Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The "Anonymous" Scientology Protest is an NSA/FBI Fishing Expedition

page: 34
117
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by helatrobus

The word scifag should not be used, even if the dangerous cult of scientology has repeatetly caused the ruin of thousands of people and many claiming sexual abuse, false imprisonment, detachment from families, fraud, and a host of other illegal activities.

Regardless, the word scifag, should not be used.

If you agree that a term should not be used, what is the point of your post that includes it twice?

The term is offensive, and a label, and your attempt at this post by saying it should not be used is no excuse to use it, yet again.

I find you very offensive, and if you are a representative of Anonymous, you do need to be watched.
















[edit on 10-3-2008 by Enthralled Fan]




posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Video Content removed - Please see your U2U's

[edit on 10/0308/08 by neformore]

[edit on 10/0308/08 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
[edit on 10-3-2008 by helatrobus]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Video Content removed - Please see your U2U's



[edit on 10/0308/08 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   
[edit on 10-3-2008 by helatrobus]

Video Content removed - Please see your U2U's



[edit on 10/0308/08 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by helatrobus
 


I did not use the verbage that you did in your post. I merely pointed it out, by quoting you.

Apparently, you think that no rules apply to you, and your sneaky attempt to circumvent the T&C rules here, did not pass me up.

I find you offensive to the hilt, and think if this is the way Annonymous works, that you should be watched, and infiltrated.

You don't think rules apply to you. That will be the downfall of Annonymous. Somebody in your group is going to make a huge mistake.

You will be giving Scientologists a boost, if this was your attempt to further prove they are wrong, by doing something wrong yourself.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   
[edit on 10-3-2008 by helatrobus]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by helatrobus
keep throwing insults. I am immune. I would like though. before you go to bed tonight, to look into a mirror and look into your own eyes. There you will see the reason of why i will spend no more time on you.


And this beauty of a thought has what to do with the topic of the thread?

How is pointing out that you are being sneaky, an insult to you? It is what it is. Pointing out how you think you are above rules? People who break rules need to be watched.

This attitude of yours is what needs to be addressed by authorities.

Personally, I could care less what you think of me, and I don't need any assistance by way of you spending any time on me.

Nice try, but why don't you figure out a way to address serious problems facing the word, in a legal fashion, rather than by trying to be sneaky?

If you represent Annonymous, then I really feel sorry for the group. You do nothing to assist the cause, when you approach concernes the way you do, without legitamate reasons. In other words, being sneaky makes you look bad in my opinion.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
[edit on 10-3-2008 by helatrobus]

Video Content removed - Please see your U2U's



[edit on 10/0308/08 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Video Content removed - Please see your U2U's

[edit on 10/0308/08 by neformore]

[edit on 10/0308/08 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enthralled Fan
I find you offensive to the hilt, and think if this is the way Annonymous works, that you should be watched, and infiltrated.


As has been earlier noted in this thread, there is nothing closed or secret about Anonymous. It is a population of posters to anonymous message boards around the world. If you want to watch, you can. There is nothing to infiltrate. ATS folk have posted on our boards before, and it seems very likely that the Church of Scientology has, as well. You may join the conversation, or just watch, as you wish. For a general reference on anonymous forums, you might find the following article of some use:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous13
there is nothing closed or secret about Anonymous.


Somewhat oxy-moron-ish....don't you think? The concept of anonymity is by definition, secret. It is a curious conundrum, isn't it.....how the participants seem to gloss-over how the lack of real identities in the communities is a facade for openness. Anonymity is a cloak to hide behind. Just because you can write and express whatever opinion strikes your fancy, without worry about the consequences, doesn't elevate the content much beyond graffitti.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by MrPenny]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Church of Scientology--Heavens Gate o - FBI - NSA --

Connections

Platform Origin.
www.mantech.com...

Research can get pretty lengthy sometimes almost into a whirlwind of nothingness. You actually have the power within yourselves to bypass such lengthy etymological research to know truth. In other words AP, RV, is but a tip of the iceberg
Enjoy



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Anonymous13
there is nothing closed or secret about Anonymous.


Somewhat oxy-moron-ish....don't you think? The concept of anonymity is by definition, secret. It is a curious conundrum, isn't it.....how the participants seem to gloss-over how the lack of real identities in the communities is a facade for openness.


I have addressed this point in greater detail in earlier posts in this thread. Here is a full quote that may be of some use:


There is nothing closed or secret about Anonymous, aside perhaps from the ordinary custom of not giving one's own private details away on-line.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Anonymity, as used in 'anonymous forum', is not about keeping one's private details safe (e.g., by using the moniker "MrPenny" rather than one's full name), but rather about making it difficult for participants to distinguish each other in the short term, hence, e.g., dampening flame wars between specific users (e.g., between "MrPenny" and "Anonymous13"). This point was noted in the article earlier referenced by the author of the original software used for anonymous forums and founder of the first such forum, and has also been touched on earlier in this thread, in a couple of earlier posts.

In any case, such lack of ready distinguishability is largely independent of openness of the forum, which was more the point of the post you were replying to, as should have been clear from the context it quoted.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous13
but rather about making it difficult for participants to distinguish each other in the short term, hence, e.g., dampening flame wars between specific users (e.g., between "MrPenny" and "Anonymous13").


But that's an "effect" of the anonymity and its inherent secrecy. It makes the anonymous part more of a simple management tool, than some noble spirit of the Internet. I don't participate there, but I'm having some difficulty imagining how anonymity can dampen flame wars.....since the medium is text and it's the text that generates the meaning. How does a true "community" develop there?

"Difficult for participants to distinguish each other"....A mask does the same thing.

Civility, decorum, ( I know, civility and me? pshah!! ) and alert moderation does the same thing. If the results can be duplicated without strict anonymity.....

I need to do some more digging around.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by Anonymous13
but rather about making it difficult for participants to distinguish each other in the short term, hence, e.g., dampening flame wars between specific users (e.g., between "MrPenny" and "Anonymous13").


But that's an "effect" of the anonymity and its inherent secrecy. It makes the anonymous part more of a simple management tool, than some noble spirit of the Internet. I don't participate there, but I'm having some difficulty imagining how anonymity can dampen flame wars.....since the medium is text and it's the text that generates the meaning. How does a true "community" develop there?

"Difficult for participants to distinguish each other"....A mask does the same thing.

Civility, decorum, ( I know, civility and me? pshah!! ) and alert moderation does the same thing. If the results can be duplicated without strict anonymity.....

I need to do some more digging around.


I would welcome this. In the meantime, I will say that I am very bad at explaining with analogies, so that the most viable options are probably either a strict formal explanation (which is almost always useless for all parties involved) or a demonstration (which is hard without actually visiting one of the sites).

For the formal side, I would follow the example of an earlier argument in an unrelated field, and say that one of the dampening agents is that of iterated uncertainty. In particular, as the chain of an exchange extends, any uncertainty about who the other party is will tend to decrease the intensity of any exchange dependent on identities (e.g., personal flame wars). Hiroyuki (founder of 2channel) said it this way:


If there is a user ID attached to a user, a discussion tends to become a criticizing game. On the other hand, under the anonymous system, even though your opinion/information is criticized, you don't know with whom to be upset. Also with a user ID, those who participate in the site for a long time tend to have authority, and it becomes difficult for a user to disagree with them. Under a perfectly anonymous system, you can say, "it's boring," if it is actually boring. All information is treated equally; only an accurate argument will work.


Beyond this point, unfortunately, I have to reach into the realm of analogy, which will almost certaintly be ineffective, and I would much rather have others visit the actual sites to examine ideas for themselves than to extend the argument much further using my own ill-conceived analogies. But, to the extent that analogy may be effective, the best to be used might perhaps be that of an immune system, where overactive moderation can lead to sickness in the 'host' of constructive contributions; we have, in fact, observed this in our own non-anonymous forums related to project Chanology, perhaps in part due to an influx of trolls, generally thought to be of CoS origin, and in part perhaps due to the heterogeneity of our new contributors.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   




Saying as he practices his free speech while remaining anonymous himself.

Hypocrite.

Thats an oxy moron only without the oxy.



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Mod Edit - Video Content Removed

ATS Terms and Conditions of Use



1i.) Videos: While we do allow video embedding, as long as the content of the video meets the requirements of these Terms and Conditions, you will not embed a video with no commentary from you that describes the video and why it is germane to the topic of the thread.




[edit on 11/0308/08 by neformore]

[edit on 11/0308/08 by neformore]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by helatrobus
 


Where do you get any hypocrisy in my post? It's wildly obvious you don't know who I really am....but here, on ATS, I'm always MrPenny. Hello....I know I'm using a screenname.

You've even helped to support my point...I have no idea who you really are ( don't want to ), and the content of your post is all I need to judge your character.

One post...is all it takes for me to want to flame you. Your anonymity wouldn't prevent it....the content of your post, frankly, sucks. It's the content, stupid.

Do you have anything else to contribute other than spamming this forum with links to videos?



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
The simple fact is that scientology is it's a dangerous cult:

It is dangerous to the people in it.

It is dangerous to society.

It is dangerous to the government

and it is dangerous to democracy.

It is like no other fringe religion, religion or cult.

It brainwashes using "tech"nology and it demands participant unbending loyalty.

Any one who supports this cult in the face of massive daming evidence is as good as someone who protects a child abuser. That's wether you defend it directly or indirectly such as we have seen a lot here do on this thread including some mods.

After reading through this thread, that much is obvious.






top topics



 
117
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join