Marty Bloggeth & Anonymous Posteth the recording

[Terril park]

^ this is an example of you not getting Anonymous. That's cool, most people don't and you're probably better off for it.

Why not elucidate in detail?

 

[bluewiggirl]

Why not elucidate in detail?

Anonymous is not an organization, and as such what one anon says cannot reasonably be used against any other anon. We aren't receiving orders from above and we don't have any policy letters, we just do whatever the fuck we want. For example, if you were to come up to me and say "AnonOrange thinks that all Scientologists and FreeZoners should be euthanized, why do you hate freedom?" I would have to respond with "AnonOrange is a dick and can DIAF for all I care, why the hell are you even bringing this up?"

Most groups do not work that way.

 

[Dulloldfart]

That was great, BWG. Can you say it again wearing that corset?

Paul

 

[lie2meiluvit]

That was great, BWG. Can you say it again wearing that corset?

Paul

 

[Voltaire's Child]

^ this is an example of you not getting Anonymous. That's cool, most people don't and you're probably better off for it.

No, it's not an example of my not getting/understanding anonymous. It's a matter of tactics and what I would do and say if something like this were to come to pass. If an anon represents himself or herself as all Anons- and some of them have, indeed, done so- and says on behalf of the Anons that the Anons support the FZ (and statements like this have been made) , then if it comes to pass that Anons target the Free Zone while making any type of statement that the Anons (presumably as big amorphous hive minded blob) are taking on the FZ, I would use the previous comments to bury 'em. It's not what I think - it's what got represented in various communications.

In other words, it's about taking earlier things said that were represented as how "Anons" feel and jamming it up the asses of those who later use the Anon positioning to attack. It's tactics and strategy, plain an' simple.

 

[Terril park]

Anonymous is not an organization, and as such what one anon says cannot reasonably be used against any other anon. We aren't receiving orders from above and we don't have any policy letters, we just do whatever the fuck we want. For example, if you were to come up to me and say "AnonOrange thinks that all Scientologists and FreeZoners should be euthanized, why do you hate freedom?" I would have to respond with "AnonOrange is a dick and can DIAF for all I care, why the hell are you even bringing this up?"

Most groups do not work that way.

Thanks, and that has been my experience.

You got your check from Big Pharma yet?

I havn't. `

Havn't followed AnonOranges position re FZers, didn't even know he had one.

 

[bluewiggirl]

Thanks, and that has been my experience.

You got your check from Big Pharma yet?

I havn't. `

Havn't followed AnonOranges position re FZers, didn't even know he had one.

He doesn't to the best of my knowledge, I was just creating a hypothetical scenario

 

[bluewiggirl]

No, it's not an example of my not getting/understanding anonymous. It's a matter of tactics and what I would do and say if something like this were to come to pass. If an anon represents himself or herself as all Anons- and some of them have, indeed, done so- and says on behalf of the Anons that the Anons support the FZ (and statements like this have been made) , then if it comes to pass that Anons target the Free Zone while making any type of statement that the Anons (presumably as big amorphous hive minded blob) are taking on the FZ, I would use the previous comments to bury 'em. It's not what I think - it's what got represented in various communications.

In other words, it's about taking earlier things said that were represented as how "Anons" feel and jamming it up the asses of those who later use the Anon positioning to attack. It's tactics and strategy, plain an' simple.

You think that what one Anon says as "Anonymous" means anything to any other Anon? That's you not getting it.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

You think that what one Anon says as "Anonymous" means anything to any other Anon? That's you not getting it.

No, you're not getting me- you're not getting what I said.

I'm saying that if commentary were represented as reflecting a group opinion that I'd use it against them if they sought to harm me and mine.

I told you, O Blue Haired dollink, it's tactics and strategy.

 

[bluewiggirl]

No, you're not getting me- you're not getting what I said.

I'm saying that if commentary were represented as reflecting a group opinion that I'd use it against them if they sought to harm me and mine.

I told you, O Blue Haired dollink, it's tactics and strategy.

What effect could that possibly have on Anons going after you?

 

[anonRELYT]

If there were ever such thing as "Anonymous PR", I doubt a call to Marty would do anything to it.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

What effect could that possibly have on Anons going after you?

Well, nobody's going to go after me. I'm idiot proof as some people have found out.

But if anyone were to try to hurt anyone about whom I cared, I'd be all about the tactics. And some of the tactics would include (but not be limited to) pointing out inconsistencies, double speak, etc.

 

[TheSneakster]

..

 

[I told you I was trouble]

For the most part I think we all do. Many in the freezone frequently express viewpoints quite in admiration of Anons. However, it's like Fluff says: depends on the Anon.

I've attended protests from time to time and been well received by most of the anons present. I find them to be quite nice people being earnest, intelligent, and for the most part compassionate and well-intentioned. I'm certainly not their "enemy". Nor do I regard them to be "my army".

However, I've also encountered a few Anons, online & at protests, who consider that simply because a person such as myself finds value in scientology tech therefore he is to be targeted as an "enemy". That is presumptive in the extreme. Such seem to be very caught up in the "us vs them" game and consider all who don't conform to "us" must be considered for future attacks as "enemies". A few such have found their benighted way to ESMB and post here upon occasion.


Mark A. Baker

Fair enough Mark ... I think some of them also have an acute sense of humor and are 'bullbaiting' ... (trolling) just to watch the resultant fracas from certain scientologists.



I have responded to Fluffy on a separate thread, but will also add that IMO James was very well mannered and does not deserve the name calling that he has received here ...

Originally posted by Fluffy
Fuck, what an idiot the Anon was. Didn't even know who created OCMB (not Arnie) or who came up with the (beloved) raisin analogy. "you're trying to ride on our wave."

I looove how he says (speaking for all Anons) that they just want to eradicate Scn completely (thought police, anyone?) when, point of fact, I've personally been told by several anons that they don't mind if Scn'ists do FZ stuff. Plus FZers often picket with the Anons. Plus he's giggling like an idiot.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

ItoldyouIwastrouble's response on another thread was not about this topic, however. So, no, that's not correct.

I was discussing a call that was made public. People on this forum do so all the time. We discuss letters from church staff- as in the Mandatory Briefing thread. Right on that thread, people are writing a "fuck you" in the second person to that staff member- by name. I have no objection to that and reserve the same privilege for myself as I've done exactly the same thing here.

Some people here don't like my posting things like that- this has happened on two threads now. They can post things like that about cult staff and various well known and/or high profile/controversial culties, but they are not according the same right to others.

I wonder if there's a chart a person can get that shows who they're allowed to say those things about and whom they can't and, on the bottom, along with the copyright, there also needs to be an indication of who died and made that person king.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

ItoldyouIwastrouble's response on another thread was not about this topic, however. So, no, that's not correct

.

I stand corrected ... again.

Originally posted by Fluffy

I wonder if there's a chart a person can get that shows who they're allowed to say those things about and whom they can't and, on the bottom, along with the copyright, there also needs to be an indication of who died and made that person king.

Ooooh ... I hope so, it would be very useful.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Welcome to my ignore list.

Thank-you.

 

[Anonycat]

My thoughts on the call are as follows:

The person who called is a twit.

No one represents Anonymous, and Anonymous is no one's personal army.

I certainly heard nothing about Mr. Rathbun except for good things.

Certainly no will of Anonymous as a consensus-driven heard of cats was behind it.

The condescending tone and the whole "we are going to do this" attitude is completely created by the caller, not Anonymous.

Anonymous feels that the (choose one or more) cult must stop the:
1) Censorship
2) Crimes
3) Abuses/long list
4) Tax Status
5) Front Groups

Some of the above are also exploitable, as far as bringing the cult down. That is the goal.

Freedom of choice is a right.

Many exes need some ramping down, and at their own pace. It's natural. maybe they'll feel they took something positive away from the experience. Only bringing down the cult is relevant.


FZ, as distasteful as CoS to some, is still doing the job of taking members and funds from the cult. That is good.

Bottom like to me is, the prank caller could have as easily been OSA causing a fuss as much as it could have just been some fool.

Sorry about the 1,000 pound 2 cents.



EDIT: I would guess that OSA made the call, and is creating black PR on this thread to back it up. This is the most likely answer.

 

[Cherished]

No, it's not an example of my not getting/understanding anonymous. It's a matter of tactics and what I would do and say if something like this were to come to pass. If an anon represents himself or herself as all Anons- and some of them have, indeed, done so- and says on behalf of the Anons that the Anons support the FZ (and statements like this have been made) , then if it comes to pass that Anons target the Free Zone while making any type of statement that the Anons (presumably as big amorphous hive minded blob) are taking on the FZ, I would use the previous comments to bury 'em. It's not what I think - it's what got represented in various communications.

In other words, it's about taking earlier things said that were represented as how "Anons" feel and jamming it up the asses of those who later use the Anon positioning to attack. It's tactics and strategy, plain an' simple.

Sigh. Every time "Anonymous" speaks in the first person plural, unless they are speaking for a defined group (and James reckons he was referring to his group of a dozen or so friends listening in on the conversation, whether or not one believes that is another matter) - they are taking poetic licence. Look it up. It is done for effect.

The "tactic" of quoting some irrelevant person to tell me that I'm contradicting Anonymous is ridiculous and pointless.

FWIW - I fully support your right to believe in and practice the tech, so long as general laws are not broken and people are treated right. Feel free to quote that back at me. Because my views are the only ones relevant to me.

No, you're not getting me- you're not getting what I said.

I'm saying that if commentary were represented as reflecting a group opinion that I'd use it against them if they sought to harm me and mine.

I told you, O Blue Haired dollink, it's tactics and strategy.

I get that you think it's a tactic worth pursuing. BWG was pointing out that the tactic would be a bucket of fail and a waste of your time. It's good advice.