Monica Pignotti, Piltdown Man
t_shuffle
take the wind out of the sails of this latest movement is sickening to me.
Fuck you both.
Monica Pignotti
A good way to assess the health of an organization is to examine its
attitude towards its critics and based on the responses we've gotten
here, it doesn't appear that this "anonymous" organization is very
open to criticism, at least not criticism where it is challenges its
basic premises. Sure, you'll accept open debate and dialogue over
trivia, but when someone challenges your core beliefs, the tantrums
and obscenities begin. The reception critics of "anonymous" have in
gotten in the form of obscenities and personal attacks, speaks for
itself. Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people
outside of ARS who aren't so wrapped up in this that they can't see
the obvious problems with the way you are conducting yourself.
Monica
Ananamuss
Monica, you need to learn a few things about real people out in the
real world.
They do not see you as an authority on anything.
They don't know you, and most won't want to.
They're going to listen to both sides, and make up their own minds.
The general public is not so easily swayed by those who insist they
know all the answers but have years upon years of their past they must
disavow or minimize their association with in order to appear
credible. For someone who claims to have a University level education,
you seem to have missed the bits about thinking critically.
Eldon
Monica,
"Thorazine Shuffle" has been posting on a.r.s. for at least two years,
I believe, which appears to be long before Anonymous had a clue about
Scientology.
Aside from that, Anonymous is about as much of an organization as
Wikipedia to use the first analogy that comes to mind.
I think you and P.M. are both taking a pessimistic attitude about the
latest turn of events, and have both failed to resonate with the irony
of what's happened so far. But I'm not going to get all indignant
about it ;-)
Monica Pignotti
> On Feb 17, 7:37 am, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2:23 am, "t_shuffle" <thorazineshuf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That either of you would spend the time and effort that you have to try and
> > > take the wind out of the sails of this latest movement is sickening to me.
> > > Fuck you both.
>
> > A good way to assess the health of an organization is to examine its
> > attitude towards its critics and based on the responses we've gotten
> > here, it doesn't appear that this "anonymous" organization is very
> > open to criticism, at least not criticism where it is challenges its
> > basic premises. Sure, you'll accept open debate and dialogue over
> > trivia, but when someone challenges your core beliefs, the tantrums
> > and obscenities begin. The reception critics of "anonymous" have in
> > gotten in the form of obscenities and personal attacks, speaks for
> > itself. Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people
> > outside of ARS who aren't so wrapped up in this that they can't see
> > the obvious problems with the way you are conducting yourself.
>
> > Monica
>
> Monica, you need to learn a few things about real people out in the
> real world.
You need to take your own advice and read today's New York Times book
review and the response to Andrew Morton' s Cruise biography, which
was actually much less extreme than the level anonymous has taken
things to. You're the one who is out of touch and needs to take your
head out of your ARS.
> They do not see you as an authority on anything.
I'm not asking them to see me as an authority. All I am doing is
offering criticism and what I'm getting back are obscenities and
ludicrous accusations of being OSA.
> They don't know you, and most won't want to.
>
> They're going to listen to both sides, and make up their own minds.
I don't see much listening to both sides going on here. What I see is
knee-jerk reactions against anyone who challenges them in any major
way.
> The general public is not so easily swayed by those who insist they
> know all the answers but have years upon years of their past they must
> disavow or minimize their association with in order to appear
> credible. For someone who claims to have a University level education,
> you seem to have missed the bits about thinking critically.-
The "general public" is certainly not being swayed by the likes of you
and your extremist friends. You are badly out of touch with reality.
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Monica Pignotti
What exactly has happened so far, other than a series of self-
congratulatory exchanges? Sorry, but I see no reason to believe that
these protests, no matter how many hundreds attend, are going to
accomplish much of anything other than provide some bored kids with a
way to party and LULZ.
Monica
cultxpt
You haven't investigated before pontificating. That's the problem.
thetansinmyd...@googlemail.com
> You need to take your own advice and read today's New York Times book
> review and the response to Andrew Morton' s Cruise biography, which
> was actually much less extreme than the level anonymous has taken
> things to
What level is that? What was "extreme" about the Feb 11th protests?
Anyone get arrested (other than Scientologists)? Did the police remark
upon any violence? Did anyone get hurt (apart from being kicked by
Scientologists and hit by buses) I think you must have a different
definition for the word "extreme" because I've seen extreme, and
anonymous isn't it.
> I'm not asking them to see me as an authority. All I am doing is
> offering criticism and what I'm getting back are obscenities and
> ludicrous accusations of being OSA.
But anonymous are all sorts of people, there will be those that react
in the way you describe, there will also be those that don't. The vast
majority of anonymous will probably never hear about you, so you'll
never know how most anonymous react to your criticism.
> I don't see much listening to both sides going on here. What I see is
> knee-jerk reactions against anyone who challenges them in any major
> way.
But *here* isn't where most anonymous people are, your views on
anonymous are based on ignorance.
> The "general public" is certainly not being swayed by the likes of you
> and your extremist friends. You are badly out of touch with reality.
Again, where is this extremism?
Ananamuss
I've decided to stop responding to you here, and have made an entry on
my blog.
The link is here: http://iheardyouthe1sttime.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post_9566.html
Ananamuss
Here's what's going to happen. Monica:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
The proof is in this video.
Android Cat
>
> A good way to assess the health of an organization is to examine its
> attitude towards its critics and based on the responses we've gotten
> here, it doesn't appear that this "anonymous" organization is very
> open to criticism, at least not criticism where it is challenges its
> basic premises. Sure, you'll accept open debate and dialogue over
> trivia, but when someone challenges your core beliefs, the tantrums
> and obscenities begin. The reception critics of "anonymous" have in
> gotten in the form of obscenities and personal attacks, speaks for
> itself. Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people
> outside of ARS who aren't so wrapped up in this that they can't see
> the obvious problems with the way you are conducting yourself.
"Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people outside of
ARS"
Translation:
"I'll tell *mom*!"
I see that you avoid responding to serious replies and concentrate on the
low-hanging fruit. This has been duly noted for future reference.
--
Ron of that ilk.
R. Hill
I don't see "Anonymous" as an organization. It's a bunch of
individuals loosely connected through common interests. This means you
can't profile these individuals with such generalized statements as
"its attitude towards its critics."
"Core beliefs"?
Some individuals might go through "tantrums and obscenities," and you
will actually find that all over internet, regardless of "Anonymous."
Since there is no organization with "core beliefs", you cannot take an
individual or a couple of individuals as being representatives of all
the other individuals which happens to be loosely connected. Do you
feel comfortable that you have met enough people tagging themselves as
"Anonymous" to state that your generalizations apply accurately to
most individuals identifying themselves as "Anonymous"? Anybody can
call themselves "Anonymous" if they choose so.
You might as well tag "people who post on newsgroups with a nick" as
part of an organization, and generalize that this organization of
"people who post on newsgroups with a nick" is unhealthy in dealing
with open discussion, because after you post you theory that the
organization of "people who post on newsgroups with a nick" is acting
as a cult, you selectively pick the answers you assess as obscene, and
you apply it to the majority of "people who post on newsgroups with a
nick". The thing is: there is no organization of "people who post on
newsgroups with a nick" in the first place.
Not everything must be categorized at all costs.
If you read Enturbulation.org, you will notice the individuals behind
the anonymous nick don't necessarily agree with each others, they
discuss their opinions on various subjects, and some might or might
not change their views.
What happened on February 10th was great: L. Ron Hubbard said, "We do
not want Scientology to be reported in the press, anywhere else than
on the religious pages of newspapers". Clearly, last February 10th,
Scientology was all over, and that was great.
Ray.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>A good way to assess the health of an organization is to examine its
>attitude towards its critics ... <snipt>
Monica, your point is well taken.
Cults and tyrants cannot tolerate dissent. A group that hounds out
dissenters and those who deviate from the norm is headed down the road
to cutishness.
>based on the responses we've gotten
>here, it doesn't appear that this "anonymous" organization is very
>open to criticism,
It's pretty clear to me that the nonys are being indoctrinated with
the idea that "if it hurts the cult, whether it's true or not, we're
behind it."
And although IMO your points have been presented in a provocative,
generalized and demeaning manner, they are nonetheless worthy of
consideration.
Alas, these trends I see occurring amongst the nonys: to stray from
the truth in order to tar the cult; to elevate flawed, deficient
critical icons; and the ugly, personal-attack reaction to Monica's
pointing out the sociological and psychological dangers inherent in
masked, anonymous gatherings, have severely dampened my enthusiasm for
this new wave of action-oriented criticism.
Oh well. :(
>at least not criticism where it is challenges its
>basic premises. Sure, you'll accept open debate and dialogue over
>trivia, but when someone challenges your core beliefs, the tantrums
>and obscenities begin. The reception critics of "anonymous" have in
>gotten in the form of obscenities and personal attacks, speaks for
>itself.
I guess they expect you to be hounded into silence for dissenting. Gee
where have I seen that before?
>Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people
>outside of ARS who aren't so wrapped up in this that they can't see
>the obvious problems with the way you are conducting yourself.
It sure looks like a symptom of cultism.
------------------
Dissent:
“Acceptance of dissent is the fundamental requirement of a free
society.” - unknown
“Has there ever been a society which has died of dissent? Several have
died of conformity in our lifetime.” - Jacob Bronowski
“In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of
its value is not in its taste, but in its effects.” - J. William
Fulbright
"Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and
debate." - Hubert H. Humphrey
Archibald Macleish:
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when
he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
Eric Hoffer:
The beginning of thought is in disagreement -- not only with others
but also with ourselves.
George Orwell:
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
J. William Fulbright:
In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith.
Will dissent be permitted? The answer to that question will determine
whether the society is a free society or a fear society.
Natan Sharansky
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Howard Zinn
Martin Luther King Jr.:
Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.
Mohandas K. Gandhi:
Non-cooperation is a measure of discipline and sacrifice, and it
demands respect for the opposite views.
Vaclav Havel:
You do not become a "dissident" just because you decide one day to
take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your
personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of
external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures
and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an
attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of
society.
---------------------
Not that I expect any of these words will sway anyone who is trying to
hound Monica into silence.
Dennis
--------------------
"Hope I'm not outta line." - Lenny Bruce
Monica Pignotti
You have a rather strange notion of what "proof" consists of, not all
that different from Scientology or any pseudoscience saying that the
"proof" is in their success stories and promotional videos without any
consideration of long-term follow-up although in your case there
hasn't even been any measureable initial success in terms of an actual
impact. Being on a high after a powerful mass experience doesn't count
as evidence. It's rather like people who get stoned and think they're
being brilliant when any sober outsider can see they're spouting
nonense. You have no grounds to be making any claims right now and
given that the burden of proof for such claims is on the claimant,
what I'm seeing is a lot of self-congratulatory bluster among
believers.
Some of the claims being made on that video are absurd, such as
anonymous taking the credit for beginning to post Scientology secret
documents on the internet. Are you kidding? The Scientology documents
that are actually secret, the OT levels and excerpts from the Class 8
course tapes, have been up on the internet for years before you ever
arrived on the scene. The Cruise video was not a cult secret -- it was
a video of a public Scientology event attended by insiders but not a
secret. The issue there was about copyrights, not secrets. You're all
self-congratulatory hype with very little substance.
Monica
Ananamuss
No one expects anyone to be silent. Can't you understand that? She's
told to STFU, but she has every right to keep posting, just as every
single other person does.
If you folks can't take being laughed at, you've really got to lighten
up. I find you and Monica funny. It's all SRS BSNS for you. It's
life-or-death-every-second-of-every-day.
Many people find attitudes like Monica's funny. Her first post about
the protests called Anonymous terrorists, hackers and many other
insulting names. Then she compares Anonymous to the KKK and Nazis...
Then there were the arguments to authority, further ad hominem
attacks, "smear campaigns" and the utter refusal to examine any
evidence provided to counter her ridiculous claims. Now people don't
take her seriously, and goad her into responding with more ludicrous
postings... and she takes the bait every... single... time.
Frankly, she started it and now that she's forced to reap what she has
sown she's all butthurt and pissy about it.
Monica Pignotti
That's an unwarranted assumption that sounds like the kinds of
responses given by any number of cultists defending themselves.
Critics just don't "understand". You really need to get out more,
Jeff. If I'm really so ignorant then why the huge reaction and
obscenities? It sounds to me like they see me as a big threat or why
get worked up into such a snit about my postings? When legitimate
groups are challenged by critics, they give substantive rebuttals and
answers, rather than the reception I've received here. The only
rebuttal I've gotten other than these smears has been references to
self-congratulatory videos. This might feel impressive to insiders but
I doubt it will be to anyone else.
Saucy111
Busted. You didn't click the link, did you?
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!
You're such a liar, Monica.
Monica Pignotti
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
>
> > A good way to assess the health of an organization is to examine its
> > attitude towards its critics and based on the responses we've gotten
> > here, it doesn't appear that this "anonymous" organization is very
> > open to criticism, at least not criticism where it is challenges its
> > basic premises. Sure, you'll accept open debate and dialogue over
> > trivia, but when someone challenges your core beliefs, the tantrums
> > and obscenities begin. The reception critics of "anonymous" have in
> > gotten in the form of obscenities and personal attacks, speaks for
> > itself. Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people
> > outside of ARS who aren't so wrapped up in this that they can't see
> > the obvious problems with the way you are conducting yourself.
>
> "Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people outside of
> ARS"
>
> Translation:
>
> "I'll tell *mom*!"
Hardly. There are plenty of other legitimate cult experts who are
taking note of your activities.
> I see that you avoid responding to serious replies and concentrate on the
> low-hanging fruit. This has been duly noted for future reference.
What serious replies? This one? I can't respond to all of you. Google
does impose a limit on numbers of postings here, as I found out a few
days ago when I had exceeded my limit and was blocked from posting
more. That reminds me, though I did want to respond to your earlier
posting that I wasn't able to find when I tried to search for it
later, which accused me of using jargon when I referred to Lifton.
Lifton is a well known scholar and his 8 criteria are just the
opposite of jargon -- given that you've been around for all these
years, your ignorance of this and comparing of Lifton to a bunch of
green kids was surprising to me.
Monica
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>No one expects anyone to be silent. Can't you understand that? She's
>told to STFU, but she has every right to keep posting, just as every
>single other person does.
Wow, it's nice of you to allow her that right. Especially since she's
posted here for years without your permission.
>If you folks can't take being laughed at, you've really got to lighten
>up. I find you and Monica funny.
And I find you dismissive.
>It's all SRS BSNS for you. It's
>life-or-death-every-second-of-every-day.
Not hardly. But thanks for playing.
>Many people find attitudes like Monica's funny. Her first post about
>the protests called Anonymous terrorists, hackers and many other
>insulting names. Then she compares Anonymous to the KKK and Nazis...
Yah, that was over the top. But the reaction to her posts here proved
her accusations to be somewhat accurate.
>Then there were the arguments to authority, further ad hominem
>attacks, "smear campaigns" and the utter refusal to examine any
>evidence provided to counter her ridiculous claims.
I think the facts that the nonys have elevated these flawed icons,
accepted mystical arguments to tar the cult, and tried to hound Monica
out of posting makes a strong case for her warnings.
>Now people don't
>take her seriously, and goad her into responding with more ludicrous
>postings... and she takes the bait every... single... time.
Trolling her for fun? Lulz no doubt.
>Frankly, she started it and now that she's forced to reap what she has
>sown she's all butthurt and pissy about it.
"Butthurt" (whatever tf that means) seems to be the general reaction
of the nonys to dissent.
D
--------------
"And time will tell just who has fell,
And who's been left behind,
When you go your way and I go mine." - B Dylan
Monica Pignotti
> On Feb 17, 2:38 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > You need to take your own advice and read today's New York Times book
> > review and the response to Andrew Morton' s Cruise biography, which
> > was actually much less extreme than the level anonymous has taken
> > things to
>
> What level is that? What was "extreme" about the Feb 11th protests?
Using unnecessarily inflammatory language such as "honk if you hate
Scientology" is extreme and even if you did mean that you hate
Scientology and not its people, sends a bad message. "Hate" is a very
personal and inflammatory word. Using extreme comparisons (e.g.
comparing Scientology to Nazis and portraying as a huge threat to
mankind) is also backfiring on credibility, as can be seen by the NY
Times article on the Andrew Morton bio which actually had much milder
statements than the ones anonymous is making. I find the whole V for
Vendetta analogy strange, since the movie was about the protagonist's
response to a government dictatorship that had full political power --
Scientology hardly has that kind of power and it is unlikely that they
ever will because they really don't have much of a following other
than a few loud celebrities. The harm they have done is to individuals
and I do take that very seriously and have spoken out against that,
but when people exaggerate their power, we all lose credibility.
> Anyone get arrested (other than Scientologists)? Did the police remark
> upon any violence? Did anyone get hurt (apart from being kicked by
> Scientologists and hit by buses) I think you must have a different
> definition for the word "extreme" because I've seen extreme, and
> anonymous isn't it.
>
> > I'm not asking them to see me as an authority. All I am doing is
> > offering criticism and what I'm getting back are obscenities and
> > ludicrous accusations of being OSA.
>
> But anonymous are all sorts of people, there will be those that react
> in the way you describe, there will also be those that don't. The vast
> majority of anonymous will probably never hear about you, so you'll
> never know how most anonymous react to your criticism.
Don't you see that anonymous being "all sorts of people" who haven't
identified themselves is a real problem? If someone does something
objectionable, you can always try to get out of it by saying that they
aren't truly in keeping with the spirit of anonymous but there is no
way to know what that is because you haven't taken a stand and defined
yourselves. The obscenities are just as much a part of it as the nicer
people are because it is not defined and no one is accountable for
actions. While nobody can say that the nasty people are representative
of all of anonymous, by the same logic, nobody can say that the nice
people are either.
> > I don't see much listening to both sides going on here. What I see is
> > knee-jerk reactions against anyone who challenges them in any major
> > way.
>
> But *here* isn't where most anonymous people are, your views on
> anonymous are based on ignorance.
There is no way to know what "most anonymous people" stand to when
things are left so undefined. I can only judge you by the encounters
that I have.
> > The "general public" is certainly not being swayed by the likes of you
> > and your extremist friends. You are badly out of touch with reality.
>
> Again, where is this extremism?
See above.
Les Hemmings
> No one expects anyone to be silent. Can't you understand that? She's
> told to STFU, but she has every right to keep posting, just as every
> single other person does.
>
> If you folks can't take being laughed at, you've really got to lighten
> up. I find you and Monica funny. It's all SRS BSNS for you. It's
> life-or-death-every-second-of-every-day.
>
> Many people find attitudes like Monica's funny. Her first post about
> the protests called Anonymous terrorists, hackers and many other
> insulting names. Then she compares Anonymous to the KKK and Nazis...
>
> Then there were the arguments to authority, further ad hominem
> attacks, "smear campaigns" and the utter refusal to examine any
> evidence provided to counter her ridiculous claims. Now people don't
> take her seriously, and goad her into responding with more ludicrous
> postings... and she takes the bait every... single... time.
>
> Frankly, she started it and now that she's forced to reap what she has
> sown she's all butthurt and pissy about it.
Heh Heh.... the same happened here in microcosm a few years ago. I was
taught that "point and laugh" was not always demeaning ( i used to freak
like the old git i was becoming) by my son and in this life you really must
get your lulz where you can. I'd turned into the stuffy old twat i used to
point and laugh at many years agoo. I lost 20 years at that point and can
now "get" the whole anonymous thing, the humour, the underlying seriousness,
the idea of having grown up with the net, personal morals as oposed to
groupthink and the basic soundness of the generation that has made itself
known in here...
For me it's a hugely positive step and not only am i glad of the help i'm
learning shitloads.
This could help clear things up a little......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
L
--
Remove Frontal Lobes to reply direct.
http://armsofmorpheus.blogspot.com/
Les Hemmings a.a #2251 SA
dharm...@gmail.com
Les! YOU win an internetz! Please reimburse this newsgroup post at
any Anonymous Indoctrination Center (Ltd.). You will be provided with
1 (one) internetz, complete with M for you to RTF out of. After
collecting your internetz, please register your lifetime* warranty at
the front desk.
*Warranty is for the lifetime of an random subatomic particle, to be
chosen at the time service is required.
; )
Les Hemmings
>
> *Warranty is for the lifetime of an random subatomic particle, to be
> chosen at the time service is required.
>
> ; )
Higgs Boson please..... ;o)
R. Hill
<snip>
>
> What exactly has happened so far, other than a series of self-
> congratulatory exchanges? Sorry, but I see no reason to believe that
> these protests, no matter how many hundreds attend, are going to
> accomplish much of anything other than provide some bored kids with a
> way to party and LULZ.
>
> Monica
>
http://www.lisamcpherson.org stats on Feb. 10 and the day after:
http://extremetracking.com/open;unique?login=lisamcph
More people become aware of the issues with the Church of Scientology.
More people aware, more people question, more people scrutinize, and
as well stated on Wikileaks:
"The public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive
institutions forces them to consider the ethical implications of their
actions."
And who knows, when enough people demand it, maybe the Church of
Scientology undeserved tax-exemption, which it obtained under
suspicious circumstances, will be re-evaluated.
Ray.
beech...@gmail.com
<les.frontalcla...@lobesvirgin.net> wrote:
> I lost 20 years at that point and can
> now "get" the whole anonymous thing, the humour, the underlying seriousness,
> the idea of having grown up with the net, personal morals as oposed to
> groupthink and the basic soundness of the generation that has made itself
> known in here...
>
> For me it's a hugely positive step and not only am i glad of the help i'm
> learning shitloads.
Heh, I know what you mean. I'm late-30s, and it makes me downright
verklempt to see these younger people actually giving a crap.
As much as some may demean these younger critics, they infuse a much-
needed breath of fresh air.
I was lurking on here back in 1995-97, and the thought of actually
physically protesting the church back then made my blood run cold with
fear.
The courage and gallantry of the first protesters paved the way for
this new wave, and now more people are speaking out than ever before.
IMO, that can only be a good thing. The more people are aware of the
abuses of the cult, the less likely it is that they'll join.
Scientology has been fading for years because of a lack of new
members. Depriving them of their raw meat will slowly starve them out.
thetansinmyd...@googlemail.com
> Using unnecessarily inflammatory language such as "honk if you hate
> Scientology" is extreme
Did you see the protests in London about the Prophet Mohammed
cartoons? Signs saying 'Get ready for the REAL Holocaust' and 'Slay
those that insult the prophet' were extreme. 'Honk if you hate
Scientology' is not extreme, it's silly and unhelpful. If you were
truly following the evolution of Anonymous and not just commenting in
ignorance, you'd know that the signs you mention have already been
criticised endlessly by Anonymous, I think you'll find far fewer of
these signs at the next demo.
Using extreme comparisons (e.g.
> comparing Scientology to Nazis and portraying as a huge threat to
> mankind) is also backfiring on credibility
Making extreme comparisons is not in itself being extreme. I don't
believe you'd find many Anons who would compare Scientologists to
Nazis, but I think you would find that those who do are often
criticised by other Anons. I personally wouldn't stand for such
comparisons, but then, I can't tell other Anons what to think or do, I
can only give my own opinion.
I find the whole V for
> Vendetta analogy strange, since the movie was about the protagonist's
> response to a government dictatorship that had full political power --
> Scientology hardly has that kind of power and it is unlikely that they
> ever will because they really don't have much of a following other
> than a few loud celebrities. The harm they have done is to individuals
> and I do take that very seriously and have spoken out against that,
> but when people exaggerate their power, we all lose credibility.
I don't think you've quite grasped why some Anons identify with that
film, it's not really about the big, all-powerful government, it's
more to do with the mass movement of individuals who come together
anonymously because of a common cause.
> Don't you see that anonymous being "all sorts of people" who haven't
> identified themselves is a real problem? If someone does something
> objectionable, you can always try to get out of it by saying that they
> aren't truly in keeping with the spirit of anonymous but there is no
> way to know what that is because you haven't taken a stand and defined
> yourselves. The obscenities are just as much a part of it as the nicer
> people are because it is not defined and no one is accountable for
> actions. While nobody can say that the nasty people are representative
> of all of anonymous, by the same logic, nobody can say that the nice
> people are either.
You are free to view the code of conduct on youtube, if you see
behaviour which is not in keeping with that code, you can assume that
it is not in keeping with the spirit of Anonymous.
>
> There is no way to know what "most anonymous people" stand to when
> things are left so undefined. I can only judge you by the encounters
> that I have.
No, you can do some actual real research before coming to conclusions.
That's what most intelligent people would do.
> See above.
Have done, still at a loss.
roger gonnet
news:237e184e-986b-4b66...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Hey Monica, you can't doubt that I love you a lot, my friend from USA.
But see, I fear you missed the point: never before got we such a help to get
scientology known for what it is, and that help can't be dismissed under
false pretenses that it could self-congratulating, which is certainly not a
fact, but your opinion of it.
You can see conceptually this,which is very simple in fact.
As soon as the crime cult started to attack people on the internet to try to
silence them, it deserved a lot of attention.
And it got it.
People like Dave Touretzky, Andreas Heldal Lund, Tilman Hausherr, Bob
Minton, not ex-scientologists themselves, and some more were dragged into
the "war" by the insane and criminal activities of the "church" against its
opponents and critics. The cult has gotten exactly what it had in his seeds
bags, and no more no less: counter-attack from people horrified by such a
nazi clamshit.
If its members were relatively well respected for their bizarre beliefs -
that both of us had had - no respect at all was due to the organization and
its guru and sub-guru.
That's what happened, and anonymous has put a lot a excellent attention on
the stupid behaviours *generated by the cult* on such relatively intelligent
people like Cruise, Travolta, Alley and others.
We don't have to spit on such a remarkable help from people who follow the
pace of those quoted above. And how do you believe that justice systems,
governments, whole countries do learn about the FACTS? By repetition of
these facts. That's where anonymous is a great and apreciated help.
r
Android Cat
> On Feb 17, 10:06 am, "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people
>> outside of ARS"
>>
>> Translation:
>>
>> "I'll tell *mom*!"
>
> Hardly. There are plenty of other legitimate cult experts who are
> taking note of your activities.
My activities? Well, I'd certainly welcome some legitimate feedback on my
FrontCite project. So far, the comments from the bastards have been
positive.
http://home.primus.ca/~ronsharp/FrontCiteTW.html
>> I see that you avoid responding to serious replies and concentrate
>> on the low-hanging fruit. This has been duly noted for future
>> reference.
>
> What serious replies? This one?
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/aaf42f72d5a3972d
> I can't respond to all of you. Google
> does impose a limit on numbers of postings here, as I found out a few
> days ago when I had exceeded my limit and was blocked from posting
> more. That reminds me, though I did want to respond to your earlier
> posting that I wasn't able to find when I tried to search for it
> later, which accused me of using jargon when I referred to Lifton.
> Lifton is a well known scholar and his 8 criteria are just the
> opposite of jargon -- given that you've been around for all these
> years, your ignorance of this and comparing of Lifton to a bunch of
> green kids was surprising to me.
Your mistake is in assuming that I'm ignorant of Lifton's criteria when
calling you on your use of in-group language without referents when trying
to communicate with a group that you were accussing of the same. (Let's see,
that seems to be hits on #3, #5, #7 and maybe even #8.)
==
Monica Pignotti wrote:
> If you want to communicate with me, you'll have to say this in English
> rather than anonymous cultspeak. I have no idea what "lulz" means and
> no, I don't know your rules. Or maybe you could put together a
> dictionary for us ignorant wogs, just like the Scientologists did, and
> include your madeup words in it. Having this kind of jargon is what is
> known as "loaded language" one of Lifton's 8 criteria for cultic
> totalistic groups. By using language only insiders understand, you
> separate yourself from the rest of humanity.
And "one of Lifton's 8 criteria for cultic totalistic groups" isn't an
attempt to throw jargon back?
I do bite my thumb.
==
(Sorry if the Shakespearian reference flew by.)
By the way, Lifton's criteria (and others such as BITE) are useful
rules-of-thumb but hardly definitive. There might be something added about
attaching undue and extreme importance to ranks within the group which are
incomprehensible to the outside world. Sea Org Boson, OT, one of the Select
or Chosen, Seneschal of the Kingdom of Efforwich... (Defining "undue and
extreme" is tricky.)
I see that you're coming up to speed on who I am now. Am I no longer a
"disrespectful spoiled brat"? :-P
> They're a bunch of disrespectful spoiled brats who haven't even
> bothered to learn the most basic scholarly facts about this area. A
> group can be dangerous without having all 8 of Lifton's criteria. One
> of them didn't even know who Lifton is and when I referred to his
> "loaded language" thought I was using some kind of cultspeak.
Jommy Cross
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in msg
<237e184e-986b-4b66...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>What exactly has happened so far, other than a series of self-
>congratulatory exchanges? Sorry, but I see no reason to believe that
>these protests, no matter how many hundreds attend, are going to
>accomplish much of anything other than provide some bored kids with a
>way to party and LULZ.
Hey, I thought it was the end of civilization as we know it? Gangs of
ignorant masked teenage savages were running riot in the streets in your
previous analysis, disinhibited and giggling.
In another reading, you claim these protests will help Co$, by analogy with
Operation Rescue.
<07441797-7189-402e...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Now you say it won't accomplish much of anything.
So which is it?
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Alexia Death
> On Feb 17, 2:23 am, "t_shuffle" <thorazineshuf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That either of you would spend the time and effort that you have to try and
> > take the wind out of the sails of this latest movement is sickening to me.
> > Fuck you both.
>
> A good way to assess the health of an organization is to examine its
> attitude towards its critics and based on the responses we've gotten
> here, it doesn't appear that this "anonymous" organization is very
> open to criticism, at least not criticism where it is challenges its
> basic premises. Sure, you'll accept open debate and dialogue over
> trivia, but when someone challenges your core beliefs, the tantrums
> and obscenities begin. The reception critics of "anonymous" have in
> gotten in the form of obscenities and personal attacks, speaks for
> itself. Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people
> outside of ARS who aren't so wrapped up in this that they can't see
> the obvious problems with the way you are conducting yourself.
>
> Monica
Monica dear, learn up on WBM. SRSLY. WBM was critical. People
listened. You jumped in and...
(GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING: Monica imitation in X-lingo follows)
"OMG, ANON R CULT! U SUCKERS, U ALL HAVE BEEN PWND. U ALL SUCK UP TO
ANON. ANON R ALL CRIMINALS WITH MASKS!
(wipes frothing mouth)
WUT? I, CLAM! NO! IM MIGHTY PSYCH CRITIC! U OWE ME RSPECT! READ MY
TFT, I PWN YO ALL!
(wipes mouth again)
U SUCK, ME KNOW MORE THAN ALL! WUT? YOU NO LISTEN ME? U SO ARE CULT!"
...how do I put it, acted like butthurt dramawhore(I STILL love this
word).
/me rolls eyes
Did you really expect to earn ANY credibility withobsesed frothing
like that?
Seebs
> What level is that? What was "extreme" about the Feb 11th protests?
What was really extreme about them was that they were a day earlier.
> Anyone get arrested (other than Scientologists)? Did the police remark
> upon any violence?
The police around here, I am told, were quite pleased with us. They
got rid of the Obvious Plant who came along and tried to incite a riot,
and the two more really obnoxious guys. Apart from that, they read the
newspaper and, well, didn't do much, because nothing was going on.
>> The "general public" is certainly not being swayed by the likes of you
>> and your extremist friends. You are badly out of touch with reality.
> Again, where is this extremism?
I freely admit to being an extremist. I am militantly devoted to not harming
people.
p.s.: hai guyz. sorry i'm late.
--
Copyright 2008, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I'm not asking them to see me as an authority. All I am doing is
>offering criticism and what I'm getting back are obscenities and
>ludicrous accusations of being OSA.
Calling people terrorists and criminals based on, basically, nothing,
is not criticism.
And ludicrous accusations of being OSA are nothing new on ars.
Nor are obscenities.
Your behavior is far from perfect. Responding to criticisms of your
theories with comparisons to the Ku Klux Klan is just bad conduct,
period.
Jommy Cross
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in msg
<d161090b-3c6b-449b...@c33g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>What serious replies? This one? I can't respond to all of you. Google
>does impose a limit on numbers of postings here, as I found out a few
>days ago when I had exceeded my limit and was blocked from posting
>more.
Yeah, so pick the people most likely to conform to your preconceptions.
Good idea. Then blame Google. Outstanding.
>That reminds me, though I did want to respond to your earlier
>posting that I wasn't able to find when I tried to search for it
>later, which accused me of using jargon when I referred to Lifton.
Here it is
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:51:04 -0500, "Android Cat"
<androi...@hotmail.com> wrote in msg
<41518$47b3018d$d1b71594$31...@PRIMUS.CA>:
>Monica Pignotti wrote:
>
>> They're a bunch of disrespectful spoiled brats who haven't even
>> bothered to learn the most basic scholarly facts about this area. A
>> group can be dangerous without having all 8 of Lifton's criteria. One
>> of them didn't even know who Lifton is and when I referred to his
>> "loaded language" thought I was using some kind of cultspeak.
>
>I said that you were throwing jargon back at them, which is true. (Also
>argument by authority.) You could have expanded on what Lifton's criteria
>are, but instead dropped it in without explaination. If you want to be
>understood outside of your own group, you have to communicate.
>
>> I have probably put myself in danger by speaking out against these
>> thugs. I'm putting them on notice, if any of these people start
>> anything or harrass me in any way for speaking up, I will be
>> broadcasting this all over the internet and to the key people in the
>> anti-cult community I am close to.
>
>Get over yourself.
He didn't accuse you of "using jargon". He said you were throwing jargon
back at people.
>Lifton is a well known scholar and his 8 criteria are just the
>opposite of jargon -- given that you've been around for all these
>years, your ignorance of this and comparing of Lifton to a bunch of
>green kids was surprising to me.
You're quite sure you know what jargon is?
"the totalist polarization of good/evil (black/white thinking)," isn't a
phrase I've seen used much in the popular press. The fact that it's pretty
easy to guess what it means doesn't stop it being jargon, imho.
Nor did Android Cat display ignorance of Lifton, nor compare Lifton to "a
bunch of green kids".
It almost seems too much to ask that you answer what is actually posted,
rather than what you want to hear, doesn't it?
henri
wrote:
>Not that I expect any of these words will sway anyone who is trying to
>hound Monica into silence.
I'd frankly like to see the actual ideas she's raised get a little discussion,
but she's not doing much to forward that end. Anonymity does, indeed,
present unique dangers, in addition to its benefits. It's worth considering
them before going full tilt into a potentially dangerous situation.
However, comparisons to the Ku Klux Klan, to terrorists, and accusations
that a group that barely existed a month ago is now a cult, complete
with leaders and a control hierarchy, is ludicrous. It's an insult to the
intelligence of any half-rational reader, much less to anyone who is the
target of such unjustified vilification.
Monica appears far more sensitive to the bruising of her own inflated
ego than she is to warning anyone about anything. If she were actually
trying to make sure nobody paid any attention to her, she couldn't have
done a better job burying her message under a load of self-congratulatory
"Oh I'm so much more important than you" horseshit.
The way to dethrone a bogus guru is not to propose yourself as a replacement.
barb
> On Feb 17, 9:03 am, Ananamuss <ananam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 7:37 am, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 2:23 am, "t_shuffle" <thorazineshuf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> That either of you would spend the time and effort that you have to try and
>>>> take the wind out of the sails of this latest movement is sickening to me.
>>>> Fuck you both.
>>> A good way to assess the health of an organization is to examine its
>>> attitude towards its critics and based on the responses we've gotten
>>> here, it doesn't appear that this "anonymous" organization is very
>>> open to criticism, at least not criticism where it is challenges its
>>> basic premises. Sure, you'll accept open debate and dialogue over
>>> trivia, but when someone challenges your core beliefs, the tantrums
>>> and obscenities begin. The reception critics of "anonymous" have in
>>> gotten in the form of obscenities and personal attacks, speaks for
>>> itself. Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people
>>> outside of ARS who aren't so wrapped up in this that they can't see
>>> the obvious problems with the way you are conducting yourself.
>>> Monica
>> real world.
>
> You need to take your own advice and read today's New York Times book
> review and the response to Andrew Morton' s Cruise biography, which
> was actually much less extreme than the level anonymous has taken
> head out of your ARS.
>
>> They do not see you as an authority on anything.
>
> I'm not asking them to see me as an authority. All I am doing is
> offering criticism and what I'm getting back are obscenities and
> ludicrous accusations of being OSA.
All you are doing is launching ad hominem attacks meant to discredit and
marginalize Anonymous.
Words like, "Brat. Cultist. Children." You are so doggedly ignorant you
refuse to listen when people tell you that Anonymous is not made up of
children running roughshod over the web. You liken them to the feral
gang in Lord of the Flies. By tearing them down, you seek to build
yourself up. You strive for respect while using the very sandbox tactics
children use on the playground. You demand that Anonymous "prove" itself
to you. You insist that Anonymous needs you. Your words don't matter.
Anonymous will do what it does without your input. It does not matter if
you are for or against Anonymous. It does not matter if I am for or
against Anonymous.
I am not anonymous but I will stand with them and help them understand
Scientology with information and humor. I will support them with my
presence. They are the next wave, and you are King Canute, commanding
the tide to withdraw. Your negativity only generates amusement. You have
obviously been damaged by your association with destructive cults. Your
reaction to this new level of Scientology criticism is telling.
I'm sure it is wonderful to gather in a group of academics who quantify
the impact of cults on groups of people. It must make you feel very
lofty and special. You have made it quite evident here that this is
important to you. Pride, ego and status are what you have displayed. If
the indifference you have encountered here disturbs you, you should let
it go. You indicate a childlike "I'll stay here to annoy you" attitude
toward the people you dismiss as brats and children. Certainly, the fact
that nobody is falling about to kiss your feet disturbs you, or you
wouldn't keep repeating yourself in post after post.
Trust me, we "get it." Your problem is obvious. (Refer to 1970s poster
of the same title)
http://cgi.ebay.com/Surreal-Your-Problem-is-Obvious-69-Blacklight-Poster_W0QQitemZ330210991561QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting
>
>> They don't know you, and most won't want to.
>>
>> They're going to listen to both sides, and make up their own minds.
>
> I don't see much listening to both sides going on here. What I see is
> knee-jerk reactions against anyone who challenges them in any major
> way.
>
>> The general public is not so easily swayed by those who insist they
>> know all the answers but have years upon years of their past they must
>> disavow or minimize their association with in order to appear
>> credible. For someone who claims to have a University level education,
>> you seem to have missed the bits about thinking critically.-
>
> The "general public" is certainly not being swayed by the likes of you
> and your extremist friends. You are badly out of touch with reality.
>
> Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
>
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
I can haz Legion?
barb
Core belief universally shared by anonymous involved in this particular
segment of anonymous: SCIENTOLOGY SUCKS.
By golly, I just checked, and guess what. I agree!
henri
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Who knew all that was in a Rick Astley video? You must be a truly
expert semiotician. You should probably do a Ph.D. thesis on this
amazing discovery.
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Feb 17, 10:06 am, "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I see that you avoid responding to serious replies and concentrate on the
>> low-hanging fruit. This has been duly noted for future reference.
>What serious replies? This one? I can't respond to all of you. Google
>does impose a limit on numbers of postings here, as I found out a few
>days ago when I had exceeded my limit and was blocked from posting
>more.
Yes, that happens a lot to some people. Like Barbara Schwarz, for instance.
barb
> Monica Pignotti wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 10:06 am, "Android Cat" <androidca...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people
>>> outside of ARS"
>>>
>>> Translation:
>>>
>>> "I'll tell *mom*!"
>> Hardly. There are plenty of other legitimate cult experts who are
>> taking note of your activities.
Oooh! Now we're being watched by OSA *and* "legitimate cult experts!"
Who will be watching us next? The Major League Baseball satellite?
--
barb
Mass LULz from this. srsly made I spew!
barb
Anonymous burned her butt.
Huge diff between that and burning a religious symbol on somebody's
front lawn.
Monica wants you damn kids to stay the fuck off her lawn. NOW!
And quit burning her butt in public. srlsly, she gonna call in the
"legitimate cult experts" to put you straight! She Knows People who
Respect Her. So watch it!
barb
I can haz ARE EE ESS PEE EE SEE TEE?
barb
yS. Is what happens when OSA takes your peanut butter.
>
> "the totalist polarization of good/evil (black/white thinking)," isn't a
> phrase I've seen used much in the popular press. The fact that it's pretty
> easy to guess what it means doesn't stop it being jargon, imho.
>
> Nor did Android Cat display ignorance of Lifton, nor compare Lifton to "a
> bunch of green kids".
>
> It almost seems too much to ask that you answer what is actually posted,
> rather than what you want to hear, doesn't it?
>
> Ever yours in fandom,
> Jommy Cross
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
> before you hallucinate
> --------------------------------------------------
>
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>Calling people terrorists and criminals based on, basically, nothing,
>is not criticism.
Way over the line, Aytch.
>And ludicrous accusations of being OSA are nothing new on ars.
The ludicrousness seems to have hit new heights with the Lermaniacs'
latest conspiracy theory.
>Nor are obscenities.
Eff em if they can't take it.
>Your behavior is far from perfect. Responding to criticisms of your
>theories with comparisons to the Ku Klux Klan is just bad conduct,
>period.
No wonder she's pist off both the lermings and the over-zealous noobs.
Pissing people off is however no big crime on Usenet.
She was unnecessarily rude, making an ugly, generalized diagnosis of
what turned out to be thousands of well-behaved demonstrators, and
were she interested in getting her points across without rancor, she
would apologize for her bad manners, but not the warning message...
and move on.
If she doesn't tho, it's not going to make her message less
noteworthy.
D
--------------------
"Hope I'm not outta line." - Lenny Bruce
barb
Expect a sock puppet to appear so she can continue blathering on under
the name of "legitimatecultexpert" or something...
Zorrosblade........Z
<anan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 17, 9:37 am, Rev Dennis L Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:
>> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >A good way to assess the health of an organization is to examine its
>> >attitude towards its critics ... <snipt>
>>
>> Monica, your point is well taken.
>>
>> Cults and tyrants cannot tolerate dissent. A group that hounds out
>> dissenters and those who deviate from the norm is headed down the road
>> to cutishness.
>>
>> >based on the responses we've gotten
>> >here, it doesn't appear that this "anonymous" organization is very
>> >open to criticism,
>>
>> It's pretty clear to me that the nonys are being indoctrinated with
>> the idea that "if it hurts the cult, whether it's true or not, we're
>> behind it."
>>
>> And although IMO your points have been presented in a provocative,
>> generalized and demeaning manner, they are nonetheless worthy of
>> consideration.
>>
>> Alas, these trends I see occurring amongst the nonys: to stray from
>> the truth in order to tar the cult; to elevate flawed, deficient
>> critical icons; and the ugly, personal-attack reaction to Monica's
>> pointing out the sociological and psychological dangers inherent in
>> masked, anonymous gatherings, have severely dampened my enthusiasm for
>> this new wave of action-oriented criticism.
>>
>> Oh well. :(
>>
>> >at least not criticism where it is challenges its
>> >basic premises. Sure, you'll accept open debate and dialogue over
>> >trivia, but when someone challenges your core beliefs, the tantrums
>> >and obscenities begin. The reception critics of "anonymous" have in
>> >gotten in the form of obscenities and personal attacks, speaks for
>> >itself.
>>
>> I guess they expect you to be hounded into silence for dissenting. Gee
>> where have I seen that before?
>>
>> >Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people
>> >outside of ARS who aren't so wrapped up in this that they can't see
>> >the obvious problems with the way you are conducting yourself.
>>
>> It sure looks like a symptom of cultism.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> Dissent:
>>
>> "Acceptance of dissent is the fundamental requirement of a free
>> society." - unknown
>>
>> "Has there ever been a society which has died of dissent? Several have
>> died of conformity in our lifetime." - Jacob Bronowski
>>
>> "In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of
>> its value is not in its taste, but in its effects." - J. William
>> Fulbright
>>
>> "Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and
>> debate." - Hubert H. Humphrey
>>
>> Archibald Macleish:
>> The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when
>> he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
>>
>> Eric Hoffer:
>> The beginning of thought is in disagreement -- not only with others
>> but also with ourselves.
>>
>> George Orwell:
>> In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
>> revolutionary act.
>>
>> J. William Fulbright:
>> In a democracy, dissent is an act of faith.
>>
>> Will dissent be permitted? The answer to that question will determine
>> whether the society is a free society or a fear society.
>> Natan Sharansky
>>
>> Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
>> Howard Zinn
>>
>> Martin Luther King Jr.:
>> Human salvation lies in the hands of the creatively maladjusted.
>>
>> Mohandas K. Gandhi:
>> Non-cooperation is a measure of discipline and sacrifice, and it
>> demands respect for the opposite views.
>>
>> Vaclav Havel:
>> You do not become a "dissident" just because you decide one day to
>> take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your
>> personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of
>> external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures
>> and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an
>> attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of
>> society.
>>
>> ---------------------
>>
>> Not that I expect any of these words will sway anyone who is trying to
>> hound Monica into silence.
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> --------------------
>>
>> "Hope I'm not outta line." - Lenny Bruce
>
>No one expects anyone to be silent. Can't you understand that? She's
>told to STFU, but she has every right to keep posting, just as every
>single other person does.
>
>If you folks can't take being laughed at, you've really got to lighten
>up. I find you and Monica funny. It's all SRS BSNS for you. It's
>life-or-death-every-second-of-every-day.
>
>Many people find attitudes like Monica's funny. Her first post about
>the protests called Anonymous terrorists, hackers and many other
>insulting names. Then she compares Anonymous to the KKK and Nazis...
>
>Then there were the arguments to authority, further ad hominem
>attacks, "smear campaigns" and the utter refusal to examine any
>evidence provided to counter her ridiculous claims. Now people don't
>take her seriously, and goad her into responding with more ludicrous
>postings... and she takes the bait every... single... time.
>
>Frankly, she started it and now that she's forced to reap what she has
>sown she's all butthurt and pissy about it.
You're being trolled by Dennis where he apparently got his trolled
response from you though your points are excellent still as a setup
reflex to his trollery.
Listen to me *very* carefully, Anonymous; There are people (critics)
,on this NG, who've been posting here for years, though bivalve split
into opposing factions some claim not to exist, who secretly feel
they've carved a Court 'niche' for themselves, held in 'assumed'
perpetuity, feigning the opposite when called on such slight of hand
'assumptions' whenever Ego blustering "slips" occur, from time to
time, claiming, when called on the carpet, if not disappearing
altogether, that protesting the evils of Scientology is # 1 priority
where personal interests take 'second chair' as an implied altruist
position, or having no chair at all, even to the point where 'Gandhi
quotes' can be raped in print as did Dennis in the above, trying to
*flatten* Anonymous in the process or at the very least get
predictable opposing responses to him (Dennis) which in turn
*reinforces* his argument via duality if only by memory which is a
covert rhetoric trick in spreading guilt, where there is none, to
leave a sort of 'unresolved' open question about the Character of
Anonymous to then 'deal with' on a future thread. Is that evil as a
rhetoric device? Most definitely. Evil to the bone! Look through it
for what it really is.
I'm certain Anonymous has also seen trepid 'kind' approaches from
'assumed' court critics this past week trying to finagle 'agreements'
such as having an "ARS FAQ" thrown your way, indirectly, of course,
treating Anonymous like Newbee underlings who need the help of a few
'Court' Critics that, as I said, pretend not to exist.
Don't be Fooled! Be Anonymous! Answerable to Anonymous! Not 'The
Court' in any <ahem> 'Helpful' guise.
Z-blade
"The Ides of March come as sweet spirit and just legion of doom, all
in one vine rose pedaled hand."
--Zorrosblade
//
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Henri Ladd
> Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>A good way to assess the health of an organization is to examine its
>>attitude towards its critics ... <snipt>
>
>
> Monica, your point is well taken.
>
> Cults and tyrants cannot tolerate dissent. A group that hounds out
> dissenters and those who deviate from the norm is headed down the road
> to cutishness.
>
>
>>based on the responses we've gotten
>>here, it doesn't appear that this "anonymous" organization is very
>>open to criticism,
>
>
> It's pretty clear to me that the nonys are being indoctrinated with
> the idea that "if it hurts the cult, whether it's true or not, we're
> behind it."
>
> And although IMO your points have been presented in a provocative,
> generalized and demeaning manner, they are nonetheless worthy of
> consideration.
>
> Alas, these trends I see occurring amongst the nonys: to stray from
> the truth in order to tar the cult; to elevate flawed, deficient
> critical icons; and the ugly, personal-attack reaction to Monica's
> pointing out the sociological and psychological dangers inherent in
> masked, anonymous gatherings, have severely dampened my enthusiasm for
> this new wave of action-oriented criticism.
It seems to me Reverend, what you are trying to do is unmask and
identify this group that calls themselves anonymous. Perhaps so they
can be paid off by the cult--you know, like you were paid off by the cult.
You've been trying mighty hard in recent posts to put faces and names on
this loose group of people who have no leader, or organization; almost
like playing on your "clay table" to try to put mass to their idea.
Les Hemmings
> It seems to me Reverend, what you are trying to do is unmask and
> identify this group that calls themselves anonymous. Perhaps so they
> can be paid off by the cult--you know, like you were paid off by the
> cult.
> You've been trying mighty hard in recent posts to put faces and names
> on this loose group of people who have no leader, or organization;
> almost like playing on your "clay table" to try to put mass to their
> idea.
What she said! By the shovelful...... Who's on who's side here?
Eldon
> On Feb 17, 8:41 am, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 9:19 am, Eldon <EldonB...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 2:37 pm, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 2:23 am, "t_shuffle" <thorazineshuf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > That either of you would spend the time and effort that you have to try and
> > > > > take the wind out of the sails of this latest movement is sickening to me.
> > > > > Fuck you both.
>
> > > > here, it doesn't appear that this "anonymous" organization is very
> > > > basic premises. Sure, you'll accept open debate and dialogue over
> > > > trivia, but when someone challenges your core beliefs, the tantrums
> > > > and obscenities begin. The reception critics of "anonymous" have in
> > > > gotten in the form of obscenities and personal attacks, speaks for
> > > > outside of ARS who aren't so wrapped up in this that they can't see
> > > > the obvious problems with the way you are conducting yourself.
>
>
> > > Monica,
>
> > > "Thorazine Shuffle" has been posting on a.r.s. for at least two years,
> > > I believe, which appears to be long before Anonymous had a clue about
> > > Scientology.
>
> > > Aside from that, Anonymous is about as much of an organization as
> > > Wikipedia to use the first analogy that comes to mind.
>
> > > I think you and P.M. are both taking a pessimistic attitude about the
> > > latest turn of events, and have both failed to resonate with the irony
> > > of what's happened so far. But I'm not going to get all indignant
> > > about it ;-)-
>
> > congratulatory exchanges? Sorry, but I see no reason to believe that
> > these protests, no matter how many hundreds attend, are going to
> > accomplish much of anything other than provide some bored kids with a
> > way to party and LULZ.
>
>
> > Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
>
> The proof is in this video.
That was lulz. How many times do you think we'll need to tell Monica
to lighten up? Maybe some tickling would help..
Friendly Xenu
>That either of you would spend the time and effort that you have to try and
>take the wind out of the sails of this latest movement is sickening to me.
>Fuck you both.
It's something that we've seen in a.r.s since -- well since the forum
was created by Mike Rinder of the OSA. }:-} There are always going
to be mentally unfortunate people who oppose human rights and civil
rights efforts, and it always seem to me that if people would just ignore
such people, they would disappear. They seem to be in it for the
recognition that they're alive, something they're not getting out in
the real world.
---
"Every time Tory waves to OSA, David Miscaviage gets shorter."
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>That either of you would spend the time and effort that you have to try and
>take the wind out of the sails of this latest movement is sickening to me.
Yah, we're trying to take the wind outta your sails before you and the
nonys blithely cruise onto the rocks.
D
-----------------
"The Rock You Stood Upon
Is Broken Up And Gone
Hey Baby, Who's Your Baby Now
On The Slipway Of Your Dream
Stands Someone Else's Scheme
Hey Baby, Who's Your Baby Now" - Mark Knopfler
Ball of Fluff
"Ananamuss" <anan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddb612c4-db24-4f33...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 7:37 am, Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2:23 am, "t_shuffle" <thorazineshuf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > That either of you would spend the time and effort that you have to try
>> > and
>> > take the wind out of the sails of this latest movement is sickening to
>> > me.
>> > Fuck you both.
>>
>> A good way to assess the health of an organization is to examine its
>> attitude towards its critics and based on the responses we've gotten
>> here, it doesn't appear that this "anonymous" organization is very
>> open to criticism, at least not criticism where it is challenges its
>> basic premises. Sure, you'll accept open debate and dialogue over
>> trivia, but when someone challenges your core beliefs, the tantrums
>> and obscenities begin. The reception critics of "anonymous" have in
>> gotten in the form of obscenities and personal attacks, speaks for
>> itself. Your response is duly noted and is being made known to people
>> outside of ARS who aren't so wrapped up in this that they can't see
>> the obvious problems with the way you are conducting yourself.
>>
>> Monica
>
> Monica, you need to learn a few things about real people out in the
> real world.
Who's to say she hasn't?
>
> They do not see you as an authority on anything.
She doesn't have to be in order to make her thoughts known on the subject.
Although, point of fact, she does have a good critical track record.
>
> They don't know you, and most won't want to.
>
> They're going to listen to both sides, and make up their own minds.
Then they can listen to Monica, too.
>
> The general public is not so easily swayed by those who insist they
> know all the answers but have years upon years of their past they must
> disavow or minimize their association with in order to appear
> credible. For someone who claims to have a University level education,
> you seem to have missed the bits about thinking critically.
Although I have my disagreements with Monica and although I cautiously
approve of the neo Anon movement, I do not think she's missed the bits about
thinking critically and I don't think she deserves these attacks.
C
t_shuffle
"Rev Dennis L Erlich" <info...@informer.org> wrote in
message news:j7ehr39nqnsiutjrq...@4ax.com
While there may be some swells on the horizon, it looks to me like they've
made it out past the rocks.
You have plans for March 15?
Piltdown Man
t_shuffle <thorazin...@gmail.com> wrote...
> That either of you would spend the time and effort that you have to try
> and take the wind out of the sails of this latest movement is sickening
> to me. Fuck you both.
Not that I don't appreciate a tribute thread with my pseudonym in the
title, but what "time and effort" are you talking about? The time and
effort involved in making the occasional post to a newsgroup?
What puzzles me more is why are you bracketing me and Monica Pignotti
together in this way. I don't know her personally. I've read things she has
written, and I am aware of her former personal connection to Scientology. I
have responded to ARS posts of hers in the past, unfavourably. She went
from being a gullible fool who fell for Hubbard's crap, to being a gullible
fool who fell for Callahan's crap, that's pretty much how I recall my
previous opinion of her. (I'm stating that bluntly and impolitely, because
she's also been quite blunt and impolite.) I know very little about her
beyond that. I'm sure she knows even less about me. For instance, I'm
pretty certain she doesn't even know my real name (which, BTW, anyone can
easily find with some googling, and I'm in the phonebook). Why should she?
How either of us could possibly "take the wind out of the sails of this
latest movement" is beyond me. You seem to be ascribing wondrous magical
powers to two people who've never even met, who've never even exchanged so
much as an email. Yet somehow, the two of us, thrown together in this
unholy alliance you've just made up, are capable of taking the winds out of
the sails of an entire "movement". Thousands upon thousands of anonymouses
will be converging upon Scientology, to destroy that evil cult once and for
all, on February 10th. Oops, sorry, that was last week (forgive me for
having a memory that goes further back than a month). It's been rescheduled
for March 15th now. CAN ANYONE STOP THEM? Well, yes, apparently. I can,
together with Monica Pignotti. All I takes is for us to dash off some posts
to ARS. And to do so, we don't even have to use idiotic terms like "epic
FAIL", "lulz", or "butthurt" in those posts, or address other people as
"fags" all the time.
Come to think of it: perhaps Monica and I have those OT powers I've been
hearing so much about?
Seebs
> Thousands upon thousands of anonymouses
> will be converging upon Scientology, to destroy that evil cult once and for
> all, on February 10th. Oops, sorry, that was last week (forgive me for
> having a memory that goes further back than a month). It's been rescheduled
> for March 15th now.
Er, what?
We did, in fact, do protests on the 10th. No one ever said any particular
protest would end the CoS's abuses.
On the other hand... People are getting opportunities to get out, CoS
expansion plans are getting nixed, judges are investigating the CoS's tax
status, and so on. Looks like progress! I suppose that's a good reason to
keep going. After all, we want this all sorted out before the fleet gets
here!
--
Copyright 2008, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
butterflygrrrl
> On Feb 17, 9:03 am, Ananamuss <ananam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They do not see you as an authority on anything.
>
> I'm not asking them to see me as an authority. All I am doing is
> offering criticism and what I'm getting back are obscenities and
> ludicrous accusations of being OSA.
That is a flat-out lie. You said they had to earn your trust and prove
themselves to you. Well, obviously, they don't care about your
approval OR trust and that just puts your panties in a wad, doesn't
it?
butterflygrrrl
> Jommy Cross wrote:
> > You're quite sure you know what jargon is?
>
> yS. Is what happens when OSA takes your peanut butter.
Barb!! I almost wet my pants I laughed so hard!!!
t_shuffle
"Piltdown Man" <pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote
in message news:01c871de$fbe18b40$LocalHost@gateway
> t_shuffle <thorazin...@gmail.com> wrote...
>
>> That either of you would spend the time and effort that
>> you have to try and take the wind out of the sails of
>> this latest movement is sickening to me. Fuck you both.
>
> Not that I don't appreciate a tribute thread with my
> pseudonym in the title, but what "time and effort" are
> you talking about? The time and effort involved in making
> the occasional post to a newsgroup?
Seems you recently made a few 'occasional' posts to this group, all at once,
and all in one thread. While it may have been effortless, I know it had to
have taken some time.
> What puzzles me more is why are you bracketing me and
> Monica Pignotti together in this way. I don't know her
> personally. I've read things she has written, and I am
> aware of her former personal connection to Scientology. I
> have responded to ARS posts of hers in the past,
> unfavourably. She went from being a gullible fool who
> fell for Hubbard's crap, to being a gullible fool who
> fell for Callahan's crap, that's pretty much how I recall
> my previous opinion of her. (I'm stating that bluntly and
> impolitely, because she's also been quite blunt and
> impolite.) I know very little about her beyond that. I'm
> sure she knows even less about me. For instance, I'm
> pretty certain she doesn't even know my real name (which,
> BTW, anyone can easily find with some googling, and I'm
> in the phonebook). Why should she?
I couldn't give a shit less if you and her are friends, or even like each
other. Doesn't matter. You both chose to spit on this movement. Where you
had the opportunity to embrace and advise these people, you instead chose to
shit on them. For that, fuck you
> How either of us could possibly "take the wind out of the
> sails of this latest movement" is beyond me. You seem to
> be ascribing wondrous magical powers to two people who've
> never even met, who've never even exchanged so much as an
> email. Yet somehow, the two of us, thrown together in
> this unholy alliance you've just made up, are capable of
> taking the winds out of the sails of an entire
> "movement". Thousands upon thousands of anonymouses will
> be converging upon Scientology, to destroy that evil cult
> once and for all, on February 10th. Oops, sorry, that was
> last week (forgive me for having a memory that goes
> further back than a month). It's been rescheduled for
> March 15th now. CAN ANYONE STOP THEM? Well, yes,
> apparently. I can, together with Monica Pignotti. All I
> takes is for us to dash off some posts to ARS. And to do
> so, we don't even have to use idiotic terms like "epic
> FAIL", "lulz", or "butthurt" in those posts, or address
> other people as "fags" all the time.
>
> Come to think of it: perhaps Monica and I have those OT
> powers I've been hearing so much about?
It's not that you are in any way capable of taking the wind out their sails.
You're not. It's the fact that you tried .
Piltdown Man
Seebs <usenet...@seebs.net> wrote...
<snip>
> On the other hand... People are getting opportunities to get out, CoS
> expansion plans are getting nixed, judges are investigating the CoS's tax
> status, and so on.
And none of that has anything do with the Anonymous kiddies. (I have to
say, of all the cliques of nerds who've discovered the internet ever since
the internet was created, they've managed to come up with the lamest name
for their particular clique by far. "Anonymous"? Really, you guys, couldn't
you find *anything* slightly more creative?)
Returning to Scientology, the supposed topic of this newsgroup: the
opportunity to get out of Scientology is the (usually) rectangular opening
in CoS buildings called the door. Any ongoing investigations by judges of
Scientology's tax status (care to specicify which judges, under which
taxation jurisdictions, in which countries?) must also long predate the
arrival of the nonnies in ARS. I have no idea which expansion plans by
Scientology have been "nixed" by the nonnies, but I'm sure you'll provide
me with a detailed list in reply.
Seebs
Really?
Because I could have sworn that a bunch of the people I talked to sounded
pretty interested in following up on what I told them.
> (I have to
> say, of all the cliques of nerds who've discovered the internet ever since
> the internet was created, they've managed to come up with the lamest name
> for their particular clique by far. "Anonymous"? Really, you guys, couldn't
> you find *anything* slightly more creative?)
Don't blame me, I wasn't involved. I think it's beautiful in its lack of
creativity. It's not a group, it's not an organization. How could you give
it a name?
Think of it as the good twin of the Auditors from the Discworld series.
> Returning to Scientology, the supposed topic of this newsgroup: the
> opportunity to get out of Scientology is the (usually) rectangular opening
> in CoS buildings called the door.
*snerk*
> Any ongoing investigations by judges of
> Scientology's tax status (care to specicify which judges, under which
> taxation jurisdictions, in which countries?) must also long predate the
> arrival of the nonnies in ARS. I have no idea which expansion plans by
> Scientology have been "nixed" by the nonnies, but I'm sure you'll provide
> me with a detailed list in reply.
Of course not! I refuse to tell you anything about Boston or people seeing
protest signs, getting educated, and getting involved.
Don't worry. You'll never be told, because KSW means never telling you about
a setback unless you personally saw it, in which case it's your fault.
Les Hemmings
> That either of you would spend the time and effort that you have to
> try and take the wind out of the sails of this latest movement is
> sickening to me. Fuck you both.
You might want to read this though...
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/pignotti/
t_shuffle
"Les Hemmings" <les.fron...@lobesvirgin.net> wrote in
message news:61smmhF...@mid.individual.net
I have, and that's what make this whole thing so weird.
barb
"We?" YOu got a mouse in your pocket, Dennis? Monica isn't someone I'd
want to claim wehood with...and what rocks might those be? I don't think
Anonymous is likely to be distracted onto the Straits of Self Absorbed
"Professional Cult Experts." Are you?
barb
> On 2008-02-18, Piltdown Man <pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>> Thousands upon thousands of anonymouses
>> will be converging upon Scientology, to destroy that evil cult once and for
>> all, on February 10th. Oops, sorry, that was last week (forgive me for
>> having a memory that goes further back than a month). It's been rescheduled
>> for March 15th now.
>
> Er, what?
>
> We did, in fact, do protests on the 10th. No one ever said any particular
> protest would end the CoS's abuses.
>
> On the other hand... People are getting opportunities to get out, CoS
> expansion plans are getting nixed, judges are investigating the CoS's tax
> status, and so on. Looks like progress! I suppose that's a good reason to
> keep going. After all, we want this all sorted out before the fleet gets
> here!
>
They! I meant THEY are already here!!!
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>"We?" YOu got a mouse in your pocket, Dennis? Monica isn't someone I'd
>want to claim wehood with...
We who are pointing out the dangers inherent in mobilizing any
anonymous group.
> ... and what rocks might those be? I don't think
>Anonymous is likely to be distracted onto the Straits of Self Absorbed
>"Professional Cult Experts." Are you?
Their apparent willingness to accept and promulgate mystical
manipulations like the lermaniac's endolphin bs and the "jesus was a
pedo" troll shows they have plenty of dangerous obstacles ahead.
They seem to seek guidance from wrong sources. If they haven't read
up on cults and cult recovery, I'd suggest they look up some cult
experts for advice. Self-absorbed or not.
D
-------------
barb
But they are quick to admit it when it's pointed out that they're wrong,
which should enclue you as to their ability to change, rather than
doggedly digging in and grunting "I'm right! I'm right!" like some.
Poofy
anonymous, like the internet, is self-correcting and self-healing. Also,
like the internet, full of wrong, noise and crazy. anonymous enjoys the
entertainment here.
Also, Barb is awesome.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>But they are quick to admit it when it's pointed out that they're wrong,
Not so much. Some still want to maintain the myths promulgated by
such wackos and known liars as lerm and fish. In fact there are still
those who think it's fine to spread outright falsehoods and mystical
manipulation in their over-zealous campaigning against the cult.
>which should enclue you as to their ability to change,
No, I've only seen them "go quiet" for a few hours when they had the
epiphany they'd fucked up. But the lull in enthusiasm was quickly
remedied by their bearded sage's rambling video/chat session which
locked up so many people's computers and caused them to reboot.
>rather than
>doggedly digging in and grunting "I'm right! I'm right!" like some.
Nor is schoolyard taunting going to make her go away and render her
arguments, poorly presented tho they might be, less than confirmed.
D
henri
wrote:
>Their apparent willingness to accept and promulgate mystical
>manipulations like the lermaniac's endolphin bs and the "jesus was a
>pedo" troll shows they have plenty of dangerous obstacles ahead.
I don't know if you noticed, but the person who included the
pedojebus material in a video retracted it immediately upon
looking at the evidence. That's more than many long term critics
have done, as you can see by looking at the hits for "lover of
young boys and men" on Google, which include sites that
strongly imply that it's genuine, if they even address the
irregularities in the document at all. Some simply assume
its authenticity without any analysis at all.
There's certainly high quality criticism out there on the web
and a person can inform themselves pretty quickly, but there's
a fair amount of utter crap out there, too, and if that material
is out on the web misleading people, it's not the fault of the
nonys.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
yhn
>>Their apparent willingness to accept and promulgate mystical
>>manipulations like the lermaniac's endolphin bs and the "jesus was a
>>pedo" troll shows they have plenty of dangerous obstacles ahead.
h
>I don't know if you noticed, but the person who included the
>pedojebus material in a video retracted it immediately upon
>looking at the evidence.
Yup. I sore. But it just shows how even honestly concerned people
can mess up if they are over-zealous, caught up in a herd, or trolled
by pros.
>That's more than many long term critics
>have done, as you can see by looking at the hits for "lover of
>young boys and men" on Google, which include sites that
>strongly imply that it's genuine, if they even address the
>irregularities in the document at all. Some simply assume
>its authenticity without any analysis at all.
Yah, aytch. It's a shame that the rift between those who want to
stick to the truth and those who want to tar the cult ~by any means
necessary~ has continued so long.
I guess it started with fish's "turds in a bottle" expose and then the
minton/dorian idiocy sealed the deal.
>There's certainly high quality criticism out there on the web
>and a person can inform themselves pretty quickly, but there's
>a fair amount of utter crap out there, too, and if that material
>is out on the web misleading people, it's not the fault of the
>nonys.
The fact that it's there is not the nonys fault. Right.
But the factual info is out there. These supposedly net-savvy people
(grown up gamers i would guess, from their epicfail language)
apparently have not yet learned how to sift thu data on the net for
the truth. About the same percentage of bs exists on any subject
they would try to research on the net. Maybe more.
At least when searching this subject tons of court documents, genuine
internal skripture and other admissible evidence does exist by the
truckload.
They could stick to that. But no.
Seeing how they are enticed by loony icons, mystical manipulations and
fabricated "evidence" leads me to believe there's a bad chance herd
mentality has already set in.
Oh well.
Dennis
Beth
I don't think you realize how long it takes to sift through all the
data and come to informed conclusions. I know it's discouraging to see
people accepting bs as truth, but I wouldn't assume it means their
minds are closed and they don't want to know the truth. I remember
when I first started reading all this stuff. The Fishman affidavits
were on what seemed to be legitimate critical sites. I didn't have any
particular reason not to accept them as valid. It takes awhile to
absorb and process all the info that's out there and start making
informed judgments. If we all waited till we are absolutely certain
about everything, we'd stay silent forever. Maybe it's better to speak
up and risk being corrected if your'e wrong.
Beth
realpch
>
> "Piltdown Man" <pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote
> in message news:01c871de$fbe18b40$LocalHost@gateway
> > t_shuffle <thorazin...@gmail.com> wrote...
> >
> >> That either of you would spend the time and effort that
> >> you have to try and take the wind out of the sails of
> >> this latest movement is sickening to me. Fuck you both.
> >
> > Not that I don't appreciate a tribute thread with my
> > pseudonym in the title, but what "time and effort" are
> > you talking about? The time and effort involved in making
> > the occasional post to a newsgroup?
>
> Seems you recently made a few 'occasional' posts to this group, all at once,
> and all in one thread. While it may have been effortless, I know it had to
> have taken some time.
Nope, he's been here for quite awhile. And these recent posts are
similar in length and consideration to his other posts. And nobody ever
remembers his name, so he's occasionallfy accused of being OSA when he
expresses an opinion which someone doesn't like.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>I don't think you realize how long it takes to sift through all the
>data and come to informed conclusions.
It's worth the effort to do the homework if one is going to be
criticizing another's (bogus) religious faith.
>I know it's discouraging to see
>people accepting bs as truth, but I wouldn't assume it means their
>minds are closed and they don't want to know the truth.
I don't assume that, beth. I don't assume anything. I don't need to.
I can see by their posts that they are prone to schoolyard taunts and
following flawed icons onto the low-road.
I guess that eliminates me from being their Prom Queen.
>I remember
>when I first started reading all this stuff. The Fishman affidavits
>were on what seemed to be legitimate critical sites.
I guess it would depend on your definition of legitimate. But yah,
that's why one should lurk liberally before posting or joining the
here of lemmings in using bogus criticism.
>I didn't have any
>particular reason not to accept them as valid.
Fine. But then you didn't go doing youtube videos and crowing about
the false data you had promulgated either.
>It takes awhile to
>absorb and process all the info that's out there and start making
>informed judgments.
So lurk moar.
>If we all waited till we are absolutely certain
>about everything, we'd stay silent forever.
I'm advocating knowing whether what you're spreading as factual,
really is. That's not so hard if you practice it for a while.
>Maybe it's better to speak
>up and risk being corrected if your'e wrong.
It's better to know what you're talking about before passing it on to
the world as factual.
henri
>Nope, he's been here for quite awhile. And these recent posts are
>similar in length and consideration to his other posts. And nobody ever
>remembers his name, so he's occasionallfy accused of being OSA when he
>expresses an opinion which someone doesn't like.
For obvious reasons, it's fairly unlikely OSA would use that nick.
realpch
Yes, it's a good one, isn't it?
: D
Henri Ladd
You see Beth, Dennis is the keeper of the truth. He keeps it somewhere
locked up alongside his "iggy bin", where he keeps the people from ARS
on his own personal RPF. The good Reverend will not cite or link to
what he considers the truth in order to offer proof, he only tells other
people that it's not true... and throw in a few insults, cool made-up
words, and obscenities. He cannot rationally and civilly debate the merits.
Perhaps his scheme is to get people to sign up for services at the
informer ministry? They might have to pay for this truth that he holds
locked-up.
Of course we know that if this truth has anything to do with information
being critical to Scientology, he cannot--from prior legal obligations--
dispense it as being this secret truth that he holds.
Suffice it to say Beth, know that the good Reverend speaks the truth.
You just go on your way as being a good critic and he'll let you know
when it runs contrary to what the locked-up secret truth is--and that
just may be saying anything bad about Scientology, which he never does.
You see the Reverend is the governor of what really is truth on the
Internet. Although, he has not, will not, or cannot provide any proof
for his claims discrediting other ideas. However, he can cuss, spit,
scoff, and denigrate other people who have ideals incongruence to his
pre-ordained truth.
The right and righteous Reverend, has turned in to a cult apologist.
Zinj
he...@nowhere.com says...
Oh goody. Yet *another* 'Say Xenu' test :)
OSA would use *anything* or say *anything* if it thought it would serve
its purposes, except possibly 'Dennis Erlich is a deadbeat dad', if they
thought it could be traced back to the 'Church'. After all; that might
cost them money.
However, Piltdown's posting history, if not his 'nick' speak against him
being OSA.
And, the post in question doesn't sound out of character at all.
Zinj
--
Scientology may be the first 'religion' best comprehended by forensic
accountants.
barb
>
>> I don't think you realize how long it takes to sift through all the
>> data and come to informed conclusions.
>
> It's worth the effort to do the homework if one is going to be
> criticizing another's (bogus) religious faith.
>
>> I know it's discouraging to see
>> people accepting bs as truth, but I wouldn't assume it means their
>> minds are closed and they don't want to know the truth.
>
> I don't assume that, beth. I don't assume anything. I don't need to.
> I can see by their posts that they are prone to schoolyard taunts and
> following flawed icons onto the low-road.
>
> I guess that eliminates me from being their Prom Queen.
Are you fucking serious??? "Schoolyard taunts?" Say, aren't you the one
who is calling them names intended to insult and marginalize?
PKB, baby!
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>Are you fucking serious??? "Schoolyard taunts?" Say, aren't you the one
>who is calling them names intended to insult and marginalize?
It's hard to call them anything else: lermaniacs who make up shit for
the newbies to gobble, sliemballs who make up shit to put stink, with
innuendo and flat-out lies, on people who challenge words or their
turf, raving lunatics like mrs cluck-cluck and tom/jerry/henri ladd
the multi-faced drunkard who make up conspiracies.
How's a person supposed to maintain a healthy perspective when
confronted with these blatantly lying idiots spewing their excrement
all over the screen?
'Splain how, chaplain. Gwan widja.
Besides my taunts are more like that french soldier on the parapet
insulting the crusaders in MP & the Holy Grail. At least I like to
aim for that, tho I usually fall short.
If anyone is feeling "insulted or marginalized" by my calling them a
lying piece of sliemy shit, it's only because I want them to be sure
they know in what low regard I hold them (if any).
>PKB, baby!
I'm neither the pot nor the kettle. I'm the Tarbaby and Ize already
black as coal from in front.
I admit it. I'm a bad example of my own philosophy.
Dennis
-----------------
"Everybody's doin' somethin'
I heard it in a dream
But when there's too much of nothing
It just makes a fella mean." - B Dylan
Out_Of_The_Dark
> barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >Are you fucking serious??? "Schoolyard taunts?" Say, aren't you the one
> >who is calling them names intended to insult and marginalize?
>
> It's hard to call them anything else: lermaniacs who make up shit for
> the newbies to gobble, sliemballs who make up shit to put stink, with
> innuendo and flat-out lies, on people who challenge words or their
> turf, raving lunatics like mrs cluck-cluck and tom/jerry/henri ladd
> the multi-faced drunkard who make up conspiracies.
>
> How's a person supposed to maintain a healthy perspective when
> confronted with these blatantly lying idiots spewing their excrement
> all over the screen?
>
> 'Splain how, chaplain. Gwan widja.
>
> Besides my taunts are more like that french soldier on the parapet
> insulting the crusaders in MP & the Holy Grail. At least I like to
> aim for that, tho I usually fall short.
>
> If anyone is feeling "insulted or marginalized" by my calling them a
> lying piece of sliemy shit, it's only because I want them to be sure
> they know in what low regard I hold them (if any).
>
> >PKB, baby!
>
> I'm neither the pot nor the kettle. I'm the Tarbaby and Ize already
> black as coal from in front.
>
> I admit it. I'm a bad example of my own philosophy.
>
> Dennis < <
Then definition you are what people call "a hypocrite"
Rasta Robert
> barb <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>But they are quick to admit it when it's pointed out that they're wrong,
>
> Not so much. Some still want to maintain the myths promulgated by
> such wackos and known liars as lerm and fish. In fact there are still
> those who think it's fine to spread outright falsehoods and mystical
> manipulation in their over-zealous campaigning against the cult.
>
Well, some regulars/'old time critics' hang on to the same whacky
mystical pseudoscientific pet theories for 10 years, after
repeatedly having pointed out to them that they propagate
unfounded ideas, but they seem unprepared to give them up
and call criticism and pointing out of their fallacies
as 'being attacked' and/or feeling hurt because their authority
gets dissed and they post the same thing over and over,
appearing to be stuck in some kind of mental loop.
Could be that I also partly see what I hope for too, but
seeing how quickly the likely to be fake OT8 from the
Fishman papers gets denounced after the controversy
around it got pointed out shows to a certain extent that
this is a developement in the generation that have grown
up with the online mix of information and disinformation,
have more flexibility, training in critical thinking and
picking up new info and discarding what turns out untrue
or highly questionable than those who didn't grow up
with Internet as a given from early age.
I like that trend, and it is a much needed change from
some of the stubbornness to integrate new information
and discard questionable stories and theories because
they either don't want to listen to new info, or think
that even if a story is not true, that it is still good
because it 'hurts the cult'or whatever the justification
is.
I do understand your concerns (and Monica's too), but
what I've seen up to now, for me tips the balance to
being optimistic about it and supports the idea that the
'worst case scenario' is not the most probable turn
of events. Advising and giving criticism and comments
in a constuctive way will be more productive than name
calling and pointing to worst case scenarios as if those
would be the only way things can develop. Pointing out the
possible pitfalls and traps is one thing, name calling
and putdowns seems to merely amuse them, as amongst themselves
they have practiced some 'bullbaiting training' that seems to
work much more effective than the bullbaiting TRs that
scientology does, in practice the scns are often very easy
to bait and tend to be a lot less able to keep their cool
when criticized or trolled by perceived 'SPs'.
For now I'm willing to give Anonymous the benefits
of the doubt, the february 10 demos/'raids' showed
thousands of well behaved protestors worldwide. So far,
so good, IMHO. Time will tell how things will work out.
RR
--
<http://rr.www.cistron.nl/> -!- <http://www.rr.dds.nl/>
<http://www.dread.demon.nl/>
Rev Dennis L Erlich
yhn
>> Not so much. Some still want to maintain the myths promulgated by
>> such wackos and known liars as lerm and fish. In fact there are still
>> those who think it's fine to spread outright falsehoods and mystical
>> manipulation in their over-zealous campaigning against the cult.
rr
>Well, some regulars/'old time critics' hang on to the same whacky
>mystical pseudoscientific pet theories for 10 years, after
>repeatedly having pointed out to them that they propagate
>unfounded ideas, but they seem unprepared to give them up
>and call criticism and pointing out of their fallacies
>as 'being attacked' and/or feeling hurt because their authority
>gets dissed and they post the same thing over and over,
>appearing to be stuck in some kind of mental loop.
Yup.
>Could be that I also partly see what I hope for too, but
>seeing how quickly the likely to be fake OT8 from the
>Fishman papers gets denounced after the controversy
>around it got pointed out shows to a certain extent that
>this is a developement in the generation that have grown
>up with the online mix of information and disinformation,
>have more flexibility, training in critical thinking and
>picking up new info and discarding what turns out untrue
>or highly questionable than those who didn't grow up
>with Internet as a given from early age.
Yup.
>I like that trend, and it is a much needed change from
>some of the stubbornness to integrate new information
>and discard questionable stories and theories because
>they either don't want to listen to new info, or think
>that even if a story is not true, that it is still good
>because it 'hurts the cult'or whatever the justification
>is.
I like it too.
>I do understand your concerns (and Monica's too), but
>what I've seen up to now, for me tips the balance to
>being optimistic about it and supports the idea that the
>'worst case scenario' is not the most probable turn
>of events.
I agree.
>Advising and giving criticism and comments
>in a constuctive way will be more productive than name
>calling and pointing to worst case scenarios as if those
>would be the only way things can develop.
True.
>Pointing out the
>possible pitfalls and traps is one thing, name calling
>and putdowns seems to merely amuse them, as amongst themselves
>they have practiced some 'bullbaiting training' that seems to
>work much more effective than the bullbaiting TRs that
>scientology does, in practice the scns are often very easy
>to bait and tend to be a lot less able to keep their cool
>when criticized or trolled by perceived 'SPs'.
Hmm.
>For now I'm willing to give Anonymous the benefits
>of the doubt, the february 10 demos/'raids' showed
>thousands of well behaved protestors worldwide. So far,
>so good, IMHO. Time will tell how things will work out.
Shorter sentences. Try using more periods.
D
Rasta Robert
> Shorter sentences. Try using more periods.
Thx for the writing/style tip. I'll try to keep it in mind.
barb
>
>> Are you fucking serious??? "Schoolyard taunts?" Say, aren't you the one
>> who is calling them names intended to insult and marginalize?
>
> It's hard to call them anything else: lermaniacs who make up shit for
> the newbies to gobble, sliemballs who make up shit to put stink, with
> innuendo and flat-out lies, on people who challenge words or their
> turf, raving lunatics like mrs cluck-cluck and tom/jerry/henri ladd
> the multi-faced drunkard who make up conspiracies.
>
> How's a person supposed to maintain a healthy perspective when
> confronted with these blatantly lying idiots spewing their excrement
> all over the screen?
>
> 'Splain how, chaplain. Gwan widja.
It's called 'thinking for yourself.' If you get rickrolled it's your
fault for being a gullible twit.
>
> Besides my taunts are more like that french soldier on the parapet
> insulting the crusaders in MP & the Holy Grail. At least I like to
> aim for that, tho I usually fall short.
Why are you responding to my post that was aimed at Monica Pinata? Are
you imagining yourself her knight in shining armor? (to continue the
Holy Grail theme)
>
> If anyone is feeling "insulted or marginalized" by my calling them a
> lying piece of sliemy shit, it's only because I want them to be sure
> they know in what low regard I hold them (if any).
>
>> PKB, baby!
>
> I'm neither the pot nor the kettle. I'm the Tarbaby and Ize already
> black as coal from in front.
>
Wasn't even talking to you, Tar. But thanks so much for jumping in when
you're not the subject.
> I admit it. I'm a bad example of my own philosophy.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> -----------------
>
> "Everybody's doin' somethin'
> I heard it in a dream
> But when there's too much of nothing
> It just makes a fella mean." - B Dylan
Rev Dennis L Erlich
yhn
>> How's a person supposed to maintain a healthy perspective when
>> confronted with these blatantly lying idiots spewing their excrement
>> all over the screen?
>> 'Splain how, chaplain. Gwan widja.
b
>It's called 'thinking for yourself.'
But wait. I thought I was defined by my social network. That means I
have to be associated with those drugged, drunken and sliemy
half-wits. It's enough to make a sensitive soul such as myself, lose
his lunch all over the k/bd.
>If you get rickrolled it's your
>fault for being a gullible twit.
I don't click on their links and rarely get lead down that garden path
so I'm not sure how rickrolling applies. But it sure is some young,
hip lingo you use these days. I can hardly keep up.
>> Besides my taunts are more like that french soldier on the parapet
>> insulting the crusaders in MP & the Holy Grail. At least I like to
>> aim for that, tho I usually fall short.
>
>Why are you responding to my post that was aimed at Monica Pinata?
She is acting as a dissident. So am I. I thought anyone can respond
as long as they have something pertinent to add.
>Are
>you imagining yourself her knight in shining armor? (to continue the
>Holy Grail theme)
Not hardly. I don't approve of her approach to denigrate the efforts
of the nonys, but I will certainly defend her right to have her ideas
heard in this forum ... offensive or not.
>> If anyone is feeling "insulted or marginalized" by my calling them a
>> lying piece of sliemy shit, it's only because I want them to be sure
>> they know in what low regard I hold them (if any).
>>
>>> PKB, baby!
>>
>> I'm neither the pot nor the kettle. I'm the Tarbaby and Ize already
>> black as coal from in front.
>>
>Wasn't even talking to you, Tar.
Oh, it looked like you were referring to my name calling and such. I
was just confessing my "epicfail" in advance using a patented
epic-ack. Thus saving you youngunz the trouble.
>But thanks so much for jumping in when
>you're not the subject.
Any time I feel like it. Take that to the bank.
Henri Ladd
> barb <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>But thanks so much for jumping in when
>>you're not the subject.
>
>
> Any time I feel like it. Take that to the bank.
>
> D
Here, I will have to admit Reverend Erlich, that you are the expert on
taking participation in this newsgroup, "to the bank".
Did you ever confirm that the amount you received in your secret
settlement with the Church of Scientology was for $2.5 million?
And by the way I meant to ask you, did you ever sign any documents
saying the Church of Scientology's copyrights were valid?
It's no wonder that you will never say anything critical concerning the
Church of Scientology, or its leaders, or even attribute links in your
posts to critical material of the Church of Scientology. No indeed, your
only target is critics of the Church of Scientology, and those anonymous
members who seemed to be a thorn in the cult's side.
You indeed are the expert here on taking it to the bank, even though you
may have to continue taking it to the bank once every month.
Friendly Xenu
>On 2008-02-19, Rev Dennis L Erlich <info...@informer.org> wrote:
>> Shorter sentences. Try using more periods.
>Thx for the writing/style tip. I'll try to keep it in mind.
Ug. I can't stand legitimate authors that write using short sentences
with periods when commas should be used. It's a writing style that's
common among High School freshmen before learning how to keep the words
flowing. Michael Ctriton writes that way and his books are impossible
for a lot of literate people to read.
---
"The scientology OT's are just waiting for more anons to gather march
15th so they can fry them like bugs with their minds in a massive
demonstration of their ***awesome power***. We will see who LAUGHS
then. Ha!" -- Phil Scott
Rev Dennis L Erlich
>Ug. I can't stand legitimate authors that write using short sentences
>with periods when commas should be used. It's a writing style that's
>common among High School freshmen before learning how to keep the words
>flowing. Michael Ctriton writes that way and his books are impossible
>for a lot of literate people to read.
rasta:
>>Could be that I also partly see what I hope for too, but
>>seeing how quickly the likely to be fake OT8 from the
>>Fishman papers gets denounced after the controversy
>>around it got pointed out shows to a certain extent that
>>this is a developement in the generation that have grown
>>up with the online mix of information and disinformation,
>>have more flexibility, training in critical thinking and
>>picking up new info and discarding what turns out untrue
>>or highly questionable than those who didn't grow up
>>with Internet as a given from early age.
He could have used several periods in the above. That's all I'm
pointing out.
D
Piltdown Man
t_shuffle <thorazin...@gmail.com> wrote...
<snip>
> > Not that I don't appreciate a tribute thread with my
> > pseudonym in the title, but what "time and effort" are
> > you talking about? The time and effort involved in making
> > the occasional post to a newsgroup?
>
> Seems you recently made a few 'occasional' posts to this group, all at
> once, and all in one thread.
Perhaps you don't understand how this medium called a newsgroup works. One
isn't required to dash off replies to every post one sees, in lots of
different threads, and then immediately send them off. One is allowed to
pick and choose, perhaps only look into a newsgroup two or three times a
week, and write some replies to the few posts that take one's interest. One
is then allowed to think about them for a bit before sending them off. This
can result in several posts appearing with the same timestamp all at once.
That doesn't mean they've all been written at once.
<snip>
> I couldn't give a shit less if you and her are friends, or even like
> each other. Doesn't matter.
You care so little about it all that you started a whole new thread about
the both of us, which you gave the title "Monica Pignotti, Piltdown Man",
and made several other contributions to. That must have taken you quite a
bit of time and effort, mustn't it?
> You both chose to spit on this movement. Where you had the
> opportunity to embrace and advise these people,
> you instead chose to shit on them. For that, fuck you
How would I know which people I should "embrace" or "advise"? They're
anonymous, remember? So they keep telling us.
More importantly, *why* should I want to do so, or why would they want this
"embrace" or "advice" from me? All I've seen so far is yet another standard
internet clique/fad, with their own inevitable jargon, who from their
presence in ARS sound exactly like every other one of these tiring cliques
I've seen passing over the years. Some of them got together to organise
pickets. I'm sure many of them had a nice day out doing that, but I don't
think pickets serve any useful purpose whoever organises them.
But I do think I get your general principles. You're allowed to spit and
shit (to borrow your eloquent terminology) on anyone you don't like. Other
people aren't allowed to offer comments on people you do like.
> > How either of us could possibly "take the wind out of the
> > sails of this latest movement" is beyond me. You seem to
> > be ascribing wondrous magical powers to two people who've
> > never even met, who've never even exchanged so much as an
> > email. Yet somehow, the two of us, thrown together in
> > this unholy alliance you've just made up, are capable of
> > taking the winds out of the sails of an entire
> > "movement". Thousands upon thousands of anonymouses will
> > be converging upon Scientology, to destroy that evil cult
> > once and for all, on February 10th. Oops, sorry, that was
> > last week (forgive me for having a memory that goes
> > further back than a month). It's been rescheduled for
> > March 15th now. CAN ANYONE STOP THEM? Well, yes,
> > apparently. I can, together with Monica Pignotti. All I
> > takes is for us to dash off some posts to ARS. And to do
> > so, we don't even have to use idiotic terms like "epic
> > FAIL", "lulz", or "butthurt" in those posts, or address
> > other people as "fags" all the time.
> >
> > Come to think of it: perhaps Monica and I have those OT
> > powers I've been hearing so much about?
>
> It's not that you are in any way capable of taking the wind out their
> sails. You're not. It's the fact that you tried.
How clever of you to discover that that is what Monica and I were trying to
do. All along, I tried to pretend I was just expressing personal opinions
on a newsgroup. But you saw right through me! I was making a failed attempt
to destroy a whole *movement*! (in concert with Monica of course, who I
don't know. But I'm sure you can read her mind with the same proficiency
you can mine.)
Now that we've got that out of the way: tell me, what does "Anonymous"
think about the big media storm about cults in general and Scientology in
particular that has blown up in France over the past two days, reaching
right up to the Presidency? Surely, this mighty, worldwide, "Anonymous"
movement must have interesting insights to offer on that? Or are they just
too busy with other more important things, so they don't notice any *real*
news about Scientology?
henri
wrote:
>Now that we've got that out of the way: tell me, what does "Anonymous"
>think about the big media storm about cults in general and Scientology in
>particular that has blown up in France over the past two days, reaching
>right up to the Presidency? Surely, this mighty, worldwide, "Anonymous"
>movement must have interesting insights to offer on that? Or are they just
>too busy with other more important things, so they don't notice any *real*
>news about Scientology?
Indeed. There are 23 whole articles about France and Scientology.
http://tinyurl.com/yphyvs
News results Results 1 - 21 of about 23 for scientology france. (0.09
seconds)
Certainly nothing compared to those Anonymous nobodies.
http://tinyurl.com/2aa8ub
Results 1 - 100 of about 344 for scientology anonymous. (0.14 seconds)
The Intarwebs seem to have their own opinions of the relative importance of
these things.
And three of the France hits are also about Anonymous.
http://tinyurl.com/3x4e8a
News results Results 1 - 3 of 3 for scientology france anonymous. (0.21
seconds)
And not to disparage real news about Scientology, but as much bluster and
noise as I've heard over the years from new critics, many generations of whom
have come here to strut and fret their hours upon the stage and then be
heard no more, that they will have Scientology destroyed utterly by next
Thursday at 2:00 p.m. and then there will be pie, ultimately I've seen a lot
more actual results from Internet activists than I have from governments
and impotent calls to ban Scientology, which would be unavailing even if
they succeeded.
While it's nice that it raises the issue of cults, banning Scientology is really
a wrongheaded way to go about things, when if there is any legislation needed
at all, it is narrowly focused legislation on particular practices shared by
many fraudulent religious organizations, and poor tax exemption strategy
that allows entities to operate essentially for a profit while under the
umbrella that protects religious entities that don't do this. Even legitimate
religions are degraded by this, because it creates strong incentives for
creative accounting even in churches that would otherwise not be tempted
to game the system.
Even if I agreed with your contention that picketing is of zero utility,
it would still be more useful than attempts to ban Scientology, which
actually have negative utility. Much more than protests, ban attempts
create an image of Scientology as a persecuted minority religion.
Moreover, that image is actually CORRECT in the case of ban attempts.
Further, I'm sure that Anon is aware of the French actions. A quick
search of the forums on http://forums.enturbulation.org reveals
33 articles mentioning France. This is more than can be said
about ars, so if anyone can be fairly accused of ignoring France,
it's us.
Piltdown Man
henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote...
<snip>
> And not to disparage real news about Scientology, but as much bluster
> and noise as I've heard over the years from new critics, many
> generations of whom have come here to strut and fret their hours upon
> the stage and then be heard no more, that they will have Scientology
> destroyed utterly by next Thursday at 2:00 p.m. and then there will
> be pie,
Excited announcements about the collapse of Scientology come next Thursday,
thanks to the wonder that is the internet, have been a recurring motif of
ARS for as long as I've been reading it.
> ultimately I've seen a lot
> more actual results from Internet activists than I have from governments
> and impotent calls to ban Scientology, which would be unavailing even if
> they succeeded.
>
> While it's nice that it raises the issue of cults, banning Scientology is
> really a wrongheaded way to go about things, when if there is any
> legislation needed at all, it is narrowly focused legislation on
> particular practices shared by many fraudulent religious organizations,
> and poor tax exemption strategy that allows entities to operate
> essentially for a profit while under the umbrella that protects religious
> entities that don't do this. Even legitimate religions are degraded by
> this, because it creates strong incentives for creative accounting even
> in churches that would otherwise not be tempted to game the system.
These are exactly the kinds of issues raised in the current French public
debate about cults, and how the state is to deal with them and with
religion in general.
> Even if I agreed with your contention that picketing is of zero utility,
> it would still be more useful than attempts to ban Scientology, which
> actually have negative utility. Much more than protests, ban attempts
> create an image of Scientology as a persecuted minority religion.
> Moreover, that image is actually CORRECT in the case of ban attempts.
>
> Further, I'm sure that Anon is aware of the French actions.
Which nonnies are aware of what French actions? A loosely defined bunch of
individuals cannot be aware of anything in the first place, and there are
no "actions". I'm talking about the media debate that arose because of some
comments of one of president Sarkozy's closest aides on the general subject
of cults, using Scientology as her example. It even got our very own Roger
Gonnet on prime-time TV again, in the main evening news on France 2 (and
perhaps other places, but that's the one I saw him on).
> A quick
> search of the forums on http://forums.enturbulation.org reveals
> 33 articles mentioning France. This is more than can be said
> about ars, so if anyone can be fairly accused of ignoring France,
> it's us.
How many of those articles mention what I'm talking about? I tried to look
at it myself, but I can only take so much of this annoying "Anonymous"
crap. My guess is on none. After all, there are very few "epic lulz" to be
had in discussing such a matter, especially not among the kind of people
who think "David Miscavige likes to fuck DEAD goats" is the height of wit.
sensiblysane
Wellll, David Miscavige DOES like to fuck Dead goats...that wasn't
wit...that is DM...we've all seen his file...and you thought those
were secret!!!
Eldon
> On 22 Feb 2008 13:08:51 GMT, "Piltdown Man" <piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry>
> wrote:
>
> >Now that we've got that out of the way: tell me, what does "Anonymous"
> >think about the big media storm about cults in general and Scientology in
> >particular that has blown up in France over the past two days, reaching
> >right up to the Presidency? Surely, this mighty, worldwide, "Anonymous"
> >movement must have interesting insights to offer on that? Or are they just
> >too busy with other more important things, so they don't notice any *real*
> >news about Scientology?
>
> Indeed. There are 23 whole articles about France and Scientology.
Here's an intelligent commentary from the Guardian UK:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/agnes_poirier/2008/02/vive_la_laicite.html
Vive la laïcité!
President Nicolas Sarkozy's plan for 'positive secularism' will be
fought by the French - and rightly so
Agnes Poirier
February 13, 2008
We thought we'd always be spared the kind of ideological turmoil
Britain and Turkey have known in the last few days. It is indeed
extremely difficult, almost impossible, to imagine the archbishop of
Paris suggesting "a helpful interaction between the courts and the
practice of Muslim legal scholars" as Rowan Williams did in Britain.
And just as difficult to envisage the French government allowing
religious symbols to be worn in schools, as Turkey did last week,
overturning the country's constitution.
In France, an overwhelming majority prides themselves on the hard-
fought 1905 law of separation between church and state, a law that is
crystal clear. France doesn't recognise any religion in particular but
protects them all. Religious beliefs have no room in public spaces and
debates. Only reason should prevail. No passe-droit nor any specific
rights should be given to anyone on the ground of their religion.
Sunday's meeting in Paris around Ayaan Hirsi Ali seemed to prove
France's status as the bastion of secularism. She is living under
constant death threats from religious fundamentalists. French
intellectuals and politicians have asked that she be given French
nationality and that France pay for her security after her country,
Holland, stopped guaranteeing her round-the-clock protection.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yphyvs
> News results Results 1 - 21 of about 23 for scientology france. (0.09
> seconds)
>
> Certainly nothing compared to those Anonymous nobodies.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2aa8ub
> Results 1 - 100 of about 344 for scientology anonymous. (0.14 seconds)
>
> The Intarwebs seem to have their own opinions of the relative importance of
> these things.
>
> And three of the France hits are also about Anonymous.http://tinyurl.com/3x4e8a