Marty leaving Ingleside on the Bay (IOB) Texas

Discussion in 'Independent Scientology' started by Anonymous, Nov 30, 2012.

  1. Anonymous Member

    If you think I am apologetic, you obviously did not read my initial post on the subject where I clearly label this behavior as sociopathic in nature.

    I simply claim that, for their own reasons, critics such as yourself (as contrasted with critics such as myself) choose to mislabel harassment as "Fair Game" and display ill-will to anyone that challenges that mislabeling.

    Now have a nice day :)
  2. Anonymous Member

    Decades ago I was a Scientologist. I was a mere public "cash cow" person. I knew what "fair game" was -- it was in the tech dictionary. It wasn't hidden -- either its definition or its practice. Yes, at one point it was "cancelled," but any fool can see that to this day it is practiced by the Church of Scientology. If you cannot see evidence of that -- reported continuously in message boards, newspapers, television programs, blogs -- man, you are blind, deaf and dumb. And if you're sincerely believe that you don't see it happening, then you are making yourself blind, deaf and dumb.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Anonymous Member

    this is what being religious is all about
  4. anonymous612 Member

    You smoothly skipped over this, Grebe.

  5. Ogsonofgroo Member

    If you're posting stuff as Anon don't assume people are going to associate one anon post with another one as 'yours', I was addressing the post I quoted based on its 'stand-alone' content, and I maintain my view that just because the cult doesn't use a certain terminology doesn't mean everyone else is required to follow suit, a pig is a pig is a pig. Moot, redundant, and boring imho.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Anonymous Member

    getting Charles Manson in jail for life is not fairgaming him, it is justice. Giving Marty Rathbun what he gave to others is not fairgame, it is justice as well.
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  7. Anonymous Member

    I would help his Karma, just sayin’
  8. Anonymous Member

    Anyone can pick up the phone to the police. The question is what the police is going to do. Somehow I suspect in Texas they will arrest the trespasser.
  9. Random guy Member


    Manson was put in trail and judged. "Justice" in this context means the proper juridical process. Neither you nor I am judge and jury, and neither can dispense justice on Rathbun.

    I want Rathbun to get justice from whet he has done as much as the next anon (primarily for destroying evidence in the McPherson case), but it should be the justice of law, not what some random person out there consider justice.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Anonymous Member

    Then it isn't really karma, its fair game and it is what separates us from the Scientologists. :)
  11. Not grebe, but since I already agreed with his/her POV, thought I'd respond to this.

    It is meaningless to describe as 'karma' the deliberate, concerted efforts of a mob such as the CoS to do harm to anyone. Fair game doesn't just 'happen', does it?

    There is documented proof on tape of how Tommy Davis and Jessica Feshbach casually threatened Larry Anderson with disconnection from everyone he had befriended over 30 years, just because he asked for his own money back.That isn't karma either - it's disgusting, morally repugnant behaviour. Period.

    Without a doubt Rathbun did the same, or worse, over and over again. One day, he may wake up in a cold sweat and realise that he has been a moral imbecile for most of his life, that he can never live long enough to put right the wrongs he has done, and that will truly be his karma. Or he will never realise it, and decent people will cross the street to avoid him, and that will be his karma - as would every person he has wronged standing up and condemning him to his face.

    But the CoS casually seeking to destroy his life in order to protect its fraudulent interests is not karma, nor justice.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  12. Anonymous Member

    Well, that is certainly fair enough but since you would have only had to click the little up arrow next to "... said" one, two, times to see where that conversation had come from, I am not so sure you would have bothered if I were not posting anon.

    So can I infer from your apparent belief that Scientology harassment equals "Fair Game" then before the Fair Game policies came out in the 1960's none of this sort of thing occurred with Scientology, Dianetics, or Hubbard. Rhetorical question but not a straw man. Of course, there was harassment prior to Fair Game. The difference, IMO, was that Fair Game attempted to set the entire community on the offender to a degree well beyond religious shunning (disconnection). That did not work and was cancelled and things went back to harassment as-usual, i.e. pre Fair Game, i.e. not Fair Game.

    And in actual fact, you seem happy to allow the cult to select the terminology. It's harassment, bordering on criminal harassment. No need to use a cult term.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  13. Anonymous Member

    Fair Game was never cancelled. Where did you get that looney tunes idea?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Anonymous Member

    Sometimes our own karma requires us to help someone else with their karma. That is certainly not Scientology "fair game".
  15. YouSeeNothing Member

    Sometimes people just need to be incarcerated and removed from society.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Okay, I do understand your point for the most, but you are labouring your argument under some basic assumptions that I find uninformed and simplistic.
    'Fair Game' did not 'attempt', it was carried out for years, it worked very well to harass and intimidate before the internet age. It WAS NOT STOPPED BECAUSE IT DIDN"T WORK man, the term was changed because it created bad publicity, the underlying thought behind it is still alive and well.
    The very superior cut of the scientologist (within their own minds) keeps the doors open for all sorts of tom-foolery, but essentially, in regards to the 'public' members, it comes down to their own moral compasses, and frankly not all the culties are totally rabid about fucking with other people.
    That said, if I choose to use an applicable cult term that is just the way I choose to express myself, that it is something originating from the fat blubbery lips of Lron is of no concern to me, nor should it be to you either, as it precisely is the right term that is easily understood by many different people, on several levels.
    It goes back to the idea that it is okay to fuck-over non-believers, 'a just cause for the greater good'. A bunch of horse-shit twaddle by a group founded in insanity that tries justify the stupid, and looks the other way if it crosses the lines of general social mores, Kha Khan style.

    You, especially while posting Anon, are NOT the 'term police' riding in on a white horse to save us from MU's or some such gallantry.
    Yikes! so much for staying on topic eh *laugh at self*
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    It wasn't a problem for MR when some Anons were TRULY Fair Gamed when protesting scn - including being physical beaten, harassed with legal proceedings and on the Internet and had their families called, visited and otherwise harassed.

    I don't recall any sympathy cards from the prospective cult leader for us. Double standard, much?
    • Agree Agree x 3
  18. grebe Member

    The last thing I want to do is make you feel bad, 612. I am a huge fan of you.

    I'm coming at this from the point of view of a couple of smart people I know who don't give a shit about Anonymous or Scientology. They see mad people v mad people, basically. Jew v Palestinian, Mods v Rockers, Hatfields v McCoys, Irish v English, etc.

    Mad people v mad people is entertainment. Entertainment is important and useful, but it doesn't change anything.

    If people are fighting for a principle, they are fighting on a level above the Hatfields v McCoys, and the smart people I know will pay attention.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. grebe Member

    I disagree with the people who think Fair Game is the same thing as Harassment. Sometimes the CoS files lawsuits against critics which are perfectly legal as part of a plan to get a critic to shut up.

    But if people are having problems with the term, "Fair Game," then maybe we could say, "SP handling policy."

    The part of the SP handling I don't like is the conspiracy among a few operatives to fuck some critic, plus the spying and trash stealing and perjury and all that.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  20. Gottabrain Member

    Grebe, if you wouldn't keep highlighting the fact that liars and former abusers like MR will benefit from any fight we make against Fair Game, it wouldn't seem so controversial.

    If you were to keep pushing Freedom of Religion, for example, with your argument being that it would benefit the Church of Scientology and thus allow them to legally imprison members and engage in modern slavery by conning and human trafficking from other countries, you wouldn't get much support there, either.

    Or if you were to approach a support group for Nazi victims to argue in support of Nazi rights to march with swastikas in their area (you have brought up this example many times), you wouldn't get much support, either.

    It makes me wonder if you posted mainly for a lively controversy?

    You won't change the perception of two crazy groups. That propaganda works in the US Presidential elections. too - half the country thought the other half was crazy.

    A lot of laws need to be reviewed and rewritten. There are too many criminal organisations that benefit from laws as they are now written.
    • Like Like x 2
  21. grebe Member

    You allow your opponent to take your Queen when you can follow up with a checkmate.

    Without the SP handling policy, there is no Scientology.
    • Winner Winner x 3
  22. Anonymous Member

    or it is always ok
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  23. Gottabrain Member

    Without the Sea Org, there is no Scientology. Only completely dedicated zealots would believe in such insanity and cruel treatment. There are many abusive policies that are followed - but it's all based on PTS/SP tek, which is an integral part of the belief system. Getting rid of PTS/SP tek but keeping Scientology is like trying to get a ruling that no chess piece can move diagonally but the player and game remains. Not possible - not the same game at all.

    Specifically WHAT in SP handling policy is not already illegal, or should be? Would you please stop hinting and state what you wish clearly?

    What is the chess mode? War of attrition, strategy or kamakaze style? We are winning on attrition and strategy and the Cult is fast running out of kamakazes.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. grebe Member

    My strategy is to focus on an aspect of Scientology that cannot be disavowed by Scientologists without ruining the entire construct, which likewise cannot be tolerated by a free society.
    • Like Like x 3
  25. Gottabrain Member


    Okay then. I'm with you on that, Grebe.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  26. grebe Member

    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  27. Gottabrain Member

    I'm thinking Whistleblower and witness legislation.

    I'm also thinking Acts of Terrorism when I think of Fair Game.
  28. Ogsonofgroo Member

    Yarr, put the truth to the faces, watch the results... an interesting social study at the very least.. (Grebes. i understand ya man, don't wear yerslef out tho)
  29. Anonymous Member


    Read it again - Fair Game itself is not cancelled, only the use of the term "Fair Game" - nothing else changes.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  30. grebe Member

    That's what I think. But we have two opposing views:
    1) Cancelled and not a part of Scientology
    2) No different from wog style "harassment"
  31. Gottabrain Member

    Why not embrace them both?

    Cancelling the term did not cancel the actions. We push for explicit policy and clarification as this applies to the application of PTS/SP with specific legal penalties, as well as explicit statements by COS that it will not support any actions of harassment, intimidation, or other illegal acts as part of Fair Game of critics or ex's and the individuals responsible are on their own.

    Can also pinpoint and clarify the point where harassment becomes Fair Gaming and escalate legal penalties.
  32. grebe Member

    Because a cancelled policy means Scientology can live without SP handling that is harmful to SPs. I don't think so.

    Because lots of entities indulge in "harassment." There is no particular reason to single out the CoS for protest.
  33. Anonymous Member

    December must be newbie month on every Scientology board and blog in this sector of the universe. I recognize some keystrokes here.
    • Dumb Dumb x 2
  34. anonymous612 Member

    Uhm, no. Very no. It is karma, and in all fairness he probably deserves every second of it, but it is NOT justice. Nobody here is a judge, last I heard. We cannot allot justice and punishment, and we're bound by the laws, not creators of them.

    I suspect our disagreeing here falls back to what you consider Marty. I consider him just as much an enemy as David Miscavige, albeit an enemy that's particularly useful from time to time. Some people consider him an ally (because they're morons). Some people consider him a temporary ally. I am not going to give a shit about the principle of "Fair game is wrong" when the person being fair gamed has shamelessly and remorselessly used fair game himself on other people. In that case, I am instead going to go "Yeah, sucks, don't it, you fucking asshole?" I have no interest in trying to help bad people, even if they have some minor use to me.

    So, sincere and non-mocking and non-trick question: Let's say...we have this guy down here. Peter Mansell. He's head of OSA for Flag. Nasty son of a bitch. Personally responsible for harassing Lonsdale until he committed suicide, and sweeping all the bad pr from that McPherson mess under the rug, and he's been rewarded for doing so. And he is a true believer. He would happily martyr himself for the cause in a second if it meant he got to take some anons out with him. The man believes Miscavige is a golden god, and even if he was personally being RPFed, it wouldn't shake his faith in CoS Intl's flavor of Scientology. And he's OSA, mind you. He personally fairgames people. He's probably personally responsible for that weird period of time where Scientology was sending one of the locals, like, child porn or whatever the fuck. He *defends* fairgame.

    Now. Hypothetical for you. David Miscavige decides to have Peter Mansell fairgamed. If you realize that Mansell realizes the supposed necessity of fair game, and believes in declaring people suppressive, and believes that Miscavige is In Charge, and still thinks it's okay to try to hit the protesters with a fucking car (true story)...would you say that I should feel bad for him and try to help him? Or would you agree that it's okay for me, as an unrelated third party, to point at him and go "Lol, look at the silly evil man being bitchslapped by Irony"?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  35. Woo Hah Member

  36. Anonymous Member

    Yeah, we should only allow the same old shitty posters here, like you.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  37. Woo Hah Member

    Dammit, I didn't know keystrokes could be tracked.

    Why didn't Anonymous super hackerspies tell me keystrokes could be tracked?

    : (
  38. grebe Member

    The candidate for my little thought experiment (probably never a reality, based on feedback here) has to be someone I strongly disagree with. Because when I defend people I agree with, I don't prove I'm actually standing up for some principle that applies to everyone.

    At the same time, I recognize that harm can cause lasting hurt and many people who have been hurt have their limitations. I would not expect any Holocaust survivors to defend the Neo Nazi right to public assembly and protest.
    • Like Like x 3
  39. rickybobby Member


    Suppose we found a candidate for this thought experiment. What might that look like? What actions are you suggesting?
  40. YouSeeNothing Member

    So, what's the goal for your experiment? You want to be able to remove the ability of the scilons to use the concept that anons are just as complicit in fair game?

    Edit: I mean what happens when you you find someone for your experiment? And you find that the CoS lies anyway and whether you are honest or not has no bearing on your discussions/experiments/protesting?

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins