Saturday, January 17, 2009
General entry page
The full 2003 affidavit with my comments
The Message to Travolta page with the details of her lies and censorship, as well as their justification, other testimonies regarding seizure medication, the details of what she says to the press, and the reaction of critics.
These pages are still under construction but overall already usable.
While they certainly do require Scientologists to abide by this moto, I have rarely if ever seen them abiding by it themselves. OTOH, I have seen them not doing it, just not long time ago for example when they were claiming that the COS does not recognize autism or does not allow medication for seizures.
Now here is the latest example, and I think it is quite an illustrative one.
Check this post from WhyWeBWAAAAAAAAA.
The claim being made there (that ""Scientology had obtained and distributed personal medical information from the private health records of AGP and Happy Smurf") is not supported by any valid evidence at all (see the related blog entries below). This does not prevent them from actively spreading that rumor, and declare that people like me who say nothing else than "where are the dox?" engage in "Sclion Spin-control".
What better proof do we need that although Anonymous brags about "dox or STFU" they don't apply it to themselves?
Is there even a single anon in this thread questioning the claim?
As you can see, their aim in trying to get this rumor to go "viral" (pun pun), is not just to spread the rumor but also to "bury the scilon propaganda as well".
So there you have it, "dox or STFU" is "propaganda" when applied to them...
PS - BTW they don't seem very good at trying to bury dissent. I type "Scientology HIV+" and my blog entry is right there at the Nr1 spot in the Google web search. How it works I don't know but I learned over the years that the best way to deal with Google is just to be honest and not try to fiddle with ranking. Google algorithms are damn smart! They may even have something that offsets the many dishonest Anonymous strategies. Anonymous having messed up Google trend in the past certainly must have given Google second thought about them Anonymous...
Blog entries in this series:
- Jan 16: dox or STFU
- Jan15: Jason Beghe Message to Anonymous - Grow Up!
- Jan 14: More Speculations About the HIV+ Claim
- Jan 13: HIV+ Rumor Only a Rumor
It is commonly assumed that Aleister Crowley was a Satanist. Well, this seems to be yet another myth. Read the article above. How can one worship an entity he claims does not exist?
Big luvvie hugs ensued and she pressed a DVD into his palm and swanned off. He drove off presuming it was her new album or something, only to get home and realize it was called 'Welcome to Scientology'.
She did the same for all the cast and crew."
William Burroughs, by Royal Appointment :: Mick Brown: "In 1972 Burroughs decided that his dissatisfaction with Scientology merited an attack on the organisation's premises, which were then located at 37 Fitzroy Street in Bloomsbury. Over a period of some weeks he haunted the premises, taking photographs and making tape-recordings. Sure enough, Miles recounts, within a couple of months the Scientologists had packed their bags and moved to 68 Tottenham Court Road."
Minneapolis/st. Paul - City Pages - Gimme Noise - The Popstream: Truck Turner: "I know it's been a few months since he's passed away, but it still irritates me that everyone thinks his turn as Chef in South Park was his peak as an actor. This is grotesquely inaccurate and demands correction immediately: Truck Turner is Hayes at the peak of his powers, and if this is the kind of thing Scientology made possible then the inexhaustible crappiness of Battlefield Earth is pretty much canceled out right there."
"Will and I have talked about this," exclaimed Obama last year in an interview on “Entertainment Tonight”, referring to actor Will Smith. “Because he has the ears, he might have an inside track on the role.” [...]
Regarding Smith's plans to play Obama in a movie adaptation of his life, the actor did say he'd be up to it when asked by British media.
“If I am ordered by my commander in chief to star in a film about him, I will do my duty as an American," responded Smith at the London premiere of his new film, “Seven Pounds”.
Hold on to your seat for the inauguration on Tuesday. Something tell me it's going to be BIG!
SHOWCASE :: Erie's Entertainment Web Site!
Thinking back at the risk of getting this movie out in Christmas and all it involved, I continue to be stunned by the success it has on the contrary encountered. I mean, compare what I wrote back in Dec. 1 and this kind of article:
It's already earned more than $72 million in the United States, which means "Valkyrie" is far from the flop many critics predicted it would become.
The film, which cost a reported $90 million to produce (director Bryan Singer has pegged it at closer to $75 million) and perhaps more than half that to market it, has performed solidly if not quite spectacularly at the box office.
"The fact that it's still attracting filmgoers totally robs the naysayers of their ability to deem it a flop, because it's not," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Media By Numbers. "It does show the renewed star power of Tom Cruise."
And it's only starting. Believe me, because I do know a thing or two on this topic, the star power of cruise in Asian and other foreign continent is tremendous. And doesn't he look just amazing? I know my friend Rebecca is not going to agree with me on this one but I think at 46 he almost looks better than he ever did. The photo above was taken during his very recent visit to Seoul, Korea, promoting the movie. His look alone will be reason enough for 80% of Asean to go and see the film. As to whether or not they will get into the historical intricacies of the film, I am not sure. Often times I find myself having to explain where Europe is, and that no, Brussels is not very far from Belgium!
New York - Wise Beard Man to Anonymous: Don't be a Dope - Runnin' Scared - Village Voice
Excellent start in Mark Bunker's message, less so from the point down when he starts to talk about Jeff Stone.
On the other hand, excellent remarks from the Village voice journalist.
I would like to print in full Mark's introduction, because that's the Mark I really do like. After that I'll make a quick comment on the points I disagree with, ending up with the Village Voice journalist's comment.
"BUNKER: In any group of people there are dopes. A nebulous group of anonymous people on the net might possibly have a slightly higher percentage of dopes -- but then maybe not quite as many as were in the Bush Administration.
I look around at work or at an event and try to spot the dopes. Quite often it turns out to be me. We humans are prone to doing some dopey things. I'd have to say covering yourself with Vaseline and pubes would be dopiness on an epic scale and it just makes you shake your head and wonder, "Why?"
But, look, not everyone is going to get it. And not everyone in Anonymous is on the same page. In fact, there are factions within Anonymous. Most of the people taking to the streets and speaking out against Scientology fraud and abuse understand there is a serious reason to take action. Others in Anonymous call us Moralfags. You can't please everyone.
But the unfortunate thing about a nebulous mass of people under one umbrella is if one person does something bad, stupid or illegal that can be used to tar everyone else. The great strength of anonymity and numbers can just as easily be a weakness.
In my first video to Anonymous, I suggested they act within the law and take this seriously because Scientology damn well takes it seriously and they will do everything they can to take down each person they can identify. Pubes Kid thought he was pulling a prank (a damn lousy one) but it got him in serious trouble."
Then Mark starts to speak about the Riverside County Ordinance Farce. He claims that the material that has been used to discredit Anonymous does not represent the moralfags. This is to forget that even up to this day the WhyWeBWAAAAA forum still has the Thunderdome, and that without it, the whole forum would crash, as we have seen back in June 2008. You can't just claim Anonymous 2.0 is different than the original anonymous, while still using its name and symbols. I also disagree with the assertion that the original anonymous who protested Scientology a year ago and who continue to protest have moved on (in the sense that they became serious critics). They continue to display an incredible shallowness and I do have to agree with the original Anonymous that they have become moralfags under the thumb of the old guard. The fault, IMO, is not on the original Anonymous, as this whole approach tries to portray. The fault is on the protesters who continue to identify with Anonymous when in fact they now pretend to be something else, and continue to use slogans against Scientology that most of those who know a little more than the mob about the issue will just laugh at. If the moralfags want to move on, they should really move on, and this means move on from the old guard basis and mentality. As it is, they are no more than just a copycat of the old guard disguised as Anonymous, and then complain when people actually dare to compare them to the original Anonymous.
Nor is the reason why Anonyous (the original one) use shoking pictures. It is not out of pleasure to shock and attract attention. It simply is out of an urge to question any stereotype. I don't think Mark really understands the original Anonymous. The moralfags have become the anti-thesis or Anonymous itself, while still parading as such. I am not surprised that factions in Anonymous now try to take down the moralfags forums and engage in other attacks and pranks against them. Check out the message I reported on my blog entry about the original message to Anonymous being put down from YT. I think it really reflects that faction.
Mark should really have enticed Anonymous 2.0 to move on from their old guard dependency, and find a way to go beyond what they themselves did as old guard, without this being pubes prank in a desperate attempt to get attention. But he can't, because he is an old guard himself, and seems to be trapped in his own limits. As much as I like Mark as a person and I appreciate the kind of moderate statements he is able to come up with at times, like the one on Jett Travolta, he himself is prisoner of his own limits, beyond which he seems unable, so far, to move. It becomes of course difficult to advise others to do so. For him, therefore, the explanation of events like the pubes and the Riverside ordinance is that it is due on the one hand to a minority of bad apple within Anonymous 2.0, and on the other hand to a majority of original Anonymous who did not follow Anonymous 2.0 beyond it simply being for the lulz. I disagree with that, because it seeks to excuse the Anonymous 2.0 instead of getting them to reflect what is their own responsibility in this as a group. From what I can see, and in spite of what some may claim afterwards, they are very much at the basis and responsible for this kind of pranks. Suffice just to read their comments in news outlets and what goes on in WhyWeBWAAAA. Some may distance themselve from it afterwards, but they were there beforewards, encouraging it, promoting it, and supporting it. Maybe not directly, but by the sheer radicalness and shallowness of their current approach.
In this respect, I do have to agree with the comments of Tony, the journalist who reported it on the Village voice, which I would like to quote in full:
Well, that should make the Anonymous kids feel warm and fuzzy, because Wise Beard Man really lets them off the hook.
I'm surprised, Mark. Someone who's been doing this as long as you have understands how the media works when it comes to Scientology.
Now that the press has labeled an Anonymous operation (however rogue it happened to be) as a "hate crime," Anonymous members are going to find it much tougher to get other press organizations to take them seriously.
Many of the commenters to yesterday's posts offered us this pathetic calculus: "Anonymous may do stupid pranks, but Scientology really hurts people."
Sorry Anonymous, that doesn't work with reporters, and essentially puts you out of contention. Don't be surprised that from now on, any press mention of Anonymous will begin with the stupid Pubeit prank.
I also believe that this view is nothing new. For months now Anonymous has got virtually no press at all. I wrote about that back in July 24 already, and it has just got even worst over the subsequent months. The only time they would appear in the press nowadays is when they use Scientology celebrities appearance as an opportunity to put themselves in the photos, and then only in such notoriously gossiping tabloid rag as the Daily Mail.
It is clear at this point that if Anonymous 2.0 does not find a "bigger game" as Jason Begh puts it, they are going to completely disappear from the scene, or just be ignored as a simple annoyance. But that bigger game certainly isn't the type of pubes pranks that wins them nothing but negative attention. As I said repeately, their biggest chance is to start protesting discrimination towards Scientologists AND protest Scientology at the same time. But we are not going to see that any time soon, because it would involve a total revision of the very assumptions on which they are working from. So be it...
R-pubes- related blog entries
Birds flying into reactors was a problem of the past I thought. I guess that if it happens as the plane is taking off, the reactors are not up to speed yet and so may be vulnerable.
I have not followed this question closely and have barely read anything about it but I have seen a lot of spam mentioning what about all the deaths in Gaza etc.
What I do remember reading early on, before all this started, was that Hamas declared they are not going to renew the truce agreement they had with Israel when it expired a few weeks ago.
At first sight, again without having all the details about it, this seems utterly stupid to me, because without truce Israel is basically free to get in and do whatever operation they want which they could not if there was a truce. And what do the Palestinians gain from it? They are in no position to fight the might of Tsahal.