Works like a charm!


Love,

Os
Still dreaming of fishing...

Emma: I deleted my initial post because I had to rethink it. For now, I will leave it by saying that I have serious considerations, as well as extensive documentation, about prevail, KG, etc. In fact, Emma, let me restate my concerns to say that Prevail may have well pulled an Op on you of which you are not aware. Would you consider that possibility Emma? Do you think that Prevail may have told you what he wanted you to tell others?

I had originally thought that KG and Prevail were the same person. Upon closer examination, I would say that Heart of Oak and KG are the same person and that Prevail is another person. However, they work closely together and are both men. I have no doubt which one is the sub in what certainly looks like a dom/sub relationship. KG's master is prevail just as KG said.


/////

you spotted them straight on...

TOTAL PSY-OPS
too bad some of us are trained to spot them

- thanks for the info Antique Hoax- it also shows how NOSEY and WAY OFF THE MARK they are...

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

Antique Hoax,

Tigger is not an op. Tigger is anti-SCN.

Her only "crimes" are sometimes posting SCN related news items without critical commentary and being against what Bob Minton eventually did.

This is not correct. Prevail did say, or implied in response to me, that he was HeartOfOak.

PG you are correct.

does it matter?

They're all untrustworthy. Therefore we will not trust any of them, I think they'll come back here under another pretense. I think they have before.

It doesn't matter what they were, it only matters that we identify, and stop the next batch, or incarnation, before people trust them to much to the point where they give away information they're not comfortable giving away.

Arguing about this doesn't serve a purpose, unless we can define some way to spot them, or whoever, next time they come around.

Seriously, a way to spot these people would be great.

You know, when I glanced through this thread, all I could think of was a saying, or acronym, from the online game that I've been playing lately to relax from school.

It goes something like,

"MMORPG - Many Men Online Role-Playing Girls"

and it's an article of faith among the people online.


Essentially, if you want to avoid being laughed at, or insulted, or scammed, NEVER assume that you know who the other person on the line is. "Never assume, for when you do, you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'."

The tips are muted but easy to spot that the person on the other screen isn't who 'she' says she is - a 49-year old grandmother who works at Wal-Mart and has a back injury is PROBABLY a real woman, but a 20-something deaf Asian sex-slave lesbian? Come on. That's like the guy out of the alley offering you a "real Rolex for 50 bucks" or the Nigerian email saying "I have 50 million dollars but to get it out of the country I need 50 thousand."

If it sounds too good to be true, it might well be. Always bite the gold coins to make sure they're not copper.


Honestly, though, I wouldn't wager that it was a Scieno op, unless it was NOT monitored by anyone higher up; Kusanagi often insulted Hubbard, his writings, and his spoken words directly, and even the subtle sockpuppets.

Magoo, would your still-inside "buddy" have the freedom, given this current climate of Scientology oppression, to avoid having his words monitored closely so he could get away with something like saying, "Hubbard wants to kill all gay people, here's the proof"?


But in the end,

THIS DOESN'T MATTER.

Or, to be more accurate, it matters very much - to the real Scientologists monitoring this board and giggling behind their hands in glee that an argument wages between critics about one of their own, verging on a flame-war. Heck, they're probably rubbing their hardons through their slacks, hoping that the guy standing behind them with the E-Meter doesn't see how much they're getting off on this thread.

Remember that little thing? About how they want critics fighting amongst each other? Whether or not Kusanagi was OSA, 'she' sure as hell did some good work for 'em with this thread.

Therefore, it shouldn't matter a bit to us - we note that Kusanagi wasn't all she said she was and move on. We don't need to bite each other's backs to get this point across, we don't need to look at each other with suspicion, and if certain individuals seem more interested in making sure we keep slagging each other in this thread instead of pursuing productive lines of inquiry, shouldn't we just chalk it up to a bit more attempted handling instead of flaming back?

Fanboy,

My post was not intended to be a flame - it's just a fact.

*sigh*

I wasn't talking about you, or anyone in particular.

Maybe it's because I read this thing top to bottom instead of being involved in it from the start, but I can see that the individual facts, statements, arguments, affidavits, anecdotes, stories, legends, insults, and everything else blend into the perfect whole that the OSA is just so DELIGHTED to see.

Step back and see the forest instead of the trees.

This joker was a fraud. He was exposed.

Probably not OSA, but we can't rule out that possibility - it blends in too well with their modus operandi.

End of story.

Keep an eye out for future sockpuppets and the like, but we're always on the watch for that sort of thing aren't we?


Seriously, you guys are being hoodwinked here into thinking that something matters when it DOESN'T - and you're continuing the argument long past the time it should've died.

Here's what someone who's feeding into the paranoia running rampant would say:



That's an exaggeration, but it's the sort of thing that's been flying around this thread a little too heavily.


Now, WHY doesn't this matter?

Because in the end, we are none of us quite who we claim to be on the internet - well, Magoo comes across as a straight shooter, as does Andreas, but a lot of us hide behind anonymity for dozens of reasons on this forum ALONE, frome the benign (don't want OSA to come after us) to the malevolent (pretending to be a critic to disrupt all their good times).

As long as we understand that and don't accept anything as pure truth until we meet the person face-to-face and shake their hand, it's just a part of life on the 'net and we can live with that. It might seem mistrustful and paranoid, but do you go to a game of 3 Card Monte expecting the guy to NOT palm the red card?


And ironically, as long as you can use that as a baseline, you know how far to trust people and can even have a lot of fun on the 'net.


Mmm. I suppose that as long as we agree that argument threads like this should be taken with a grain (or preferably an entire shaker) of salt, then I guess that there's no real problem, eh?

You make a lot of great points, Fanboy. But I'll have to disagree with you on at least one.

I think this thread (the last 1/2 of it anyway) is progress here.

It's one issue mostly, people are talking about it, it's confined to this thread, not spawning new flamewar-threads elsewhere on the board. People are confining their feelings and new thoughts to here. Things havn't got too nasty.

Yeah, I wanted it to end sooner... oh well, people are communicating. The issue will die soon enough I hope and meanwhile: the rest of the message board and it's myriad of other threads... are not locked!

This thread is not physically preventing anyone from taking action to benefit Keith Henson.

And if there is new info or speculation or hey... facts... well break it out! I'm confident if there is, people will post it here. Where it belongs... right? (note thread title)

I think the board is doing better in some respects, and this thread is an example of it.

J. Swift,

Upon "closer examination" you would have seen this on the thread:
Why Scientologists Smoke
where Fluffy responds to HeartOfOak (Prevail). Thus, they are the same person.

I am not sure what you meant by "closer examination".

Prevail said he was Heart of Oaks who used to post
here before but there was a night and day difference
in the attitude of these posters.

Ok, your opinion of Tigger is taken into consideration.

Now that the persona "Pitbull" has now seemingly 'come out of the closet' and is posting from the perspective it is understood 'they' are speaking for the cult...do you still support this view of Pitbull after I exposed his 'Psy Op'?
Your opinion of Pitbull missed the mark in my opinion.

L o v e,
Charles

p.s. Pitbull has been using with some success the same tactic Mohammed Ali used vs. George Foreman.

The 'rope a dope'.

He is laying against the ropes, covered-up, not responding and absorbing my 'blows'. It is the strategy of "let the fool punch himself out".

However, only I know if I see this 'contest' as thirty-seconds into the first round, ...or the fifteenth and final round of a Championship Title bout.

I desire to see the "signature-box intimidation programme" changed. The only way I know to achieve that is to expose it firstly. I guess I'm still trying to do that?

Other than that, Pitbull is encouraged by me to post all they care to. I have no problem with free-speech. I do have a problem with subliminal messaging being used against people already in a vulnerable position of being programmed by Hubbard's 'tech' in such a flagrant way.

When Hubbard really gets to a person , he takes complete control. It is a potentially huge and courageous step for a Scientologist to view this Opinion's and Debate forum to get a 'feel' of real people speaking on Scientology.

They don't need to come here to get "Branded", they have already been "branded" enough I think. Give them a chance to view what the world thinks of Hubbard's Scientology 'religion' and way of 'enlightenment'.

There is always a larger percentage of 'guests' here, they are actually who my post are aimed toward.

L o v e,
Charles

This is not going to be a popular opinion, and I apologize ahead of time if it offends anyone. Which I'm sure it will.

I don't see why anyone is shocked by someone coming here and being a sockpuppet.

I have never personally understood the motivations of people who post to Usenet newsgroups and message boards about Scientology who have never been in Scientology or who have never been anywhere near an org.

Like I said, I am speaking for myself here.

To me, a lot of the people who post here see it as a form of amusement. Entertainment. A TV show or a video game.

Scientology isn't real to them. The Sea Org isn't real to them. None of this is real to them. It's just fun to talk about. For whatever reason. (That's something I never understood, either.)

People give reasons about being "outraged at Scientology's abuses" or "concerned about free speech" or whatever. I don't really buy most of it, personally. To me, it seems like it's just something to do for a lot of people.

So one of these people who come here for entertainment takes it one step farther and create alternate identities to post from. Granted, to go to the degree this person did is extreme.

But still.

It's no big shock to me.