Anon is not operating on such a high level of morals. Their mindset is the one of the school yard bully who picks out the smallest one to prove his “superiority”. Except, and that is worse, they now try to hide behind their computers, or behind masks, and stay “anonymous”. Not being accountable for one’s actions is what marks a madman.

- Louanne

Anonymous is nothing more than a modern day hate group picking on a religious minority.

Anyway, let’s continue what you feel is open here:

http://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/anonymous-scientology/

- Louanne

http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6939

http://lisatrust.freewinds.cx/stories/timeline/1998.htm

Here you go, lots of detailed information about the nature of the organization that pulls your strings.

If that doesn’t get your blood boiling you fail at humanity.

Also – It appears that Scientology Attorney, Kendrick Moxon, was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the prosecutors in the Operation Snow White case.

I wonder how many more members of the Guardian’s Office are still actively employed by Scientology.

> “Second – Scientology has a history of lying to defame critics – Bob MInton, Jesse Prince and Paulette Cooper are three of many individuals harassed by such tactics.”

> ORLY? Cooper, agreed. Minton and Prince: no.

http://www.skeptictank.org/figtback.htm

This account is in his own words, you can google the story if you like. Essenitally, Scientologists trespassed on his property and harassed his guests. In response, Bob Minton fired a shotgun round to get the message across.

So, if CoS doesn’t harass Bob Minton, what went down that day?

Okay, I can play this game. Let me try:

Since January, I have personally received over -9,000- threatening phonecalls…from Scientology!

Sure, it’s not true, but I put a number on it, so it must be accurate, right? Never mind that we have yet to see any actual evidence of these alleged activities, nor is there any indication as to who was behind them if they -did- actually occur.

“An interesting way to play down the reality, psychologically.”

…really? Look…I think you’re probably a perfectly nice person who’s been put in the unfortunate position of defending the indefensible. I am not “playing down the reality” of anything; I am simply pointing out that the rhetorical tactics used by that video reek of manipulation. They do. It’s not me attempting to “spin” things or twist them. That video uses unsubstantiated claims and innuendo, along with a fair dose of “guilt by association”, in order to try to sway those people who might not know much about the issues (as well as those within the church, as we’ve seen).

What are our crimes?

I’m not sure your point. Logically it doesn’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you? The way I see it, you’re implying that if I were to believe anonymous was evil, that somehow the message they have becomes less accurate. This is what we call ad hominem.

> Wrong. It is right in there. And how do you know anyway? Do you have all the attachments to the two TROs? I haven’t been able to get them yet.

I saw one. And one is sufficient. If the church claims to have had these events BEFORE it filed, why are the not listed as evidence in the motion. Seems counter intuitive to not include that information, don’t you agree?

> Personal death threats – per definition – require a name, like “Heber Jentzsch”, to be mentioned. General death and bomb threats are a different count, as mentioned in the clip.

So, let me get this straight. The Church of Scientology inventoried every single harassing phone call over the month, listing it day by day, but THEN chose not to list the death threats because “they didn’t specifically name someone”? What would be the purpose of that? Would have made sense to me that they’d say “Xxxx death threats made against numerous unnamed scientologists.” When you make an impact movie, you sorta want those numbers. Don’t you?

> Obviously they did not count the protests as terrorist act or harrassment. Ain’t that nice of them?

See, this is where the Church fails. And I’ll tell you why. Because they could have tried to make a balanced report. See, things like that are BELIEVABLE. However, when they specifically leave out events, it makes people like me go “Hmmm, that doesn’t seem right.” Do you agree with me on that point?

——————————————————————————

You know what’s funny though. Just hours after filing the restraining orders that were dismissed without prejudice (notice how I enclose all points, positive and negative), the Church announced that they would have a childrens day that walked the same route on the same day and the same time as the Anonymous protest.

So, Louanne. Which is it. Is the church fearful of Anonymous or not. It’s own actions contradict it’s own standpoints.

And you wonder why people are suspicious of the church? Please.

Where is your evidence, Anonymous?”

Dude, you are putting words in our mouth now. We DON”T KNOW who did it. We are not saying it’s the CoS. What we are saying is, given the CoS history, it is POSSIBLE that they did it.

“I feel that you left out the most vital part of what he said and I ask myself why you would do that? He said that this is a matter for law enforcement to deal with. And they do.”

You are accusing me of manipulation? That’s ironic. There is no reason for me to have left that out other than I just didn’t see it as relevant for my question. I agree with that statement too. If it was an anonymous person, a random person, or a member of the CoS framing anonymous, the FBI and police will figure it out. Many of us have called them and told them what’s up. Now let them handle it. You know, I feel like I JUST said that a couple hours ago. OH WAIT I DID?!?!

Pay atttention.