Forums: Index > BHOP > Hey Guys?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1985 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

What exactly is our stance when it comes to Project Chanology? I mean it isn't as if we have to side with our enemies or anything like that.User:KWild/sig 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Down with scientology! If they suck Will Smith in next I'll go over there stab them. Spang talk 19:26, 30 Jan 2008
What about DJ Jazzy Jeff? He was the talented one. Also, he has glasses. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Click... SQUELCH... thud... lets never talk about "DJ Jazzy" again m'kay (that'll learn him to bitch on my turf) Sir DJ ~ Irreverent Icons-flag-au Noobaward Wotm Unbooks mousepad GUN
We're enemies with Anonymous? This is news to me. I suppose that makes me even more of a self-hating Jew, after all. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Fuck, I lost the game. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 21:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
How can you be an enemy to someone you don't even know? For all we know, Anonymous might be a group of Scientologists trying to stir up more attention and controversy to Scientology, in order to make themselves look like the victims and gain the public's sympathy and use that to recruit more people. "Join us, we are being attacked by Anonymous people!" just like the Empire used the Trade Federation to attack themselves in the Star Wars prequels to gain more support in the Galactic Senate and order the creation of Clone Troopers and recruit all the Jedi's to defend them, so they wouldn't be made aware that the Empire is recruiting more people to their side to overthrow the Republic and turn Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader. For all we know Xenu might have been working for L. Ron Hubbard to discredit Psychology in the first place, or L. Ron Hubbard was Xenu reborn and Xenu rose to power by discrediting Psychology and promoting Scientology by leading Anonymous attacks on Scientology over the Internet, and once everyone caught a case of the "stupids" by rejecting the logic and reason in Psychology for the emotions in Scientology and became unable to be managed, that was when he started murdering people with atomic bombs over Volcanoes in the first place. How do I know all of this? Quite simple, logically deduction really. Nobody cares about Scientology and people generally ignored it or made fun of it, until these Anonymous Internet Attacks started to happen to Scientology and then all of a sudden, gosh, we need to defend their religious freedoms and now Scientology is appearing on the main page of Newspapers and Internet News Sites with even more attention than it got before. I doubt that is a coincidence. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Uuuuhhhhhh....oookaaayyyy.... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:13, Jan 31
It is called a Universe Flopper trick. Gotta fight science fiction with more science fiction! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
In short, we don't support it, but we don't oppose it either. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Complete nonsense! Everyone on this site knows that we both support it and oppose it. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:33, Jan 31

We are against them.

Copied from their ED page: For much of its early life it was overshadowed by the other humor-oriented wiki Uncyclopedia, which is arguably complete shit and undeserving of any internets. However, ED soon shifted towards encompassing the *chans and cataloging their memes/drama, and with this content pulled past Uncyclopedia. Nobody really noticed.

They insulted us. We are against them. --Dexter111344 21:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous != ED. Therefore, your (already biased) arguments are moot. We are strictly neutral. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Neutral like China and Russia... --Dexter111344 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Neutral like khaki and tan. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Biased like Ralph Nader. --Dexter111344 22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Biased like a survey on a touchy and racy subject given to a selectively picked non-stratified, non-random sample in front of a person of influence to the subject sample's life. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean like one of them game shows? Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Modus have shown a picture of his Pa by now? --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 01:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So I was wrong?

When I said side with our enemies I meant ED. Does this mean we are still neutral or that we have to support the Xenu hating crazy pretend psychology money grabbers that is Scientology?

Supporting scientology is a bannable offence. Don't do it, kids. Spang talk 17:14, 31 Jan 2008
I'm wearing a "Free Xenu" hoodie as I type this. Take that, Tom Cruise! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 17:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend? Sorry that sort of logic does not work. Sort of like allying up with Iran because we are enemies with Iraq and so is Iran, that dog don't hunt. How about both ED and Scientology can fight each other and we just sit back, watch, and eat popcorn or something?, or maybe fight both sides? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but this entire topic is a violation of UN:N. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:21, Jan 31
I have a question, does that policy actually work? I mean we tried it before in the past, but it never seemed to work. It seems to me that the more you ignore someone or something, the more they try to get your attention anyway. The more you deny attention, the more attention they try to get. Ever faced a starving animal? Do you know what they are willing to do to get food? Almost anything. So the more you starve someone or something of something, the more likely they will try harder to get it. I mean the federal US government had decided to ignore Osama bin Laden until he had 9/11 done and then he couldn't be ignored. During World War II the USA ignored Japan, figuring that they couldn't do anything to them. Then Pearl Harbor happened. I mean when we ignore ED, the ED users use anonymous IPs to vandalize our articles and use pages here. Also we refuse to take away creation of pages for anonymous IPs, yet many ED users use anonymous IPs to create ED-type articles here anyway. So really, does the policy actually in fact work? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know much about what starving animals will do for food, but I did see this video called "starving chix" that I found to be very educational. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:07, Feb 1

I say who gives a flying fuck?

If that's what they want to do is just to try and attack something that they can't possibly destroy and destroy themselves instead, well that's their idea. Also I'd like to see a truckload of cease and desist lawsuits (ordinary ones I don't care about) that are going to be stuffed all over their asses. Now THAT'S a Judge Judy episode I would like to watch! -->:( 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually when he tried to write a funny Scientology article here, we found that we couldn't write a funnier one than the Xenu article over at Wikipedia that was written by real Scientology members citing real Scientology books and notes. So yeah basically Scientology beats itself up and scores own goals with no help from anyone else. But how can you file cease and desist lawsuits against anonymous attackers if you don't even know their personal info to contact them and send the letters to them. The Anonymous attackers are scoring own goals too, because they are creating a lot of sympathy and attention for Scientology and news sources are putting the story on the main page of newspapers and Internet sites. It is almost like two retarded people trying to get into a debate over which one of them is the dumbest. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I am! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No point in arguing with you, you win the debate. :) --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I am! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 07:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


I just learned that there will be a protest in my city. The presence of them being altogether in one group in my city makes me throw up (can't blame them, the ARE everywhere). There is an estimate of at least 40 protesters going to Winnipeg to protest against Scientology on February 10. I'll be there though, watching them get trashed by the police. Front page on the news, I just know. Now excuse me, while I swallow a bunch of Tylenol and sleeping pills. -->:( 06:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientology in Winnipeg? Now you're just being ridiculous. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 07:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah yeah 1960's flashback, Protesters being beaten up by Police. Scientology is the new Vietnam. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Heh, never thought of that. Someone bring John Kerry to see what he thinks of this. Also Modus, I didn't know we had Scientology here either. :P -->:( 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Are the E-meters metric? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
E-Meters measure how much crazythetans you have in your body. They call it OT or operating thetan levels. The higher your OT score the more likely you are messed up with thetans or possible the more god-like you are like Tom Cruise. I guess having a high OT level gives you superhuman abilities like jumping on Oprah's couches and defying all logic and reason. Most people only reach OT9 but mine goes all the way to OT11, none higher. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You know RandomDie, it seems to me like you're having a bit of trouble recognizing the lesser of two evils here. Allow me to make a scorecard:
Anonymous: (Possibly) Illegal DDoS attacks, hackings on a plethora of websites and verbal threats against "lulz-killers". Note, however, that this is not all of Anonymous. To make an estimated guess, the actual hacker portion could be limited to a couple dozen bored teens from You-know-Where and the terribly small (though skilled) populace of You-Know-Where-The-Smaller-One-That-Still-Has-An-Invasion-Board's invasion board. However, though Project Chanology was probably just the hackers in the beginning when they DDoS'd, it's spread to the more peaceful and less hacker-savvy of Anon. They are taking careful measure of their methods and means of protest so that they don't get in unnecessary trouble with the police, and have earned the affirmation and support of almost every legitimate anti-Scientology group on the market. Your perception of who is participating in these protests is severely flawed. We're not looking at a few dummies from ED, we're talking about thousands of actual, well-read, law-abiding, thinking people who see the moral and economical forces behind the crusade.
Scientology: Ruins lives by leeching hundreds of thousands of dollars (apiece) from hundreds of thousands of families, keeping members in a cloistered and cult environment, and even organizing "accidents" for a few of its former members (see: Operation Freakout and Lisa McPherson). Managed to convince the US Government to give it tax exempt status as a religion, despite their history of government infiltration (see: Operation Snow White). They have their own label for people they don't like, SPs, and employ any means necessary (see: [Fair Game) to keep these "suppressed people" suppressed. My mother could deliver a firsthand account of their horridness: she lived with her old husband and one year old son on a Scientology commune for a year until she wizened up and ran away with her my one year old brother, leaving the too-brainwashed husband behind. She lived for years in fear as an SP, in perpetual belief that Scientology would get its lawyers and get its hitmen and go to town on her as a deserter. They are, in essence, a cult with tax exempt status and Tom Cruise. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
But tax exempt status and Tom Cruise are all you need, man. Even my cult only made it up to no sales tax and Tom Mayfair. It just wasn't the same. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 22:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I know the meaning of life!!

If you join my cult, and then drink the kool-aid when I tell you, you will find God. Yep, that's the meaning. So, who wants kool-aid? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:24, Feb 7

Is it sugar-free? Sig_pic.PNG Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Is arsenic a type of sugar? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:11, Feb 7
Bah. Arsenic. Sorry I'm trying to lose weight; only cyanide and radium for me. Sir DJ ~ Irreverent Icons-flag-au Noobaward Wotm Unbooks mousepad GUN 02:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My Stance

I have is a bit like John Wayne, and the other one is a bit like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix. But less wooden. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)

Woah. --Keanu Reeves (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Modusoperandi was going to post this pic everytime he sees ED mentioned in the forums, but he seems to have to forgotten, and I've picked up the slack. It's a nice pic of his Pa'. I think he misses his Pa'. Went out for smokes and never came back, he did. Plus, since headers don't appear to be length-limited, either modus or myself can just ramble on about whatever comes to mind. Which is nice. The rambling, I mean...


"Hola, me llamo ED. Oí que usted me buscaba."

- P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:41, Feb 9

Whoa. Keanu Reeves 02:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I would've posted it, TLB, but I was distracted by an inflated sense of my own self-importance. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 02:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)