Domain: sweenytod.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to sweenytod.com.
Comments · 8
-
Re:I'm a guy
Re: The Bible, you can see such a scaminario right now.
Just look at the two most recent large-scale cults in existence: Latter-Day Saints and Scientology.
LDS gives away their book. For free. To ANYONE who wants one, two, three, whatever. Yeah, they're kooks and irrepressibly gullible, but once you get past that, they are actually usually pretty good people - strong morality, strong family bonds, strong ethical sense, hyper-polite. If I were looking for a sales force I'd hire them in a heartbeat. Yeah, their men spend 2-3 years on "mission" trying to peddle their religion to others - but if you can walk away from a job like that, from KNOWING you will have doors slammed in your face or worse, you can sell anything. Yes, when you get closer to their central enclave in Utah, they get downright clannish and antisocial towards anyone who won't be converted after repeat attempts. Yes, I would describe their system as ultimately a "Cult." But they're a cult I can put up with and they don't spend their time trying to hide their doctrine, as opposed to our next exhibit...
The Cult of Scientology. What you have here is essentially a giant ponzi scheme that rolled a cross in the door and put collars on the "clergy" (whoops that's "auditors") in order to dodge the law. Scientology is famous for charging you into intense debt just to learn the "religious doctrine", and launching lawsuits and worse at anyone who exposes them. Hell, they even have an official policy for ordering a murder. Be very careful if you ever hear one of them mention R2-45: that's their newspeak for "murder someone", coming from the idea of shooting someone twice (R2) with a
.45-caliber gun.If you're in the Cult, the only way you keep your skin intact is either to (a) become a high ranking member (top level of the ponzi scheme), (b) an indentured slave of the Cult, or (c) be a rich celebrity (Tom Cruise, Greta Van Susteren, etc) who functions as a "recruiter" for the Cult and gets the "services" of the Cult for free.
-
Re:Necessary evil
I agree. I have recently been in contact with Jeremy Malcolm via an email listserv about the Debian-Lex distribution that he started up a few years ago to cater to lawyers. He was quite willing to let me build upon the original ideas of his, and become the project leader of this as-of-right-now non-existent Linux distribution. And from what I can tell after about an hour's worth of online investigation and reading through comments in this discussion he's getting a bad rap just for being a lawyer.
I can understand how the one dude is legitamately ticked off that he's been attacked by Scientology and all since I view at as a very malicious cult at best too, but I think he's getting pissed at the wrong people. I can't vouch for Jeremy Malcom's ethical stances, but I do know from being married to a lawyer that the everyday conflict that lawyers deal with quite often puts them at odds with at least one party to a dispute.
People! Lawyers do not exist to be the morality police and uphold the law! They exist to fight for their client's rights under the law. They didn't make the laws, they don't uphold the laws (unless they have become judges), but they do fight for people's rights under the law. Sometimes that means they're fighting *against* you. But that certainly doesn't make them all out evil people just because they are representing that which you have come to view as evil, dispicable, and wrong!
When viewed in this light, I don't see how Mr. Malcolm's past or present actions are in any way wrong... he's trying to fight for Linus' rights to maintain the trademarked name "Linux" as a name for a specific computer operating system software package. You may not agree with the fees being requested to be able to use the name "Linux" in your company's or product's names, but that's currently part of the law, and part of good lawyering: defensive lawsuits to protect a name. Bringing Scientology into this discussion only works to drive people into a fury over something completely unrelated to the facts of this particular case. Chill out people! (Even all those /.'ers showing up in this discussion as "Friends of Friends" which I generally respect when viewing comments in the threads of various /. discussion topics) -
Re:That fucking whore/scientologistGuess there are a few scientologists who monitor slashdot
... (which we already knew, since they've tried to get posts that point out how cracked they are removed in the past).Linkies: http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/lawer-from-hell.htm
snippet:
or http://www.sweenytod.com/cos/legal/
---&<---&<---
Scientology whore lawyer Jeremy Malcolm DMCAs Google
Following the lead of his master, the "lawyer from Hell" Jeremy Malcolm DMCA'ed Google, demanding the removal of "lawyer from Hell" sites about him.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/not ice.cgi?NoticeID=428
Attorney Demands Removal of "Lawyer From Hell" Sites
Dear Sirs
DMCA Complaint
I write to complain about infringements of copyrights held by me (which are also defamatory of me, but I realise defamation is outside of thee ambit of this complaint procedure). The search query which brings up each of the pages below is "[private]".
The results are as follows:
---&<---&<---snippet:
There's lots more. This guy is a self-promoter, and now he's trying to do a SCO.
---&<---&<---
cientology have a well deserved reputation of being a very aggressive organisation, accepting no criticism of their organisation or of their dead creator, L Ron Hubbard. They are legendary on the Internet with their attacks on freedom of speech, with legal action on almost every cotenant to force critics to take down web sites.
Well, my humble offering is no exception. Scientology in Perth, Western Australia has started legal action to force me to remove this site. When it became obvious that I was not going to do so, they threatened my ISP with legal action, asking him to remove my site. They even went so far as to offer him immunity from the upcoming lawsuit.
This page will be updated as the situation progresses.
The Players.
Jeremy Malcolm
The lawyer for Scientology is a local man called Jeremy Malcolm. JM used to be on the board of an organisation called Electronic Fronters Australia . EFA is "is a non-profit national organisation formed to protect and promote the civil liberties of users and operators of computer based communications systems."
From his position of fighting for freedom of speech, he is now fighting to stifle it. But that's life. I suppose a man has to do what a man feels he has to do. You can visit Jeremy Malcolm's web sites at the following locations.
---&<---&<--- -
Re:Really? Bullshit!
And trying to ridicule someone for posting a bogus stat? Most stats you've posted are false.
The stat in question that I posted in this thread is that >99.9% of all geniuses have NOT joined mensa.
I also gave the figures on which that calculation was based.
Nobody has been able to refute them. Will you be the first?Jeremy Mark Malcolm, on the other hand (to drag this thread back on-topic) has been pushing his "linux kernel patent infringement" FUD for at least a year, without any proof to back it up. If he's as smart as Mensa members claim they are, he should be able to come up with SOME proof.
But what do you expect from someone whose "niche law practice" includes harrassing ISPs for people posting the truth about Scientology, including damning quotes from its' founder.
Which brings up another point - how the fuck would anyone with any brains, never mind claiming to be a genius, believe in scientology? Tis to laugh.
-
Re:Really? Bullshit!BTW, an AC pointed out that his niche legal practice is as a mouthpiece for Scientology in Australia.
Can't get much more niche, or much more marginal, than that.
(now I'm going to have both the scientologists AND the mensans wanting my scalp.
:-) -
Re:He is also a lawyer for ScientologyHoly Fuck - I Missed That!
BTW - wish you hadn't posted AC - I'd have friended you immediately. This is great stuff :-)Church of Scientology Legal threats against this web page
Scientology have a well deserved reputation of being a very aggressive organisation, accepting no criticism of their organisation or of their dead creator, L Ron Hubbard. They are legendary on the Internet with their attacks on freedom of speech, with legal action on almost every cotenant to force critics to take down web sites.
Well, my humble offering is no exception. Scientology in Perth, Western Australia has started legal action to force me to remove this site. When it became obvious that I was not going to do so, they threatened my ISP with legal action, asking him to remove my site. They even went so far as to offer him immunity from the upcoming lawsuit.This page will be updated as the situation progresses.
The Players.
Jeremy Malcolm
The lawyer for Scientology is a local man called Jeremy Malcolm. JM used to be on the board of an organisation called Electronic Fronters Australia . EFA is "is a non-profit national organisation formed to protect and promote the civil liberties of users and operators of computer based communications systems."
From his position of fighting for freedom of speech, he is now fighting to stifle it. But that's life. I suppose a man has to do what a man feels he has to do. You can visit Jeremy Malcolm's web sites at the following locations. ... there's more, including Malcolm's letters of complaint representing the Scientologists. It's a hoot to read. Guess we know what his "niche law practice" is all about now. -
Re:Never called what it really is
There's a number of interpretations on what Satanism is. Anyways, here's a link that compares Scientology to some other religions and details the connections between Scientology and the Occult. And the Occult would be one definition of Satanism that a lot of people regognize as such.
-
Re:Case Record Web SiteI find it ironic that the lawyer for the defendant in this case is the same lawyer who was threatening to sue another website on behalf of the "church" of scientology.
Then again, I'm sure that lawyers would not see the irony in defending free speech for one client while suppressing it for another.