little sample of the plebs you align yourself with:
" 08/01/19(Sat)11:08 No. 8005
We need to piss muslims off with scientology, hopefully the muslims
will bomb a few scientology churces and if we're really lucky we might
be able to get the jews to fly a couple of planes in to them"
"08/01/19(Sat)13:10 No. 8069
https://www.rtc.org/html/en_US/reports/index.html
This is where scientologists rat on each other to the RTC.
1. Get list of scientologist names.
2. Get behind proxy.
3. Make them all report things about each other, sound believable.
4. ????
5. They all get shipped off to $cientology labor camps."
So this is the sort of thing to endorse, is it?
And of course, the following quote says it all:
"This is the second most important part of the second wave. We need
media coverage, so place calls to foxnews, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS telling
them about what's going on. DO NOT MENTION /B/ OR EBAUMSWORLD, just
say "a bunch of websites on the internet".
Yes, Ebaumsworld...what a grand endorsement. No wonder Anon-Seth-
Dickhair suggest not to mention it.
And the cult has apparently been into an MB and warned of FBI
involvement?
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Operation__CoSplay/index.php?showtopic=257
I hope you idiots get what you deserve.
barb
Dianet...@gmail.com
a jihad against Scientology for years in your own little cultish anti-
scientology community but when you recieve a broader internet support
to bully the bullies you guys turtle up and hide in your shells. I
think you guys are afraid that your group would cease being a unique
and tiny corner of the internet where you can whine about the evils of
scientology. Lets face it you guys have grown weak and sympathetic
towards the scientologists and have no real fight in you at all.
You're not even supplying us with ammunition for the propaganda wars.
John Dorsay
> You know.. you guys have kinda pissed me off. All of you have been on
> a jihad against Scientology for years in your own little cultish anti-
> scientology community but when you recieve a broader internet support
> to bully the bullies you guys turtle up and hide in your shells. I
You owe me an irony meter!
> think you guys are afraid that your group would cease being a unique
> and tiny corner of the internet where you can whine about the evils of
> scientology. Lets face it you guys have grown weak and sympathetic
> towards the scientologists and have no real fight in you at all.
> You're not even supplying us with ammunition for the propaganda wars.
You are Fred Durks/Paul Horner and I claim my five pounds of Prozac.
John
cultxpt
I think our bona fides are well established. Yours, on the other
hand...
And again, you've totally ignored the entire culture of the internet
from it's very beginning; free speech for everyone.
Zinj
says...
> You owe me an irony meter!
On the one hand, Fred might well just be stupid. With 6+ billion people
on the planet, it's hard to exclude, but
He might also be OSA. Yeah, they're stupid enough.
In the end; who cars? Nothing can save Scientology except immediate
crawling back under the rock... and, they *can't* do that.
They sold the rock :)
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Android Cat
> You know.. you guys have kinda pissed me off. All of you have been on
> a jihad against Scientology for years in your own little cultish anti-
> scientology community but when you recieve a broader internet support
> to bully the bullies you guys turtle up and hide in your shells. I
> think you guys are afraid that your group would cease being a unique
> and tiny corner of the internet where you can whine about the evils of
> scientology. Lets face it you guys have grown weak and sympathetic
> towards the scientologists and have no real fight in you at all.
Heh heh heh. Naive child. More important stuff happens than your current
panty raid, we [tinw] don't talk about it in the open, and certainly not
here, not on your pages with links to CoS sites that will point right back
to your page the moment someone clicks on one, and not IRC where CoS is
reading.
> You're not even supplying us with ammunition for the propaganda wars.
"I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my
body. Then I realized who was telling me this."
-- Emo Phillips
Zinj
@hotmail.com says...
For christ sake kitty! Next you'll reveal that 'we' aren't doing
*anything* except helping Ron's 'Church' do what it was designed to
do...
Blabbermouth!
jayn...@gmail.com
civil manner is all very well if you like debate. Some people would be
happy just to see the hubbard organization prevented from operating as
it does.
Hartley Patterson
> You know.. you guys have kinda pissed me off. All of you have been on
> a jihad against Scientology for years in your own little cultish anti-
> scientology community
"Quick Buffy, script kiddy meeting in basement. Plus, scary Troll thing!"
Sorry, we were playing Buffy the roleplaying game last night.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
barb
You're right. Many of us have been around for years. And if we'd thought
that violating the first amendment rights of Scientology by taking down
their websites, DON'T YOU THINK WE'D HAVE DONE IT BY NOW????
It's not for lack of talent or ability. It's because it is wrong. And if
you think for one minute that you're contributing, think again. We have
brought you to the point where South Park was able to josh the cult with
impunity. We have worked to offer up Scientology on a plate to the
world. They're probably not teetering on bankruptcy, yet. But teh supply
of Raw Meat is dwindling fast, forcing the cult to try to expand its
"humanitarian" front groups, which don't mention Scientology at all.
WE did that! And we did it without breaking the law or violating
anyone's right to free speech. So, don't lecture us about being "weak."
I mean, you're some script kiddie in mommy's basement, cracking away
anonymously. That's weak, man. Real weak. Don't expect us to take up a
collection to pay your legal bills.
barb
> In article <4795...@news2.lightlink.com>, restim...@gmail.com
> says...
>
>> You owe me an irony meter!
>
> On the one hand, Fred might well just be stupid. With 6+ billion people
> on the planet, it's hard to exclude, but
>
> He might also be OSA. Yeah, they're stupid enough.
>
> In the end; who cars? Nothing can save Scientology except immediate
> crawling back under the rock... and, they *can't* do that.
> They sold the rock :)
>
> Zinj
But they bought a *bigger* rock because they need the extra room for
their wild expansion!
yeeh...@hotmail.com
> wheaths...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or
> > not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
> > face of the internet by members of various websites. What is occurring
> > is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website many times
> > whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical level.
>
> > Just thought I'd share.
>
>
> (1) Scientology isn't the brightest, but they do pay for decent Internet
> support on their main sites.
> (2) Most hax0r kiddies seem to think that defacing Wiki pages full of
> sourced information is striking a blow against Scientology, somehow.
>
> That said, I wouldn't cry if anything happened towww.religiousfreedomwatch.org:-)
>
> --
> Ron of that ilk.
Irony of ironies, they seem to have removed the site from the internet
completely.
Friendly Xenu
>You know.. you guys have kinda pissed me off.
The overwhelming opinion seems to be that doing DDOS attacks against
the crime syndicate's web hosts is very stupid. It accomplishes nothing.
---
"The majority of military bases in this country are named after
Confederate officers: Eisenhower, Nimitz. The list of southerners
in our military is legion." -- Republinazi Ann Coulter, Jan 18, 2008
Friendly Xenu
>Dianet...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You know.. you guys have kinda pissed me off. All of you have been on
>> a jihad against Scientology for years in your own little cultish anti-
>> scientology community but when you recieve a broader internet support
>> to bully the bullies you guys turtle up and hide in your shells. I
>You owe me an irony meter!
<smile> Does it have an FDA warning label? }:-}
Android Cat
> On Jan 18, 7:22 pm, "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> wheaths...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> Forgive this new post, I don't know if you will find it relevant or
>>> not but there is currently an attempt to remove Scientology from the
>>> face of the internet by members of various websites. What is
>>> occurring is people are planning to refresh the Scientology website
>>> many times whilst also attempting to infiltrate it on a physical
>>> level.
>>
>>> Just thought I'd share.
>>
>> *rolls eyes* followed by *face palm*
>>
>> (1) Scientology isn't the brightest, but they do pay for decent
>> Internet support on their main sites.
>> (2) Most hax0r kiddies seem to think that defacing Wiki pages full of
>> sourced information is striking a blow against Scientology, somehow.
>>
>> That said, I wouldn't cry if anything happened
>> to www.religiousfreedomwatch.org :-)
>
> completely.
Great Xenu's Ghost! This looks like a job for .. Schadenfreude Man!
http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200310/df20031022.jpg
anothers...@hotmail.com
relgiousfreedomwatch.org are up.
Interesting -- I did not know that scientomogy.com had pages that show
on a search on relgiousfreedomwatch: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=religiousfreedomwatch
Third on list (if you count a subpage for the "real"
religiousfreedomwatch.org -- second if you don't):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=religiousfreedomwatch
Link leads to: http://www.scientomogy.com/religiousfreedomwatch/
Alert
wrote:
> Dianetics...@gmail.com:
> > You know.. you guys have kinda pissed me off. All of you have been on
> > a jihad against Scientology for years in your own little cultish anti-
> > scientology community
> "Quick Buffy, script kiddy meeting in basement. Plus, scary Troll thing!"
> Sorry, we were playing Buffy the roleplaying game last night.
The anarchists of anon and chan, played the role of Harmony.
> --
> Hartley Pattersonhttp://www.newsfrombree.co.ukhttp://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Android Cat
> Dianet...@gmail.com:
>> You know.. you guys have kinda pissed me off. All of you have been on
>> a jihad against Scientology for years in your own little cultish
>> anti- scientology community
>
> "Quick Buffy, script kiddy meeting in basement. Plus, scary Troll
> thing!"
>
> Sorry, we were playing Buffy the roleplaying game last night.
Crossover game: Buffy and Burrows?
--
Ron of that ilk.
I'll take the dragon.
barb
Wow! Great! There goes the true face of Scientology, just in time to not
show it to the media. On one hand, I'm laughing. Poor Joel! On the other
hand, it's a bit annoying. You can't show people what isn't there.
I'm sure it'll be back, though. Just like the Sea Org.
Hartley Patterson
> > "Quick Buffy, script kiddy meeting in basement. Plus, scary Troll
> > thing!"
> >
> > Sorry, we were playing Buffy the roleplaying game last night.
>
> Crossover game: Buffy and Burrows?
Why not? Easter bunnies were the most scary thing imaginable to Anya. Mind
you, a thousand years as a Vengeance Demon had somewhat altered her
perspective.