I don't have a comment on the article, but the thread title just got more dramatic, going from War Declared on Scientoloy to -- War Declared on Scientology --
Might I suggest, to really kick it up a notch:
!/+\! War Decalared on Scientology !/+\!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I... I think I'm in love.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Reddit has been bombarded with anti-Scientology articles/videos recently.
Also, 4chan is not really a hacker society.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have been enormously bored by the whole Scientology thing. It's made many of my news feeds more tedious already.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Anyone who's giving Scientology crap is a de facto friend of mine.
Posted by Pepek (Member # 3773) on :
..
what is Scientology doing that's so negative?
out of curiousity. I thought it was just a 'fun'/'fake' religion that got a little out of hand..
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Seriously Pepek, I laughed for a solid minute when I saw you changed the thread title again.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, it's a fake religion that forbids people who sign up with it from getting medical treatment for psychological disorders. Because they deal with psychological disorders, the adherents are not in the same realm of conscientious objection that Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists are. So on the extreme end, they have killed at least one person who they put in a lockdown until they would respond to written messages.
In the heavily edited Tom Cruise video on KSW (Keep Scientology Working) the idea he grappling with is the iron-clad commitment to the principles of scientology and the admission of no other ideas. KSW also establishes that Hubbard was the only person with the right idea about anything, and that everyone must conform to what he says.
At least, this is what I picked up from poking around links from Gawker last week. I had also had the idea that the wiccan ethic should apply to Scientology, but they are in some very deep stuff. I don't know that it's even actively deceptive or malevolent. But their resort to lawsuits and information sabotage concerns me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pepek: what is Scientology doing that's so negative?
Read this. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
What makes something a fake religion? Hubbard basically admitted that Scientology was wrong but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who take it seriously.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Huh. So this is what happens when two groups of jerks collide.
Also, check out wikinews link. If you've watched the original Tom Cruise video...that was part of a 3-hour event
It is also worth checking out the Jerry O'Connell video at link
Hey, it gives him something to do after Sliders ended Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Man, I've been waiting for exactly this.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: what is Scientology doing that's so negative
I thought it was pretty harmless until I started investigating it, but it's more cultish than religious in its... invasion of your life and mind.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
"We are for total freedom! [except for people to walk down public streets into events that say all welcome...]"
One hears such things about Scientology... Including higher-ups putting blocking software onto adherents computers to prevent them from accessing articles critical of Scientology... That I rather suspect the description "cult" is not terribly inaccurate.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Personally I'm hoping that the Rev. Fred Phelps' group would be offended enough by Scientology that he'd take them on. I think the battle of lawsuits, picketing and namecalling would force me to explode from schaudenfrade.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Personally I'm hoping that the Rev. Fred Phelps' group would be offended enough by Scientology that he'd take them on. I think the battle of lawsuits, picketing and namecalling would force me to explode from schaudenfrade.
all hail Lord Xenu! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:One hears such things about Scientology... Including higher-ups putting blocking software onto adherents computers to prevent them from accessing articles critical of Scientology... That I rather suspect the description "cult" is not terribly inaccurate.
Scientology very literally teaches its followers that there is no way that anyone who is attacking Scientology is doing so for any reason other than them hiding terrible crimes.
Which is why, despite the fact that these people who followed the cameraman to harass him with scientology jargon like "enturbulate" didn't even know who Lisa McPherson was, their only response was to turn the discussion consistently towards asking him what his crime was. My favorite part was where one of them was saying i bet he's a child molester. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I don't understand why we are talking about it. So, a group takes money and in return makes people feel special about believing in aliens.
The Doctor Who exhibit has been going in Cardiff, Wales for years now, and it has a better-looking star. No big deal.
[ January 25, 2008, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think a lot of the worry arises from people whose family members get involved in scientology and kind of disappear from their lives.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I don't understand why we are talking about it. So, a group takes money and in return makes people feel special about believing in aliens.
The Doctor Who exhibit has been going in Cardiff, Wales for years now, and it has a better-looking star. No big deal.
That's a dangerously oversimplistic summary of what Scientology does.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oversimplistic, sure, but what makes it dangerous?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Because it ignores all the things that Scientology does that are dangerous, such as forcing members to cut off contact with their family and friends, and undergo a series of expensive 'treatments' which are nothing more than brainwashings. Just to name two things off the top of my head.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Hmm...I think that if people are adults, then they generally aren't being forced. Children, sure, but adults are responsible for themselves.
Basically, I don't really believe in brainwashing - I don't believe it exists nearly as often as it is purported to. If someone is a prisoner of war, sure, but a functioning adult with a job and a car? They may be taken advantage of, but generally when they do stupid and hurtful things, it's under their own volition. Even if Tom Cruise told them to do it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
If you don't think adults are capable of being forced into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do I don't know how I can explain it to you.
Your attitude about Scientology (which presumably extends to other cults) is nearly as dangerous as their attitude towards the rest of society. I don't know if it stems from ignorance or apathy, but either way it worries me.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Okay, anon's endeavor is becoming so epic I forgive all the pictures of cats set on fire posted in /b/.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
There's no kidnapping, right? Adults enter the centers, choose to pay the money to get whatever, and can leave without getting a hit put out on them?
If the above isn't true, why aren't they being prosecuted? That's not a rhetorical question - is there any proof of a conspiracy that protects them?
Persuaded to do things they wouldn't otherwise? Sure. Encouraged to make stupid decisions? Definitely. Cajoled by people who claim to have their best interests at heart but secretly want their money? Of course - I have several store credit cards with zero balance but apparently never-ending life that can attest to that.
But none of that is brainwashing.
Force = blackmail, physical force, holding things ransom - things like that. What, exactly, does Scientology do that forces people to get involved?
I think it's lame and the people who give them money are suckers, but I think the same about gambling and those who bought an iPhone in the first three weeks.
I don't think Scientology is actually good, but that's different from being a criminal brainwashing organization.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I used to feel as you do, JH, but read up on KSW.
It's not criminal, but it is an institution that perpetrates evil without the perpetrators even knowing they are perpetrating evil, because they have turned their will over to this organization.
I find the idea that they believe they are doing good to be more frightening than if it were a deliberate fraud.
There is good it Scientology, just like there was good in Darth Vader. You know, even though he slaughtered all the Jedi kids and all that.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Did you see Juxtapose's link? With the woman who went in for 'introspection' or whatever, who came out dead, showing signs of severe dehydration and not having had food for a long time. And covered with cockroach bites?
So now people have to sign a waiver before they go in the box. O_O
Like most religions, it can be dangerous. (Though I have to agree about Doctor Who. )
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I don't know what KSW is.
-----
"Brainwashing" isn't an actualy scientific term. It's popularly bandied about when people make choices, especially religious choices, that are different from what they were before, but that doesn't mean it's a real thing. Even hypnotism can't force people to do something they are strongly opposed to doing.
What, exactly, do they do to "brainwash" someone? Give them friends, a place where they feel special, and tell them stories of aliens? Maybe satisfy social and spiritual needs more than the life they were living before did? And then ask for money in return? I don't approve of telling lies, however well intentioned, and, like I said, I think Scientology is lame, but BRAINWASHING? I can't help but think of Zoolander.
---
Yes, I read the link. Very sincere question: Why weren't they prosecuted for kidnapping? Holding someone against their will is against the law. Why wasn't this a criminal case?
Wikipedia basically accuses the Scientologists of holding her against her will as they starved her and set cockroaches on her. That's definitely illegal - so what's up? Is there a source on that that isn't hearsay?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
They were charged with "abuse and/or neglect of a disabled adult and practicing medicine without a license". Those charges were dropped. Why that happened is a matter of some controversy.
My link wasn't meant to say "THEY KILLED HER!!!" though I see why you would think that. It's more to say, "here's something they do which is cruel, potentially dangerous, and practiced by people who very likely do not have relevant training."
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I read the chapters on the guy's personal story in A Piece of Blue Sky, which was linked above. The introduction into Scientology apparently involves mediating for hours, and the guy experienced hallucinations. Sensory deprivation, lack of sleep, people yelling at you -- these can overwhelm a person, leaving him or her surprisingly malleable. I've been surprised at how open to suggestion I can be when I'm impaired from lack of sleep or skipping a meal. I remember an incident from my childhood where I was beginning to suffer from being too hot and dehydrated, and I chose a less-favored option over a more-favored option simply because I couldn't seem to express what I wanted and someone asked if I'd like the first option. It's a really mild example, but I definitely believe that you can exert a lot of force with the right levers. It's not the friendly people and funny stories that does it, I think. It's the hours of repetitive exercises and meditation that tamper with a person's ability to think for himself or herself.
Also, I don't see "brainwashing" as referring to a wiping of a person's mind or personality. Brainwashed people are not robots. It's just a surrender of the will to a person or organization to the degree that the person doesn't question anything and reality is ignored if it conflicts with the accepted authority.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Unless people constantly live in the compound and have all their food and senses dictated by the organization, then they are picking it. I grant that brainwashing exists for POWs and such for just that reason, but it looks like Scientologists can go home at night and then choose to come back the next day.
If that isn't true, I'd like to know why they are not regularly prosecuted for kidnapping. If it is true, then the adults are choosing it. Freedom of religion applies even when the religion is lame.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:That's definitely illegal - so what's up? Is there a source on that that isn't hearsay?
It's funny, that's how scientologist are trained to respond to questions.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Most religions are lame. I could care less about 'lame'.
Scientology is dangerous.
I can see an LDS member not wanting the term 'cult' to be applied to a religion with strange practices, but there's really nothing to fear here. Scientology is way out in left field.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Being LDS has probably made me more sensitive to the use of the word "cult," but it doesn't mean I'm wrong here.
I agree about the left field. I agree it's weird and I think it's all about money. I don't agree that that makes it dangerous - at least, not anymore dangerous than casinos with no clocks and that curious obsession with sailboats men from landlocked states seem to develop.
I'm not being rhetorical in asking why there aren't more prosecutions. I'm not trying to prove a point. I'm sincerely asking why, if followers are being held against their will and deprived of food and water, there are not legal ramifications for it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:it looks like Scientologists can go home at night and then choose to come back the next day.
Why would that matter?
If someone is "brainwashed" by participating in an activity that they have choosen to do, how does that make them any less brainwashed?
---
edit: As an aside, there have been a couple of statements here that seem to me to be blatantly against the TOS. Do the powers that be not consider Scientology to fit under the not mocking others' religious beliefs?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No one has established that brainwashing took place in the first place.
I think part of the freedom of religion is the freedom to take part in dumb religions that only want members for their money.
Edit: Squick, if you feel a post should not be there, the appropriate action is to whistle it. That way Pops doesn't have to constantly read every post on the board.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I think part of the freedom of religion is the freedom to take part in dumb religions that only want members for their money.
Fair enough. I guess what I'm reacting to is looking at scientology and seeing a lot of truth in it and trying to figure out where it went so wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have to agree with kat here. Scientology is weird. There is much evidence that its based on fraud and the leaders are out to get rich, nothing more.
But scientology has been around for more the 50 years, if they were really that dangerous -- I'd expect a smoking gun by now and one story about a person who died while in one of their sessions but where all charges of abuse were dropped just doesn't qualify.
In Montana, neighboring yellowstone there is a community belonging to the Church Universal and Triumphant. There are regularly accused of being a dangerous cult who brainwash their followers. While their beliefs are definitely more than 2 standard deviations off the mean, I never saw any evidence that they were dangerous or that members weren't fully competent to exercise their will. I actually knew one member reasonably well. She was bright, intelligent, ran an excellent school and I saw no reason to believe that she had been "brainwashed".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No one has established that brainwashing took place in the first place.
No, they've just established that situations that have been proven to make some people highly suggestible are part of the introduction to Scientology. You countered that this doesn't matter because people choose to do it and choose to return. I don't see how them choosing to go and return to these activities invalidates the idea that their later decisions are highly affected by the (in most cases) unsought effects of this process.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Being influenced is not the same as being brainwashed.
If that were the case, then Madison Avenue and yoga classes would be illegal.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So what standards apply to determining whether something is a religion and entitled to protection under the constitution?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Ah, my old friend Anonymous. Well, look, this is dumb.
Anonymous is not capable of doing anything serious to the church of Scientology. At best they may make a minor nuisance of themselves before losing interest and moving on to other things.
Don't get me wrong -- some of these people are smart people and the chaos they create can be mystifying.
But they have no mission.
I have no real problem with Scientology; pick your poision.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
For me, the (main) problem isn't brainwashing.
The problem is, in a word, fraud. Among other things, they claim to be able to treat people with severe mental illnesses. As far as I know, they are not licensed to do so, nor are they trained in any methods that have been evaluated by professionals. Whether this is legal or not, I don't know. I do know that the Church of Scientology uses scare tactics and Phelpsian litigation* to go after people who go against them. Legal or not, it's all very unethical.
*Maybe Phelps uses Scientological litigation?
Off to work now! Hope you aren't all brainwashed by the time I get back. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No, they've just established that situations that have been proven to make some people highly suggestible are part of the introduction to Scientology
I sincerely doubt that this has been established.
according to Wikipedia:
quote:In 1987, the The American Psychological Association (APA) Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the brainwashing theories as "lack[ing] the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur".
quote:. . . for twenty years, starting in the early 1950s, the CIA and the Defense Department conducted secret research (notably including Project MKULTRA) in an attempt to develop practical brainwashing techniques (possibly to counteract the brainwashing efforts of the Chinese), and that their attempt failed.
quote:The controversy about the existence of cultic brainwashing has become one of the most polarizing issues among cult-followers, academic researchers of cults, and cult-critics. Parties disagree about the existence of a social process attempting coercive influence, and also disagree about the existence of the social outcome — that people become influenced against their will.
So it seems that the claim that anything has been "established" about brainwashing within cults or other organizations is an overstatement.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rabbit, In the statement you quoted:
quote:No, they've just established that situations that have been proven to make some people highly suggestible are part of the introduction to Scientology
I wasn't talking about brainwashing, but rather about "situations that have been proven to make some people highly suggestible".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Being influenced is not the same as being brainwashed.
That very much depends on what level of influence and what you are using as your definition of brainwashing.
Regardless of what you call it, the degree of influence that can be wielded over many people when they are a suggestible state created by the techniques described throws serious doubt over the idea that they are freely choosing their actions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:situations that have been proven to make some people highly suggestible
My brief research indicates that "proven" is an overstatement of the facts.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The LDS church circulated a letter around 2001 cautioning people about involvement with secular self improvement groups. Some of the techniques they warned about were the encouragement of divulgence of private experiences, unnaturally close bonds with non-family members, sleep deprivation. Those were the main ones I recall.
I guess there's no standard to being called a religion, if one wants to go through the legal channels of declaring a religion. But if we don't know what is a religion, how can we keep it out of our schools?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:My brief research indicates that "proven" is an overstatement of the facts.
In what way? Surely none of what you posted indicates this.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:. . . for twenty years, starting in the early 1950s, the CIA and the Defense Department conducted secret research (notably including Project MKULTRA) in an attempt to develop practical brainwashing techniques (possibly to counteract the brainwashing efforts of the Chinese), and that their attempt failed.
What brainwashing?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Regardless of what you call it, the degree of influence that can be wielded over many people when they are a suggestible state created by the techniques described throws serious doubt over the idea that they are freely choosing their actions.
But that is precisely what is highly controversial. If you said that some research indicates that these techniques can cause some people to be in a highly suggestible state -- that would be valid. But this is far from proven. In fact it is highly controversial.
Suppose you go to a party. You are surrounded by people who are friendly and accepting, they flatter you, there is loud music being played, the lights are dim, you are given some alcohol, it gets to be 2 AM. All of those are things which can put people at least some people in a highly suggestible state. At this point, if some one suggests a gang rape, would you seriously doubt that the participants were able to freely choose there actions?
What do you see as the defining significant difference between my scenario and what goes on in religious cults? Is there a clear point at which people are no longer free to choose and therefore not responsible for their behavior? If so, where is that line.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But that is precisely what is highly controversial. If you said that some research indicates that these techniques can cause some people to be in a highly suggestible state -- that would be valid. But this is far from proven. In fact it is highly controversial.
No, it isn't. The high suggestibility is strongly supported and none of what you posted contradicts this. The contraversy with brainwashing theories is based on the level of control possible and especially the longevity of the influence.
---
quote:Is there a clear point at which people are no longer free to choose and therefore not responsible for their behavior? If so, where is that line.
A clear line? Not that I'd want to stake out. There are, however, degrees of diminished responsiblity and conscious control.
Can you hold someone responsible for acting on post-hypnotic suggestions?
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Without taking a side on Scientology itself, it's generally considered a religion. There's probably a line somewhere between disparaging a religion for its claims and disparaging an adherent of a religion for his beliefs, but that's a fuzzy line, and I'd rather we stay entirely to one side of it.
The original topic was a news story. Discussion on that topic is welcome. To misquote another thread, "Participants are capable of going a long way without using epithets. There is no reason to begin now." I ask that you endeavor to tread lightly.
[Edit -- this does not mean that discussion is limited to the original post. Thread drift happens, and it's fine.]
--PJ
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Can you hold someone responsible for acting on post-hypnotic suggestions?
I believe that the answer to that question, at least from the stand point of US law, is yes.
Dag, Can you verify?
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
ONWARDS WITH PROJECT CHANOLOGY!
My fellow Hatrackers. I'll be your guide in this magic carpet ride through the wonders that this war is and what it means.
First of all, I'd appreciate it if the OP to would be kind enough to c/p the list I included on the bottom, since it's stuff that's crucial to this whole thing.
First of all, I need you guys to understand what the concept of Anonymous is all about. Like they say, it's everyone and no one at the same time. It's not just 4channers, ebaumsworld, Gaiaonline, 'furries', hackers, 711channers, gamefaqers, SomethingAweful, etc. It's pretty much anyone that wants to do something. Meaning, that Anonymous is not just a 'group' or a 'bunch', it's a whole identity and a whole institution composed of thousands of people, perhaps even millions.
For once, they are doing something that can actually have an deep impact on society. It's not just about Habbo Hotel, or Faux News. They're not just doing it for the lulz, the simple fun of it. They're doing it for the world. And for once, the Cult of Scientology, is faced with an adversary they can't ignore or threaten with a lawlsuit or death.
This will be EPIC.
Now, I have some reading material for you peoplez, so make sure you know what's going on. Project Chanology FTFW.
Links of UTTER importance: Why are they Dead?<-- The site Anonymous is trying to promote as much as possible.
Death to Lord Xenu! The Masses must be freed from their chains!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Blayne, Did you not just read what Papa said?
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Death to Lord Xenu! The Masses must be freed from their chains!
Dude, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.
It's HAIL Lawd Xenu. He's the last boss in the Scientology MMORPG, 'member?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Putting aside specific ill-doing, Scientology seems to tell its adherents that it's the [only] solution to many of their problems, cadge money from them, and enforce ideas (such as the wrongness of use of antidepressants) that may be actively harmful to them.
When you combine that with a history of fanatical and pathological willingness to take extreme measures to intimidate and silence those who are critical of the Church, how can you have anything but poison?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I am no friend of Scientology, or any religion for that matter. But supporting the extra-legal tactics that Anonymous uses will compromise the ability to object when they turn those tactics on their next target. Perhaps they will take a dislike to Hatrack or decide it is really the Mormons that they disagree with.
There are very good reasons to oppose vigilantism even if you don't like their target. Eventually, the guys dressed in sheets arrive on your lawn too...
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: I am no friend of Scientology, or any religion for that matter. But supporting the extra-legal tactics that Anonymous uses will compromise the ability to object when they turn those tactics on their next target. Perhaps they will take a dislike to Hatrack or decide it is really the Mormons that they disagree with.
There are very good reasons to oppose vigilantism even if you don't like their target. Eventually, the guys dressed in sheets arrive on your lawn too...
Objecting to Anonymous is purely symbolic. There is no membership in Anonymous. Anonymous will exist as long as human nature remains the way it is.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Or until everyone gets bored with it, like all other internet phenomena. You know, whichever.
--Enigmatic
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Ah, my old friend Anonymous. Well, look, this is dumb.
Anonymous is not capable of doing anything serious to the church of Scientology. At best they may make a minor nuisance of themselves before losing interest and moving on to other things.
Don't get me wrong -- some of these people are smart people and the chaos they create can be mystifying.
But they have no mission.
I have no real problem with Scientology; pick your poision.
I think you underestimate anon. "They've" taken out people before "losing interest". Not that any of those targets are as enormous as Scientology.
Though I wrote this before reading Atarbabel's post which I feel kinda weird about, never thought I'd see someone pimping intimate details of raids like this on Hatrack. Of course things have just become weirder and weirder since I heard a Fox reporter use the phrase "truly epic lulz".
quote:I am no friend of Scientology, or any religion for that matter. But supporting the extra-legal tactics that Anonymous uses will compromise the ability to object when they turn those tactics on their next target. Perhaps they will take a dislike to Hatrack or decide it is really the Mormons that they disagree with.
Lurk moar, etc.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I think you underestimate anon. "They've" taken out people before "losing interest".
I suspect that if you think Anonymous is capable of systematically dismantling an organization as large as the Church of Scientology, you are vastly overestimating their capabilities. This is a little different than prank-calling Tom Green until he stops taking calls or pulling salacious pics of a teenage girl off a back-end of photobucket and emailing them to her parents or threatening to kill Hal Turner's wife or sending pizzas to his house or coordinating a denial of service attack on some website.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Just a little bit different.....
Scientology fought the IRS to a standstill, for heaven's sake.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Well, then we agree, that would be overestimating. I guess I did give off that vibe.
It's ignorant (or something less insulty) to say "at best they would make..." You do make it sound like there's no pride or dedication, just something to do before and after other things on some random day.
I wouldn't be surprised if Anonymous accomplishes something significant with this. I pretty much expect it. And it will be really funny.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:It's ignorant (or something less insulty) to say "at best they would make..."
Ignorant in what sense? I'm ill-informed or I'm a jerk? If the former.....no. If the latter, I don't know what to say.
I mean, look -- I'm not insulting anybody, here. Don't take it defensively.
I'm saying, first of all: be realistic in your expectations.
Second: If you gain some kind of self-satisfaction or sense of identity (for pete's sake) or pride from the activities of Anonymous, I've got to suggest, as humbly as I can, that... ...that is a very mistaken path. Being easily led to should not be a source of pride.
Forgive. Forget. Why not?
[ January 26, 2008, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: TL ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It's not just 4channers, ebaumsworld, Gaiaonline, 'furries', hackers, 711channers, gamefaqers, SomethingAweful, etc.
No, it pretty much is. The thing is, the social rejects in those groups think that anyone or anything worth caring about are already in those groups.
(In fact, to be harsh, I'd eliminate "hackers" from that list. Any "hacker" who considers himself a member of "Anonymous" is already a member of one of the other groups on the list, and just happens to also be a hacker.)
quote: You do make it sound like there's no pride or dedication, just something to do before and after other things on some random day.
There's lots of pride. There's no dedication. It's all about choosing to be the biggest griefer in the littlest pond. If they took it seriously, it would be possible to actually hurt them. As it is, Anonymous is the world's most annoying pudding; it is hard to overstate how awesomely, historically lame they are.
[ January 26, 2008, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
TL - No no, I'm not trying to fling at'cha, I couldn't come up with a different word. So we just have different perspectives on the same info, or something.
I don't Anonymous, I just lurk, and lol when it is there to had-ed. I'm more in it for the memes and theads, but I was very amused by the Hal Turner thing. I don't think most of the griefing, like prank calls (Tom Green, Girl Talk), is funny.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: It's not just 4channers, ebaumsworld, Gaiaonline, 'furries', hackers, 711channers, gamefaqers, SomethingAweful, etc.
No, it pretty much is.
This is true.
quote:There's lots of pride. There's no dedication. It's all about choosing to be the biggest griefer in the littlest pond. If they took it seriously, it would be possible to actually hurt them. As it is, Anonymous is the world's most annoying pudding; it is hard to overstate how awesomely, historically lame they are.
Don't agree with this though.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: Eventually, the guys dressed as blancmange arrive on your lawn too...
Fixed it. Thanks Tom.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:sending pizzas to his house
Oooh, how can I tick these people off?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
It looks like the hackers got bored. www.scientology.org loads pretty quickly now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Pooka, they weren't paying for the pizzas first. Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: It looks like the hackers got bored. www.scientology.org loads pretty quickly now.
It's probably the fastest loading site ever, Scientology just bought more servers (or whatever).
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Oh no, look who else is a Scientologist!
quote:Longtime Scientologist Nancy Cartwright---best known as the voice of Bart Simpson---last year gave the church $10 million to help spread the word of founder L. Ron Hubbard into other galaxies.
It was all part of Scientology’s Global Salvage effort, which aims to "de-aberrate" Earth---meaning to rid mankind of psychology ills and other "aberrant" behavior.
Surprisingly, Nancy, 50, forked over twice as much as the Scientology’s most prominent member, Tom Cruise, who only gave $5 million in an installment plan.
We should start up a fund to provide Scientologists with free psychotherapy sessions. (You know how that would get their goat! It is ironic how they claim that psychologists are the great Satans of their worldview.)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)