4 ms·

4 words: too little, too late.

fusiongyro 14y ago
Too little? Were you hoping for a refund of your $0? Too late? It was online for all of three hours. You're going to have to lower that bar if you expect anyone to get over it.
- neumann_alfred 14y ago
  Were you hoping for a refund of your $0? How about an apology? Even just "we are sorry for any confusion we may have caused", anything to indicate they are remotely aware of the gravity of wtf they just did? It was online for all of three hours. During which all negative comments except one were censored, while the votes spoke very clearly what the silenced majority was thinking. And that thing shouldn't have been online for even 5 minutes. They pulled it because of the backlash. That ain't enough. Every slimy scumbag sociopath understands punishment and eats chalk in response.. so? You're going to have to lower that bar if you expect anyone to get over it. Right, I totally forgot that everybody, and every body of people I trust and respect, occasionally slips up and supports Scientology while engaging in censorship, for "just a few hours". I guess I'll just have to be a hermite now :( Oh well, I'll take consolation in the fact that Scientology won't get me either. Nor will any of the complacent, spineless twats who just shrug it off when an organization which holds so many people hostage in such a cynical way gets an advertisement by a (former) newspaper. If this shit doesn't make you angry then you know what, fuck you as well.. as you can see, my bar is even higher than you thought, hah.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    How about it's 1 AM in DC? Can't wait until morning for your apology? "I demand justice—and I have to have it before going to bed!" I saw the article—there were plenty of negative comments. Not all of them were overt ("Too bad Shelly Miscavige couldn't attend!") but there were plenty there, along with huge quantities of downvotes on ambivalent and pro-Scientology comments. Much like unreported rapes, how accurate can your statistics on censored comments really be? Did you leave a "fuck you, Scientology!" comment and it didn't show up? Maybe there are other explanations we can identify before positing some kind of conspiracy. Changing behavior because of backlash has to be enough sometimes. Especially with organizations. Not every person in this country is as acquainted with Scientology as we are—most Americans think they're just some kind of new age religion for celebrities and are totally unaware of the kidnapping, abuse, murder, etc. Not every company can afford to have every decision filter through every person in the hierarchy to the top before its effects are felt.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      "I saw the article—there were plenty of negative comments" Before they started censoring negative comments and downvoting all but positive sockpuppet accounts.
    - neumann_alfred 14y ago
      Thanks for not taking my anger at this personally, I was being out of line. But to think that just one gullible person might fall into the clutches of Scientology because of this, really does bother me. I know they might follow up on all this with an editorial or something, but I would be surprised if it was an equally strong criticism of Scientology as the ad and the comments to it was praise of it. So I don't see the potential damage being undone. Trying to get away with something like this, to me marks any organization, unless it expels its elements which lead to those decisions, as utterly poisonous. And maybe they really cannot learn, maybe we have to play natural selection, instead of being understanding and patient and whatnot. But still, thanks for a level-headed reply to a kind of BS post, I'm just not editing it because I think that's lame; but I regret having it phrased that way, and being so full of myself when it's not really about me at all.
      - fusiongyro 14y ago
        I saw this and thought of you: http://www.theonion.com/articles/sponsored-the-taliban-is-a-vibrant-and-thriving-po,30910/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/sponsored-the-taliban-is-a-...

Too little? Were you hoping for a refund of your $0? Too late? It was online for all of three hours. You're going to have to lower that bar if you expect anyone to get over it.

neumann_alfred 14y ago
Were you hoping for a refund of your $0? How about an apology? Even just "we are sorry for any confusion we may have caused", anything to indicate they are remotely aware of the gravity of wtf they just did? It was online for all of three hours. During which all negative comments except one were censored, while the votes spoke very clearly what the silenced majority was thinking. And that thing shouldn't have been online for even 5 minutes. They pulled it because of the backlash. That ain't enough. Every slimy scumbag sociopath understands punishment and eats chalk in response.. so? You're going to have to lower that bar if you expect anyone to get over it. Right, I totally forgot that everybody, and every body of people I trust and respect, occasionally slips up and supports Scientology while engaging in censorship, for "just a few hours". I guess I'll just have to be a hermite now :( Oh well, I'll take consolation in the fact that Scientology won't get me either. Nor will any of the complacent, spineless twats who just shrug it off when an organization which holds so many people hostage in such a cynical way gets an advertisement by a (former) newspaper. If this shit doesn't make you angry then you know what, fuck you as well.. as you can see, my bar is even higher than you thought, hah.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  How about it's 1 AM in DC? Can't wait until morning for your apology? "I demand justice—and I have to have it before going to bed!" I saw the article—there were plenty of negative comments. Not all of them were overt ("Too bad Shelly Miscavige couldn't attend!") but there were plenty there, along with huge quantities of downvotes on ambivalent and pro-Scientology comments. Much like unreported rapes, how accurate can your statistics on censored comments really be? Did you leave a "fuck you, Scientology!" comment and it didn't show up? Maybe there are other explanations we can identify before positing some kind of conspiracy. Changing behavior because of backlash has to be enough sometimes. Especially with organizations. Not every person in this country is as acquainted with Scientology as we are—most Americans think they're just some kind of new age religion for celebrities and are totally unaware of the kidnapping, abuse, murder, etc. Not every company can afford to have every decision filter through every person in the hierarchy to the top before its effects are felt.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    "I saw the article—there were plenty of negative comments" Before they started censoring negative comments and downvoting all but positive sockpuppet accounts.
  - neumann_alfred 14y ago
    Thanks for not taking my anger at this personally, I was being out of line. But to think that just one gullible person might fall into the clutches of Scientology because of this, really does bother me. I know they might follow up on all this with an editorial or something, but I would be surprised if it was an equally strong criticism of Scientology as the ad and the comments to it was praise of it. So I don't see the potential damage being undone. Trying to get away with something like this, to me marks any organization, unless it expels its elements which lead to those decisions, as utterly poisonous. And maybe they really cannot learn, maybe we have to play natural selection, instead of being understanding and patient and whatnot. But still, thanks for a level-headed reply to a kind of BS post, I'm just not editing it because I think that's lame; but I regret having it phrased that way, and being so full of myself when it's not really about me at all.
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      I saw this and thought of you: http://www.theonion.com/articles/sponsored-the-taliban-is-a-vibrant-and-thriving-po,30910/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/sponsored-the-taliban-is-a-...