"Every time an Anonymous member goes to jail, a thetan gets its wings." --Tom Newton
Another Anonymous member pleads guilty to cyber-crimes in a federal courthouse. Nothing unusual there. What is strange about this case is how, for several months now, Anonymous members have DENIED than Brian Thomas Mettenbrink even existed.
Yes, that's right. They went a step beyond disassociating from him (as they do with all Anonymous members who get caught) and actually insisted that there is no such person.
In fact, one particularly pernicious "Anon" repeatedly accused me of having fabricated the whole scenario, federal case included. I'll post some of their hilarious denials below the proof (displayed in huge red letters):
"A Nebraska man agreed to plead guilty today in federal court in Los Angeles to participating in a 2008 cyber attack that shut down websites for the Church of Scientology, prosecutors said.
Brian Thomas Mettenbrink, 20, was part of a group that called itself "Anonymous" and planned the January attack as part of a campaign against the church nationwide, according to the U.S. attorney's office."
Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/man-pleads-guilty-in-la-to-cyber-attack-against-church-of-scientology.html
For your amusement, here's a comment left by the pernicious Anonymous member I mentioned above:
"El Diablo has left a new comment on your post "ANONYMOUS HACKS ANOTHER SCIENTOLOGY WEBSITE. ARRES...":
Been wondering how long it'd take for a new entry.
First off, commenter above is right. Everyone is pretty much scratching their heads over who actually did this. Perhaps it's someone self-identifying as "anonymous" - or it could be the last hurrah of a disgruntled insider. Or maybe YOU made Brian Mettenbrink up!
Thing is, NOBODY KNOWS YET. All just speculation. But why let the (lack of) facts , stand in the way of a good story, right? :P
So go on...get your behind into gear. You sounded pretty sure about it all, so finding verification should be a cake-walk, right? :) "
This is extremely gratifying. After arguing with "El Diablo," quite possibly the most obnoxious Anonymous member there is (incidentally a Holocaust Denier as well) about the very existence of Mettenbrink, I have proof-proof. "Proof-proof" is proof which cannot be suppressed without exposing the deliberate obfuscation.
What I often find infuriating about Anonymous is that, while they will put every assertion of mine on trial simply because I expose them as the Cyber-Bully Cult that they are, they openly and aggressively pursue anybody who challenges their own assertions. The difference is, I actually provide evidence.
I wonder if the inmates at Brian's future home have Internet connections...If so, then maybe his Anonymous cohorts can protect him by cyber-bullying the other prisoners into submission.
Tom Newton
TOM! WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?!? I fricken missed you! I hope you got some new trolls for us... because without you... it's kinda been boring
ReplyDeleteWhy do you insist on labeleling anyone who doesn't hate Scientology as "trolls"?
ReplyDeleteIsn't that "attacking the attacker?"
TOM NEWTON
Oh wow, you've mentioned me already in one of your posts! I'm totally honoured! :D
ReplyDeleteFirst off, you should be thanking me for challenging you to find evidence to back up your assertions. You do, after all, have quite a bad track-record - and we WERE scratching our heads over who this person was.
Obviously, you rose to the challenge, so really, you blogging skills have been vastly improved by having encountered me! Ain't I wonderful!
Second. I am not a holocaust denier. I wholeheartedly believe the historical documentary evidence for the slaughter of millions of jews (and of course, all those non-jewish people who dared to oppose the nazi ideology). I strongly disagree with the positions to the contrary. I would really appreciate a retraction on that one...you know, lest I get litigious on your ass! ;)
But anyhow, so glad you're back to blogging. The internet hasn't been the same without you.
El Diablo,
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised you have the guts to own up the massive failure of denying the very existence of Brian MettleBrink.
Tell me, how does your foot taste?
Tom Newton
Oh wow, that was quick!
ReplyDeleteActually, I didn't "[deny] the very existence of Brian MettleBrink". I simply denied you had independent evidence for it at the time you made the claims.
See, I am totally aware of the possibility that you're right (or at least, not entirely wrong) on things that you publish - however, your poor track record means that the burden of proof is on you before I am comfortable accepting your claims as truth. You may notice that I word myself quite carefully when challenging you to find evidence. If you do find it, then wonderful! You have just improved your argumentative skills +1, and the internet is a slightly better place for it! :D
As I said earlier, you really should be thanking me for helping you to improve your skills in this regard. I'm very benevolent like that.
And you'll naturally be retracting the charge of "holocaust denier". :)
^Didn't I already suggest that with your obvious talent for lying that you should become a defense attorney?
ReplyDeleteWhy won't you just admit that you were wrong?
Do so, and I'll overlook your anti-Semitism and possible retract any mention of your Holocaust Denialism.
I have an obvious talent for lying do I? This is quite a leap for you to make since I've been nothing but up-front with you since I started posting on your blog(s).
ReplyDeleteActually, I have an obvious talent for covering my argumentative bases, and foreseeing possible developments in evidence. I was always really good at debating and argumentative essays in high school because I knew that any good argument starts by examining the contrary position - acknowledging it's strengths and examining it's weaknesses.
I DID have doubts about the veracity of your claims, however, as someone who is well aware of the happenings of the internet, I didn't doubt that it was POSSIBLE. By challenging you to find better evidence, I was helping you to improve your argumentative skills, while protecting my own argument against the evidence that EVENTUALLY emerged.
But you SHOULD retract the charge of "holocaust denier" because that is blatantly false. You can of course continue with this ad hominem argument, however it is not the sign of someone who is confident in their argumentative skills to resort to this. :)
You can thank me later for that one. :)
Oh, you stopped playing? Darn!
ReplyDeleteAnyhow...it occurred to me that if you want to accuse me of something that's actually true then you can change "holocaust denier" to "denies the existence of any terminator movie after Terminator 2: Judgment Day".
Maybe that's where you got confused, pet? I mean, nuclear holocaust is kind of like the one from WWII, right? Lots of people dying horrible deaths...only instead of Hitler, you have James Cameron directing.
Hmm, what else should I deny the existence of?...I'm thinking pretty much all of the Tomb Raider movies, and anything staring Kate Beckinsale...I mean, What tomb raider movie? and What the heck is a Kate Beckinsale?
See, much better, don't you agree? :D
Sooo glad we had this little chat! It was fun. Let's do it again sometime. :D
First you claim:
ReplyDelete//""This is extremely gratifying. After arguing with "El Diablo," quite possibly the most obnoxious Anonymous member there is (incidentally a Holocaust Denier as well)""//
Then you claim:
//""The difference is, I actually provide evidence."//
Where, might I ask, is the evidence of El Diablo's 'Holocaust Denial' ?
I cannot accept what you say on face value without evidence to prove its validity, as I would be with anyone's claims.
Admit it. You tried to deny the existence of Brian in much the same spirit of those who deny atrocities. It's not that you didn't believe in Brian. Your decision to deny his existence was bourne out of political expedience.
ReplyDeleteKenji: In case you're wondering - Tom has skipped over your comment and is back onto ad hominem attack on me because -
ReplyDelete(a) He has no evidence (and won't find any, since it doesn't exist - something that I WILL confidently say doesn't exist)
....and
(b) because he is insecure about his argumentative skills and hence has to continue like a broken record with assertions he has NO CHANCE of being able to substantiate.
Why don't you admit it "Tom"? I'm your intellectual superior, and Terminator 2 was the last (and penultimate) terminator movie ever made.
And what's this political expediency thing about??? I'm slightly confused by what you're trying to say here "Tom".
Oh well - FUN FACT TIME!
Did you know that "Fanta" was invented so that the Coca-Cola company could continue selling carbonated beverages to the nazi's without sullying the Coca-Cola image as the favorite carbonated beverage of the allies?
IT'S TRUE.
Also, the psychiatrists didn't orchestrate the holocaust. However, the heavy war-reparations leveled against Germany post WWI and the crushing blow it struck to their strong national identity primed the stage for the rise of the nazi party. They did after-all help rebuild Germany's economy, gave birth to the VW "beetle" and built the autobarns.
Also they killed something like 6 million European Jews. And probably double or treble that number when you add up all the other political and ideological opponents who met their deaths in concentration camps. But heck, who's counting right?
Oh yeah...IBM apparently! :D
^I understand your approach. You intend to keep piling on so many layers of BS that no one will notice that you were exposed as the obfuscator that you are.
ReplyDeleteLol. Of course you understand pet.
ReplyDeleteActually, I'm treating your accusations with the respect they deserve.
...and providing some much needed comic relief.
...oh and providing a short history lesson on WWII.
Pretty much turning your blog into my own personal space for testing out my comic writing, and having a great time doing it.
So, what is this "political expediency" thing you were talking about? You never did explain.
:)
^Obfuscator:
ReplyDeleteFigure it out. Try to squeeze some reading in between your bouts of self-congratulation.
Now who is obfuscating!
ReplyDeleteCan't answer a simply question dear "Tom"?
"Political expediency" - What did you mean by that?
So far, I'm torn between it hinting at some kind of conspiracy theory that makes sense only to you, or whether you just liked the sound of the words together, so thought you'd throw them out there for the heck of it!
Doesn't matter how many times any of us reads it, it won't change the fact you cannot write coherently and properly explicate your points. If this were year 10 English, your essay margins would be full of red-pen and a request to "see me after class".
And here I was thinking I was helping you to improve your persuasive writing skills. Oh dear! At this rate we're gonna need some kind of "remedial blogging 101" for our favorite poop-talker!
So, go on...I know it's against Scientology rules and all that to explain what you mean...but humour me. I'm just a "WOG" after all. :)
^Dear Obfuscator:
ReplyDeleteI'll be happy to explain things at a second grade level if that's what you need me to do. But first, I'd like you to admit that you were deliberately denying the existence of Brian Mettenbrink because his actions would reflect poorly upon Anonymous as a whole. Just as the mass media as a whole tends to exhibit Jihad Denial Syndrome, often minimizing the significance of Islamic Fundamentalism in terrorist acts perpetrated by Islamofascists, Anonymous too will try their best to minimize the influence of their group on the actions taken by those who are convicted for your collective crimes. In other words, you obfuscate the facts when it's convenient.
I'll be happy to explain things at a second grade level if that's what you need me to do.
ReplyDeleteI don't "need" you to do anything. However, if you could get your standard up to a 2nd grade level, that would be a nice start.
But first, I'd like you to admit that you were deliberately denying the existence of Brian Mettenbrink because his actions would reflect poorly upon Anonymous as a whole.
No. But I did doubt the veracity of your reports based on your lack of evidence at the time. I honestly had no idea whether he existed or not, and whether anything else you had written was true or not. I was reserving judgment until some PROPER evidence emerged. I'm sure you have a copy of what I wrote. I put the challenge out...and ironically you eventually found evidence for your assertions on the WWP forums.
Funny about that, huh? :)
Also, it was from a DDOS attack from the beginning of 2008, yeah? Hardly reflective of the current collective. His actions reflect badly on HIM - unless of course you wish to say that similarly, ALL Scientologists are first-degree murderers since ONE of them is (*cough* Rex Fowler *cough*).
Do you see where this is going? :)
Just as the mass media as a whole tends to exhibit Jihad Denial Syndrome, often minimizing the significance of Islamic Fundamentalism in terrorist acts perpetrated by Islamofascists...
Huh? Okay, slow down there buddy. What's this "Jihad Denial Syndrome" you speak of? And how exactly are the mass media engaging in it. And what does Islamic fundamentalism have to do with the price of fish? Your ideas are jumping around like grasshopper on crack. Go back and think about what you're saying and present them in a more cogent fashion.
...Anonymous too will try their best to minimize the influence of their group on the actions taken by those who are convicted for your collective crimes.
Okay that makes no sense.
1. "minimize the influence of their group on the actions ..."
2 "taken by those who are convicted"
3, "for your collective crimes"
The first part with the second part would suggest that the anonymous collective is trying NOT to influence individuals to engage in criminal behavior. Which would be a good thing!
Yet the third point suggests that the crimes are "collective"...which totally doesn't follow from the first two points, and makes NO SENSE in this context.
Do you read what you've written before you press "post"?
No seriously...You may think that you make sense, and that I'm the one with the comprehension problem, but in truth you DO NOT MAKE SENSE. It's like a dictionary threw up a thesaurus on your keyboard. All the individual words are okay, but stick them together in the order that you do and they're completely nonsensical, albeit *basically* grammatically correct.
You need to learn to walk before you can run. Try aiming for a first-grade level, okay?
In other words, you obfuscate the facts when it's convenient.
And again, that does not follow from anything you've written before it. Also, I disagree, but that's besides the point. I'm here to help you improve your writing and argumentative skills.
Now, next time - proof read - then get someone else to proof read it - then proof read it again. Just because you use a bunch of big words does not necessarily mean you're gonna sound intelligent, especially if you use them in a profoundly stupid way.
We call this "The Stephanie Myere's Effect". :)
Anyhow, better luck next time: D-
Oh...and since I'm nice (and can hazard a guess at what you were getting at with the above word salad) - I'll offer some alternative wording:
ReplyDelete...Despite evidence to the contrary, anonymous minimizes the collective involvement in the crimes of this convicted individual.
Now, I don't agree with this assertion, however I thought I'd throw you a bone and demonstrate how you might more succinctly and coherently present the argument you're attempting to make.
See? It's really not that hard to make sense.
Now go back and redraft, lest you get a big fat "FAIL" on your next attempt. :)
Yawn. More OBFUSCATION.
ReplyDeleteYou denied the existence of Mr. Mettenbrink because he was imprisoned for a crime committed by the Anonymous collective. It wasn't a lack of evidence that caused you to go into denial. It was your desire to evade a PR FLOP. This point needs no further explaining, but since you're the Great Obfuscator, and will ask me what I mean by "PR FLOP" here we go: By "PR FLOP," I mean that the criminal in this case did something which the majority of Anonymous was involved in, yet he was one of the few who were actually caught. What this means is, the only reason others were not arrested as well is that they were not caught.
Obviously, it is better for your relationship with the public, whose trust you seek to gain, if you aren't perceived as criminals, and therefore you have much to gain by playing ignorant.
Moreover, there is far less evidence for the numerous conspiracy theories you anti-Scientology hate mongers promulgate, and yet you don't seem to doubt the veracity of any of those. Why? Because it's convenient for you to have material to smear the Church with.
Far from having a logical, reasonable mind, you actually an ideological bigot. You are a walking hate-crime. I have exposed you as an obfuscator, a liar, and an arrogant, pompous douche-bag. You should probably just go eat a bag.
Was Brian Mettenbrink the only Anonymous member involved in the DDOS Attacks?
ReplyDeleteHow many do you think were involved?
Yawn. More OBFUSCATION.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a thesaurus? Is "obfuscation" your word for the day? This isn't helping you out here Stephanie. You don't mind if I call you Stephanie, do you?
You denied the existence of Mr. Mettenbrink because he was imprisoned for a crime committed by the Anonymous collective. It wasn't a lack of evidence that caused you to go into denial. It was your desire to evade a PR FLOP. This point needs no further explaining, but since you're the Great Obfuscator, and will ask me what I mean by "PR FLOP" here we go: By "PR FLOP," I mean that the criminal in this case did something which the majority of Anonymous was involved in, yet he was one of the few who were actually caught. What this means is, the only reason others were not arrested as well is that they were not caught.
From what I can tell, "anonymous" doesn't care about PR. Nor do I. And if the "majority of Anonymous" were involved then they wouldn't have spent so much time wondering who this person was.
If you think that all the forum chatter and speculation is some big rouse to give the impression that the collective was in the dark when they actually were not, then I dare say you have some deeper psychological issues than I'm equipped to deal with. There is professional help available, however. You probably should avail yourself of it.
Obviously, it is better for your relationship with the public, whose trust you seek to gain, if you aren't perceived as criminals, and therefore you have much to gain by playing ignorant.
See above. I think you may have some kind of paranoia thing going on. No really. Do you honestly thing the entirety of WWP conspired to give the impression of ignorance when actually they knew who this person was and the details of the case? We get our information from google and the news just like everyone else.
And the public doesn't need to "trust us". People on WWP don't even trust one another (as a general rule), hence the constant calls of "DOX or GTFO". Nobody takes anyone else word for it. Nor should the public.
Moreover, there is far less evidence for the numerous conspiracy theories you anti-Scientology hate mongers promulgate, and yet you don't seem to doubt the veracity of any of those. Why? Because it's convenient for you to have material to smear the Church with.
See the "DOX or GTFO" (above). I've read plenty of CoS policy, listened to plenty of audio, poured through pages of testimonials, court documents and news stories. I come to my conclusions based on evidence, as I hope everyone else does.
I just happen to conclude from this evidence that the Church of Scientology is a criminal cult who preys on and exploits the vulnerable - which abuses it's own members (spiritually, financially and mentally) - which has total disdain for the democratic system of government (which I happen to be quite fond of) - and is essentially totalitarian, with the ultimate aim to create a world under the complete control of the Scientology hierarchy.
We can have an in-depth discussion about this if you wish. It's one of my favorite topics. :)
Far from having a logical, reasonable mind, you actually an ideological bigot. You are a walking hate-crime. I have exposed you as an obfuscator, a liar, and an arrogant, pompous douche-bag. You should probably just go eat a bag.
Lol. Yep. If that's what you need to tell yourself to get through the day, then far be it from me to take it away from you. You obviously struggle with tongue-in-cheek humour, particularly of the Australian variety. But that's okay. Not everyone can be a comic genius like me!
Also, my taste in bags (and incidentally, hats) is beyond fabulous, so thank-you, but no. I shall not be consuming them.
I need them for carrying things, and accessorizing. :)
The reality is, if Mettenbrink was a Scientologist, you would have believed he was guilty immediately. There would have been no doubt that he was real.
ReplyDeleteI prove this time and time again. My friend created seven WWP accounts. All of them "former Scientologists" with their own little sob stories. They all get tremendous support from Anonymous, as their tales of woe conform exactly to what Anonymous expects to hear (prejudiced bigots that they are).
In fact, last night I exposed two of these fakes. Ask anyone at WWP about "Sarah X." Over a dozen Anonymous members were submitting artwork to be the cover of her upcoming expose on Scientology. Including "XenuBarb."
You're all gullible, hateful bigots.
Was Brian Mettenbrink the only Anonymous member involved in the DDOS Attacks?
ReplyDeleteHow many do you think were involved?
I have no idea.
Plus "member" is kind of stretching it, don't you think? It's not like there's an official club or anything.
And it seems that most of the people around in the DDOS days aren't too fond of us moralfaggy-types floating around WWP, anyhow. What with the "don't do stupid and/or illegal shit" policy that tends to dominate.
Oh well, I'm sure if you find anything, you can share it on the forums. :)
^Dear Obfuscator.
ReplyDeleteBy denying that Anonymous is a group, you are merely playing with words. You are either dangerously out of touch with reality, or you're the goofiest troll I've ever encountered.
The reality is, if Mettenbrink was a Scientologist, you would have believed he was guilty immediately. There would have been no doubt that he was real.
ReplyDeleteWell, there's plenty of google-fu that goes on to confirm whether someone is a Scientologist.
You have heard about Kristi Wachter's site, right?
If there were clear records of his existence outside of Scientology PR pieces, then this discussion would not be occurring. No clear myspace, facebook or the usual stuff. And I know I wasn't the only one looking.
You can hardly blame a group for not finding evidence that isn't there. Likewise, it's Scientology's decision to shamelessly self-promote, and publish members names ad nauseam. Perhaps if Mettenbrink was a Scientologist, it simply would have been EASIER to confirm his existence.
I prove this time and time again. My friend created seven WWP accounts. All of them "former Scientologists" with their own little sob stories. They all get tremendous support from Anonymous, as their tales of woe conform exactly to what Anonymous expects to hear (prejudiced bigots that they are).
Oh no! People on the internet being nice and empathetic! What horrible bigots!
In fact, last night I exposed two of these fakes. Ask anyone at WWP about "Sarah X." Over a dozen Anonymous members were submitting artwork to be the cover of her upcoming expose on Scientology. Including "XenuBarb."
You're all gullible, hateful bigots.
Aah the thread that was domed. The same thread where "Sarah X" was called out as a potential troll on the SAME DAY the thread was created.
You need to find a better example here.
And people being empathetic to people who seem to be genuine cult victims is not a good example of being "hateful".
Plus, there seems to be enough people with well-tuned bullshit detectors to deal with this kind of stuff.
Really, you need to try harder here. :)
Try harder? I have already proven what gullible goofs you all are. What else do you want?
ReplyDeleteDear Obfuscator.
ReplyDeleteBy denying that Anonymous is a group, you are merely playing with words. You are either dangerously out of touch with reality, or you're the goofiest troll I've ever encountered.
No, I just don't subscribe to the alternative "reality" of the Hubbard-verse. And I'm a brilliant troll. Yes, I'm goofy, but also fabulous, darling!
Try harder? I have already proven what gullible goofs you all are.
ReplyDeleteDOX or GTFO ;)
What else do you want?
Just for you to continue being you. See, you're my favorite person to troll. You rise to the occasion so easily. And I didn't even need to inject any post-feminist theory to get you going this time. You totally brighten my day simply by being the dead-horse-flogging, arm-flailing, frustrated little possum that you are!
Don't ever stop being you "Tom". The internet would be far less entertaining without you in it. :D
NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER
ReplyDelete