Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



darksumomo ([info]darksumomo) wrote in [info]operation_mock,
@ 2008-02-26 04:36:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current location:Home
Current mood:*sporfle!*
Current music:Final Fantasy XI game music

"First they came for the Scientologists, and I didn't complain because I wasn't a Scientologist..."

Thank you [info]chaimonkey for inspiring me to repost some old Anonymous vs. Scientology wank I posted some weeks ago as a comment to [info]otf_wank.  It seems that someone else put their tinfoil hat on back in January and came up with the idea that Department of Homeland Security wasn't tracking down Anonymous because the Feds were involved.  The resulting wank was something to behold.   I got several requests to post my comment as an entry of its own and I said I would.  Well, never say I don't keep my promises, as I'm posting it here on [info]operation_mock, where it fits best.  For those of you who read this first on [info]otf_wank, thanks for your patience in reading it again.

Without any further ado, here's the wank report.  Just don't mind the canned smell.

Wank over Anonymous vs. Scientology has spilled over to Daily Kos. Someone who is normally clueful posted a conspiracy theory that Anonymous is being used by the government to "get" Scientology over the Tom Cruise movie "Valkyrie" which is about the failed plot to assassinate Hitler (no, Godwin's Law doesn't apply). Srsly. She ends the diary with "First they came for the Scientologists, and I didn't complain because I wasn't a Scientologist..."

By the third comment, other Kossacks try to feed her clues about Anonymous. Then they feed her clues about Scientology. Her responses start with La, la, la, I can't hear you, and escalate from there. She then repeats her conspiracy theory in condensed form. She then calls 'troll" on the people disagreeing with her. Finally, the Kossacks give up on trying to persuade her and commence mocking. The resident trollhunter finds her picture and posts it as a macro. After that, a pie fight ensues and comments get hidden from n00bs and non-members, although this exchange managed to survive.  Lovely.



(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-26 01:30 pm UTC (link)
And I'm not impressed by them, but I do take seriously that they're wantonly being allowed to get away with what they're doing BY OUR GOVERNMENT.

I agree that the Marcabian Fleet is sexy, but 'wantonly' takes it to a whole other level.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]camilla
2008-02-26 01:31 pm UTC (link)
That was me, being all anonymous like.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]darksumomo
2008-02-27 02:56 am UTC (link)
Ilapalazzo says that's only appropriate.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lied_ohne_worte
2008-02-26 03:36 pm UTC (link)
Watch the trailer and then ask yourselves who might possibly have a problem with the Scientologists making this movie.

*snort* Well, there is the German government, for starters, which had quite a big problem with it. But wait, we know that they are behind Anonymous anyway, so this means they are the Nazis... it all makes perfect sense to me now!

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]suziecroft
2008-02-26 06:54 pm UTC (link)
Anonymous are a collaboration between the NSA, the FBI, and.. the Nazi party? All we need now is some form of time travel. And maybe cake.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]darksumomo
2008-02-27 03:05 am UTC (link)
Known USENET kook Barbara Schwarz was ranting about that very bit of tinfoil hattery on alt.religion.scientology earlier today. She deserves a post of her own, as she is the source of much LULZ of her own. Remind me about her.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]hilohello
2008-02-26 06:46 pm UTC (link)
As I did on the original comment on this, I must point out the following burn:

The dots, when connected, should form the image of a giraffe.

Your botched attempt results in the image of a Phung.
And damned few people know what that is.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]ianthefira
2008-02-26 08:42 pm UTC (link)
Wait, that icon, is that from that freaky horror manga?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]hilohello
2008-02-26 10:02 pm UTC (link)
Gyo? Yes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]darksumomo
2008-02-27 03:11 am UTC (link)
I found that even more amusing the second time around. Thanks for reposting it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-27 04:07 pm UTC (link)
This icon is absolutely amazing.

-Ah Nonny Maus

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]miss_padfoot
2008-02-27 08:38 am UTC (link)
I love people who think the epitome of intelligent debate is to claim, "I have logic and facts on my side and you don't!" and hope you can shout it louder than the other side who is shouting the exact same thing.

And what in the world is up with her weird idea of the scientific method and control/experimental groups? Does she actually think that the Moonies and Scientologists are literally identical except that Bush and Co. like one and not the other?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]darksumomo
2008-02-27 09:23 am UTC (link)
Pay attention to the numbers in parentheses after the subject line in those comments. The one before the slash is the number of registered users who have uprated the comment, the number after the slash is the number of users who have downrated it. Note that her critics have a lot of uprated comments and she has none in most of her retorts. It shows that her method didn't work on that audience. Then there are comments of hers that you don't see, as they were hidden by other users. I don't know if linking to them would violate the rules of not showing "friends-locked" posts, as they were not hidden from view by the poster, so I won't unless I get a ruling from the mod that doing so wouldn't violate that particular rule of engagement. Suffice to say that there were 10 of them in the comments to that particular diary.

As for what you said about control and experimental groups, I think you nailed it. No one was convinced by that line of reasoning, either.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map