New Anonymous Vid

[Robert Seeberger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrkchXCzY70

"It has come to the attention of Anonymous that there are a number of 
you out there who do not clearly understand what we are or why we have 
undertaken our present course of action. Contrary to the assumptions 
of the media, Anonymous is not "a group of super hackers". Anonymous 
is a collective of individuals united by an awareness that someone 
must do the right thing, that someone must bring light to the 
darkness, that someone must open the eyes of a public that has 
slumbered for far too long. Among our numbers you will find 
individuals from all walks of life - lawyers, parents, IT 
professionals, members of law enforcement, college students, 
veterinary technicians and more. Anonymous is everyone and everywhere. 
We have no leaders, no single entity directing us - only the 
collective outrage of individuals, guiding our hand in the current 
efforts to bring awareness.We want you to be aware of the very real 
dangers of Scientology. We want you to know about the gross human 
rights violations committed by this cult. We want you to know about 
Lisa McPhearson. We want you to know about former members of 
Scientology's private navy, SeaOrg, who were forced to have abortions 
so that they could continue in service to the church. We want you to 
know about Scientology's use of child labor and their gulags. We want 
you to know about Operation Freakout and Paulette Cooper. We want you 
to know about Operation Snow White and Scientology's efforts to 
infiltrate the government of the United States of America.We want you 
to know about all of these things that have been swept under the rug 
for far too long. The information is out there. It is yours for the 
taking. Arm yourself with knowledge. Be very wary of the 10th of 
February. Anonymous invites you to join us in an act of solidarity. 
Anonymous invites you to take up the banner of free speech, of human 
rights, of family and freedom. Join us in protest outside of 
Scientology centers world wide. We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do 
not forgive. We do not forget. We will be heard. Expect us."

Totally Skiffy!

xponent
Sci-Fi Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: CoS in the news

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" 
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: CoS in the news


>
> On 28 Jan 2008, at 01:19, Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
>> William wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 27 Jan 2008, at 21:49, Julia Thompson wrote:
>>>

 If the Scientologists have a schism, each side's lawyers will be 
 so
 busy
 suing the other side that it'll all collapse sooner rather than
 later, and
 that will be the end of that.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or they could be like the  Sunni and Shi'a.
>>>
>>> Same but different Maru.
>>>
>>
>>> From Wiki:
>>
>> Although "Scientology" is most often used as shorthand for the
>> Church of
>> Scientology , a
>> number
>> of groups practice Scientology and Dianetics outside of the 
>> official
>> Church.
>> Some groups are breakaways from the original Church while others 
>> have
>> started up independently. The Church labels these as
>> "apostates"
>> (or "squirrels" in Scientology
>> jargon)
>> and often subjects them to considerable legal and social pressure.
>> These
>> groups avoid the name "Scientology" so as to keep from being
>> sued,
>> instead referring to themselves collectively as the Free
>> Zone.
>> Such groups include Ron's Org and the International Freezone
>> Association,
>> among others.
>
>
> Clearly these schismatic groups can't be termed fake religions under
> the criteria Rob was suggesting and yet they share most of the 
> beliefs
> of the original group.

To some degree I would agree here, but even that is dependent on how 
the splinter groups conduct their business. Still, any flavor of 
Scientology is more of a philosophical movement than an actual 
religion in the traditional sense even though it might satisfy a 
clinical definition say.the way a cargo cult would.

From: http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Is_Scientology_a_religion

"The actions of the Church of Scientology have brought a storm of 
criticism upon the organization. Scientologists frequently compare the 
criticism of Scientology to the persecution of members of the Jewish 
faith, but the many actions of the organization have been decidedly 
non-religious in nature.

However, there are people who believe in the power of Dianetics. These 
people, who categorize themselves as the Free Zone, have broken away 
from the fascist control of Scientology; instead, they are applying 
the "tech" of Hubbard's writings to their own beliefs, transforming it 
into a philosophy of their own. The "official" Church of Scientology 
is terrified of the Free Zone and its appeal, for they believe that if 
knowledge of the Free Zone were to spread through the ranks of the 
Church, many people would break away from Scientology and form their 
own individual factions of Scientology. These denominations would be 
independent of Scientology's control…and this means that the Church of 
Scientology would not receive any money from the Free Zone. This 
concept contrasts with Hubbard's official policy, so the Church of 
Scientology is doing everything it can to wipe out the Free Zone.

But as with its attempts to silence its critics, the Church of 
Scientology is failing. The Free Zone is expanding, and despite the 
best efforts of the "official" Church of Scientology to present itself 
as a religion, the Free Zone may well be the true source for the 
religion of Scientology."

I think this points to the difference in our opinions on the subject. 
You see Scientology as a religion first and as a steaming pile of 
totalitarian crap second.

I see Scientology as a totalitarian mind-control/pyramid-scheme first 
and any expectations of a religious nature only at the fringes of 
their concern, and that only to the purpose of the preservation of 
their tax-exempt status here in the US.



>How could a law protect these genuine religions
> and also ban the original Scientologists at the same time?
>
Easily! You take away the COSI's tax-exempt status away and give it to 
the splinter groups. That would do more to damage the COS and enhance 
a measure of justice than just about anything else. BTW, that is 
basically what Anonymous is trying to achieve by causing *exposure*.


xponent
About Money Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: CoS in the news

[William T Goodall]

On 28 Jan 2008, at 01:19, Doug Pensinger wrote:

> William wrote:
>
>>
>> On 27 Jan 2008, at 21:49, Julia Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If the Scientologists have a schism, each side's lawyers will be so
>>> busy
>>> suing the other side that it'll all collapse sooner rather than
>>> later, and
>>> that will be the end of that.
>>
>>
>> Or they could be like the  Sunni and Shi'a.
>>
>> Same but different Maru.
>>
>
>> From Wiki:
>
> Although "Scientology" is most often used as shorthand for the  
> Church of
> Scientology , a  
> number
> of groups practice Scientology and Dianetics outside of the official  
> Church.
> Some groups are breakaways from the original Church while others have
> started up independently. The Church labels these as
> "apostates"
> (or "squirrels" in Scientology
> jargon)
> and often subjects them to considerable legal and social pressure.  
> These
> groups avoid the name "Scientology" so as to keep from being
> sued,
> instead referring to themselves collectively as the Free
> Zone.
> Such groups include Ron's Org and the International Freezone  
> Association,
> among others.


Clearly these schismatic groups can't be termed fake religions under  
the criteria Rob was suggesting and yet they share most of the beliefs  
of the original group. How could a law protect these genuine religions  
and also ban the original Scientologists at the same time?

Catholics/Protestants Maru.

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit  
atrocities." ~Voltaire.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: CoS in the news

[William T Goodall]

On 28 Jan 2008, at 01:19, Doug Pensinger wrote:

> William wrote:
>
>>
>> On 27 Jan 2008, at 21:49, Julia Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If the Scientologists have a schism, each side's lawyers will be so
>>> busy
>>> suing the other side that it'll all collapse sooner rather than
>>> later, and
>>> that will be the end of that.
>>
>>
>> Or they could be like the  Sunni and Shi'a.
>>
>> Same but different Maru.
>>
>
>> From Wiki:
>
> Although "Scientology" is most often used as shorthand for the  
> Church of
> Scientology , a  
> number
> of groups practice Scientology and Dianetics outside of the official  
> Church.
> Some groups are breakaways from the original Church while others have
> started up independently. The Church labels these as
> "apostates"
> (or "squirrels" in Scientology
> jargon)
> and often subjects them to considerable legal and social pressure.  
> These
> groups avoid the name "Scientology" so as to keep from being
> sued,
> instead referring to themselves collectively as the Free
> Zone.
> Such groups include Ron's Org and the International Freezone  
> Association,
> among others.

Thanks Doug! Facts trump speculation every time, and it's nice that  
the facts line up on my side of the argument :)

Heresies Maru.

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit  
atrocities." ~Voltaire.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: CoS in the news

[Doug Pensinger]

William wrote:

>
> On 27 Jan 2008, at 21:49, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> >
> > If the Scientologists have a schism, each side's lawyers will be so
> > busy
> > suing the other side that it'll all collapse sooner rather than
> > later, and
> > that will be the end of that.
>
>
> Or they could be like the  Sunni and Shi'a.
>
> Same but different Maru.
>

>From Wiki:

Although "Scientology" is most often used as shorthand for the Church of
Scientology , a number
of groups practice Scientology and Dianetics outside of the official Church.
Some groups are breakaways from the original Church while others have
started up independently. The Church labels these as
"apostates"
(or "squirrels" in Scientology
jargon)
and often subjects them to considerable legal and social pressure. These
groups avoid the name "Scientology" so as to keep from being
sued,
instead referring to themselves collectively as the Free
Zone.
Such groups include Ron's Org and the International Freezone Association,
among others.

Doug
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: CoS in the news

[William T Goodall]

On 27 Jan 2008, at 21:49, Julia Thompson wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, William T Goodall wrote:
>
>> Let's suppose the Scientologists have a schism. Are they OK now  
>> because
>> the different branches no longer agree?
>
> If the Scientologists have a schism, each side's lawyers will be so  
> busy
> suing the other side that it'll all collapse sooner rather than  
> later, and
> that will be the end of that.


Or they could be like the  Sunni and Shi'a.

Same but different Maru.

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit  
atrocities." ~Voltaire.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Blasphemy

[Julia Thompson]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Julia Thompson wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
>> http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-would-probably-never-do-this.html
>
> Link broke for me in an interesting way.
>
> Tinyurl http://tinyurl.com/2e63ce if anyone needs it.

Oh, and I saw the picture in the "poster" sometime last year and thought 
it was pretty darn funny.

If I'm going to Hell for that, God has no sense of humor.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Blasphemy

[Julia Thompson]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, Robert Seeberger wrote:

> http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-would-probably-never-do-this.html

Link broke for me in an interesting way.

Tinyurl http://tinyurl.com/2e63ce if anyone needs it.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: CoS in the news

[Julia Thompson]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008, William T Goodall wrote:

> Let's suppose the Scientologists have a schism. Are they OK now because 
> the different branches no longer agree?

If the Scientologists have a schism, each side's lawyers will be so busy 
suing the other side that it'll all collapse sooner rather than later, and 
that will be the end of that.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Blasphemy

[Robert Seeberger]

http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-would-probably-never-do-this.html

The bad thing is that I had to have this explained to me. I had seen 
this all before but never tied it in when viewing the picture.


xponent
Then I LMAO Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: CoS in the news

[William T Goodall]

On 27 Jan 2008, at 20:37, Robert Seeberger wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" 
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 10:59 AM
> Subject: Re: CoS in the news
>
>
>>
>> On 27 Jan 2008, at 03:28, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 1/26/2008 8:47:30 PM, William T Goodall ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>>> wrote:
 On 27 Jan 2008, at 02:27, Robert Seeberger wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Just ban all religions. That would solve the problem.
>>
>
> That might be a reasonable response if Scientology were in fact a
> religion.

 What makes you think that it isn't?

>>>
>>> Considering your point of view on all things religious, this could
>>> be
>>> a difficult discussion. So if you consider The Church Of The Jedi
>>> or
>>> Pastafarianism to be bonafide religions, then there is no point in
>>> us
>>> wasting our time.
>>
>> 1) The intent of the founder of a religion is not part of the
>> definition of whether it is or is not a religion for very obvious
>> reasons:
>>
>> a) We can't know the real intent of the founder.
>> b) Discussion of religion degenerates into attacks on the character
>> of
>> the founders rather than the practices of the religion.
>>
>> 2) Whether the founder of a religion was a fraud who made it up for
>> selfish purposes or a genuinely insane person with voices in his
>> head
>> is neither here nor there - the religion is the same sick nonsense
>> either way.
>>
>> 3) An inscrutable god might choose a false prophet to deliver true
>> religion. Since inscrutable gods do those kind of things :)
>>
>> 4) Just because a religion is made up as a joke and everyone knows
>> it
>> doesn't mean it's not a real religion e.g. Discordianism.  Being
>> *actually true* can't be part of the definition of religion for
>> obvious reasons.
>>
>> a) *At most* one religion can be true, yet there are thousands of
>> religions.
>
> So... you concede there are no grounds for discussion.

No, I'm saying trying to decide which religions are genuine gets you  
into a pickle like Texas vs Unitarianism so anyone interested in  
defending the freedom of religion shouldn't really go down that road.

I, on the other hand, would find it hilariously funny if America (of  
all places!) tried to ban some religions for being fake.


>
>
> Oh, BTW...
>
> 1 Apple
> 1a Apple
> 1b Apple vs MS
> 2 Apple vs MS vs Linux
> 3 BEOS
> 4 OSX
> 4a Unix and any derivation thereof
> 

That's worse than a car analogy!

>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> If you do indeed draw a line between organizations with origins
>>> that
>>> arise from actual faith and those who are scams perpetrated for
>>> various reasons when defining religions then we might have
>>> something
>>> to discuss.
>>
>>
>> So Christianity is a scam because of the existence of greedy lying
>> televangelists and mega-church pastors? Or it's not a scam despite
>> them since some people genuinely believe it? But some people
>> genuinely
>> believe Scientology too.
>>
> Even you know that not all Christianity is televangelists and
> mega-churches, but you must be aware that all of Scientology is a
> bloated pyramid scheme regardless of what the common member believes.
> Lots of Christians have a low opinion of televangelists and the like
> and don't pay them heed. A Scientologist isn't allowed that freedom.

Catholics?

Let's suppose the Scientologists have a schism. Are they OK now  
because the different branches no longer agree?


Reformation Maru.

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit  
atrocities." ~Voltaire.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: CoS in the news

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion" 
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: CoS in the news


>
> On 27 Jan 2008, at 03:28, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
>>
>> On 1/26/2008 8:47:30 PM, William T Goodall ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>> wrote:
>>> On 27 Jan 2008, at 02:27, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>>>
 - Original Message -
 From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Just ban all religions. That would solve the problem.
>

 That might be a reasonable response if Scientology were in fact a
 religion.
>>>
>>> What makes you think that it isn't?
>>>
>>
>> Considering your point of view on all things religious, this could 
>> be
>> a difficult discussion. So if you consider The Church Of The Jedi 
>> or
>> Pastafarianism to be bonafide religions, then there is no point in 
>> us
>> wasting our time.
>
> 1) The intent of the founder of a religion is not part of the
> definition of whether it is or is not a religion for very obvious
> reasons:
>
> a) We can't know the real intent of the founder.
> b) Discussion of religion degenerates into attacks on the character 
> of
> the founders rather than the practices of the religion.
>
> 2) Whether the founder of a religion was a fraud who made it up for
> selfish purposes or a genuinely insane person with voices in his 
> head
> is neither here nor there - the religion is the same sick nonsense
> either way.
>
> 3) An inscrutable god might choose a false prophet to deliver true
> religion. Since inscrutable gods do those kind of things :)
>
> 4) Just because a religion is made up as a joke and everyone knows 
> it
> doesn't mean it's not a real religion e.g. Discordianism.  Being
> *actually true* can't be part of the definition of religion for
> obvious reasons.
>
> a) *At most* one religion can be true, yet there are thousands of
> religions.

So... you concede there are no grounds for discussion.

Oh, BTW...

1 Apple
1a Apple
1b Apple vs MS
2 Apple vs MS vs Linux
3 BEOS
4 OSX
4a Unix and any derivation thereof



>
>>
>> If you do indeed draw a line between organizations with origins 
>> that
>> arise from actual faith and those who are scams perpetrated for
>> various reasons when defining religions then we might have 
>> something
>> to discuss.
>
>
> So Christianity is a scam because of the existence of greedy lying
> televangelists and mega-church pastors? Or it's not a scam despite
> them since some people genuinely believe it? But some people 
> genuinely
> believe Scientology too.
>
Even you know that not all Christianity is televangelists and 
mega-churches, but you must be aware that all of Scientology is a 
bloated pyramid scheme regardless of what the common member believes. 
Lots of Christians have a low opinion of televangelists and the like 
and don't pay them heed. A Scientologist isn't allowed that freedom.


xponent
Totalitarian Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: CoS in the news

[William T Goodall]

On 27 Jan 2008, at 03:28, Robert Seeberger wrote:

>
> On 1/26/2008 8:47:30 PM, William T Goodall ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>> On 27 Jan 2008, at 02:27, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 Just ban all religions. That would solve the problem.

>>>
>>> That might be a reasonable response if Scientology were in fact a
>>> religion.
>>
>> What makes you think that it isn't?
>>
>
> Considering your point of view on all things religious, this could be
> a difficult discussion. So if you consider The Church Of The Jedi or
> Pastafarianism to be bonafide religions, then there is no point in us
> wasting our time.

1) The intent of the founder of a religion is not part of the  
definition of whether it is or is not a religion for very obvious  
reasons:

a) We can't know the real intent of the founder.
b) Discussion of religion degenerates into attacks on the character of  
the founders rather than the practices of the religion.

2) Whether the founder of a religion was a fraud who made it up for  
selfish purposes or a genuinely insane person with voices in his head  
is neither here nor there - the religion is the same sick nonsense  
either way.

3) An inscrutable god might choose a false prophet to deliver true  
religion. Since inscrutable gods do those kind of things :)

4) Just because a religion is made up as a joke and everyone knows it  
doesn't mean it's not a real religion e.g. Discordianism.  Being  
*actually true* can't be part of the definition of religion for  
obvious reasons.

a) *At most* one religion can be true, yet there are thousands of  
religions.

>
> If you do indeed draw a line between organizations with origins that
> arise from actual faith and those who are scams perpetrated for
> various reasons when defining religions then we might have something
> to discuss.


So Christianity is a scam because of the existence of greedy lying  
televangelists and mega-church pastors? Or it's not a scam despite  
them since some people genuinely believe it? But some people genuinely  
believe Scientology too.


Subtleties Maru.

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit  
atrocities." ~Voltaire.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: CoS in the news

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Doug Pensinger wrote:

> Julia  wrote:
>
>>
>> (And, the concensus as to whether or not to go to the ER with a potential
>> broken toe is, "If you want prescription painkillers, sure, but there's
>> not a whole heck of a lot they'll actually *do* for you."  So, I'm going
>> to wait until Monday and see how bad it is then, and if it's really bad,
>> call my GP and get a recommendation from *her* as to what to do.)
>>
>
> Ouch!  Hope you're not in too much pain.  What happened?

Whacked my toe on the lip of a bin.  It's the one next to the big toe. 
The top of the toe is multi-colored now.  It hurts, but not as badly as 
yesterday.  I'm taking ibuprofen for it, that's helping enough with the 
pain.  Just can't run and have to be careful how I walk.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: CoS in the news

[Julia Thompson]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:

> At 09:20 PM Saturday 1/26/2008, Julia Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Any mailing list that you can shoot a quick, "Hey, this happened, should I
>> go to the ER?" to and get constructive answers is probably going to have
>> at least a minimal health benefit.  Also being on a local mailing list
>> with lots of people who have had both good and bad experiences with
>> various doctors will help a lot in selecting a GP or a specialist or a
>> dentist or whatever.  (Anyone in or near Round Rock, TX wanting plastic
>> surgery, I can make a recommendation for the surgeon)
>>
>> (And, the concensus as to whether or not to go to the ER with a potential
>> broken toe is, "If you want prescription painkillers, sure, but there's
>> not a whole heck of a lot they'll actually *do* for you."  So, I'm going
>> to wait until Monday and see how bad it is then, and if it's really bad,
>> call my GP and get a recommendation from *her* as to what to do.)
>>
>> Julia
>
>
> Okay, I think there is a story there waiting to be told.  (Possibly
> two, if you include how you came to be able to recommend a plastic
> surgeon in Round Rock, TX . . . )

1)  Whacked my toe yesterday morning, hurt like the dickens, wasn't sure I 
should try to get X-rays or anything (and I didn't want to, truth be 
told), so I asked a mailing list and the consensus was what I wrote above. 
Decided not to go, toe still hurts, but not as badly, and it's all kinds 
of pretty colors on the top, but looks fine on the bottom.  (OK, maybe not 
"all kinds" of pretty colors, but there are 3 distinct ones in the 
blue-purple range.)

2)  http://www.zurg.net/julia/ljstuff/pregbelly1.jpg
My abs separated.  Needed to get that (and a resulting hernia) fixed.  The 
general surgeon asked me if I wanted a plastic surgeon involved.  I ended 
up getting a tummy tuck with the hernia repair.  So, I've had experience 
with a plastic surgeon in Round Rock.  (I had all my babies at the 
hospital in Round Rock and had my abdominoplasty there, as well.  If 
anyone needs a recommendation for a GP in Round Rock, I can do that, as 
well.)

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l