Yes Shirley that's true, you didn't kill the FACTnet MB. And you didn't kill OCMB, ARS, or any other $cn related forum that you attempted spread "Bob = Satan" gospel.

Btw, a note of thanks to the efforts of Tommy Gorman to assist Larry W. to re-vitalize FACTnet.

<<<>>>

You think that's funny? How about a certain group that asks you to "donate" a few hundred thousand dollars so that you can acquire superpowers?


Love,

Os

Yes, actually, I do think that's funny.

And he certainly learned from the Master.

Maybe one of the followers of his new religion will turn around and sue him for 25 million bucks.

Now, that would truly be Karma, wouldn't it?

You got it right. The donations section is a real hoot. And this is just one quote from one of the many 'donations' links.


http://www.integrativespirituality.org/ ... 141&page=1

I love this bit! '2. If you have an overabundance of income and assets, consider increasing that to a higher percentage. This assures the money and assets will not become stagnant and are released to flow for sufficiency of all to receive from.'

In other words, if you were thinking of being prudent and saving some money the future of you and your familly (gasp), forget it. Accumulating wealth puts your money into 'stagnation' and it presumably becomes worth less. Much better to allocate it , free up the 'flows' and benefit the greater good instead. Looks like this guy is maximising his personal profits from all angles.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is the exact spiel used by Scientology regges to get public to borrow money and max out their credit cards.

Well, Wolly sure looks suspicious with this kind of crap. We need a new cult like tits on a canary!

Well I don't know anything about canaries Schwim, but I agree this looks rather cult-like from the begining.

I don't notice any bannings there... nor do I find the part about the $90. reinstatement fee. Who was banned and where is the part about the $90.?

Love,

Os

Why would someone sue HIM?

I avoid places like that site myself, having been involved in New Agey stuffola for longer than I want to admit. The majority of such groups are of little value and those which solicit donations are at the top of the heap as to questionability. The site looks woo woo, but aside from asking for reasonable donations that do not impinge on one's ability to support one's self (as Scientology does), what exactly is the problem?

Are all y'all trying to say that this group is rapacious like Scientology because it solicits donations? Some groups that solicit donations provide necessary services for their members with that money, rather than funnel it through their Cayman Corporations and into their Swiss bank accounts. What do the owners of this site say they are going to do with the money? What kind of corporation are they? They may have to provide a PUBLIC ACCOUNTING of how the donations are used, depending on they type and location of their corporation.

Where is anything sinister on that site that would actually compare it to Scientology? I'd sure like to see it.

I'm in a group now. They ask for donations. The money from donations is all accounted for and used for the purposes the donors approve by vote. There is a membership donation but nobody is turned away if they cannot pay or donate. I am donating about ten percent of my income at this time. This is not an unusual situation in a community of like minded individuals who want to see their group prosper and grow.

I just don't see what is sinister about that. Sinister would be working members slaving and starving while the leader collects limosines and pays for prostitutes to pad his orgies with donated money.

Some people only want to DA people by casting negative aspersions and dispensing innuendos. I reckon I am asking where is the meat in this discussion. Just asking for donations does not mean any group is a cult.

Also, I still haven't found a link where FactNet is charging $90 reinstatement fee. Was that already posted? Did I miss it?

Love,

Os

Os, it is here.
Scroll down to: Discussion Board Service Charges for Special Services.
But now I looked at it again, it is gone! So Larry must have removed it.

Ok, I'm nuts! - I still don't see that bit about 90$. I even did a search on the string '90'.. Nuffin!


.

It was Arnie that originally posted it.

I think they removed it.

I'm sure the comments about it (originated by me, of course ) may have had something to do with it.

Dear Navy,

Oh yeah, I began looking at that link recently. I believe you saw it. Something like that would draw criticism. Maybe they did put it on there and then think better of it, but it's not a bad idea in my mind. I might have done it had I been them.

Here's why I don't fault their tightening up over there:

The cult folks who were cyberstalking me constantly employed multiple sockpuppets and disrupted entire boards. They skewed all the polls, and made it impossible for folk to discuss what they were there to talk about because it was conflicting with the PR they were spouting. They do it over here too, and I know if it happened on a lot of boards I visit, the people doing it would be banned. Toney is an example of someone who made a career out of disruption, and his contingent and possible sockpuppets still survive over here carrying on that tradition in a less blatant manner.

Trolls create a drain on the admins who generally receive multiple complaints FROM THE SOCKPUPPETS that their "freedom of speech" is being violated. Oddly, the innocent posters are usually not the ones complaining to the admin, but the trolls who enjoy twisting words, events, posting inflammatory statements then altering them or removing them, that kind of thing. Making absurd allegations against other posters to put them on the defensive. Making illogical allegations to stir up controversy about innocent people, like the allegation that asking for donations indicates ulterior motives or other nefarious purpose.

The trolls on this board and Factnet come like a swarm of bees, they have a disruptive agenda, and they should be penalized in some way for disruption. Here, there is a free exchange policy which asks the members not to feed the trolls. It is different at Factnet.

Factnet says it wants to be a supportive climate for ex cult members to join into, and when someone is being backhandedly called a "loser, whiner, baby" like happens on this FREE SPEECH BOARD, people who have been violated are being re-violated. Factnet has a right to make their board a place where antagonism and passive aggression against ex cult members is forbidden. It also has a right to ban cult PR agents and propagandists.

I do not understand all the whining from folks who are here making "sour grapes" statements such as, "That board is bullshit but I never post there anyhow" when they did post there before the IP's were shown (done to prevent sockpuppet abuse no doubt). Undoubtedly, the biggest critics of the Factnet policy are going to be those who were abusing their welcome.

Which is kinda typical for trolls.


Love,

Os

You do not understand, because you do not know what you are talking about.

Funnily enough, the ones who kept posting on FACTNet, after the IP addresses were published, were the ones who are now accused of being or using sockpuppets here, namely, among others, (in no particular order) Tigger, Umike, Ball of Fluff, Merlin (I take that back; he was never accused of using or being (a) sockpuppet(s)), myself and nec_v20 (if I've forgotten someone, it wasn't intentionally, sorry.)

Undoubtedly, the biggest critics of the FACTNet policy were people like Braveheart's Girlfriend and Galileo (IIRC), who felt betrayed by FACTNet's sudden (in the sense of "no warning!" given) policy of publishing IP-addresses.

Which is kinda untypical for trolls and sockpuppets.

And yes, the Scientology section of that MB is comatose right now (has been for two years now), and the current structure sucks.

Exactly. I posted before and after the decision to show IP addresses.

I posted less afterward because there were less discussions, but I still posted on F'net. Mostly on Scn section but on some others, as well.