The AvS Derail Thread

Discussion in 'Scientology and Anonymous' started by ex-Indie, Jul 21, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DOX: Letter Explaining Ed's Plans for Future Project

    I just found this--it supplies missing dox about the international activism project. It's a letter that Ed wrote to da5id and gregg attempting to explain his vision and to persuade them to support it. He asked me to help him communicate these things more effectively, but we didn't get too far with that because I lacked the tech background to confidently edit this, and Ed was resistant to most of my suggestions about diplomacy. I've redacted some personal stuff but otherwise left it intact. Later on I will paste this into one of the other threads but for now I'd like to make sure it gets seen.
    Gregg, Da5id.

    After our latest argument i feel we all should get on the same page, to avoid frustrations, future malcommunication and or false expectations. I'll get things of my chest and do my best to communicate possibilities, possibly noteworthy considerations and attempt adding forms of constructive criticism at current conceptual approaches. I will also explain how i feel about how this all went down and why, i would rather be honest about it and us work towards avoiding such feelings --yes a lot of those improvements will be for me to make, however i hope you will appreciate straightforwardness instead of take issue with some of the feelings i (might wrongly) express.

    For starters, i am going to say the obvious. I take this project at hearth, i quite literally live and breath it day in day out. Bordering the obsessional --I do not think there has been a single day i haven't been trying to find problems and or solutions. Yes, so far this hasn't brought forth anything tangible, this is in part a failure on my end but also a current lack in committed resources and manpower. Having thought and studied things for a long time does not mean i have answers to everything, i am no oracle of wisdom --and want to stress that brainstorming and research should be done, but preferably with a different outcome than now, i.e healthy arguing not the type that ruins everyone’s day.

    So lets talk about frustrations, i am not pointing fingers this is on me. Many of them stemming from the wounds that need to heal
    [a little bit of personal stuff has been redacted here--Ed's theories about the interpersonal dynamics between the admins]
    Another possibly is that i look for too many problems, and more complex solutions -- or possibly that my vision is very different from that of either of you, in any case we need to talk openly --even if it means saying no. Part of better communication will also mean i should stop assuming you guys know what i think, and when direct communication such as IRC is failing to convey criticism, move onto for example email, where an argument can be explained and thought through a little bit more than "i see several problems with X-Y-Z". you're a fag "no, you".

    Onto why i think that in our case using services like amazon ec2 is a bad idea.

    While from a conventional business perspective using such a service makes absolute sense, we need to keep in mind that we don't and wont be able to fit that picture. The way i see it we are working towards an ideological enterprise, prone to a multitude of attacks, online, offline --attacks fueled from zeal to conflict of interest. Lets for the sake of my argument say that there is a marblecake of fortune 100 companies. Lets also assume for a second that what would cause surges in traffic is when one of those companies is found doing something less than kosher: e.g a financial institution. Someone starts a movement, it goes viral: we need overcapacity quick and based on the cloud suggestion rely on a fortune 100 company as fail over. the naughty financial institution puts pressure on amazon, the best possible outcome is that amazon decides to terminate the service, leaving us dead in the water. Remember that amazon is a conventional business and deals in money, not in ideology. While i am not saying that we will start off with the same amount of pressure as for example wikileaks sustains, we can't reasonably exclude that from happening.

    Protecting people from ourselves, data retention policies, dealing with raids and subpoenas. While we encourage the use of the tools we make available for legal purposes it is the sad truth that with every good thing you'll have bad people abusing the system. You also have good people caught in the cross-fire of other peoples wrong doings. A simple and plausible scenario: A student from london disapproves of the increase in tuition fee's and decides to start a movement, the word is spread amongst students the effort goes viral. Protests start to happen and before you know it they turn into riots. This was not the creators intent, but zealous politicians urge law enforcement to make an example out of this person, because "clearly" without this person none of this would have ever happened. How do we deal with that? If we were to facilitate such a person being made an example of, we would sign our death certificate, no one would trust or rely on us for anything --even the most benign of movements or initiatives can take an ugly turn. Now imagine that the question of protecting this person is not up to us but for example amazon.

    Ideally, the least amount of arbitrary decisions are possible to be made, the better. This would mean that while pressured we couldn't comply even while we would want to. In other words not being able to follow through or delaying such requests as long as possible.

    Again: While we promote legal actions we can not take that as a reason not to protect ourselves as well as the users from political and interest motivated attacks.

    How? I don't know, i am not an expert in any of the domains required to figure this one out --and while i am not trying to design a system that is bulletproof it should at least be bullet resistant (comment credited to da5id) both from the in and outside. What Follows is a suggestion, its not a starting point but a broader vision of a possible way of achieving a more or less resilient system. Yes this is expensive, yes this is not as efficient as it could be, but the character of the enterprise i believe does as argued before dictate that we think outside of the conventional and competitive box.

    Also keep in mind, that while we are now on a shoe string budget, this might not be the case forever. When it comes to grants, compartmentalizing the organization will allow us to apply for different types of grants for different purposes -- it also will not narrow our options down to the very few that would fund the project in its entirety. Bear in mind that governmental and private grants are substantial, they have a set budget --often their interest is in allocating as much of it as possible as quickly as possible, with the least amount of paperwork. they will often favor applications asking for high 6 to low 7 figures over someone asking for pocket change.

    Ideally we over time do enough of a good job to allow the organization to less rely on grants, but instead rely on service fee's and donations. It's even not entirely unforeseeable to have it turn a profit.

    See attached picture.
    [If I recall correctly, this refers a sort of Venn diagram showing how various parts of the plan were related. It was complicated.]

    Random Clarifications: will try to remain coherent.

    Bottom line is: While it starts with one organization try and branch of as much as possible into different legal entities. For example, while starting of taking all the heat on the hosting front, grow the isp division into independence. Rely on the carrier level division to save on a lot of overhead costs, making the necessary overcapacity to be financially viable for the federation. I believe this is called dynamics of scale. Another advantage of that becoming its own legal entity is that all it does is being a network service provider i.e it can benefit from the laws that might protect carriers but would not protect the entire initiative.

    What is this whole federation thing about? The federations are independent actors which take away a lot of the heat, by setting up not for profit hosting providers. We offer them the necessary technical and administrative guidance and services. These non profits can for example rent cages / suites in carrier neutral datacenters, or for all i care run a datacenter in their basement (aslong as it is connected to a metro ring and can reach an exchange).

    Another division/legal entity (hardware) sells or leases them prebuilt clusters. Think of plug and play clouds. A portion of that cluster is dedicated to the activism platform, another is available for external services and also serves as overcapacity for the platform in times of need. The independent actor can host others than us on the external service portion. Selling points being that what they purchase is resilience and support charity. Other ngo's fund the idle overcapacity. We pay service fees to the independent federations.

    What do those clusters do: They host and replicate the service amongst themselves. If one node/cluster goes down for whatever reason the impact should be nil.

    What is this granting permission between federations and system administration meaning? Having root is bad, it means that data we don't want out can be obtained by a single person / entity. The suggestion is to have a protocol in place for doing system maintenance. For example there is a literal switch putting the system in maintenance mode. Meaning that the database(s) are removed from the system traffic is offloaded onto the rest of the network(federations). System administration does the necessary updates under supervision. Once done the switch is flicked system administration is locked out again the database(s) are gradually downloaded back onto the systems.

    What is Quality assurance between system administration and the development division. Quality assurance makes sure that the updates that are being suggested don't contain any backdoors or other attack vectors. If they find none they ask the development division to release for example a hash of the update files, so the federations can see whether the update being installed by the system administration hasn't had any last minute changes. Again this is about trying to limit the possibility of one single entity going rogue and doing actual damage. this might not be the best approach, what i am trying to do is motivate this form of conceptual thinking.

    About naughty people and - attack -> ???!

    We won't be doing a good job if no one is led to put any form of pressure on us. The reasoning behind the federation model is that it is virtually impossible to sue / pressure all of them at once, and that attacking one or several of them would not affect the entire operation. They could go after the head, which at best in their case would mean development and certain service upgrades are delayed, not stopped.

    About us - success - and books. This is entirely figurative, while this might be one way of starting of this venture i wouldn't say it is sustainable it was mostly intended as a joke. This isn't about us.

    Another random thought in favor of compartmentalizing things is the odd example of organized scientology, look at how much of a legal maze and nightmare it is for people to investigate its fronts, structure, etc. While we're not in this to exploit people like scientology is, we might as well look at what we know works for them.

    Random thought: Stimulate and valorise each and every individual working on / within this project. Make a website - "we make this possible" with random profiles of those that chose to tell their story about why they joined and work for this organization. This isn't about us --this is about the people making it possible.

    I hope the rest is more or less self explanatory, it is an incomplete idea, tear it appart if you like. My main point is: think ahead and find a way to bridge from where we are to where we want to be.

    Thanks for reading.
  2. No, I came to WWP around 2009-2010 and my memory of those days is hazy although I may still have some Skype logs somewhere. I don't remember now what, if anything, X said about how he came to be overlord. When he was giving me the crash course in Chanology history he talked a whole lot about a couple of guys who were into "Magick," and LE was mentioned--a Pastebin document--and he talked about Marblecake and about Zombocom and the Time Magazine hack, but my memories of info about his own role in WWP early on are hazy.

    He talked more about Y than anyone else at that point. He frequently said he would not stop harassing her until she was "dead or in a mental hospital." So I think some of the history he was giving me was meant to recruit me into the harass Y treehouse. Though what use he thought I could be there I have no idea, and I think others thought I didn't belong there too. Most of the people who were later most vicious toward me were in that treehouse. Probably he wanted more audience and considered it some kind of bonding experience. He was very into inviting me to join bonding experiences--as I recall he even referred to them as bonding experiences. He would gather a group on a Skype call and introduce me as this wonderful person, which was confusing and embarrassing as he barely knew me. People would send their photos, which surprised me. He would have us all watch the same movie on our computers. They were all movies I wasn't that interested in--science fiction and action films. It was confusing to me and boring, but I guess I was flattered to be included. (Yes--culty.) In the first few months after I was modded I couldn't log onto WWP without him instantly PMing me and asking me to get on Skype. It got to be very time-consuming but I was kind of addicted to WWP so it was hard to avoid, plus as I said, initially the attention was flattering.

    I do remember that X felt that Moot had taken all the credit when others (he) had done much of the work. But he was noticeably vague about exactly what he did. He implied he was responsible for some of the most high-profile stuff, but pointedly did not say so directly. I felt at the time that he was protecting himself a bit by never stating directly that he'd done certain things.

    It doesn't surprise me that there were rumors. As da5id said of him, X is only happy when he's destroying something. He embraces people, then eventually shoves them away. In my case, it was when I started showing signs of thinking for myself.
  3. Anonylemmi Member

    Dear not Miranda. Get a life. You need one and it will make you feel better.
  4. I used to have a lot of respect for Tiziano Lugli for what he has done against the cult, but I changed my mind after I found out that he sued attorney Barry Van Sickle and got him suspended with the bar. For those who don’t know Van Sickle he has been very effective against the cult, but Tiziano doesn’t care and went after him for 6.5K.

    Without Van Sickle none of these labor cases would have been possible.

    I say fuck you Tiziano.
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  5. wtf? Tiziano Lugi got van sickle barred for 6.5K. Cheap bastard. Too sad.
  6. DOX: Pastebin Transcript of Ed's Conversation Regarding Money from Book

    This conversation took place after Ed had left WWP and during the time when he was reading about net activism, formulating a plan to transform WWP into an international activism site, and looking for ways to raise money. In it, he seems to be asserting his right and exerting a fair amount of pressure to have access to funds that might accrue from the publishing of a book to be written by two other people.

    I have deleted all names even though some identities of public figures will be obvious. I've also deleted other kinds of personal information. To avoid unfair misunderstandings, one clarification: church0fscientology did not call his co-writer an asshole or otherwise speak ill of him in any way, and there are several different redacted names included in this conversation.

    One other thing that becomes clear in this conversation is that if WWP's expenses are unusually high, it's at least in part because of Ed's ambition to upgrade the site and make it more presentable--a goal that was very directly related to his goal of attracting donors and transforming the site into something larger. Here again, the activist impulse seems sincere--the problem is that all of this was happening in secret and without the consent of WWP users, most of whom were more interested in Scientology activism than in broader political issues.

    Untitled By: a guest | Nov 5th, 2011 | Syntax: None | Size: 12.19 KB | Hits: 1 | Expires: in 48 min
    copy to clipboard | Download | Raw | Embed | Report abuse

    1. *** Mode #meatloaf +ao sue sue by why
    2. <sue>
    3. <sue> church0fscientology: anything to add to this ?
    4. - {Day changed to Sun Nov 6 00:00:00 2011}
    5. <church0fscientology> i dont see how anyone can think [amount of money redacted] is high 6 figures
    6. <church0fscientology> i yelled at [name redacted]
    7. <church0fscientology> but thats typical [name redacted]
    8. <church0fscientology> its bait, trying to get people to talk about it
    9. <church0fscientology> [name redacted] is an asshole
    10. <sue> church0fscientology: so contracts are signed now?
    11. <sue> because last time you gave us an update you said it was around[amount of money redacted]
    12. <sue> which is quite a difference.
    13. <church0fscientology> no
    14. <church0fscientology> i said it was [amount redacted] on the first check
    15. <church0fscientology> aroudn there
    16. <church0fscientology> its [amount redacted], the agent takes his cut, then its split in half for me and [co-author's name redacted]
    17. <church0fscientology> then they break it up and only give you small chunks
    18. <church0fscientology> every some odd months
    19. <church0fscientology> depending on progress made on the book
    20. <church0fscientology> its usually broken up into 5ths
    21. <sue> fair enough. That's what stuck with me tho, it's been a few months.
    22. <church0fscientology> ahh
    23. <church0fscientology> yeah
    24. <church0fscientology> still i dont see how anyone can see [amount redacted] as a big number, and high 6 figures?
    25. <church0fscientology> fucking stupid
    26. <church0fscientology> and then its got 15% taken out, then split in half
    27. <church0fscientology> then only given out in small chunks every few months
    28. <church0fscientology> it turns out to not be much money
    29. <church0fscientology> but it should be enough to do some things
    30. <church0fscientology> sue: would you be up for talking with that guy and me? [This refers to an activist whose plans seemed relevant to Ed's interests.]
    31. <church0fscientology> maybe we could do a skype conference?
    32. <church0fscientology> his name is [redacted], he is quite awesome
    33. <sue> Right now i am more interested in hearing your ideas re what is going to happen with the proceeds / rights etc.
    34. <church0fscientology> ahh
    35. <sue> I don't know who this [name redacted] person is i would have to look into who he is and what he does.
    36. <church0fscientology> well the paperwork that we hopefully sign this coming week just gives [publisher's name redacted] publishing the rights to american, english publication
    37. <sue> right
    38. <church0fscientology> and [publisher redacted] audio english
    39. <church0fscientology> after that there is a lot more to try and sell
    40. <church0fscientology> i have my next meeting about anything like that on wednesday, at 6pm my time
    41. <sue> what i meant is: you remember what we more or less all agreed on when the subject first came about, right?
    42. <church0fscientology> not completely, ive just been focused on getting it to actually happen
    43. <church0fscientology> refresh me
    44. <church0fscientology> i just remember some tentative talks about it, and us ending up at "we'll see when we know more"
    45. <church0fscientology> if we actually said something more than that, then its left me
    46. <sue> the short version is: that after expenses and so forth we'd for example use a non profit or some other form of fund to collect proceeds and handle the rights.
    47. <sue> You were going to look at that with your boss, but i understand if you haven't had the time or opportunity to do so.
    48. <church0fscientology> ahh yes
    49. <church0fscientology> ok, then i need to have that conversation about funds going past the initial
    50. <church0fscientology> with the split with [name redacted] for the up front stuff it might get a bit strange, ill have that meeting
    51. <church0fscientology> (im in like 20 windows, Occupy [city redacted] is getting raided and arrested right now)
    52. <church0fscientology> and its only about an hour away from [city redacted]
    53. <sue> That would be nice to hear back on.
    54. <church0fscientology> yeah, my bosses media lawyer has control of[personal financial information redacted] i do beleive too
    55. <church0fscientology> found that out a couple weeks ago
    56. <church0fscientology> ill see if there is a way to get them to do something like be a fiscal sponsor to take the tax risk and release funds for what we need
    57. <church0fscientology> ill try and do that this week
    58. <sue> considering that if you think about it, it is what we all worked and contributed towards. Having a fund with atleast us 3 on a board so we can fund (our own) projects we like is much better than: hey guy, do you have some money for this and that please?
    59. <sue> It avoids conflicts, if you catch my drift [IMG]
    60. <church0fscientology> hah yeah
    61. <church0fscientology> no, im there with you
    62. <church0fscientology> i dont want to actually be responsible for it past the initial crap for expenses and whatnot
    63. <church0fscientology> so its all for the best anyways
    64. <church0fscientology> ill have that talk with the agent and my old boss this week
    65. <church0fscientology> probably after wednesdays meeting
    66. <church0fscientology> so i have a better idea of how things are going
    67. <sue> other Q: are you confident [name redacted] will deliver, and what ever happened to [name redacted]?
    68. <church0fscientology> [name redacted] has been delivering
    69. <church0fscientology> and is actually coming up to [city redacted] for a week at the end of the month to get more content from me
    70. <church0fscientology> so he can write more
    71. <church0fscientology> [name redacted] is just a friend, who got us the awsome agent
    72. <church0fscientology> [name redacted] decided to go out on his own and self publish and do aLL of the work himself for his books
    73. <church0fscientology> so his time has been eaten up by that decision
    74. <sue> fair enough.
    75. <church0fscientology> [name redacted] though
    76. <church0fscientology> he is an [personal information redacted] guy who I met at Occupy [city deleted]
    77. <church0fscientology> he asked me about an idea he was having
    78. <church0fscientology> that was similar to what we talked about way back
    79. <church0fscientology> and closer to what you ended up spending more time on than me
    80. <church0fscientology> so i said we should all talk
    81. <church0fscientology> he has gotten funding to appear for projects
    82. <church0fscientology> and is working on getting his first startup bought out
    83. <church0fscientology> and is dedicated to getting something like we were working on actually made
    84. <sue> ok
    85. <church0fscientology> so I figured it would be best if we could just all talk at least once and see where we are
    86. <church0fscientology> ill find out a time for this coming week where we can all talk (he is nyc for a few days)
    87. <church0fscientology> and ill get back to you and see if that works
    88. <church0fscientology> cool?
    89. <sue> I don't mind talking, bear in mind that right now [personal information redacted] and that i have grown pretty skeptical of the "big idea", i am more leaning towards fragmented small projects that can be used in concord but can act independently.
    90. <sue> It took quite a bit of reading and reflecting to realise how vaine and unsustainable the "big idea is". It is a very seducing one, but it "doesn't work".
    91. <sue> You can't program away human error :p
    92. <sue> Yes sure, talk is fine.
    93. <sue> During week days i'd rather it not be in the evening [personal information redacted].
    94. [personal information redacted]
    95. <church0fscientology> also, watch the trailer for one of the Anonymous documentaries
    96. [personal information redacted]
    97. <church0fscientology> the first "Anon" that starts talking and is shown is[name redacted]
    98. <church0fscientology>
    99. [personal information redacted]
    100. <sue> right now: Just keep us involved or in the know how the contracts / rights attribution things are goin.
    101. <church0fscientology> no worries
    102. <sue> Its good to know you haven't forgotten about the collective fund.
    103. <church0fscientology> indeed
    104. <sue> I wasn't looking forward to the result had you forgotten about that :p
    105. <sue> I think you understand we could have gotten a little bit upset there.
    106. <church0fscientology> hah
    107. <church0fscientology> yeah
    108. <church0fscientology> well deserved too
    109. <sue> yes.
    110. <church0fscientology> im not doing horrible right now
    111. <church0fscientology> everyhting is still not super solid
    112. <sue> that's good.
    113. <church0fscientology> but in all honesty i am finally sitting on all of next months bills and a small amount of spare change
    114. <church0fscientology> already in the bank
    115. <church0fscientology> its been awhile for that
    116. <sue> that's very good.
    117. <church0fscientology> and if this month goes exactly as planned ill be 2 1/2 months ahead
    118. <church0fscientology> a lot has to go right for that (unrelated to the book)
    119. <church0fscientology> but i think its going to
    120. <church0fscientology> so, im finally not hurting every day for cash
    121. <sue> are you still in touch with the cloudflare guy ?
    122. <church0fscientology> yeah
    123. <church0fscientology> he actually got Occupy [city redacted] its twitter account back last night for me
    124. <church0fscientology> he knows so many people out there, i reached out to him when it was hacked
    125. <church0fscientology> and he got their lead dev to email me heh
    126. <sue> nice, i figure he has connections.
    127. <church0fscientology> things got busy for him too, he wants to have a meeting in a couple months to talk about everything going on and what im feeling about it all
    128. <church0fscientology> i said thats cool
    129. <church0fscientology> we are still talking at least once or twice a week by email
    130. <sue> maybe once we have some dough and can give wwp a serious makeover, not like we have before we could stick things behind cloudflare.
    131. <sue> just a thought.
    132. <church0fscientology> i <3 the service so much
    133. <sue> Currently using their pro package, but not 100% satisfied with it.
    134. <sue> it's good, but not all i expected for the money.
    135. <church0fscientology> ive got the free one on a few sites
    136. <sue> seriously: give me custom error / challenge pages and custom "site down / cached pages" without any of the cloudflare advertising and im sold.
    137. <sue> it's a bit backwards that they advertise their service even when you're paying.
    138. <sue> imho.
    139. <sue> I think da5id would be happy too if we bought the server or gave him some new toys to play with.
    140. <sue> it's pretty amazing how he's been running this board on this box and dealing with its size constraints.
    141. <church0fscientology> agreed
    142. <sue> Before you get sick of me asking questions: What would happen if[name redacted] backed out or disappeared ?
    143. <church0fscientology> we'd probably get another writer, [publisher redacted] seems to be more than happy to bring in someone else [personal information redacted]
    144. <sue> ok.
    145. <sue> Will he get a cut of any of the future contracts ?
    146. <sue> Trying to understand how far down the line does his involvement goes.
    147. <sue> -does
    148. <church0fscientology> that would be worked out in contract negotiations
    149. <church0fscientology> it would basically be up to the other side if thye wanted both of us or were asking for me, or whatever
    150. <sue> ok
    151. <sue> in other words: time will tell.
    152. <church0fscientology> yeah
    153. <sue> good.
    154. <sue> If you have to go, just say so.
    155. <church0fscientology> im paying attention, just also working 2 other montiros with client/work stuff
    156. <sue> I'm glad you stayed out of the opcartel articles.
    157. <church0fscientology> i got a lot of phone calls for it
    158. <church0fscientology> i gave no comment and asked not to be talked to or about for this one
    159. <church0fscientology> everyone understood
    160. <sue> I was at a loss for words (except for the harsh ones) when [name redacted] was more or less supportive of this fiasco.
    161. <church0fscientology> oh, i think they need to go down
    162. <church0fscientology> i just dont think we are the right people to do it
    163. <sue> right, we're not the right people, nor is a highly publicized war the way to go.
    164. <sue> this is not something you solve with the snap of a finger.
  7. My impression was that Gregg had taken on the task of speaking to the press. I don't know whether other responsibilities were officially or semi-officially divided up. Other posters may know more about that than I do, because my contact was almost exclusively with Ed. I had one or two conversations with da5id (and a couple of conflicts--though I liked and respected da5id I believe he thought I was kind of an idiot), and I've never communicated with Gregg.
  8. Hi.
    You became involved in bad stuff?
    Was it of a sexual nature?
    Post pics.
    As to the provenance of your logs, very hard to prove.
    And even if true, I really don't give a fuck
    Still I like miranda and tang.
  9. similarly, i felt tiziano lugli was a good asset against the fight to take the cult down. but he doing this shit to van Sickle and getting him barred (even temporary) is the suk. tiziano did a bad move on this.
  10. Damn this thread has a life of its own

    • Like Like x 3
  11. tinfoilhatter Member

    I haven't seen this type of post here before. Is this new, or have they tried this crap in the past? I mean it is clearly out of their playbook, but i haven't seen someone try this hard before. I wonder if they are going to RPF someone in the OSA?
    • Like Like x 1
  12. it is not clear what the motivation is, but i got the impression that perhaps someone felt that they had been involved in a different sort of cult. the cult of anon? also, when people more than 10+ years after leaving the group still filter everything through the lens of scn terms and conditions have more therapy to do to recover their critical thinking sensibilities. that type of black and white thinking is like a virus.
    also, spending too much time on the innernets is not good for you. derp.
  13. lurk moar. these were copypasta from DBZ from a real Miranda series of posts. go there, but use proxies as they might sell your IP to OSA

    DBZ was started 2/10/12. The five mods who started it had left or were banned from WWP as a result of Ed Ravel's (sue's) temper tantrums about a month earlier. So it's been almost two and a half years. Not ten years.

    When I see things like that I realize once more that I really can't believe much of anything that is posted on WWP without dox. All of the confident assertions about banned members like Daywatch, Megaphonebitch, Jennifer Emick, AngryGayPope, and others who have been tossed out of that place are called into question. It seems a part of the shunning ritual over there is to simply fabricate whatever about them once they are gone, and dead agent them into the ground.

    Also, we don't steal IP numbers. That did happen once on WWP, though. Ed Ravel (sue) blamed it on the best mod he ever had, whom I won't name here because why perpetuate the BS?

    Any admin on any site you visit can "steal" your IP number. It means absolutely nothing without more information such as your address, phone number, etc. Its only purpose to an admin is for IP banning. That's how Ed Ravel (sue) banned Tangerine and me. Also, sometimes an admin can make a guess about who you are based on your IP, if they already know where you live. That's how I called out HOC the other day--not many DBZ lurkers are from the land of HOC. You don't need a proxy to protect it, if you feel it's that precious. Just unplug your modem for a while and turn it back on--in most cases that will reset your IP number. Silly poster. Here are some more suggestions for protecting your highly secret IP number if you are a spy or OSA, for instance:


    Thank you for confirming that at least some of the proxied lurkers are WWP users and not bots.

    Once again, to clarify for the deeply confused poster: The events referred to in this thread involve how this site began, about two and a half years ago. The events referred to in the subforum titled The Miranda/Ed Ravel Conversations refer to WhyWeProtest admin sue (Ed Ravel) and his plan to remove Scientology from WWP and focus instead--as the various "initiatives" on the site already suggest--on other forms of activism. If you don't believe it, read all the dox. And remember... don't be afraid of information that challenges your own deeply held beliefs about your favorite website.

    Edit: The information contained in the Miranda/Ed Ravel Conversations subforum will be easier to follow if you read it in order, starting with the introduction and then going to #1, etc. The "DOX" threads can be read after the conclusion.
  15. Anonymous: Miranda, are you a brainwashed ex-scientologist or selling IPs to OSA? Both, right? This is obviously out of your playbook! Sinister! SINISTER!

    I don't know what your motivation is for this truth telling crap, but have you ever tried that crap before? Are you in the RPF? There are many questions.

    Ha ha I'm pretending I don't know how to troll.

    What you posted was not from Anonymous, it's from Miranda. If it looks like it wasn't "written" by a sane person, it's time to make fun of Ed. Again.
  16. Anonymous:
    Need $500 for the forum cost?
  17. Anonymous:
    Seriously, it's less than $50 isn't it.
  18. Tangerine:
    I think it's about $30 a month to have the forum hosted. I vaguely remember it was twenty-something dollars, unless something has changed.
  19. Miranda:
    Yeah, I remember thinking it was surprisingly little once we figured it all out.
  20. In summary: WWP costs less than #30 per month to host, yet Ed tries to collect $500. Scam.
    This message by notMiranda has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 4
  21. The Internet Member

    I find the edited chat logs with sue reassuring. Everything I see looks like human beings struggling to solve complicated problems. Faggotry, mistrust, and drama are par for the course when you’re taking a stand against groups known to insinuate deep plants into the lives of activist critics. We must recognize that we are all going to flip out at some point and we need to have compassion toward our comrades in arms who flip out if we are to endure.

    I am not a techie and can only speak in a general way about the problem of Internet anonymity. Each time I think through ways to obscure identity, I hit some snag, some point where identity can be captured. How do you create a circle of trust to hold that point? A larger circle makes it harder to nail an identity to one individual and ensures web site longevity, but also makes the entire circle less secure. There is also the contrary problem of anonymity used as a weapon against the good guys and how to prevent that.

    Basically when I read sue’s thoughts on enlarging WWP, I see an understanding of the complexity of the anonymity problem over time rather than egofaggotry.

    Sue has wounded several people and that is unfortunate. But consider what it means to be a site admin. As a user, if some on-line friend says or does something that provokes mistrust, you can pull your cards closer, PM some other users to compare notes, etc. You don’t have the burden of protecting hundreds of other people at the same time as you protect yourself. So it is understandable that a site admin will have a lower threshold for suddenly distancing from people who seem, perhaps, to be working against his aims.
    • Like Like x 7
  22. Just a note, I am now in Silicon Valley. The Valley Transportation Authority has Scieno wraps all over the buses here. Not everyone, but many.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. I would love to see more of the hot Karen de la Carriere!

  24. Anonymous Member

    Obviously you need to get out more.
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Hey! They don't make women like that any more!
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  26. You can say that again!
  27. When you eventually shuffle off this mortal coil.
    Can I have your breast implants?
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  28. They've fallen down to her abdomen. If you can get them out you can have them.

    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  29. Oh dear.
  30. I am not protesting if Indies come, as Indies say the "church" is the only bad thing and feel Scientology is good. Anonymous protests ALL Scientology not just the Church. Scientology IS BAD!

    This message by moralfags has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  31. The Internet Member

    I do not like LRH tech in or out of the CoS. But I can protest the abuses of the CoS with the Indies because we both agree the CoS is a big meanie.

    If I had to agree with all the ideas in other people’s heads in order to hang with them, I would be so ronery.
    • Like Like x 5
  32. snippy Member

    You are protesting the protest. What does this accomplish?
    • Like Like x 2
  33. anonysamvines Member

    Hell you can probably get them before then!

    They will need replacing at some point

    But yeah nice boobs are nice boobs!
    Just keep the light turned low!
  34. NessaAzul Member

    I'm sorry, I'm new to this site and this thread peeked my interest. Why is everyone against Scientology?
    This message by NessaAzul has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  35. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 4
  36. OTeleventy Member

    • Like Like x 2
  37. fify
  38. Bobby McGee Member


    Oh Hell to the Yes on that one Samki.. Good God..Night Owl you are a Saint. I have no patience for stupidity in this fight.
    • Like Like x 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


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

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins