Terryeo's Profile
My Comments

FIND OUT WHERE YOU ARE !

Posted by: Terryeo on July 3, 2008 2:44 PM

Why pay for your PR when anonymous public will give you all the PR you could ever want?

Posted by: Terryeo on June 17, 2008 4:26 PM

@Centurian 10. I saw the encyclopediadramatica page dedicated to me and left a little note on its talk page, rather than edit the article to delete the falsehoods. Hello? 90 percent of the article is falsehood and lie. Hello? Reality Check. As I've posted elsewhere to you Centurian 10, you are mistaken. I don't work with, nor personally know anyone within the OSA. Your peas are not in a row about that. I suppose I better ask you too, do you know the emotional response people have to persistent anger? ---- It is boredom. Big Yawn to you and your lies, Centurian 10.

Posted by: Terryeo on April 14, 2008 6:48 AM

I made an oppsey there. - If you don't rub elbows with criminals, you are less likely to be accused of criminality - Pardon me, I'm going to go chant that to the wall until I can say it aloud in a single breath without stuttering or pauses. Oh the lulz.

Posted by: Terryeo on April 1, 2008 11:43 AM

I'm going to simply state the obvious, and as simply as possible. Anonymous took responsibility for a DDoS attack, there were also the (probably fake) anthrax mailings. At the same time, and in the same lump, some of you wish to peacefully demonstrate. My conclusion is that some anonymous members intend to obey the law and some anonymous members don't.

If those statements don't make sense to you, don't bother reading my suggestion. Which is, if you don't rub elbows with criminals, and you are less likely to be accused of criminality. There is no one on the planet, including expelled and declared suppressives, who have no communication with the Church of Scientology. Do don't jeopardize your future, don't ally yourself with the "Anonymous" name because it was preemptively owned and controlled by people who have done illegal, disgusting acts. Don't ally yourself with that.

Posted by: Terryeo on March 31, 2008 9:29 PM

Oh the Lulz! And I'm not going to do a "but seriously..." on a Lulz this fine!

Posted by: Terryeo on March 29, 2008 2:00 AM

First. heh.

Posted by: Terryeo on March 26, 2008 7:02 PM

If you keep at the criticism, be sure and let Dave Touretzky, know. He'll want to help you with the sale of your website, like he did with Chris Owen's critical site. Big Pharma is Big Bucks, don't forget.

Posted by: Terryeo on March 18, 2008 8:29 PM

*Gasp* could it be, could it really be that the Scientologists have been telling us the truth all of these years? Could it really be that people find it helpful?

Posted by: Terryeo on March 3, 2008 1:40 PM

Aha, Anoynymause, you have hammered my point home once more. You make a (very) confident statement that is (very) wrong. I responded to many of those sorts of things at wikipedia, Anoynymause, but those responses were ignored by critics because, after all, critics always know FOR SURE, don't they? You amuse me.

Posted by: Terryeo on February 20, 2008 10:20 PM

I am so amused by Neel Shah's assessment of the E-meter:
"E-meters--essentially tin-can contraptions that pass an electric current through the user and spit out a dubious assessment of his or her state of mind have zero scientific utility."
Anyone who has studied that technology can immediately see that Neel Shah hasn't a clue in the world about an E-meter's working. This is not to say that Neel Shah isn't completely confident in his statement, certainly his statement is confident. But that certainty, that confidence, does not come from an understanding of the E-meter, it does not come from using the E-meter, it does not come from education within a Church of Scientology for E-meter use. It is precisely these sorts of (very) self confident but obviously (very) wrong statements that are the mark of Scientology's critics.

Posted by: Terryeo on February 20, 2008 9:55 PM

Yeah, but what kind of refreshments will anonymous bring to the party?

Posted by: Terryeo on January 29, 2008 3:14 PM

If it is intelligent to make note of failed attempts to suppress religion, then certainly the misinformation of the article presents examples of failed attempts to suppress religion. Others could be found. The German constitution guarantees a freedom of religion. How does this disparity exist, you ask? The German government is an active partner with its two official churches, donations to your church are collected by the government and dispersed to the two churches. There are strong, standing economic interests in Germany's religious discrimination. However, those interests fall under the German constitution.

Posted by: Terryeo on December 11, 2007 1:21 AM


 
Most Recommendations

Saudi Kids Learn the Darndest Things About Killing Jews and Gays

Fox News Guilty of Facebook Profiling?

Julia Allison Wins The Internet

New York Media Scene Disappoints Young Girl

Sienna Miller Caught Topless With Balthazar Getty




He's Still Rock and Roll to Me
In praise of Billy Joel

Full Court Press
Charles Kaiser on "that New Yorker cover," and the rest of this week's media winners and sinners

Missing in Action
Heath Ledger's Dark Knight performance isn't Hollywood's first posthumous success

Barbarians at the Plate
Radar selects baseball's most scandalous all-star team

Full Court Press
The New York Times Magazine pens a love letter to Rush Limbaugh




Britney Bows To K-Fed's Superior Parenting Skills

Elle's "Beat the Recession" Tricks

Scott Peterson, Blogger

Sulzberger Kid Hates Internet

Let Them Eat Kate








Home     Subscribe     magazine customer service     Contact     Terms and Conditions     Advertise     privacy policy