Scientology Attacker Will Be Sentenced To Jail 354
OBG writes "A Nebraska native charged with taking part in a massive cyber-attack against the Scientology website will be spending the next year behind bars. 20-year-old Brian Thomas Mettenbrink will plead guilty to the charge of unauthorized access of a protected computer for his involvement in the denial of service attack, which was orchestrated by the online group 'Anonymous.' Mettenbrink's is the second successful prosecution connected to the 'Anonymous' attacks. Last year, Dmitriy Guzner of Verona, New Jersey, was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison for attacks on Scientology sites."
We are Anonymous. (Score:5, Funny)
We are Anonymous Cowards, all your base are belong to us.
Re:We are Anonymous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so Anonymous now by the looks of things...
Re:We are Anonymous. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is because strong anonymity works best when keeping a low profile. Disruptive actions tend to leave a wide trail.
Wise Beard Man was right: The consequences of using illegal means in this conflict will eventually outweigh the benefit.
(Still, jail seems kind of disproportionate. Scientology has engaged in worse online censorship-fraud without even being fined.)
Re:We are Anonymous. (Score:5, Insightful)
(Still, jail seems kind of disproportionate. Scientology has engaged in worse online censorship-fraud without even being fined.)
Scientology has enormous amounts of money to ensure this remains the case.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you kill Hitler you should be punished as much as if you kill your wife?
See how it goes? That's why we have judges so that they can decide how hard a person should be punished.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe my example didn't inspire you enough. My other choice was to give the example of someone stealing to feed his family vs someone stealing for greed.
Motive is important when deciding the punishment. At least, it is in my country.
Re:We are Anonymous. (Score:4, Funny)
Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Fat Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Fat Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
Re:Wow, that got... (Score:4, Funny)
True but I think his point is that the identity of the victim can have a huge impact on motive, good and bad, and motive does have impact on the punishment of the crime.
i.e. In retrospect, killing Hitler would be considered a good thing by many and the motive justifiable.
It's an extreme, yes, but just because someone mentions Hitler it doesn't mean it's automatically reductio ad Hitlerum.
Re:We are Anonymous. (Score:4, Funny)
As Tony Soprano is a fictional character, then yes.
Re:We are Anonymous. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the idea behind Anonymous.
We are not Anonymous because we hide our names.
We are Anonymous because our names mean nothing.
We are disillusioned mundane people who are nothing and mean nothing.
We are something only as a Legion.
We are fans of Fight Club, but without illusions, a leader or a purpose. And with more malice.
We are tired with the system, and break it when and where we can.
Our only powers are numbers, variety and unpredictability.
Losing one or two of us means nothing.
They try to give a name to the threat, by providing the name of one of the people behind the Anonymous. That's like trying to fight avalanche by removing two rocks from it and giving them names.
Re:We are Anonymous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We are Anonymous. (Score:5, Interesting)
What do I care?
The chance it will be me next time is infinitesimal.
I know the risk and take it with full awareness. So did they.
And if they come for me after all, I won't cry to Anonymous for help, because I know it won't come. None of us means a thing, and if you think otherwise you are deluding yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The attacks on Scientology are admirable, and have shown that there's at least one way to get under the Scientologist's skin.
But I think this might be the only value of Anonymous. Other organizations aren't so shaken by distributed attacks of this form, or those that are, have more harsh penalties. Scientology is different. They're evil, big and worldwide. They have secrets and a reputation built on secrets. They also operate within the rules of society. So while attacks like this will work on Scien
Re:We are Anonymous. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the church of scientology is enormously wealthy, and has a lot of rich and powerful members, they successfully censor and defame Scientology critics over and over. The Church of Scientology has been subject of credible accusation of human trafficking, and has harassed critics of the church (see "Operation Freakout"). It has infiltrated government agencies (see operation snow white) for which several scientologists, including hubbards wife were conficted. Scientologists consider enemies of the church to be "fair game", by which they mean that attacks on opponents of the church fall outside Scientology ethics. For example, in "Penalties for Lower Conditions", Hubbard states that opponents who are "fair game" may be "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.". Some months later Hubbard recinded this policy saying: "The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This [policy letter] does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.". Read the language carefully...
The church actively, aggressively, and very successfully courts celebrities, which gives the church a veneer of legitimacy, and successfully spreads their word. A non-violent, extra-legal attack like that by Anonymous can be seen as an act of civil disobedience, in which a large group of relatively poor and powerless (compared to the COS) individuals break laws in order to strike back at a more powerful institution which is enormously harmful. Presumably the main purpose of the attack is generating interest in the evils of Scientology, i.e. using extralegal means to combat their giant, well funded propaganda machine. Considering the well-document, harmful nature of the COS, I would assume that this is the reasoning of Dr. Evil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His name was Robert Poulsen.
Woah... (Score:2)
Somebody else from Grand Island reads Slashdot? XD I admit it's shocking to see our local news repeated here.
I also applaud this guy's actions. L. Ron Hubbard was born in Nebraska [wikipedia.org], so it's the least we can do for unleashing such insanity upon the world.
Justice (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the more annoying displays of bias is to desribe the act you think should be more severely punished as what it is, and then describe the act you think should be less severly punished in terms of a series of constituent actions. Bonus points for effectively lieing about what actions make up a DoS attack.
A more apples-to-apples comparison would be "so if you tap someone on the back a few times, you'd probably get less jail time than refreshing a website a few times with a script".
Also, punishments for
Re:Justice (Score:4, Interesting)
SciFag Inc. does NOT have millions of brain dead slaves.
Actual data suggests a mass exodus of customers (thanks to Anonymous) and they have now between 50k and 200k idiotic followers. Worldwide.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you get the idea. And I don't think only their followers visit the site, so you have to calculate those in too.
Re:Justice (Score:5, Funny)
Given their well-known homophobia, you could have chosen a slightly more appropriate insulting name...
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? If they actually liked gays then calling them homosexual would only be insulting to the actual homosexuals who are being inversely compared with Scientologists.
In this case, they're going to get pretty cut about the comparison, so its actually worth saying.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
What a retarded statement. The whole point of an insult is to be insulting. Accuracy may award bonus points, but what is really wanted is angry scientologists.
Re:Justice (Score:5, Informative)
In 4chan terminology, "fag" is just a suffix that means "person" or "people".
Re:Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
But if you're affecting millions of people, then yes.
Stop Scientology lies. There aren't a million in the cult world-wide.
Re:Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Just like you would get a "little bit" longer sentence if you beat up millions of people.
You'd get some badass bragging rights, though.
In the slammer: (Score:4, Funny)
Inmate: What're you in for?
Guy: I beat up millions of people.
[and everyone edges away]
Re:Justice (Score:4, Funny)
[meme]
Only one man has ever literally beaten up millions of people.
And the jail has never been built that could hold Chuck Norris.
[/meme]
Re: (Score:2)
He did 0wn! those computers.
gullibility test (Score:5, Funny)
Heroes, not criminals. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Now, at home they'd hang me, here they'll give me a fucking medal, sir."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
RAMIREZ, TAKE DOWN ASSTHETANS WITH YOUR KNIFE
Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like whimpering Lorem ipsum dolor foofaa
religious extremist terrorists (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that Scientologists were hijacking aircraft, setting off bombs, shooting women and children, launching DDoS attacks, and generally behaving like terrorists.
Re:Heroes, not criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientologists aren't popular because their beliefs are corny or stupid, or because the "church" engages in fraudulent practices and is known to abuse members; that doesn't mean that individual Scientologists are religious extremists or bad people. Scientologists are just a popular group to hate right now.
The fact that they do it under the guise of religion and get tax breaks and perks because of being a religion is what is offensive. I'd have no problem if they called themselves the L. Ron Hubbard science fiction fan club, but to do it while not paying taxes and while enjoying protected status as a religion makes no sense.
Re:Heroes, not criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it should be wise to separate Scientologists in two kinds. The first are the "officers" of the "church", akin to the priest in catholic religion.
IMHO, those are the ones who are engaging in fraudulent and misleading activities. The second type are the "followers"; my belief is that this is desperate and naïve people whose despair has gotten to the point that they choose to approach to this scamming community.
The problem is that the CultoS are so good at what they do that people really follow their orders of "not seeing your family forever!!" and other stupid orders.
Is like the "Flagellants" Christian groups who think hurting yourself is going to help you improve your image against God. Officers who promote this are assholes, followers who put their trust in the officers are naïve, weak and need help.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course any law that gives religious organisations tax breaks is offensive on it's own. Organisations should simply be taxed on profits -
regardless of their motives.
How do you define a religion? (Score:4, Informative)
To me its just a bunch of gullible people believing some texts that have little if any supporting evidence (and in many cases evidence against).
So scientology is a crock. You think the abrahamic religions which believe in a magic garden with a talking snake and a man made out of clay and a woman made out of a rib make any more logical sense??
All religion is rubbish , it just depends how many people believe the rubbish which defines whether a particular belief system is classed as a religion or a wacky cult (which ironically all religions started out as).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Abrahamic religions at least have the defense that they didn't know any better back then, then glossing over the utterly absurd foundations of their religion with some fluff about moral lessons.
Scientologists know, in their founder's own words, that they follow a religion written as a work of sci-fi on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is it because they were founded a long time ago?
Re:Terrorists (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know that it's such a stretch to call them terrorists, really.
As I understand it, Scientologists use scare tactics to convince people that they are infected with ancient alien souls which are causing health complaints, and then take advantage of their victims' vulnerable (and gullible?) state to extort money.
That qualifies as terrorism in my book.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As I understand it, Scientologists use scare tactics to convince people that they are infected with ancient alien souls which are causing health complaints, and then take advantage of their victims' vulnerable (and gullible?) state to extort money.
That qualifies as terrorism in my book.
Really? Most reasonable people would refer to these practices as "conning", "hustling" or maybe "extortion".
Can we save the moniker terrorism for when people arbitrarily gun down/gas/bomb innocent bystanders please?
And to put
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, people usually need a reason to presecute that's outside of strict religious context. There's no way around it, really (and, on grand scale, luckily); people don't tend to supress alien faiths solely (//key word) on religious purposes, there's always some background at work, for the simple unease it would create, susceptibility of everyone involved to see all the BS in religions generally.
So, what is it for Scientology? Fair game or Tom Cruize?
Re:Heroes, not criminals. (Score:5, Informative)
I think it's a bit of a stretch to call Scientologists "terrorists" at the very least.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism [reference.com]
terrorism/trrzm/
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
scientology has used violence in the past and openly threatens and intimidates both members and critics into silence.
"Religious extremist terrorists" is pretty close, although the "religious" part is legally incorrect in some countries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do the phrases "hellfire and brimstone" and "eternal damnation" ring a bell?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do the phrases "hellfire and brimstone" and "eternal damnation" ring a bell?
Only when I think of the Southern Baptist and extremism churches I have visited. Not all churches or sects use fear and terror to spread a message or control their constituency. In fact, some of the more popular churches I have been to used a more, 'Brave New World,' method to keep their constituency faithful. By preaching love and happiness and flowers and feely-goody candy they shoot their followers full of addictive endorphins every Sunday and have, thus, convinced a large swath of people that they have
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In their delusion, Scientology censorships are just their ways of fighting criminals to protect their "religious freedom".
Just like how Islamic Fundamentalists (Taliban) abuse their freedoms of social control and power to take a way social freedoms of the societies they oppress.
Terrorists or freedom fighters both have a tendency to
Re:Heroes, not criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
Keeping in mind that Scientology's attack is based on instilling fear in their victims, why do you consider calling them "terrorists" a stretch? Scientology isn't just unpopular, they're criminals. Their "religion" is a tax evasion scheme for rich members and Scientology preys on the weak and gullible with a classic scare tactic where the cure is always just one more (costly) step away.
Re:Heroes, not criminals. (Score:5, Informative)
No it isn't [wikipedia.org].
Violence? We're talking about making a website not load here. It's scientology that practices violence [aolnews.com].
Scientologists are a popular group to hate because they constantly engage in activities that are undeniably evil [wikipedia.org]. The comparison to Islam is deceptive; scientology is a single organization, while Islam is not. Not every muslim answers to Osama bin Laden, while every scientologist answers to David Miscavige.
Re:Heroes, not criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Heroes, not criminals. (Score:5, Funny)
Fag n. 1. An extremely annoying, inconsiderate
person most commonly associated with Harley riders.
2. A person who owns or frequently rides a Harley.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is confusing.
In one way, you're right that the "ethically bad" parts aren't the intentions or the desire, because disagreeing with the use of the term ethically bad means not supporting the ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of thought respectively.
However, the parent was correct in that extremism does include ideologies in it's definition. One can be a religious extremist if they have religious beliefs that are far outside the norm but do not carry them out.
I would also disagree with the exte
An (Score:2, Interesting)
As the one's who stood up for us all.
The one's we can tell our children about.
The good guys not the bad guys.
They are victims and Scientology is and always will be a cult and more to the point. If Anonymous always needs to hide they're faces it's quite obvious they have reason to be frightened.
Lest we forget the one's who take them on they are our neighbours, our friends maybe even your family.
Keep up the work guys and gals!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's not a good guy. He's ruining other people's properties to achieve a political purpose.
The people running www.xenu.net, which documents the cult's criminal behavior in candid detail, or who published "The Scandal of Scientology" or "A Piece of Blue Sky", now _they_ are good guys.
Seriously? (Score:2, Insightful)
inb4 should have been behind over 9000 proxies.
As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.
The State and Capital depend on religion to keep people focused on social wedge issues so they don't question the fundamental power structures of our society. Poor Americans vote for tax cuts for the rich, ecological policies that will make the world unlivable for future generations, and impe
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.
Dangerous phrase.
Re: (Score:2)
Two sides of one coin, at worst.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
O I admit it's a dangerous idea. I just think it's worth the price. I believe that our freedom and survival as a species depends on doing away with irrational faith and building an educated participatory society. When you seriously start challenging hierarchy, you can expect the powerful to react. Let's specifically look at historical precedents for throwing off the yoke of reactionary religion. The democratic Spanish constitution enacted in 1931 established complete separation of Church and State in what had been a theocratic monarchy for centuries. It excluded the Church from education. This was one of the major reasons for the rise of Franco's fascism. In the first weeks of the Spanish Civil War, the fascists slaughtered teachers from the secular schools (as similar right wing forces had done to Francisco Ferrer, founder of the anti-authoritarian and anti-clerical modern schools decades earlier).
We need to be prepared for these kinds of reactionary forces if we are serious about liberating ourselves. There is a lot of violence hidden behind modern respectability. Tacit threats. Our current complacency exists because we are afraid to act and are unprepared for the consequences. Get the fuck ready. Organize.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
Useful for the elite.
If the shift would be to[sic] rapid, you'll get chaos and the world reverting quickly to a state worse than before the shift.
You're on slashdot and you don't see how self organization, voluntary association, and mutual aid, can work? Hierarchy and exploitation are chaos. Democracy and freedom could give us more peace and order.
the gods are...completelly real...as constructs which proved hugely beneficial during our evolution; they wouldn't be so prevalent otherwise.
Once again, beneficial to those in charge, not the rest of us. Pie in the sky when you die; That's a lie!
Re: (Score:2)
Redbait much? . . .
Can we not have freedom of speech, assembly, etc and still have freedom from religion? Sure, we could never "ban" religion. However, we could stop all state support for organized religion and support resources for secular education. Shut down cults that actively defraud people (depending on how broadly you define this, it could do away with 60-99% of religions)
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
... ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions
Ah, well, that is where it gets problematic, isn't it? There is no universal, objective standard for "good ethics", and in extreme cases we have people such as the terrorists of all denominations, who feel they have the ethical right to kill innocent bystanders "for a higher truth". Evil is evil, even if you use the excuse of a good cause.
Of course I understand the sentiment - it is galling to see a large organization like Scientology, that is considered a criminal organization in many countries, get any sort of victory, however small. But we are only as good as our deeds; and a crime is still crime, even if it is committed against criminals. This is the price you pay for being good.
And anyway - criminals like Scientology are always going to win if you play by their rules and fight them with their own dirty methods; they have much more experience in that game.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Moreover religion and government's ethical standards have been particularly bad....but hopefully we can have some kind of pragmatic utilitarian definition of ethics without getting into too much philosophical pointlessness. Something like, "rules that give us the greatest personal autonomy, satisfaction of desires, absence of pain, etc". Preservation of proportionality: "Your say in a decision should be to the degree that the decision eff
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't that extremist feel ethically bound to kill innocents, it is because they feel morally obligated.
Oh will you be quiet! (Score:2)
he State and Capital ....No Gods!
No Masters
Oh puhlease! If you hate us so much, why shouldn't we oppress you? Besides, if there's no god, there's nothing wrong it. It's just survival of the fittest, and you aren't fit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as parents have the legal "right" to force their (property) offspring into organized religion, ethical people have the RIGHT to use force to oppose such religions.
[...]
Poor Americans vote for tax cuts for the rich, ecological policies that will make the world unlivable for future generations, and imperialistic wars,
Sounds like you belong to one of those liberal/environmentalist cults. Since you're trying to oppress (even if legal and morally right) someone, I as an "ethical person" have the RIGHT to use force on you? What's the criteria?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't propose oppressing anyone. I propose giving young people the right to free association. This means taking away the parent's right the keep youth as chattel. Adults should not be able to have title (custody) of other human beings, if such title gives them to right to indoctrinate and censor. So...when young people come together to learn (as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ethical people generally are not hyperbolic idiots or religious or anti-religious fanatics, therefore do not assert a right to use force to influence people's religious beliefs.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
People can believe whatever they want. But face it, few freely choose their religion. Most just go about beliveing whatever their parents foisted on them.
We need to acknowledge that we live in a society. We no longer live in hunter gatherer tribes. Two parents are not longer sufficient to raise a child. It take a whole society. Whatever material and ideas that the parents give to their offspring, they got from the larger group. Whether we like it or not, child rearing is already a part of mass society. We need to stop allowing parents to use the violence of restricting necessities (affection, food, shelter) to indoctrinate youth into religion. Young people are given the choice: have faith in some crazy shit, or give up your whole support system. We need enough public social support for youth (food, personal care and relationships, shelter, education, etc) in order that they be free to disobey their crazy parents.
Then we will see quite the revolution!
Re: (Score:2)
Start a political party or GTFO
Re: (Score:2)
Private financing of elections. Restrictive ballot access laws (third parties often need more signatures to get on than the two main parties). First past the post. Single member districts. Winner take all elections. No proportional representation. No shadow cabinets. Corporate power. Brand recognition of the major parties. Fundamental limits of all electoral politics. Fundamental limits of all state actions. Etc. . .
There are dozens of reasons why third parties
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't lump all religions into the same group based on the actions of Scientology (not that I'd call that a religion, mind you). Not everyone who follows a religion is interested in ramming their beliefs down other people's throats. I'm Jewish and honestly don't feel that the world needs to be converted to Judaism or that everyone needs to give up bacon or anything like that. I'm happy practicing my religion in peace and teaching it to my children. If you ask me about my religion, I'd be glad to t
Re: (Score:2)
K, NP.
For you dropouts who wanna rockout [crimethinc.com]
Right Coast? Got a platform? [neanarchist.net]
Steampunk and other wonderful things [tangledwilderness.org]
For the One (not yet) Big Union [iww.org]
Now we see the violence inherent in the system! [syndicalist.org]
Left Coast? Doing Being Totally Outta Control? [modestoanarcho.org]
4chan for anarchists [anarchistnews.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While the messenger to which you're replying is ineed, hm, "overboard passionate", your critique of some of his points isn't as solid as you might think...
Taking it...no, not to the absurd at all, explain to me why we have laws against child labour. How do they harm the family? Or, other way around, why people are so obsessed with dismissing sexuality of their teen children?
"Right" of parents to do things is not an absolute. You ned to find better argument than that.
Religion with which you are likely most f
Re: (Score:2)
Taking it...no, not to the absurd at all, explain to me why we have laws against child labour. How do they harm the family? Or, other way around, why people are so obsessed with dismissing sexuality of their teen children?
But the OP seems to indicate that, then, if some thug group steps in, that's wonderful. I disagree vehemently.
"Right" of parents to do things is not an absolute. You ned to find better argument than that.
Showing that you didn't read what I wrote; parents' rights aren't absolute. The sta
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/1119/1224259105905.htmlLike this?
Um, so which religions teach tax cuts for the rich?
You missed the point. We get draconian drug policy that only benefits the pharmaceutical industry "for the children". We get leaders that eliminate inh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. Your slippery slope shit is fallacious.
group who think that lima beans are a threat to the world.....using violence against lima bean growers
Lima beans are not a threat to our existence as a species. They are actually pretty good for your health. Apocalyptic, dogmatic, irrational faith is a major threat in a age of WMDs. It is also a barrier to having a participatory democratic society. If everyday people are going to make important social decisions, they need
Why exactly did Anonymous do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, yes... they can smear the reputation of Anonymous. I think the phrase someone once coined for that was 'pissing into an ocean of piss'.
unauthorized access of a protected computer (Score:4, Insightful)
In some ways you can think of a person's brain as a computer.
When can we expect Scientology types to go to jail for fucking with peoples' heads?
Re:unauthorized access of a protected computer (Score:4, Interesting)
In some ways you can think of a person's brain as a computer.
Think about a banana
Did I just have illegal access to a computer system?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you just slashdotted the Idea of a banana
There will be some poor guy in a produce section of a supermarket just standing there and muttering "what did I come in for...."
Has anyone jailed the pope yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, the catholic church is probably responsible for more misery in africa due to its attitude to contraception than any other single institution.
All religions fuck with gullible and/or insecure peoples heads. How is scientology different?
Well...yes (Score:2)
Last time it happened in XIX century, lasting a bit into the XX.
Nothing good came out of it though, more or less just a fight with the same old methods between one religion/"grand ideology"/whatever and the other.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To be fair, the pope also decrees that sex outside of marriage is also a sin, so obviously they're not really following the teachings of the pope, are they? Seems to me that if you have no issue having sex, then you shouldn't have issues wearing a condom. I'm inclined to doubt the prevailing wisdom that Catholics, and the pope, are responsible for the AIDs epidemic in Africa.
Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic, so don't take this as promotion of organized religion. I just don't like scape-goating.
Yet again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet again, in the USA the more money buys the "better justice".
And the Co$ has gobs of money.
Unfair? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if I start a cult and force my members to kill people I see as a threat I'm absolved of punishment. But if I make your computer system go haywire for 10 minutes, I'm sentenced to jail time?
Well, [sarcasm]I can see how that's fair![/sarcasm]
Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree with Scientology at all, but if you('re stupid enough to) get caught DoS'ing their site you deserve to go to jail.
How was he caught or singled out? (Score:2)
So how was he caught? Did he stuff besides using the DoS software?
OT-VII William "Rex" Fowler Murders Software Dev (Score:3, Interesting)
To pre-emptively counter the usual no-worse-than-Catholicism thought-terminating cliche, here is a very fresh anecdote about an OT-VII from a WISE software development house. Dude uncovered a pattern of embezzlement where his boss sent several $200,000 - $250,000 payments to CoS. Boss set dude up with the promise of a check and capped him on his son's birthday. There is a mystery briefcase, too. It may contain Marcellus' soul.
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/1st-degree-murder-rev-william-rex-fowler-scientology-minister-charged-60161/
Adams Co. business owner thought to be victim now charged in death of former co-worker
The owner of an Adams County software company has been arrested and charged with the murder of his former business partner.
William Rex Fowler was charged with first-degree murder in the Dec. 30 shooting at Fowler Software Design that killed Tommy Ciancio, 42, the Adams County district attorney and sheriff said today in a news release.
(...)
Employees of the software company, which reportedly had suffered financial difficulties since 2008, related in part to the transfer of as much as $200,000 to a church or charity by Fowler, told investigators that Ciancio arrived around 10 a.m. Dec. 30 to collect his check.
(...)
Investigators say the gun was registered to Andrew Hyung Fowler, 26, who lived at 1413 L. Ron Hubbard Way in Los Angeles, when it was purchased. In interviews with police, Andrew Fowler said he gave the gun to his father for Christmas in 2007.
Police also found a briefcase and a typed note, dated Dec. 30 and signed by Fowler, that advised there was nothing confidential in the satchel and that it should be given to his wife, Janet.
When Janet Fowler was interviewed by detectives, she told them she wanted the briefcase returned immediately.
"It is important to me and my church. It is religious material and I want it now," she said to investigators. "Even if you looked at it, and read it, you would not understand anything in it. Because it is way above a normal person and you would not know what it meant. I want it back right now."
Janet Fowler also reportedly told investigators that her husband "is a Scientologist and would not have gone without a fight. He would have grabbed a gun in a struggle and would not have let someone shoot him."
She also told investigators that Ciancio had sent e-mails to Rex Fowler, threatening to hire an attorney and sue over money he said was owed him.
Adams County officials said Fowler is in custody, but would not say where he is being held. He was last at Denver Health Medical Center, but his name no longer appears on patient rosters.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sadly, the mad hordes of slashdot are not the force they once were - the only sites that get
Re: (Score:2)
Knowledge and information about what and to what purpose?
All I see is the usual Scientology nonsense.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)