This thread is archived. You still can comment – because WordPress does not allow to close the comments without taking them all away – but I am not going to read it. – Louanne, 14 March 2008
From Wikipedia:
Hate Crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people. Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.
In 2006 the internet saw the creation of a phantom calling itself “Anonymous”. With recruits from porn and manga boards the new built group went to town stealing passwords, hacking and crashing MySpace pages and generally being obnoxious to other netizens. Some of Anonymous didn’t want to stop there and extended their work into real life. Online and real life harassment of those perceived as “enemies” followed.
In January 2008 this group got hijacked by another breed of online criminals and gotten to form an truly international form of cyber-terrorism. “Anonymous” now focused on members and buildings of the Church of Scientology. Bomb and death threats on YouTube and other public places were followed by the firing of guns against Church buildings. One might think the situation got out of hand. Nothing further from the truth, Anonymous is now being steered by people who know exactly what they want, how to “push buttons” with with the original manga and porn freaks to set them lose to destroy a religious minority. One could say that Anonymous fails to clean its ranks from psychos and criminals but – without morals to protect it and cowardice as “party line” – is actually actively supporting terrorist activities. Freedom of Expression however ends if is expressed with firing a bullet into someone’s head. It stops to be a civil right the moment someone gets terrorized and harmed by acts of Anonymous. The joke is over since a long time and you didn’t notice. The joke morphed into something you can be jailed for. Is that so hard to understand?
That’s my take. What’s yours?
– Lou
Update 12 March 2008:
There is a video documentary called “Anonymous – Hate Crimes & Terrorism Directed at Scientology” which got posted on YouTube yesterday, giving all sorts of details about what Anonymous did. I checked, and this is actually a DVD which the Church is mailing out since a couple of days. You might consider this as well:
The Church of Scientology also filed an injunction against Anonymous (just found on Digg), which was put up by the St. Petersburg Times.
Here is the file: Scientology injunction against Anonymous
340 Comments
Scientology Myths Forum 
@Comment by Drwomb on July 21, 2008 9:54 pm
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
I just don’t understand why Anonymous cares about the voluntary decisions of others to chose the religious preference that they feel is best. I don’t see why it’s okay to be a member of a religion that believes in talking snakes and requires weekly donations and yearly endowments, but it’s not okay to pay money to learn about Xenu and that crap.
Anonymous is nothing more than a modern day hate group picking on a religious minority.
I am closing this thread. 340 comments is a bit too much and I start to lose sight of open discussions and whatnot. Also, the Anonymous issue seems to go in drama stage now.
Anyway, let’s continue what you feel is open here:
https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/anonymous-scientology/
– Louanne
I’m pretty sure that bomb threat video is a fake. Here is some info on it:
http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6939
“ORLY? Cooper, agreed. Minton and Prince: no.”
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.
@Louanne
> “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?
Ahem:
“There is nothing vague about those figures. And you have seen it too.”
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).
“He said that this is a matter for law enforcement to deal with. And they do.”
What are our crimes?
@ Louanne
> I am sure you do. Anything else would require that you start looking at what is there. Or to admit that you have been wrong. That’s a tough one, isn’t it.
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.
“So you are playing judge when you talk about crimes which have been acknowledged by neither law enforcement nor a court? Judge Anonymous? I agree that seeing murder happening does not need judge interpretation to call it a crime. Neither does it need a judge to call material damage material damage. But condemning an international religious movement on the basis of rumors and unfounded claims is just gross. And blind.
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.
@Comment by anonymous on March 13, 2008 8:56 pm
“How do you feel about this quote by Circuit Judge Baird in response to the attempted restraining order on anonymous? …”
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.
– Louanne
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 13, 2008 10:51 pm
>>“Pls explain “the tactics in ‘1984′”. I read the book but what tactics?”
>>The propaganda, the thought control, the “two minute hate”-style nonsense. “We have always been at war with Eurasia.”
An interesting way to play down the reality, psychologically.
>providing vague insinuations without proof as way of advancing a specific agenda.
There is nothing vague about those figures. And you have seen it too.
– Louanne
@Comment by anonymous on March 13, 2008 8:57 pm
>>“No indictments, no convictions. Just hot air out of the critic camp which cools down fast once you analyze it.”
>You don’t have to have an indictment or conviction to commit a crime. Those usually come afterwards.
So you are playing judge when you talk about crimes which have been acknowledged by neither law enforcement nor a court? Judge Anonymous? I agree that seeing murder happening does not need judge interpretation to call it a crime. Neither does it need a judge to call material damage material damage. But condemning an international religious movement on the basis of rumors and unfounded claims is just gross. And blind.
Where is your evidence, Anonymous?
– Louanne
“Pls explain “the tactics in ‘1984′”. I read the book but what tactics?”
The propaganda, the thought control, the “two minute hate”-style nonsense. “We have always been at war with Eurasia.”
The entire thing is considerably -less- genuine than the most manipulative political campaign ad, and it shows. Note that its claims are both vague and unverified; it is, in fact, doing the -exact- thing that the CoS so often accuses its detractors of doing: providing vague insinuations without proof as way of advancing a specific agenda.
I could, right now, say, “I saw three guys wearing ‘I Love Scientology’ t-shirts outside my house waving guns around last night,” and that statement would be just as credible as the claims presented in the video. So far as we have been shown, the level of proof would be the same: My word vs. theirs. Hell, I could even get a few friends of mine to go stand outside in those t-shirts, wave some fake guns around, and videotape it. Then I’d have video “evidence” of the harassment that would be on par with the video “evidence” provided in that smear piece.
“No indictments, no convictions. Just hot air out of the critic camp which cools down fast once you analyze it.”
You don’t have to have an indictment or conviction to commit a crime. Those usually come afterwards.
How do you feel about this quote by Circuit Judge Baird in response to the attempted restraining order on anonymous?:
“Here, as alleged in the petition, there appears to be a number of individuals who more or less refer to their cause as “\”Anonymous,” but there is no allegation of the existence of any organization or hierarchy of command that exercises any form of collective or coordinated action that results in the systematic deprivation of the petitioner’s rights.”
I feel like that’s exactly what we’ve been trying to tell you. Now that a judge has explained it, do you get it?
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 13, 2008 4:13 am
>>“They are. Only “trained propagandists” are not, they have to stand with their lie, come hell or high water.”
>If you say so. Look, I know “anecdote” is not the singular form of “data”, but I just showed that video to a number of involved parties, without any commentary on my part, and… Let’s just say that their overall impression was, “It takes a lot of work to make the tactics in ‘1984′ seem subtle, but somehow, that video manages.”
Pls explain “the tactics in ‘1984’”. I read the book but what tactics?
– Louanne
@Comment by anonymous on March 13, 2008 8:21 pm
“How do you know?”
No indictments, no convictions. Just hot air out of the critic camp which cools down fast once you analyze it.
– Louanne
How do you know?
@ Comment by anonymous on March 13, 2008 7:30 pm
>>“You know that false claims to be a victim of criminal acts are illegal and can even get you in jail? Do you think the church is taking that risk?”
>They have in the past. They could do it again.
Wrong. “They” (G.O.) are not there anymore. And the “new” guys have no record of such wrongdoing.
– Louanne
“You know that false claims to be a victim of criminal acts are illegal and can even get you in jail? Do you think the church is taking that risk?”
They have in the past. They could do it again.
@Comment by Elial on March 13, 2008 3:37 pm
“Watching that video a few things went through my mind:
First – while the video is obviously produced by the church of scientology at no point does it mention that.”
The YouTube channel does mention that: youtube.com/anonymousfacts
“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.
“Third – Its been documented that Scientologists have doctored photos in order to mislead and deceive”
It is a crime to do that with a court. And the clip was obviously submitted to the Pinella County Court yesterday together with its evidences. I heard it is also used to inform law enforcement all over the world, about Anonymous.
– Louanne
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 13, 2008 4:31 pm
“I believe the movie above is fake.”
I am sure you do. Anything else would require that you start looking at what is there. Or to admit that you have been wrong. That’s a tough one, isn’t it.
“A) They claim that they recieved over 8000 harassing calls, stating that they will be killed. They claim acts of vandalism. They claim individuals are harassed. However, THEY DO NOT claim this in their court documents where they’re seeking a restraining order against “anonymous”.”
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.
“B) They list somewhere on the edge of 8000 harassing phone calls, some of which are represented by the Church as “I will kill you” or “you will burn”. However, at the end of the movie, you note that only 8 scientologists have recieved death threats.”
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.
“C) They skip over Feb 10th’s global protests. Surely CoS couldn’t be withholding information. I’m sure this was just a minor oversight and that nothing of note actually happened.”
Obviously they did not count the protests as terrorist act or harrassment. Ain’t that nice of them?
You know that false claims to be a victim of criminal acts are illegal and can even get you in jail? Do you think the church is taking that risk?
– Louanne
I believe the movie above is fake. There are several reasons why I believe this.
A) They claim that they recieved over 8000 harassing calls, stating that they will be killed. They claim acts of vandalism. They claim individuals are harassed. However, THEY DO NOT claim this in their court documents where they’re seeking a restraining order against “anonymous”. Why wouldn’t they include it to shore up their case? Surely they have tape recordings of these actions. The CoS in this case has proven it’s own propaganda wrong.
B) They list somewhere on the edge of 8000 harassing phone calls, some of which are represented by the Church as “I will kill you” or “you will burn”. However, at the end of the movie, you note that only 8 scientologists have recieved death threats. I find it difficult to believe that so many calls came directly to a few people at the organization.
C) They skip over Feb 10th’s global protests. Surely CoS couldn’t be withholding information. I’m sure this was just a minor oversight and that nothing of note actually happened. /sarcasm
My thoughts on Anonymous’ actions? I honestly believe that some jerkwads did make some calls, but I also believe the church is manufacturing evidence against anonymous to drum up public sympathy.
Watching that video a few things went through my mind:
First – while the video is obviously produced by the church of scientology at no point does it mention that.
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.
Third – Its been documented that Scientologists have doctored photos in order to mislead and deceive – check out http://www(dot)lermanet(dot)com/PhotoLIES(dot).htm for more information.
My conclusion – who knows if the video is accurate. They’ve mailed false bomb threats in the past, I find it just as believable that scientologists vandalized their own churches and sent white powder to themselves to vilify their detractors, it certainly fits their established pattern of behavior.
My personal take on the injunction is that it’s wonderful drama!
Well played Scientology, keep up the good work. It goes some way to show that there are some lulz in this thing after all.
I was losing faith for a while there, but it seems that CoS are now trolling in the name of anon to give anon a bad name. This is great, I personally welcome such trolling because it is funny.
It shows that anyone who thinks that the Internet is serious business is a valid target, which includes enturbulation and the CoS.
Calling up the Dianetics hotline and asking why there’s a volcano on the cover is funny, taking to the streets in the name of anonymous is not.
I look forward to seeing what CoS has in store for anons who do. If it’s funny then you have my complete support.
“They are. Only “trained propagandists” are not, they have to stand with their lie, come hell or high water.”
If you say so. Look, I know “anecdote” is not the singular form of “data”, but I just showed that video to a number of involved parties, without any commentary on my part, and…
Let’s just say that their overall impression was, “It takes a lot of work to make the tactics in ‘1984’ seem subtle, but somehow, that video manages.”
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 13, 2008 1:26 am
“Let me just say: The new video from the CoS about the “terrorist” group Anonymous? Comedy gold. Also a textbook example of “attack the critic” and OSA black PR, but mostly, it’s just deeply funny that they expect people to be taken in by that sort of thing.”
They are. Only “trained propagandists” are not, they have to stand with their lie, come hell or high water.
– Louanne
Let me just say: The new video from the CoS about the “terrorist” group Anonymous?
Comedy gold. Also a textbook example of “attack the critic” and OSA black PR, but mostly, it’s just deeply funny that they expect people to be taken in by that sort of thing.
I should know. I’m a -trained propagandist-, remember?
Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 12, 2008
Thank you for your reply.
Your comments duly noted and understood.
PaulH (UK)
“One has to admit that the scientology organisation has never attempted to elude the subject of identity of its leaders.”
True to an extent, but they HAVE obfuscated the connections between the Church itself and its various “front” groups. Additionally, they have a history of using anonymity (particularly online) to their advantage by having OSA reps try to skew online discussions with things like, “I’m not a Scientologist, -but-….”
However, that’s irrelevant for two reasons:
1: Anonymous has no leaders, and as such, there is no way to publicize their identities
2: There is not a long-standing pattern of hiring private detectives to harass the leaders of the CoS, blackmail them, intimidate them, threaten them, file harassing lawsuits against them, etc. There IS, however, a pattern of the CoS doing that to those critics or “SPs” that it can identify.
I noticed that you didn’t ACTUALLY address the reasons I stated for people choosing to remain anonymous. Do you have any comment on -that-, perhaps?
Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 12, 2008
PaulH-
Given the church’s history of litigation, harassment, threats, blackmail, and other reprehensible tactics against its critics (Look up Keith Henson, Paulette Cooper, or…well, really ANY well-known critic of Scientology), there is a VERY good reason for the anonymity.
There’s a difference between being “gutsy” and deliberately making yourself a target. It may sound paranoid, but the evidence supports it. Regardless of what they might say, “fair game” is very much alive and well.
My dear fellow.
It’s a disturbing fact these days that our legal systems (I speak for the UK, but there may be empathy within other nationalities) strongly requires one does not elude identity.
You may have noticed in today’s society ones identity is purged incessantly in all our activities.
Our law enforcement authorities require identities.
One has to admit that the scientology organisation has never attempted to elude the subject of identity of its leaders.
The ‘cases’ having either a good or bad outcome for the organisation, on all occasions, the leaders of organisation seem to have made themselves accountable.
PaulH
PaulH-
Given the church’s history of litigation, harassment, threats, blackmail, and other reprehensible tactics against its critics (Look up Keith Henson, Paulette Cooper, or…well, really ANY well-known critic of Scientology), there is a VERY good reason for the anonymity.
There’s a difference between being “gutsy” and deliberately making yourself a target. It may sound paranoid, but the evidence supports it. Regardless of what they might say, “fair game” is very much alive and well.
Comment by anonymous on March 12, 2008 9:24 pm
Try to put yourself in the position of a person completely immune from any personal or emotional entanglement whatsoever with a situation, a judge let’s say.
One would have thought those events portrayedon the recent Anti-Anonymous’ Youtube video, if based on facts, would give a slightly alarming description of the group ‘anonymous’.
Looking through history, It does seem that the ‘Press’ don’t take sides they just create sides at will.
One has to be careful in these matters.
If the group ‘anonymous’ generate a bad name for themselves amongst the general populace, then surely the name’ anonymous’ will forever be singled out as a terrorist group. One perhaps will then have to adopt a different cover to ’Write and Act without responsibility’
Perhaps revert to the gutsy way of just standing your ground using your own name.
Radica idea to some, I’m sure.
My take on that video? It’s complete bullshit. That first video, our main one, has been hacked to shreds. It completely misses the point of why we want to “dismantle the church of scientology in it’s present form.” There was an explanation there, but it was cut out.
The phone calls? Yeah, some of them may have been anonymous. Who knows. Like we’ve repeated, we don’t know each other so there is no way to tell what was and wasn’t done by our fellow members. As a collective we advocate only peaceful means now as a way to get our point across. Anyone who doesn’t do this should be turned in (as an individual) and prosecuted. However, they are not our majority. Like we’ve repeated many times, we do not know each other. How can we turn each other in?
Also, some of the other videos in that clip were flagged by members of anonymous and denounced. We DO NOT support terrorist acts. That does nothing for our cause. I hadn’t even seen that video until it was included in the above video. That’s kind of telling as well.
Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 8:40 pm
@Comment by PaulH on March 12, 2008 8:21 pm
“I’ve looked through all the comments in this blog from the beginning.
Is this blog about ‘what’s your take on Anonymous’ or ‘Let’s just get nasty’?”
Not sure what you are referring to (you probably know that I hate generalities)?
I get some nasty comments or insulting personal statements here but usually I don’t keep them on the blog unless there is a question to it or they answer up to the subject of this thread here. So, in actual fact, I don’t know what you are talking about.
– Louanne
It was an observation of what’s been written by various… who knows?
They don’t give their names for some reason.
Your comments and answers seem reasonable and diplomatic on all questions.
I have noticed you get angry from time to time. However, certainly not reaching that rabid flavour adopted by a few on this column.
Just an observation.
@Comment by PaulH on March 12, 2008 8:21 pm
“I’ve looked through all the comments in this blog from the beginning.
Is this blog about ‘what’s your take on Anonymous’ or ‘Let’s just get nasty’?”
Not sure what you are referring to (you probably know that I hate generalities)?
I get some nasty comments or insulting personal statements here but usually I don’t keep them on the blog unless there is a question to it or they answer up to the subject of this thread here. So, in actual fact, I don’t know what you are talking about.
– Louanne
I’ve looked through all the comments in this blog from the beginning.
Is this blog about ‘what’s your take on Anonymous’ or ‘Let’s just get nasty’?
Lu, you claim to be unbiased, but you dodge questions and show anonymous in a bad light.
Scientology as a religion will fall, i do not care what they believe in but LRH called Jesus a pedo…answer that.
they can worship whomever they want. the anti-free speech organization that is the head and rulers of scientology do not deserve tax exempt for this pyramid scheme they call a religion, their business will be dismantled and destroyed.
the followers will be left with nothing but financial ruin and the lawsuits can begin, its so fun to know that we are causing you so much grief, the orgs on red alert, the lower OT levels being disregarded and questioned and harassed due to the suspicion of spies and anonymous on the inside, well mr.lu we have the documents that will ruin the church we hold the power.
forgive my grammar but i dont feel my manners mean anything to someone who wishes me to hold my tounge, i also look down and feel sorry for any scientologist, knowing that they are spending dollar after dollar to fund a cult and its leaders.
its going to be so great when all those many people realize they have been conned, the leaders of scientology will flee just like their leader, and probably die in hiding just like their god LRH.
we wish to do this because we can, its funny.
i do hope you dont delete this comment mr. freedom of speech, i dont hate you scientologists i feel bad for you and wish you could see what you are doing, the wasted money to the scam.
get out before its too late.
<3 anonymous
Lou, there seems to be a problem with your blog. You say you aren’t deleting posts, but nearly half of the posts I try to post never actually make it to the blog. The reason that last one showed up twice because I thought it got filtered out due to the link. Thus, I posted again with the (dot).
[If you are using that same email address in your comment, the mistake must be somewhere else, because I did not delete any of your comments then. Actually they are never deleted but go in a “spam” file which can be reviewed any time. – Louanne]
@Comment by anonymous on March 11, 2008 1:33 am
“Here ya go Lou (part 1 of 5):
http://www (dot) youtube.com/watch?v=Lg04cNSi0wg”
Thanks, saw the first ones. This seems to have brought about a change or two to the better:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=3639830&page=1
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/18/Tampabay/Scientology_s_town.shtml
Yes/No?
– Louanna
@Comment by Anonymous
> ARC- any word on getting the special enturb thing set up? Lu, would you accept? I really think it’s an awesome idea and it sucks that the discussion of it seems to have halted.
No, I haven’t heard anything from Lou, Lu, Lake or T on this. I’d really like to get it started to have a frank and honest discussion.
To do this, we’d have to agree to terms. Each side would have to promise to answer questions honestly and fully. Answers that “dodge” the question will not be accepted. Then we’d have to take turns asking questions. Basically I envision it working like this.
Round 1: Anonymous Asks…
Post 1: Anonymous Question.
Post 2: Lou, Lake, Lu or T response.
Post 3: Followup Question, redirection
Post 4: Answer to followup.
Then we switch sides, Round 2 would be CoS, Round 3 Anon, etc. If a dodging question is answered, the poster may declare as such and restate his/her question without penalty.
For example, a “dodging” question would be the following…
Q: “Is it True that L Ron said “Ooogie Boogie Woogie!”
A: “He had many writings.”
A question that DOES NOT dodge would be…
A: Yes he did, but you’re taking it out of context. He meant it as part of a joke that he was telling his students.
Issues with the system Lou? Or do you just not want to do it?
@Comment by anonymous on March 11, 2008 7:41 pm
Just a few corrections.
I represent my own views, I don’t speak on behalf of anybody, neither the Church nor any other Scientologist. And I never said I support your protests. I don’t.
T, if you and the church really support our protests that’s excellent! They certainly won’t be stopping any time soon. I really hope this situation ends with a mutual understanding from both sides. That’s what I’m working for anyway.
ARC- any word on getting the special enturb thing set up? Lu, would you accept? I really think it’s an awesome idea and it sucks that the discussion of it seems to have halted.
> Erhm… I see you’re trying to make sense of what I wrote. Well, keep trying
You flatter yourself. I have multiple posts because every time I read your post I find something new to comment on.
As an aside, the first two comments were what we call sarcasm. The last one was a reference that a scientologist would employ a strategy that references psychology.
Seems like you’re the one trying to make sense of what I wrote. Well, keep trying.
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 11, 2008 4:05 pm
“Excellent news T. The scenario is win / win then. I’ll post your official backing of our protests on our forums. It’s hard to find any Scientologists who actually approve of the protesting. Cudos to you.”
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 11, 2008 4:18 pm
“Given this view, can Anonymous expect to see an offical message from CoS welcoming our world wide protests? When can we expect the good news?”
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 11, 2008 4:47 pm
“Are they using “REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY” on Anonymous?”
Erhm… I see you’re trying to make sense of what I wrote. Well, keep trying ;)
In reference to your supposed DDoS attacks, you wrote this…
> As long as this group called “Anonymous” takes no action to restrict or prevent their members to be involved or stir up hate crimes, I will continue to point this out. In the past two months it was Anonymous who made it “OK” to attack Scientologists, Scientology websites and Churches of Scientology. This group has laid the groundwork for a hate campaign and is still continuing. They think they have a right to restrict my rights and this is wrong. They think they have a right to ridicule my religion and this is wrong as well. I am aware that not all “Anonymous” members are that low. But those who are not have a responsibility to stop their fellows. Sounds old-fashioned? Maybe I am.
————————————————————
I know this has been explained to you numerous times, but I thought I’d do so again in hopes you can finally understand what I’m saying.
I’m a member of Anonymous. I don’t know anyone who is another member of anonymous. We are not a group. We are a collective of like minded individuals.
As a member of anonymous, I can tell you what I know of Anonymous. Whether you believe me is up to you.
As a member of Anonymous:
– I contribute my thoughts to the hive mind. The hive mind is the general purpose anonymous has. For example, I may say “Let’s lay of scientology and give them free cookies.” This would not go over well and it would be rejected by the hive mind. I’m of the opinion that Anonymous in it’s current form is against illegal action. This does in fact draw an unsettling parallel with what you claim your church has done. :D
– I do not know fellow anonymous members. Aside from their poster alias, I’m basically out of the loop. I could figure out if they were male or female, intelligent or not by their posts, but this is the extent that I “know” anyone.
– There is no leadership in Anonymous. Now, that’s not to say there aren’t people who are respected in the community. Wise Beard Man has attained an almost “god like” status among the group. However, while he may have influence, he’s not a leader. If he was to say “Let’s stop the attacks, it’s not fair to CoS.” he’d probably be dethroned.
The TL:DR version. Membership isn’t restricted. The collective discusses and decides the path the group takes. There are no leaders, but there are members of influence.
That’s anonymous. It’s not a secret and hopefully you can sit back, think and understand what we really are.
I’m actually quite excited about this highly visible antagonism directed at my Church.
Every extreme view and every derogatory or degrading comment expressed in public against Scientology just widens the rift between those views and reality, and that rift keeps driving intelligent people with an independent mind and power of observation into a Scientology organization.
Every accusation you bring up in public brings with it increased hope of official investigations into those allegations, and I expect those to bring the real liars and the real criminals out of the shadows into view for all to see.
I hope you will then have the integrity to turn your attention on them.
I wish you would come out in huge numbers to protest in March and in April and on until the media finally begins asking questions and demand official investigation into the accusations that you keep bringing up.
You represent a huge potential that has been untapped so far. Your free time, your enthusiasm, your energy, all being organized without us lifting a finger and directed towards exposing true criminals is a refreshing development.
That is why I am excited about what you’re doing, as long as you observe the law.
————————————————————————————-
OH… MY…. GOD….
Are they using “REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY” on Anonymous?
> Every extreme view and every derogatory or degrading comment expressed in public against Scientology just widens the rift between those views and reality, and that rift keeps driving intelligent people with an independent mind and power of observation into a Scientology organization.
If these actions are so polarizing to intelligent people (who will of course side with CoS), why is it that when there are protests, there is only a handful of staff in each Org? You’d figure that because scientologists improve their IQ with the courses, the “polarization” you mention would embolden them and make them more faithful to the cause.
Hell, it might even make them want to join Staff. How upstat is that? :D
Given this view, can Anonymous expect to see an offical message from CoS welcoming our world wide protests? When can we expect the good news?
Comment by T
>I’m actually quite excited about this highly visible antagonism directed at my Church.
Every extreme view and every derogatory or degrading comment expressed in public against Scientology just widens the rift between those views and reality, and that rift keeps driving intelligent people with an independent mind and power of observation into a Scientology organization.
Every accusation you bring up in public brings with it increased hope of official investigations into those allegations, and I expect those to bring the real liars and the real criminals out of the shadows into view for all to see.
I hope you will then have the integrity to turn your attention on them.
I wish you would come out in huge numbers to protest in March and in April and on until the media finally begins asking questions and demand official investigation into the accusations that you keep bringing up.
You represent a huge potential that has been untapped so far. Your free time, your enthusiasm, your energy, all being organized without us lifting a finger and directed towards exposing true criminals is a refreshing development.
That is why I am excited about what you’re doing, as long as you observe the law.
Excellent news T. The scenario is win / win then. I’ll post your official backing of our protests on our forums. It’s hard to find any Scientologists who actually approve of the protesting. Cudos to you.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 11, 2008 6:08 am
“Well, that’s kind of telling, isn’t it? I mean, it says something when an organization is so unwilling to accept outside criticism and consider, perhaps, that there might be something to it.”
I urge you to read the first few posts here to understand the Church’s stance on critics and criticism: http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/message_list.asp?boardID=19173&discussionID=528229
As to your protests, according to the dictionary, criticism is “an expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.”
There are many ways to express your disapproval and there are constructive and not so constructive ways. Carrying boards proclaiming Scientology to be a cult, to be evil, to be a criminal organization, etc. is not very constructive as such expression of your disapproval does not carry with it the possibility to address and handle a specific “perceived fault or mistake”.
What’s more, making loud noise for hours like chanting, yelling and getting cars honk near buildings where people are trying focus, to study and to reflect is insensitive and disrespectful.
Part 2!
“Not all Anons are extraordinarily intelligent. I bet with you that someone was bragging about it. Bullies love to brag, especially brainless ones. If you wanted you could find evidence and turn it in, knowing your ways around the Anon boards etc. Or ask for evidence and get some. It’s called “taking responsibility”. Ever heard of it?”
Your snarky implication that I’m unfamiliar with taking responsibility aside, I find it sort of funny that you think it’s a given that every time some moron on the internet does something reprehensible, they go and brag about it in a place where anyone can hear it. I can pretty much assure you that if they said anything where the vast majority of Anons could hear, they would be busted faster than you could blink. It’s possible that, ASSUMING it was someone who genuinely had something to do with Anon (which is an assumption I still don’t really buy), the idiot told one of his idiot friends. Unless THEY go and start spreading it around, though, no Anon is in any more position to do something about it than you are.
“Maybe, but because of a different reason. I know Scientology and the Church of Scientology. I know the attitude, the “mindset”, if you will. And I witnessed a couple of “pickets” in the past years, which gives me a certain experience in one thing: the Church of Scientology won’t change an inch because of demonstrations. Believe me. This is inherent. Nothing will change at all.”
Well, that’s kind of telling, isn’t it? I mean, it says something when an organization is so unwilling to accept outside criticism and consider, perhaps, that there might be something to it.
Even then, the purpose of the protests is not to change the minds of David Miscavige and the top CoS execs. The purposes are:
1: To reach those inside the church who may be unaware of these allegations, but who are still able to listen and critically consider the evidence;
2: To gain the attention of the press and those who were previously unaware of the issues, which is the point of -most- protests
Press exposure leads to more public attention. Public attention leads to investigation, or (at the very least) a decreased willingness to accept or turn a blind eye to the church’s abuses.
Lou- Your responses actually merit a point-by-point response, but for the sake of space, I’ll split things up. Most importantly, you say:
“You will have to try. Tell me why you think the RPF is an involuntary program.”
Sure. To cite just one example, here’s an excerpt from a complaint filed to the Justice Department by Gerry Armstrong:
” Scientology claims that assignment to the RPF is voluntary, or even a privilege,
but that is not true. Anyone who asked to leave instead of doing the RPF program was
assigned to the “RPF’s RPF,” an even more degrading and punitive experience, where the person was guarded at all times, allowed only six hours sleep, docked all pay, had to eat after the RPF had eaten whatever they left, and did the filthiest of the dirty work. The RPF’s RPF member could not leave, and in fact no Sea Org member could leave, until hehad been intensely sec checked and had signed a list of his “crimes” that had been “culled” from his auditing files. Also before the person could leave, all his personal belongings were searched and he was stripped of any Scientology materials, even if he had personally purchased them.”
Now, I expect you will say that this is only one account, and that Armstrong is lying or insane, that he has some sort of ulterior motive or something to gain by attacking the church. I disagree, but for the sake of argument, here’s a link to some other accounts:
http://www.xe nu-directory.net/practices/rpf.html
It also bears mentioning that there are degrees of “voluntary”. Just because someone is not physically forced at gunpoint to do something does not mean they have not been coerced.
Namaste Lou,
“metta” is a Pali word which means “with loving kindness” and is my sign off, my screen name is Vajradhara, fyi.
as odd as it may seem i’m a non ymous and so i’m feeling like my questions are relevant here. however, i’m happy to take our discussion to a more apropos part of the forum if you’d prefer.
If it isn’t written it isn’t true. can you show me any citations where the 2D is defined with Creativity as the primary mode of 2D? i’ve provided numerous citations of Source which conclusively demonstrate the written meaning, from various sources, all listed.
you don’t have to agree with those, of course, but they are written just as they are and are cited correctly. given the nature of the tradition i’m not sure how you can assert what you are without Source.
of course Thetans have a tendency to believe all manner of things and have been doing so for trillions of years so it wouldn’t be too surprising to see this continuing. but thinking about it… what are the ramifications of this new definition of 2D on 7D?
@Comment by Vajradhara on March 11, 2008 2:16 am
“do you agree that LRH has never wrote that Creativity was the Second Dynamic?”
No, he had several definitions for 2D and while one is sex, kids and family, the other one is creativity in the sense of future creation.
But Metta, please, put your Scientology questions etc in the Questions section. This here is the Anonymous thread.
– Louanne
Namaste Lou,
I can appreciate that you had to shorten it, it was a lengthy post… i’ve got more though, more references, more concordances and the like.
what is your view on what i posted, however?
do you agree that LRH has never wrote that Creativity was the Second Dynamic?
remember, the only thing that will bring down Scientology, according to LRH is not having the right Tech.. not having KSW 1.
LOOK then THINK.
metta
@Comment by Thoughtful on March 10, 2008 2:29 am
“Some of us have actually grown rather fond of you lou, (especially if you were lu also) you’ve stuck with us through a lot the last week or two, and are clearly trying to communicate, unlike your predecessors. So I’m giving you a heads up in case you havn’t caught this one yet.”
Thanks.
All hell is likely to break out soon because of this :
http://www.wikileaks. org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights_exposed_as_a_Scientology_front
It did, and I answered to it yesterday:
I have not read all the emails, they seemed to be the same type of stuff. If I missed one which is really bad please let me know.
– Lou
@Comment by anonymous on March 11, 2008 1:33 am
“Here ya go Lou (part 1 of 5):
http://www (dot) youtube.com/watch?v=Lg04cNSi0wg”
Thanks, I am out tonight so I will watch it tomorrow.
– Lou
Uncle-Anon, you are making Lou do too much work.
Here ya go Lou (part 1 of 5):
http://www (dot) youtube.com/watch?v=Lg04cNSi0wg
Lou,
Go to Youtube and search for ‘Clearwater Scientology Hearings. Scott Mayer’ and watch the matching video clips – it is a 5 part series.
He says he’s a former high ranking officer in Scientology and goes on to describe in detail the nefarious nature of the Scientology organization.
Was wondering if you had any comments.
” Not all Anons are extraordinarily intelligent. I bet with you that someone was bragging about it. Bullies love to brag, especially brainless ones. If you wanted you could find evidence and turn it in, knowing your ways around the Anon boards etc. Or ask for evidence and get some. It’s called “taking responsibility”. Ever heard of it?”
You really need to understand how anonymous works. I don’t know the name of anybody besides my own. I don’t know where anyone lives or what they plan on doing in the movement. All I know is that I can proclaim loudly that I want this to be peaceful and legal and hope that the hive mind listens. The IRL protest that I attended did listen to the advice that I and many others put forth and for that I’m grateful.
We can keep repeating this point, but you won’t get it I guess. Are you at least beginning to understand?
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 10, 2008 8:09 am
>>“And did they turn over evidence?”
>What evidence? I know that the Youtube threats -were- reported to the FBI. What evidence is it that you think I, for instance, have about these people? The extent of my knowledge of them is the same thing any other Youtube user sees upon going to that person’s Youtube account page.
Not all Anons are extraordinarily intelligent. I bet with you that someone was bragging about it. Bullies love to brag, especially brainless ones. If you wanted you could find evidence and turn it in, knowing your ways around the Anon boards etc. Or ask for evidence and get some. It’s called “taking responsibility”. Ever heard of it?
>You think the Catholic church thing was okay, because you believe they were doing something wrong.
Right.
>You do -not- believe that the Church of Scientology is doing anything wrong (nor, indeed, that it is even POSSIBLE that it is doing something wrong and you are unaware of it),
Wrong. I witnessed right and wrong actions inside and outside of the Church of Scientology, but that is not the point.
>so any arguments that include the possibility that it IS are lost on you.
Maybe, but because of a different reason. I know Scientology and the Church of Scientology. I know the attitude, the “mindset”, if you will. And I witnessed a couple of “pickets” in the past years, which gives me a certain experience in one thing: the Church of Scientology won’t change an inch because of demonstrations. Believe me. This is inherent. Nothing will change at all.
The Church of Scientology organization is able to catch wrongdoings and correct them. Scientologists know that. They also know that it takes a while, sometimes, and that there can be injustice, and that injustice can be corrected. There are procedures for that, and they work.
What you want and support is the destruction of Scientology, at least “you” said that. So why should the church listen to you, Anonymous? Would you listen to someone’s arguments who just came along and declared “I am going to destroy you”? I bet not.
“1: You dismiss the evidence outright, claiming it’s a fabrication by a few critics with an axe to grind (despite the dozens of corroborating stories, affadavits, etc.)
2: You claim that all that stuff happened in the past, but it doesn’t anymore (ignoring that many of these stories are as recent as only a couple of years ago)
3: You redirect by claiming that this is all the result of religious bigotry or something equally predictable.”
You will have to try. Tell me why you think the RPF is an involuntary program.
– Lou
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 10, 2008 10:17 pm
“This does not mean that there is any chance of converting me to Scientology.”
Sure, but the point is, you are generating curiosity about Scientology. Conversion or no conversion, whatever that means, the people I was referring to began taking courses and all. Some will surely find the material intriguing and begin applying it to their lives and that’s what matters, not what label we assign them.
“I hear people walk into orgs and when asked what brought them there many say they had heard so many bad things that they had to go and find out for themselves. This news is coming from Berlin, I believe, but I may be wrong.”
That may very well be true. For my own part, I’ve been strongly tempted to go to a local org not to protest, but simply to talk to the people there, to hear their own words from them in person.
This does not mean that there is any chance of converting me to Scientology. While some of the people who come in may eventually get involved with the organization, I suspect at least as many, if not more, are those like me.
“How do you intend to go about that? I fail to see the connection between protesting in front of Scientology orgs and Dianetics centers and exposing truth.”
Plenty of us have started letter writing campaigns to senators, congressmen, FBI, CIA, etc. There are phone calls being made. Law enforcement is being notified and urged to look into the claims made by numerous individuals. How will protesting in front of the buildings help this? It gets more people curious and puts more pressure on the above mentioned groups to look into the matters in a timely matter. I thought that was the obvious point of a protest?
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 10, 2008 6:50 pm
“I think you’ll find that quite the opposite is generally true. I do not deny that intelligent people are part of Scientology, but the bulk of evidence, combined with Scientology’s tactics in trying to discredit or attack its critics (or even those who dare to question it) tends to sway people who take the time to look at the facts of the situation, though not in the direction you seem to be hoping.”
I hear people walk into orgs and when asked what brought them there many say they had heard so many bad things that they had to go and find out for themselves. This news is coming from Berlin, I believe, but I may be wrong.
@Comment by anonymous on March 10, 2008 7:02 pm
“That is exactly what we want. Let’s work on exposing the truth on both sides, eh?”
How do you intend to go about that? I fail to see the connection between protesting in front of Scientology orgs and Dianetics centers and exposing truth.
“And let’s not delete comments that make you look bad eh?”
I can do no more on this forum that what you can do: post messages.
@Comment by Uncle-Anon on March 10, 2008 7:21 pm
“When you say ‘campaign against my Church’ I assume you mean the belief system rather then the organization.”
No, I meant my Church, the an organizations, but you can replace that part with “campaign against whatever you’re campaigning against regarding Scientology” and the essence of my post remains as I intended.
T: “Here’s another take on Anonymous, or rather, their campaign against my Church:”
When you say ‘campaign against my Church’ I assume you mean the belief system rather then the organization.
If anything the exact opposite is true, The best outcome for all parties is for you and other scientologists to be able to practice your beliefs free from the burdens of the dishonest and shadowy CST.
“Every accusation you bring up in public brings with it increased hope of official investigations into those allegations, and I expect those to bring the real liars and the real criminals out of the shadows into view for all to see.”
That is exactly what we want. Let’s work on exposing the truth on both sides, eh?
And let’s not delete comments that make you look bad eh?
T-
“Every extreme view and every derogatory or degrading comment expressed in public against Scientology just widens the rift between those views and reality, and that rift keeps driving intelligent people with an independent mind and power of observation into a Scientology organization.”
I think you’ll find that quite the opposite is generally true. I do not deny that intelligent people are part of Scientology, but the bulk of evidence, combined with Scientology’s tactics in trying to discredit or attack its critics (or even those who dare to question it) tends to sway people who take the time to look at the facts of the situation, though not in the direction you seem to be hoping.
“Every accusation you bring up in public brings with it increased hope of official investigations into those allegations, and I expect those to bring the real liars and the real criminals out of the shadows into view for all to see.”
Oh, I certainly hope so. I truly do. Look, if real investigations are conducted (in good faith, mind you, not a dog-and-pony show with a predetermined outcome) AND, against all odds and evidence, there isn’t any wrongdoing? Well, I admit I’d still be skeptical, but if I were satisfied (after looking into it) that the investigation and its results were satisfied, I -would- have to lay off. Given the many corroborating reports and documents, though, I think that outcome is…pretty unlikely, to say the least.
Here’s another take on Anonymous, or rather, their campaign against my Church:
I’m actually quite excited about this highly visible antagonism directed at my Church.
Every extreme view and every derogatory or degrading comment expressed in public against Scientology just widens the rift between those views and reality, and that rift keeps driving intelligent people with an independent mind and power of observation into a Scientology organization.
Every accusation you bring up in public brings with it increased hope of official investigations into those allegations, and I expect those to bring the real liars and the real criminals out of the shadows into view for all to see.
I hope you will then have the integrity to turn your attention on them.
I wish you would come out in huge numbers to protest in March and in April and on until the media finally begins asking questions and demand official investigation into the accusations that you keep bringing up.
You represent a huge potential that has been untapped so far. Your free time, your enthusiasm, your energy, all being organized without us lifting a finger and directed towards exposing true criminals is a refreshing development.
That is why I am excited about what you’re doing, as long as you observe the law.
Lou wrote:
> Yet “you” do. Yet the whole Anon anti-Scientology campaign is built on such allegations.
No, the whole anti-Scientology campaign is built on freeing the average Scientology victim (followers) from the control of the upper echelons. The average Scientologist, like most followers of a religion / cult / belief system / political party, are not an evil we want to rid the world of, they’re just people like you and me.
I personally think they are deluded fools, and I will deliver vicious mockery, but I am seen as a deluded fool and mocked for my own beliefs by many anons. I accept this because I realise that the Internet is not serious business, it’s a battleground for words and ideas. The moment you get on the “OMG BIGOTS” bandwaggon for any other reason than lulz through trolling, you lose all credibility.
“I don’t know, that is up to you. I could call myself “Anonymous711″ and state “Let’s stop religious discrimination of Scientology”. Probably I would not be accepted by the group. So it is not how I call myself but how I think and what goals I have which make me a group member. Anonymous has the declared goal to destroy a religious organization (there is no discussion about that YouTube clip) and it accepts members using criminal means in doing so. I know that you don’t like to hear that but it still holds water.”
You still seem to be under some misconceptions. “Anonymous” cannot, by nature, accept or decline members. It can accept or denounce -actions-. There is absolutely nothing from stopping you, -right now-, declaring yourself to be a member of Anon. However, the chances are that if you then spread Scientology propaganda under that banner, other people would then denounce it.
Seriously. I don’t know how to make it any clearer than that. There is no system of approval something goes through or someone who “okays” a specific action. It operates through consensus and “peer pressure”. If someone does something stupid, people will generally say, “Don’t do that, idiot.” If they do something -extraordinarily- stupid (like a bomb threat), there is absolutely no reason why they would not be reported to the proper authorities.
“And did they turn over evidence?”
What evidence? I know that the Youtube threats -were- reported to the FBI. What evidence is it that you think I, for instance, have about these people? The extent of my knowledge of them is the same thing any other Youtube user sees upon going to that person’s Youtube account page.
“That’s just noise. And you know that the one who did it tries to cover his tracks by loudly claiming that he had nothing to do with it or that somebody else did it. It does not mean anything. ”
Well, y’know. You’re free to think that. I think it’s pretty clear that I’m not going to convince you otherwise, so I suspect anything further would just be us talking past each other.
Regarding the Catholic thing: Bear in mind that the extent of the Catholic church’s complicity in enabling/covering up the child molestation was not known UNTIL people began protesting vocally. I think here’s where we run into the -basic- disconnect of this entire conversation:
You think the Catholic church thing was okay, because you believe they were doing something wrong.
You do -not- believe that the Church of Scientology is doing anything wrong (nor, indeed, that it is even POSSIBLE that it is doing something wrong and you are unaware of it), so any arguments that include the possibility that it IS are lost on you. That seems to be the sticking point, and I’m not sure there’s any way around it.
As for the RPF/human rights abuses stuff…I think other people have pretty thoroughly covered a lot of that, but there’s SUCH a long list, it’s possible they missed some. I’d be more than happy to elaborate, here or elsewhere, if you’d like. However, I see that as ending one of three ways:
1: You dismiss the evidence outright, claiming it’s a fabrication by a few critics with an axe to grind (despite the dozens of corroborating stories, affadavits, etc.)
2: You claim that all that stuff happened in the past, but it doesn’t anymore (ignoring that many of these stories are as recent as only a couple of years ago)
3: You redirect by claiming that this is all the result of religious bigotry or something equally predictable.
Now, I would love…-love-…to be proven wrong here, but a pattern has begun to emerge, not only with you, but with -every- representative of the church I have ever seen or listened to. If you’d like to prove me wrong, I would be thrilled.
Namaste Lou,
thank you for the post.
i’ll excerpt your response here to make our conversation easier to follow:
“Have you read the Green or Red editions of the Second Dynamic?”
There are no “Green or Red editions of the Second Dynamic”. At least not in Scientology. There are several definitions of the Second Dynamic, yes.
*****
the Second Dynamic is not in its own book which you well know.. at least i’d expect that you’d know this. there are both, or there were, Green and Red bound copies of the Source tech. perhaps it has all been replaced now.
who’s authorized to make changes to the Source? it would be someone or group of ones (though we know LRH’s views regarding the Source).. who do you think could do such a thing and, more importantly, what would the purpose be in changing the definition of the term?
[quote]
“There was a 28 page report submitted to the RTS regarding this very subject and it ended up with a visit to the RPF and a SP Declare.”
Really. Can you send me this report etc? And can you explain what RTS is?
********************
i apologize for my typo previously, i meant the RTC. http://www.rtc.org/
i cannot send the report to you, it is available in within the Org and online though i can excerpt some of it here for you:
[I shortened it here. But thanks. – Lou]
i am happy to excerpt more of this for you, if you’d like, but i don’t know the post limit and i don’t want to make a novel out of a conversation.
metta
>Thank you very much for your “Take on Anonymous”. So it would help the better exchange of ideas if Scientologists became “Anonymous”?
I suspect that Scientology is a meme that wouldn’t last very long in Anonymous.
@Comment by anonymous on March 10, 2008 12:06 am
>>“Where do I look?”
>Let’s start with David Miscavige. There is a lot of information available out there. You just have to look for it. Since posting links would be censored or considered off topic, that’s the best I can give you right now.
Well, would you mind putting this on the other thread? Just to stay on-topic here.
– Lou
Some of us have actually grown rather fond of you lou, (especially if you were lu also) you’ve stuck with us through a lot the last week or two, and are clearly trying to communicate, unlike your predecessors. So I’m giving you a heads up in case you havn’t caught this one yet.
If you’ve ever had doubts, considered seeking help, now may be an opportune time to evaluate things further.
All hell is likely to break out soon because of this :
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights_exposed_as_a_Scientology_front
Evidence of fair game (intent, not by name), disconnection, illegal lobbying and god knows what else, is very likely to lose the CoS US tax exempt status and more very soon.
Good luck and peace be with you if you are an innocent caught up in all this.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 10, 2008 12:01 am
>I mean, what are we using to measure who’s a “member” and who’s not?
I don’t know, that is up to you. I could call myself “Anonymous711” and state “Let’s stop religious discrimination of Scientology”. Probably I would not be accepted by the group. So it is not how I call myself but how I think and what goals I have which make me a group member. Anonymous has the declared goal to destroy a religious organization (there is no discussion about that YouTube clip) and it accepts members using criminal means in doing so. I know that you don’t like to hear that but it still holds water.
>People identified as Anon have overwhelmingly denounced threats and violent action.
And did they turn over evidence? The only Anon I ever respected was the one who turned himself in after that fake bomb threat to a NFL stadium ( http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/15320622/ ).
>I guess my question is this: Since anyone can potentially identify themselves as “Anon”, what more would you have them do when some random person somewhere, without the knowledge or agreement of anyone else, posts some idiotic threatening screed on YouTube?
The only way out of this dilemma is to track down and reveal those who participated in the threats and other illegal actions. The only way to end generalization is with a definite answer of “Who?”.
>Since the whole thing operates via a sort of consensus, they react the only way they can: By publicly and vocally disagreeing and denouncing those actions.
That’s just noise. And you know that the one who did it tries to cover his tracks by loudly claiming that he had nothing to do with it or that somebody else did it. It does not mean anything.
>To go back to the well-worn Catholic example, if I protested with the sign, “The Catholic church needs to stop protecting child molesters”, that is not a “hate crime”. It is not an attack against Catholics. It is an attack against a very specific set of actions carried out by members of the institution, named or no.
Child molestation is a serious crime and the recent scandals of the Catholic Church had some meat to the bone, meaning actual convictions right there, in present time, with a face on it. I get your point, but please protest against something which is actually there.
>When people march with signs saying, “Stop the RPF” or “The Church of Scientology carries out human rights abuses”, those are equally valid.
I disagree. You would not be able to say what’s wrong with the RPF if being questioned. General anti-Scientology propaganda makes it sound like this is something every Scientologist does or could do (which is a lie), that the program is harmful to the person (which is a lie), that people are on the program involuntarily (which is a lie) etc. If you were in full knowledge of what the RPF is you would not put it on a sign (unless you wanted to lie).
Then, saying the church would carry out human rights abuses is a generality, making it sound like abuses are happening as part of the church activity. That’s a lie, and knowing that (in the absence of evidence) you would claim something which indeed qualifies as incitement to hate. At least I hate human rights abusers and usually attack them. Misleading someone to attack the wrong “abuser” usually ends with a black eye for all concerned.
– Lou
@Comment by Anonymous on March 10, 2008 12:03 am
>There is a big difference between the /i/nsurgency and anonymous, it’s like the difference between Islam and those who blow people up in the name of Islam. If you can’t see that then how can you expect people to see that you are not the same as the people who took part in Operation Snow White or the other criminal elements within Scientology.
Yet “you” do. Yet the whole Anon anti-Scientology campaign is built on such allegations.
>If you want tolerance and respect, then you should practice what you preach.
I hear you.
– Lou
I would think Vajradhara meant RTC when they said RTS.
Actually, star with the criticism and conteroversy part of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miscavige
Again, just a start.
“Where do I look?”
Let’s start with David Miscavige. There is a lot of information available out there. You just have to look for it. Since posting links would be censored or considered off topic, that’s the best I can give you right now.
Anonymous are not a group, it is just the default user name for anyone who posts on an anonymous image board. I’ve been an anon for quite some time, but I don’t go about vandalising myspace accounts or disrupting people’s lives. I post pictures of lolcats and make original content, do a bit of harmless trolling and generally goof around on the Internet.
Anonymous is just another name for anarchy, sure there are people who do illegal things but anonymous is just people who post anonymously, that’s all it is.
There is a big difference between the /i/nsurgency and anonymous, it’s like the difference between Islam and those who blow people up in the name of Islam. If you can’t see that then how can you expect people to see that you are not the same as the people who took part in Operation Snow White or the other criminal elements within Scientology.
If you want tolerance and respect, then you should practice what you preach.
Lu-
“Yet you do. If you are supporting Anonymous, you do. I really don’t know why this is so hard to understand. A group hiding their criminals will be prosecuted just like their most criminal member. Being anonymous is to your disadvantage, actually, because law enforcement does not make a difference between Anon and Anon, just BECAUSE they are “all the same”.”
Bzzt. Wrong. Part of the problem here seems to be that you don’t understand that “Anon” is not even a “group”, as such. There is no structure, no real leadership, no real hierarchy. There’s no test for membership, no roster of members; ANYONE is potentially “Anonymous”. You can’t say that people will be prosecuted for the actions of others in their “group”, because…what group? How would you tell? If someone posted on a message board? If they have a Youtube comment saying, “Go Anonymous!” If they went to a protest? I mean, what are we using to measure who’s a “member” and who’s not?
You also complain that people are not doing enough to stop the “criminal actions” of people in their “group”. I assure you, they/we have done pretty much all that can be done. People identified as Anon have overwhelmingly denounced threats and violent action. They have flagged offending Youtube videos and gone as far as to report potential threats to the FBI. I guess my question is this: Since anyone can potentially identify themselves as “Anon”, what more would you have them do when some random person somewhere, without the knowledge or agreement of anyone else, posts some idiotic threatening screed on Youtube? Since the whole thing operates via a sort of consensus, they react the only way they can: By publicly and vocally disagreeing and denouncing those actions.
“And yes, it cannot be classified a hate crime to protest against named individuals who commit or have committed crimes and went unpunished. But this is not what’s happening. Spend some time on YouTube and study the protests. None of your good sounding theory matches real life. That’s the problem. I do understand what Anonymous “could be” but this is not what happens in real life.”
Again, false. To go back to the well-worn Catholic example, if I protested with the sign, “The Catholic church needs to stop protecting child molesters”, that is not a “hate crime”. It is not an attack against Catholics. It is an attack against a very specific set of actions carried out by members of the institution, named or no. When people march with signs saying, “Stop the RPF” or “The Church of Scientology carries out human rights abuses”, those are equally valid. I’m sorry if you’re unable to see it that way due to your involvement with the church, but there -is- a difference between protesting the actions of the organization and protesting the faith, UNLESS those actions are so central to the faith that it cannot exist without them.
@Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 11:23 pm
“It’s the individuals committing the crimes in the name of the CoS. I’m not against the religion itself. Just the corruption being done in it’s name.”
Fine, if there is such right here in 2008, let’s stamp it out! Where do I look?
– Lou
@Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 11:34 pm
>“Is that true?”
>Partly, but not entirely. Some members came from those boards. Since we are all anonymous there is no way of knowing who came from where. I personally haven’t been to a single one of them. I found out about it on a different board and then went over to enturb once that was created.
Thanks for the answer!
– Lou
@Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 11:31 pm
There you go. Different observations, different conclusions.
– Lou
“Is that true?”
Partly, but not entirely. Some members came from those boards. Since we are all anonymous there is no way of knowing who came from where. I personally haven’t been to a single one of them. I found out about it on a different board and then went over to enturb once that was created.
“Yet you do. If you are supporting Anonymous, you do. I really don’t know why this is so hard to understand. A group hiding their criminals will be prosecuted just like their most criminal member. Being anonymous is to your disadvantage, actually, because law enforcement does not make a difference between Anon and Anon, just BECAUSE they are “all the same”.”
That isn’t true. I cannot be convicted of a crime I haven’t committed. I have committed no crime, so I can remain anonymous for my own protection. I can’t “turn someone in” when the only person whose actions I am certain of are my own. I’m the only person whose name i know in this movement. It really is my advantage to keep my identity hidden due to the history of fair game. I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to understand that, actually.
“Me too. Let’s get them.”
Sweet. Six more days until the protest. That’s a great start.
“And yes, it cannot be classified a hate crime to protest against named individuals who commit or have committed crimes and went unpunished. But this is not what’s happening. Spend some time on YouTube and study the protests. None of your good sounding theory matches real life. That’s the problem. I do understand what Anonymous “could be” but this is not what happens in real life.”
It’s what’s happening in my “real life.” It’s what I’ve been seeing. It’s what I saw when I went to the protest on the 10th as an observer. It’s what made me decide to get involved in the movement actually. It wasn’t the DDoS. I personally didn’t approve of that. It’s what happened after that that made me excited to be a part of this movement.
A question: Wikipedia (which is always correct) says about “Anonymous”.
“Anonymous is composed of users of various websites and forums such as 4chan and 711chan, the “Insurgency Wiki”, as well as a number of Internet Relay Chat channels.”
Is that true?
– Lou
No no, it’s the formers. It’s the individuals committing the crimes in the name of the CoS. I’m not against the religion itself. Just the corruption being done in it’s name.
@Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 8:19 pm
“Since I can’t edit my post, I’ll just correct that typo here. It should be “me practicing my religion.” And yes, I do have a religion. Not everyone in Anonymous does. Some are atheists. Some are religious. To be honest, we don’t even talk about religion much. That’s not we are focused on. We are focused on the crimes being committed by the CoS.”
Point taken. And there goes your nice theory. Your earlier post said you are against individuals committing crimes, now again the CoS is committing crimes. I was with you on the former, I am against you with the latter.
– Lou
@Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 8:14 pm
>“I resent the comments that I am somehow being controlled by someone. I am an individual and I think for myself.
I am happy to hear that.
>I’m probably pretty far removed from the stereotype that you seem to have about anonymous. None of it applies to me. I would never step in the way of somebody who chooses to practice a certain religion.
Yet you do. If you are supporting Anonymous, you do. I really don’t know why this is so hard to understand. A group hiding their criminals will be prosecuted just like their most criminal member. Being anonymous is to your disadvantage, actually, because law enforcement does not make a difference between Anon and Anon, just BECAUSE they are “all the same”.
>It’s with those who have and continue to commit crimes. I am against the criminals who are committing crimes in the name of Scientology.
>this cannot be classified as a “hate crime.” I’m not against members of a certain group. I’m against the criminals who commit crimes in the name of that group.
Me too. Let’s get them.
And yes, it cannot be classified a hate crime to protest against named individuals who commit or have committed crimes and went unpunished. But this is not what’s happening. Spend some time on YouTube and study the protests. None of your good sounding theory matches real life. That’s the problem. I do understand what Anonymous “could be” but this is not what happens in real life.
– Lou
@Comment by Nu on March 9, 2008 7:52 pm
>>“Also, Lu, did you really have to look up the Ides of March?”
>>Yes, I first thought it is an Iron Maiden song…
>That just made my day.
Yeah, I like the song, too ;-)
– Lou
@Comment by John on March 9, 2008 9:05 am
>What are my thoughts on Anonymous?
>The reason that I personally like the concept of Anonymous is that we have stripped away almost everything that would make us different.
>They will never have prejudice against them because the only identifiable thing about them is that they are Anonymous and we are all Anonymous.
Thank you very much for your “Take on Anonymous”. So it would help the better exchange of ideas if Scientologists became “Anonymous”?
>I resent the comments that I am somehow being controlled by someone.
Granted. But I still think that you are controlled by someone feeding you disinformation. Just because I still see so much disinformation on the internet and no change in that.
– Lou
Since I can’t edit my post, I’ll just correct that typo here. It should be “me practicing my religion.” And yes, I do have a religion. Not everyone in Anonymous does. Some are atheists. Some are religious. To be honest, we don’t even talk about religion much. That’s not we are focused on. We are focused on the crimes being committed by the CoS.
I agree with all of what John said. Particularly this part:
“I resent the comments that I am somehow being controlled by someone. I am an individual and I think for myself. Another member of Anonymous summed this up perfectly for me; “We’re Anonymous, we’re people, that’s all we are. We’re people who have seen this, said ‘This isn’t right’ and decided to take a stand.”
I’m probably pretty far removed from the stereotype that you seem to have about anonymous. None of it applies to me. I would never step in the way of somebody who chooses to practice a certain religion. I would hate it if somebody stepped in the way of be practicing my religion. I would be quite hypocritical if I were to turn around and do the same to you. My beef is not with you. It’s with those who have and continue to commit crimes. I don’t hate “Scientologists.” I am against the criminals who are committing crimes in the name of Scientology.
Let me put it to you this way. I am not against all the people who worked for Enron. I’m against those who committed the crime. A lot of people who worked for Enron weren’t aware of what was being done by those higher up. The same can be said about the CoS.
Don’t like your religion being compared to a corporation? Fine, let’s use another analogy. I’m not against all Catholics. I’m against the Catholics who committed the crimes (you should know of which ones I speak, though I’ll elaborate if you need me to). I would never lash out against a Catholic simply for being Catholic. But if a crime is committed, I will speak up.
Thus, this cannot be classified as a “hate crime.” I’m not against members of a certain group. I’m against the criminals who commit crimes in the name of that group. I hope you start to understand now. I really want you to understand.
Comment by Lu on February 29, 2008 9:17 pm
>“Also, Lu, did you really have to look up the Ides of March?”
>
>Yes, I first thought it is an Iron Maiden song…
That just made my day. I understand why you were so easily duped by the Co$. I’m sorry to tell you that you are not on the path of spiritual enlightenment. You are, in fact, merely stupid. This isn’t your fault, but persisting in your stupidity in the face of reality isn’t helping you.
Mark Rinder blew, you can too!
Since when did Terryo speak on behalf of anonymous?
Let me start by saying that after reading the entire conversation I still firmly believe that Anonymous is on the right track and while there may be some misconceptions on our side, as a member of Anonymous, I feel that some Scientologists have a lot of misconceptions about us.
What are my thoughts on Anonymous?
I think it is one of the greatest movements in recent history. While I usually shy from pop culture references I do compare Anonymous to a Stand Alone Complex.
Clyde Wey has an excellent writeup. http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/01/28/scientology-sac/
I can only speak on my perspective as a member of Anonymous. The reason that I personally like the concept of Anonymous is that we have stripped away almost everything that would make us different. What I mean by this is that we have shattered the barriers produced by age, sex, religion, race, sexual preference… etc. I am being specific here because we are still individuals that think independently but we are all Anonymous.
A member of Anonymous is a member of Anonymous, nothing more, nothing less. Any Anon may speak freely at any time, on any subject and they will never be judged on anything other than what they say and their actions. They will never have prejudice against them because the only identifiable thing about them is that they are Anonymous and we are all Anonymous.
I resent the comments that I am somehow being controlled by someone. I am an individual and I think for myself. Another member of Anonymous summed this up perfectly for me; “We’re Anonymous, we’re people, that’s all we are. We’re people who have seen this, said ‘This isn’t right’ and decided to take a stand.”
This is my statement as a member of Anonymous.
– Anonymous
@Comment by Terryeo on March 8, 2008 4:58 pm
“The people attacking the criminal actions of your church aren’t the people who performed the DDOS attacks, neither against your church’s sites nor earlier targets.”
I am sure you turned your evidence in for that?
– Lou
@Comment by Vajradhara on March 8, 2008 2:02 am
“Namaste Lou, No, it is not a joke.”
Okeh…
“Have you read the Green or Red editions of the Second Dynamic?”
There are no “Green or Red editions of the Second Dynamic”. At least not in Scientology. There are several definitions of the Second Dynamic, yes.
“There was a 28 page report submitted to the RTS regarding this very subject and it ended up with a visit to the RPF and a SP Declare.”
Really. Can you send me this report etc? And can you explain what RTS is?
– Lou
“Why don’t you question the motives of Anonymous, anmn?”
“How do you respond to the fact that ANONYMOUS ITSELF, in recent months, said:”
I respond that Anonymous isn’t Anonymous. Anonymous moves like water. Individuals join, individuals leave. The people attacking the criminal actions of your church aren’t the people who performed the DDOS attacks, neither against your church’s sites nor earlier targets.
With eyes open, you may even notice that the biggest opposition to the actions of Anonymous isn’t your church, but Anonymous itself. That’s right. Anonymous is its own biggest critic and detractor.
It’s a difficult concept to wrap your head around. Perhaps you will be enlightened if you can manage. :)
Beware the Ides of March.
Namaste Lou,
No, it is not a joke.
Have you read the Green or Red editions of the Second Dynamic? There was a 28 page report submitted to the RTS regarding this very subject and it ended up with a visit to the RPF and a SP Declare.
you *KNOW* what that means. changing the Source Tech is a High Crime and you know what that means as well, i’m sure.
don’t take my word for it.. please don’t. Go read the books for yourself and compare them with your current copy and you’ll see the changes.
you are, of course, free to determine if those changes are correct or not but we both know the implications of this.
metta,
Holder of the Diamond Thunderbolt of Wisdom
(Is this a joke or something? – Lou, 7 Mar 08, 9:15am)
Namaste all,
Three things that i’d like to say.
1. I have no issue with any being practicing any religion which they choose. I am fully in support of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.
2. $cientology and $cientologists are *NOT* the same thing. One word is descriptive of a group whereas the other is descriptive of an individual. There are some $cientologists which i do, unfortunately, not trust to be decent human beings due to their demonstrated actions. To confuse the two is rather like confusing Islam for Muslims or Christianity for Christians neither are valid analogs.
3. the RTS is Squirlling the Tech! Read the Second Dynamic in the Green or Red books (before the edits) and then read the new edition. They are changed, they are different, they are Out-Tech and that is a High Crime! If the Source Tech can be changed by the RTS what possible hope can you have in the Tech?
> THEN SHOW THEM. Otherwise you have nothing. Your attacks are hollow. They provide lulz, or as Terryeo once said, “LUTZ”.
They’re not hollow. In Lou’s mind they are very real. Thus him saying it. You need to remember that a person’s frame of reference determines how they view everything around them.
While you may not find some of anonymous’ posts antagonistic, I’m sure Lou does. Where you don’t find any bias, Lou finds bucketloads.
Keep this in mind when posting on this site. We’re here for an open dialogue, no more, no less.
Let’s keep the tone respectful and move towards communication rather then accusations and anger please.
Quote:
“They have documents from primary sources, including internal memos and the writings of Hubbard himself.”
_Lu’s response_: And they usually show you only the part which supports their point of critique, and not the bookloads of memos and writings which disprove them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THEN SHOW THEM. Otherwise you have nothing. Your attacks are hollow. They provide lulz, or as Terryeo once said, “LUTZ”.
> Post Deleting Weenie is a weenie. The lack of critical thinking and rationality in defending your Co$ position on issues is telling. Please continue. The footbullets amuse us.
And this is why I’d like to have a private discussion. This accomplishes nothing and only serves to inflame both sides.
Post Deleting Weenie is a weenie. The lack of critical thinking and rationality in defending your Co$ position on issues is telling. Please continue. The footbullets amuse us.
@Comment by anonymous on March 7, 2008 6:47 am
“The reason I say “someone” is because I don’t want you to be bombarded with a billion emails at once.”
I confirm that there have not been a billion “someone”s yet who felt the need to send me stuff. So feel free to do so. I closed the “Open Questions” thread but the “Questions” one is open and will stay open (in case you don’t want to send email).
– Lou
Sorry, forgot in the previous post.
How many “delegates” would you like us to put forward? I’m going to go over to enturbulation.org and see who’s interested and the collective may or may not (if they accept the idea) pick out it’s reps.
> Ranks being “Scientologists”, I guess. Sure there are problems, plenty. But they can be and are solved by the people concerned, not by some dupes without a clue about the Scientology religion who hide behind stupid masks, who chant brainless slogans and who try to harass and intimidate Scientologists with that.
Lou, come on now. You can’t categorize all of anonymous like that. I’ll point out that several anonymous are ex-members who have actually attained a higher level then you have. So, not all of us are “dupes without a clue”. Just a vast majority. :D
However, us dupes are trying to learn and become better informed on the subject. To be perfectly honest, that’s the key reason I post here. I am really and truly interested in the other side.
May I make a suggestion? And I think it’d be beneficial for both sides. Why don’t you create a thread that allows only specific users to comment. That way the “more intelligent” anonymous members can have a decent conversation with you. That is to say, you won’t have to deal with constant non-sense posts.
Pro’s for the CoS:
– More on point and targeted questions (less spam)
– Board is more easily read by the public (those who have not formed an opinion)
– less of hate on the board (good for both of us actually).
Pro’s for Anonymous:
– We seem less like retards.
– People can come to the post and feel they’re being represented.
– We can provide questions and rebuttals from the “collective” more efficiently.
Thoughts Lou?
You appear to have closed the “Open Questions” thread. That seems like the most appropriate place to put all of the evidence and links that you are requesting. Is there a more appropriate place?
The reason I say “someone” is because I don’t want you to be bombarded with a billion emails at once. However, if nobody has sent you anything, I can take it upon myself to do so. I see a lot of great stuff going on in the other part of your blog though so I’m going to read through that thoroughly to see if there are any points not covered there/evidence not posted there that I can add on to. If I feel that I can add more valuable information I’ll do it. That other thread is lengthy though, so don’t expect that to happen immediately (I do have a life outside of this, as I’m sure you do too).
Thank you though for responding to all of my concerns. I do appreciate that. It makes me happy that we can both attempt to keep this civil. :)
@Comment by Anonymous on March 7, 2008 4:59 am
“So Lu, I ask you, not as a member of Anonymous to a member of the Church of Scientology, but as a fellow human being, can you honestly say that there are no problems within your ranks?”
Ranks being “Scientologists”, I guess. Sure there are problems, plenty. But they can be and are solved by the people concerned, not by some dupes without a clue about the Scientology religion who hide behind stupid masks, who chant brainless slogans and who try to harass and intimidate Scientologists with that.
There you go, this is my upset with Anonymous. Be back tomorrow.
– Lou
PS.
“Such as what? I looked up and down the thread but couldn’t find anything? ” – lou
how about the ‘what other religion practices invasive security checks on it’s members?’ question for a start.
@Comment by anonymous on March 7, 2008 4:09 am
>>_ Anonymous is a group is lemmings with criminal individuals at the top
_ Anonymous is a group of porn/manga freaks normally hunting for lulz but
currently duped into cyber-terrorist actions against Scientology.
_ Anonymous is a group of superheros with great skillz which they are
using against the evil in the world. Normally. Just not right now.”
>”I am not ANY of the above, so please stop generalizing. ”
Well, you haven’t defined it, and these are just suggestions.
“I’m trying to have a calm and rational argument with you without generalizing your group, so I’d appreciate it you would show the same amount of decorum.”
Agreed. Let’s do it.
“I know it’s the ones at the top of your chain doing those things because I have seen court documents proving that they have done illegal acts. You don’t like when we post them, so I won’t.”
Nope. I don’t like off-topic comments. Feel free to send them on email or the right section of this blog. But please don’t use me. That couldbe made into an allegation that you are trying to cover up that you don’t have evidence for what you say (happens to me occasionally, if I am not fast enough answering).
“I have not seen documentation that you’ve done anything illegal personally, so I’m not going to say “all Scientologists are horrible people.” No, it’s just the ones that I’ve seen the proof of that I think are pretty horrible. Hopefully someone will be sending you those links shortly.”
Someone??? Do you have it or not?
>Now can you answer my question from earlier, what do you think of this paragraph:
“As someone who is posting anonymously online and taking part in protests in real life, I assume that I am categorized as “Anonymous” as far as you are concerned. I’ve never been to 4chan and I don’t know how to DDoS. I only learned what that meant when this whole thing began. I’ve never fired a gun at a CoS building (or ever, for that matter) nor have I sent anthrax to anyone (or fake anthrax for that matter). I have not threatened violence on anyone and I would never support such actions as I’m a very strong believer in peaceful protests. I have a feeling that their are many many people in this movement in the same boat as I am.”
Yes? I mean: Great! I like peaceful protests. Very good that you are not doing criminal things.
I think the only part we are disagreeing about here is that I think you got duped into attacking the wrong target. That’s all. Disinformation does that to a person.
– Lou
Lou stop deleting this, I’m just gonna keep reposting it until you respond
(Ok. But I am going out now. So you will have to wait until tomorrow. – Lou)
Dear Lu,
poor confused Lu. You are entrapped in a circle of lies and misinformation spun by your superiors. You call us out for supposedly hostile actions, quoting the attempted attack on several sports stadiums by one individual posting on the 4chan boards. However the members of that board alerted their police and actually assisted in his capture. You can point to things such as 4Chan and the loli, guro and ZippoCat that we laugh at, but they don’t know the TRUTH…. The Chans, ED and such is where we go to shed our humanity, if only for a spell. These are places where we don’t have to care… for a change. However, deep down inside each and every one of us, when that browser window closes on that world of bedlam, when we go back to our families, when we take off our afros and black suits, we DO care about people in general. We do seek a certain comfort level for people. Anonymous is a melting pot, a mixture of all people, just like society itself. We adhere to no “set” value, we have no fixed code… We are what we are, shameful or not within the walls of the Chans, but once out, we know we are out and our lives go on as “normal” people, albeit with a slightly skewed view. You say that we fired shots at Church of Scientology members and structures, and that the protests were violent. This could not be further from the truth. Perhaps if you took the time to watch a few youtube videos of the protest you would see that.
We have said and continue to say that we will never attempt to harm any members of the Church, and although we disagree and are repulsed by their actions, even the highest members of the cult of Scientology will not be physically harmed by Anonymous. You quote our actions as evidence of the religious bigotry of which you have long been warned, however there are is an organization currently practicing L Ron Hubbard’s religious teachings that has disassociated itself with the church. We support their actions and their right to believe in what they choose. Our battle is against the organization. Not its members.
So Lu, I ask you, not as a member of Anonymous to a member of the Church of Scientology, but as a fellow human being, can you honestly say that there are no problems within your ranks? Can you safety and honestly say that the disconnection policy, the RPF, the labeling of critics as SPs and targeting them, Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout, Lisa Mcpherson, fair game, and all the other negative effects of the church, which hundreds, including the NIECE of David Miscavige, are all lying? Can you say that the US government is lying? that thousands of citizens are lying?
I don’t ask a lot of you, but I ask that you look at the facts, and discover the truth for yourself.
Make up your own mind.
We are Anonymous.
We have Awoken.
We stand as One.
re : Comment by anonymous on March 7, 2008 4:09 am.
I could have written that entire post myself, verbatim, other than I knew full well what a DDoS was from reading IT news for years.
The part of Anonymous that could perhaps be taken to court, to see if a judge and jury consider them criminal for DDoS’ing, or prior actions of the group ‘Anonymous’ probably numbers in the 50 -150’s.
over 8000 people protested on feb 10th. not on Anonymous arrest, there was one scientologist arrested for assault (I’ve heard rumor more, but I’ve only seen proof of one, I beleive it was the woman who kicked a protester on camera)
As I write this there are 7471 members on the enturbulation forum alone, and that is 100% dedicated to PEACEFUL LEGAL protests, and is just one board of many holding critical opinion.
Anonymous gave a body politic the safety in numbers to speak out on views long held, but ever muted through fear of a suppressive group. you try telling me the CoS doesn’t sue critics, you try telling me the CoS doesn’t have people followed to their homes. I know for a fact it happens, video from 15 years ago that shows it does then what it is still provenin in video to do today,not to mention court evidence and perhaps even more important to me, though it’s merely anecdotal to you, it’s happened to people I care about who have NO reason to lie about such matters.
Not one, they had NO knowledge about scientology untill they were pulled into a ‘free stress test’ and then harassed and followed home when they refused to buy a copy of Dianetics.
The CoS individual members must be protected, those who have committed crimes must be brought out from behind the long petticoats of ‘religious’ protection and brought to justice.
(Is this a joke or something? – Lou, 7 Mar 08, 9:15am)
Namaste all,
Three things that i’d like to say.
1. I have no issue with any being practicing any religion which they choose. I am fully in support of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.
2. $cientology and $cientologists are *NOT* the same thing. One word is descriptive of a group whereas the other is descriptive of an individual. There are some $cientologists which i do, unfortunately, not trust to be decent human beings due to their demonstrated actions. To confuse the two is rather like confusing Islam for Muslims or Christianity for Christians neither are valid analogs.
3. the RTS is Squirlling the Tech! Read the Second Dynamic in the Green or Red books (before the edits) and then read the new edition. They are changed, they are different, they are Out-Tech and that is a High Crime! If the Source Tech can be changed by the RTS what possible hope can you have in the Tech?
metta,
Holder of the Diamond Thunderbolt of Wisdom
@Comment by anonymous on March 7, 2008 4:13 am
“Stop ignoring points that stump you. It just makes you look bad.”
Such as what? I looked up and down the thread but couldn’t find anything?
– Lou
Stop ignoring points that stump you. It just makes you look bad.
“_ Anonymous is a group is lemmings with criminal individuals at the top
_ Anonymous is a group of porn/manga freaks normally hunting for lulz but
currently duped into cyber-terrorist actions against Scientology.
_ Anonymous is a group of superheros with great skillz which they are
using against the evil in the world. Normally. Just not right now.”
I am not ANY of the above, so please stop generalizing. I’m trying to have a calm and rational argument with you without generalizing your group, so I’d appreciate it you would show the same amount of decorum. I know it’s the ones at the top of your chain doing those things because I have seen court documents proving that they have done illegal acts. You don’t like when we post them, so I won’t. I have not seen documentation that you’ve done anything illegal personally, so I’m not going to say “all Scientologists are horrible people.” No, it’s just the ones that I’ve seen the proof of that I think are pretty horrible. Hopefully someone will be sending you those links shortly.
Also, Anonymous has no “top” as far as I know. I don’t follow anybodies orders. I do what I feel is right when I feel it is right. If I feel an idea is corrupt or wrong, I won’t follow it. Now can you answer my question from earlier, what do you think of this paragraph:
“As someone who is posting anonymously online and taking part in protests in real life, I assume that I am categorized as “Anonymous” as far as you are concerned. I’ve never been to 4chan and I don’t know how to DDoS. I only learned what that meant when this whole thing began. I’ve never fired a gun at a CoS building (or ever, for that matter) nor have I sent anthrax to anyone (or fake anthrax for that matter). I have not threatened violence on anyone and I would never support such actions as I’m a very strong believer in peaceful protests. I have a feeling that their are many many people in this movement in the same boat as I am.”
Again, I want to note that I have not participated in any of the illegal acts that you have issue with. As far as I know, you haven’t done anything illegal either. It’s not you that I have an issue with. It’s people like David Miscavige and others who I feel are corrupting the organization that you seem to hold so dear. Yeah, I think your beliefs are wacky, but I have nothing again them. You can practice your religion and I’ll practice mine. I just have an issue with the criminal behavior that has happened by those who seem to be in charge.
So please, tell me what you think about people in my position, particularly including the points I included in the quoted paragraph.
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 7, 2008 12:07 am
France:
“So, when we look at all the information that is available it becomes obvious that a crime really did take place. Either she is lying and trying to frame the scientologists (ie. She wasn’t really confined), or she was in fact detained and not allowed to call the police, and thus the note to the neighbours.”
Interesting. So you think a crime has been committed? I couldn’t find that.
“I don’t think you’re the type of person to post a spinned version and delete posts that prove you wrong, but I’ve been wrong about people before.”
It’s off-topic, isn’t it. I don’t think you want to continue this thread here.
– Lou
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 6, 2008 11:48 pm
>Fair enough. You have to understand, though, that the Anon thing didn’t happen in a vacuum. The Tom Cruise video and other negative publicity surrounding the church lately has raised its public profile. The Anon thing was certainly one of the bigger events to occur, though, I grant you.
Media hype, yes, but about the DDOS attacks, not the Cruise vid. Noone is talking about that one anymore.
>So what does this mean? Well, while it could mean that all the things (alleged powder mailings, Youtube death threats, etc.)
Congrats. You won the price. For the longest sentence on this blog so far. Otherwise, as you pointed out earlier, law enforcement takes its time.
“I’ve seen the videos -documenting- some of the harassment perpetrated by those under the umbrella of the church.”
Bad style, overreactions. True. But not illegal and nobody got arrested. Which is the difference here.
“I’ve read pages upon pages of court documents and watched several videotaped trials and depositions. I won’t post them here, since you claim they’re off-topic, but you know exactly the ones I’m talking about, and to act like they don’t exist is disingenuous.”
Send them to me per email: scientologymyths(at)yahoo.com
Or post the links on the appropriate page (the on-topic ones on this same blog).
I am interested, especially in deposition footage (hardly ever saw some).
– Lou
@Comment by anonymous on March 6, 2008 11:44 pm
“Oh hey, I absolutely HATE generalities too. So perhaps you can stop generalizing Anonymous? I, for one, try not to generalize the CoS.”
Glad to hear that. Chose one:
_ Anonymous is a group is lemmings with criminal individuals at the top
_ Anonymous is a group of porn/manga freaks normally hunting for lulz but
currently duped into cyber-terrorist actions against Scientology.
_ Anonymous is a group of superheros with great skillz which they are
using against the evil in the world. Normally. Just not right now.
” I know it’s only a few, mostly people at the top, who are doing the things I don’t agree with.”
Really. Do you know any of those “at the top”?
– Lou
@Comment by anonymous on March 7, 2008 12:27 am
“I have a question specifically about you, just so that we can continue this conversation without confusion. Do you prefer “Lu” or “Lou” and why are you changing the spelling? I just want to know so that as we continue this conversation I can address you correctly.”
I am alternating, it sounds almost the same anyway. But Lou sounds closer.
– Lou
Small amount of Kudos btw (aside from thanks for at least trying to answer a few questions in between the ad hominem attacks) :
The youtube vid the main article has on the top right, it’s not really an anonymous vid, the guy even apologizes to anon in the vid info.
But it’s not a Scientologists media release either, and it is pretty funny, hadn’t seen that one before, thanks :)
Just because Anons lack tact, doesn’t mean their facts are wrong.
I have a question specifically about you, just so that we can continue this conversation without confusion. Do you prefer “Lu” or “Lou” and why are you changing the spelling? I just want to know so that as we continue this conversation I can address you correctly.
> Come again.
Ooo, do I denote a tone of arrogance? That’s so not like you Lou. I’m disappointed.
> Is that so? I must have missed that part. The facts are: Four people in a house in Sardinia. One of them calls the police and says she does not want to be there.
Actually, if you look at the google translation of the article (you can search for it if you’re so inclined) you read this…
“Martine Boublil has been sequestered for a month and a half on the first floor of this house. She was able to escape through the intervention of the local police, warned by neighbors.”
So in fact, she didn’t call the police as you claim. And I can’t even find where you would have read that in the articles I supplied. Odd.
> The others get arrested and later released. All return to France. Two months later no charges have been brought.
If you are unfamiliar with the court system, it moves very, very slowly. And it hasn’t been two months, more like five or six weeks. As the article says, they have to work out the international law issues before anything can be done. That takes time.
——————————————————————
So, when we look at all the information that is available it becomes obvious that a crime really did take place. Either she is lying and trying to frame the scientologists (ie. She wasn’t really confined), or she was in fact detained and not allowed to call the police, and thus the note to the neighbours.
Take your pick.
PS: I hope you’re not considering deleting this post. I have a copy and will post on enturbulation.org. I don’t think you’re the type of person to post a spinned version and delete posts that prove you wrong, but I’ve been wrong about people before.
Lu –
Fair enough. You have to understand, though, that the Anon thing didn’t happen in a vacuum. The Tom Cruise video and other negative publicity surrounding the church lately has raised its public profile. The Anon thing was certainly one of the bigger events to occur, though, I grant you.
So what does this mean? Well, while it could mean that all the things (alleged powder mailings, Youtube death threats, etc.) that any reasonable person condemns are the act of some Anons, since they apparently didn’t occur before the Anon thing, it’s at least equally likely that the press and notoriety surrounding the Anon/Chanology movement made it a target for random idiots on the internet. It does not mean that Anon directly caused or endorsed these actions; rather, it simply means that the level of publicity, combined with a convenient name to attach to these actions, drew the attention of some bottom-dwellers who otherwise wouldn’t have noticed.
“Which is a lie. And a well placed one.”
I disagree. I’ve seen the videos -documenting- some of the harassment perpetrated by those under the umbrella of the church. I’ve read pages upon pages of court documents and watched several videotaped trials and depositions. I won’t post them here, since you claim they’re off-topic, but you know exactly the ones I’m talking about, and to act like they don’t exist is disingenuous.
Oh hey, I absolutely HATE generalities too. So perhaps you can stop generalizing Anonymous? I, for one, try not to generalize the CoS. I know it’s only a few, mostly people at the top, who are doing the things I don’t agree with.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 6, 2008 11:35 pm
Well spoken. You should apply for a government job.
– Lou
I’m a little disappointed that you didn’t respond to my comment from earlier. I’d hate to repost it as that’s quite spammy, but I do want to know what you think about the people in my position. I’ll just repost one paragraph and ask you, what do you think about this:
“As someone who is posting anonymously online and taking part in protests in real life, I assume that I am categorized as “Anonymous” as far as you are concerned. I’ve never been to 4chan and I don’t know how to DDoS. I only learned what that meant when this whole thing began. I’ve never fired a gun at a CoS building (or ever, for that matter) nor have I sent anthrax to anyone (or fake anthrax for that matter). I have not threatened violence on anyone and I would never support such actions as I’m a very strong believer in peaceful protests. I have a feeling that their are many many people in this movement in the same boat as I am.”
Again, you say you have proof that Anon did those terrible acts. If it turns out that this movement is not what I think it is (a collective of people with similar ideologies) then I will no longer consider myself a part of it. However, my criticism of the CoS remain.
How do you feel about this section of Anonymous? Are they still criminals?
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 6, 2008 11:26 pm
“…really? I’m a trained propagandist? -Awesome-! That oughta help me with my job search.”
If you need me to write you a reference, let me know.
“The Youtube videos”
All points gotten and sure you are right. Except that such videos did not exist before Anon got on the roll.
“There isn’t any evidence to prove or disprove any of those, so your point about “Anon” making threats is, at best, a weak one.”
I can see your point. Anon is making threats, still today, or “people who claim to be Anon” are, but you wouldn’t know and I have to hang low…
“On a final note, I don’t really understand why you’re so hostile. ”
Am I? I just hate generalities, that’s all. You said: ““They have extensive documentation of patterns of behavior by the church, from the undeniable Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout to modern day harassment and attempts to deceive.”
Which is a lie. And a well placed one.
– Lou
T-
This will probably be marked off-topic, but I just wanted to address a couple of points:
First, thank you for being calm and polite about the whole thing. I really do appreciate that, and I think that reasoned discussion between the two “sides” is healthy.
RE: Fair game – I genuinely do not believe that MOST people in the church believe that kind of thing still goes on. Furthermore, even when it does, I believe great pains are taken to protect the church from prosecution, so something as drastic as murder would be -extremely- rare, simply because of the risk/reward ratio. Instead, attacks would be things like trying to smear the critics, picketing their homes, distributing pamphlets claiming that they’re “terrorists” and “religious bigots”, etc.
Disconnection – First, I don’t think we’ve all necessarily been labeled SP. Maybe…probably, even…but I have no evidence of that, so I can’t really speak to it. However, there are reliable reports of OSA putting people online in an attempt to derail discussions of Scientology or spread misinformation. You seem civil and well-intentioned, so I’ll just say if we -are- SP, I hope this doesn’t come up during your next Sec Check.
Anonymous is, quite simply, not a hate group. Insofar as it even has a coherent point of view, it does not hate individual Scientologists for their beliefs. It specifically hates the abuses and misrepresentations of the -organization- (or rather, organizations) behind Scientology, and were the church to continue on without those things, I think both Anon and most long-time critics would be absolutely thrilled.
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 6, 2008 11:01 pm
“Lou, what about this…
http://www.leparisien.fr/home/info/faitsdivers/articles/L-ETRANGE-SEQUESTRATION-QUI-EM
“it’s obvious a crime has been committed.”
Is that so? I must have missed that part. The facts are: Four people in a house in Sardinia. One of them calls the police and says she does not want to be there.
The others get arrested and later released. All return to France. Two months later no charges have been brought.
Come again.
– Lou
“Now, that is a lie, a blunt one. Nice try. Sorry, but it’s so obvious that you are a trained propagandist (choice of words, propaganda lines) that I had to point it out. This statement exposes you as mere propagandist, the “they” is actually “you”, and there is no sense spending another minute with you.”
…really? I’m a trained propagandist? -Awesome-! That oughta help me with my job search.
Just to clear things up, I’m actually a recently-graduated college student and film major. So no, just because I choose certain words and can write semi-articulately does not make me a “trained propagandist”, and your transparent attempts to discredit my arguments through ad hominem are sort of disappointing.
Now to the actual substance, if it can be called such:
“Aren’t you a nice guy…uuuh. Most Scientologists are good intelligent people. And that’s why you vowed to destroy their religion? Give me a break, why don’t you ask some Scientologists if they want your “help”?”
False. I would be perfectly happy if the church were to continue to exist, only with transparency and an end to the abuses that you so vehemently deny despite the evidence. If those things are so crucial to the religion that it cannot survive without them, then…well, yes. We agree.
The Youtube videos: This is both a weakness of “Anon” and a strength. ANYONE can put something up and claim to be Anon (Even you, Lu! As if that hadn’t already occurred to you). It may be true that people who post death threats and other nonsense are part of the movement, though you’ll note (if you look) that such things are quickly denounced, and the Chanology folks take great pains to distance themselves from such things.
Alternately, it’s possible that it’s just some jerk on the internet who just wants to screw with Anon.
Finally, it’s possible that it’s a CoS plant, trying to make Anon look bad.
There isn’t any evidence to prove or disprove any of those, so your point about “Anon” making threats is, at best, a weak one.
The gun firings: You say you have seen them. There is no proof.
If I claimed, “I have seen Scientologists roasting kittens, but I cannot provide proof because I told the cops I wouldn’t”, you would (rightfully) ridicule me and call my claim laughable. For anyone who knows anything about Anon, your claim of gun firings comes off pretty much the same way.
On a final note, I don’t really understand why you’re so hostile. I thought my posts were pretty calm and reasonable, and I would -welcome- solid evidence to refute my arguments. Seriously. Instead, I get called a propaganda shill and attacked. No offense, but if that’s the kind of behavior the church promotes, it’s no wonder you’re having some problems.
@Comment by JRK on March 6, 2008 11:00 pm
If you are that one with the YouTube channel “defendscientology” please stick to the topic. This is no link farm. You don’t have to answer, but I’d like to know more about you. Send me a PM.
– Lou
All I see however is the repetition of old, dead cases, some of them even confirmed as OVER by a court.
Lou, what about this…
http://www.leparisien.fr/home/info/faitsdivers/articles/L-ETRANGE-SEQUESTRATION-QUI-EMBARRASSE-LA-SCIENTOLOGIE_296097555
Here’s the english translation, supplied by http://www.lermanet.com (hardly an unbiased source I’ll admit… ) http://www.lermanet.com/italian-scientology-crime.htm
It’s currently unknown if the lady in the article will press charges or if Italy will be able to work with France to press charges. But given the explanation of the situation in the article (the english one I read, not source), it’s obvious a crime has been committed.
Lou, I don’t hate you for being a scientologist. I really, truely don’t. I personanlly feel that everyone in this world has a right to believe in whatever they want. I’m also of the opinion that the collective conciousness of Anonymous feels the same way.
I also try to not judge people. And I won’t pass judgement on you or your family or friends.
But what you have to understand is that when someone like me sees an article like this, where a woman had to send messages written by lipstick on napkins because she was forceibly contained… Well, you’ll understand if I’m a little bit upset.
I feel it’s things like this that drives Anonymous. Because it motivates me to go out and protest.
This is what drives my current opinion of Anonymous. They are capable of being moral. But they are also capable of being evil. They are capable of great things and colossal idiocy. They are retards and they are scholars.
As it stands now, they are performing what I believe are moral actions. That is to say, peaceful protests. And as long as they continue this path, they’ll have respect.
Epic Fail!
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 6, 2008 9:54 pm
>>“These are scientific facts. They compare invariably with observed experience.”
>So where are the studies? Where is the SCIENCE! that backs up LRH’s claims?
Didn’t look who wrote the ” “. Being off-topic, a short comment:
Who cares? Scientology is a belief system based on things that work. Anyone experiencing that can back up LRHs claims.
– Lou
@Comment by anonymous on March 6, 2008 10:21 pm
>To add to an earlier point made, it’d also be quite difficult to prove that the people who did these horrible acts are members of Anonymous. I certainly don’t know the names of anyone involved, but again, if you can prove it you should.
Thanks. No worries. The information I get about this goes to the correct agencies. It might be even illegal to sit on it and not tell them.
– Lou
@Comment by Hostile on March 6, 2008 10:10 pm
>lou, fyi, I am one of said lemmings I know what I’m saying… and that term is slightly offensive to me. lemmings don’t run and jump off of cliffs, they just go with the flow, might accidentally fall off the cliffs. but we do go with the crowd, however we all have seperate brains.
Doesn’t help you much, having your own brain and not using it.
>but of course there is no leader, if there was, scientology would just threaten them or pay them off, end of story.
Saturated with prejudice your brain, I’d say. But seriously, who is telling you lemmings where to go?
>people have attempted to go against scientology before, but scientology knows how to handle organised groups, the reason they can’t beat anonymous is that you don’t know how
What does that have to do with anything? There is nothing spontaneous about Anonymous. This group exists since years and has done a lot of things, usually illegal ones. And immoral ones, which is not my issue, and sometimes funny one. The seriousness alone with which the current campaign is organized and run tells you that somebody grabbed the leash and won’t let lose until you are over that cliff and turned useless.
– Lou
@Comment by anmn on March 6, 2008 10:04 pm
>>@Lou:
>>You attack the Church of Scientology, you attack Scientologists. Same thing.
>I disagree, and we’ve been over this before. Failure to separate religion from organization is not Anonymous’s problem.
It is. They will need to recognize that.
>What about the parallel to the Catholic sex abuse cases of a few years ago? Certainly people were attacking the Catholic Church; were they bigots and hate criminals too? Were they attacking the members of the Catholic church?
Kudos to those Catholics who disagreed with outright and proven criminal activities going on in their specific parish. I support them. Now, the Church of Scientology is not in legal trouble nor is any church organization trying to cover up crimes. If that would be so, someone had found them and some prosecutor would be after them. All I see however is the repetition of old, dead cases, some of them even confirmed as OVER by a court. And certainly, the outright propaganda attacking Scientology religion as such. Here the sole purpose is to ridicule and denigrate. Which is a matter for civil law only because of the hate crimes following and supporting these campaigns. In the case of Scientology the prosecutor is after those committing crimes against Scientology and Scientologists. See how that is different?
– Lou
well, we did say that it was for the lulz, we honestly started this all because youtube took the insane tom cruise video off off…
everything has been for the lulz, just, well… we started to care about the victims of scientology, and now that it’s a media war, we are obligated to be honest (or risk losing the world’s support)
anyway, I think that lou should make one topic, post everything he knows about it and let us defend the contrary point, if we suggest that he find proof and he can’t within 3 days, he should issue a formal appology
Not to mention the whole Islam vs. Islamic extremism, Fred Phelps and his hatespeech, etc…
ARC Break, you’ve been very levelheaded and neutral about this. I’m impressed. Keep it up (I’m serious).
Anyway, I think it’s Lou that’s twisting the argument– dancing from point to point, trying to find something to drive home. I’m not impressed by the lack of proof– demanding proof but being unable to provide it, for whatever reason? Is rather lame.
It also proves that Lou does not understand who Anonymous is. It doesn’t matter, you don’t have to believe that there are people who aren’t lead by a person– I understand that Scientology is all about chain of command. But I will warn you that your lack of understanding is exactly why the CoS is losing.
As for finances, I’m not sure what costs money in this. We can afford to make our own signs, drive our cars or take buses to protests. It costs nothing to email journalists and spread the word. You wouldn’t -believe- how cheap it is to make a difference! It’s a shame a lot of people are fooled into thinking change costs so much money.
Oh dear me, I’m leaping around arguments too, aren’t I?
But my last advice for the moment… Please remember that Anonymous is quite familiar with arguing on the internet. It’s entertainment, after all, and I, for one, think it’s -hilarious-. I urge you not to get too worked up about it, either way. I don’t think this is as important an argument as you seem to think it is. :)
To add to an earlier point made, it’d also be quite difficult to prove that the people who did these horrible acts are members of Anonymous. I certainly don’t know the names of anyone involved, but again, if you can prove it you should.
lou, fyi, I am one of said lemmings I know what I’m saying… and that term is slightly offensive to me. lemmings don’t run and jump off of cliffs, they just go with the flow, might accidentally fall off the cliffs.
but we do go with the crowd, however we all have seperate brains.
but of course there is no leader, if there was, scientology would just threaten them or pay them off, end of story. people have attempted to go against scientology before, but scientology knows how to handle organised groups, the reason they can’t beat anonymous is that you don’t know how
@Lou:
>You attack the Church of Scientology, you attack Scientologists. Same thing.
I disagree, and we’ve been over this before. Failure to separate religion from organization is not Anonymous’s problem.
What about the parallel to the Catholic sex abuse cases of a few years ago? Certainly people were attacking the Catholic Church; were they bigots and hate criminals too? Were they attacking the members of the Catholic church?
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 6, 2008 9:57 pm
>>“You attack the Church of Scientology, you attack Scientologists.”
>Technically correct, but misleading. … Borrowing someone else’s analogy, did the people who prosecuted Ken Lay also prosecute every single former employee of Enron?
Apples and peaches. Means: does not compare.
If you want to bring down the Vatican you will have to kill the Swiss Guard.
– Lou
My take on anonymous:
As someone who is posting anonymously online and taking part in protests in real life, I assume that I am categorized as “Anonymous” as far as you are concerned. I’ve never been to 4chan and I don’t know how to DDoS. I only learned what that meant when this whole thing began. I’ve never fired a gun at a CoS building (or ever, for that matter) nor have I sent anthrax to anyone (or fake anthrax for that matter). I have not threatened violence on anyone and I would never support such actions as I’m a very strong believer in peaceful protests. I have a feeling that their are many many people in this movement in the same boat as I am.
If Anonymous is responsible for these reprehensible acts I will no longer consider myself apart of this group. However, my strong opposition to the practices of the CoS remain (again, you don’t want to talk about this here, so I’ll bite my tongue on this issue for the moment). At the moment, however, there is no definitive proof that anonymous is responsible for them. There is, however, plenty of evidence that the CoS has a history of dishonest and often illegal tactics. With the evidence presented before me I feel that the CoS is not a reliable source of information and I’m inclined to believe the accusations against it. Likewise, if the CoS isn’t responsible for this (and there is no proof that it is) it could have just as easily been some random mentally unstable person.
I would love to see some proof of these accusations. As soon as you can post reliable evidence please do. At the moment, however, I see no evidence. Just anecdotes and accusations. Due to that, I’ll continue to be connected to this movement as it seems we are on the same page about our feelings on the CoS.
That’s my take. Please don’t delete this.
@Comment by Hostile on March 6, 2008 9:53 pm
>also, scientology adamantly believes that anonymous is an organised group of people with a specefic chain of authority.
I don’t know about “Scientology” but I saw a couple of people organizing these recent events and NONE of them were typical 4chans. Anon has its lemmings troops and others organizing criminal and non-criminal activities the executed by the lemmings. That’s obvious. I more wonder about the flanking, marketing type flanking, as this costs quite some money and somebody is paying.
>while, in reality it is a literal anonymous collective.
Gosh, I can’t hear this fairy tale anymore. Tell it to the lemmings, they believe it.
– Lou
“You attack the Church of Scientology, you attack Scientologists.”
Technically correct, but misleading. The Scientologists we go after are the ones at the top, like David Miscavige (who’s been squirreling the tech ever since LRH died), not the ones at the bottom or even the middle. Borrowing someone else’s analogy, did the people who prosecuted Ken Lay also prosecute every single former employee of Enron?
That’s kinda going in circles, isn’t it. An organization might be more than its individuals parts, but it is still made up by its members. You attack the Church of Scientology, you attack Scientologists. Same thing. I might relieve your consciousness to think otherwise but please, don’t deceive yourself.
Lou, I don’t see the logic behind that statement. Let me give you a bit of personal experience.
I’m Roman Catholic. And as I’m sure you’re aware, several of our priests were accused of molesting children. Something that I consider so sickening that for me, it’s an unforgivable crime. And many other people did as well. Espicially when it came to light that sometimes the church hid these priests from law enforcement.
So, when people started to protest, I didn’t feel that they were attacking me, but rather the management of the church. Which was in fact at fault. I still believe in Christ and I still trust my priest.
So, my question to you is, do you rationalize your involvement in crimes the church has committed?
“That sounds like a statement of fact from the source. It also sounds incredibly testable and verifiable.”
Of course it does. LRH says as much a couple sentences later.
“These are scientific facts. They compare invariably with observed experience.”
So where are the studies? Where is the SCIENCE! that backs up LRH’s claims?
also, scientology adamantly believes that anonymous is an organised group of people with a specefic chain of authority.
while, in reality it is a literal anonymous collective. no one person has power over another (well, each message board has mods, but they don’t organise stuff). also, we honour everyone’s opinion individually, but if the general concensus is that an idea wouldn’t work, it isn’t used. if it would work, it gets more traffic and we like it.
what’s your opinion on it?
@Comment by anmn on March 6, 2008 9:32 pm
>>@Lou:
>>And that’s why you vowed to destroy their religion?
>Not their religion. The organization that controls the religion, in its current form.
That’s kinda going in circles, isn’t it. An organization might be more than its individuals parts, but it is still made up by its members. You attack the Church of Scientology, you attack Scientologists. Same thing. It might relieve your consciousness to think otherwise but please, don’t deceive yourself.
>>“They have court documents.”
>>ORLY? Wow! I got hundreds of them, too. I must be the Goddess of Truth then!
>Hundreds, really? I’ve only seen a handful posted on the site.
All in due course.
– Lou
@T:
>But even if some of these abilities are demonstrable, they are personal gains and there are no promises anywhere in Scientology as to gaining those abilities.
Look right here: http://www.dianetics.org/en_US/info/01/pg003.html
“Discharge the content of [the reactive] mind’s bank and the arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalog of ills goes away and stays away.”
-L Ron Hubbard
That sounds like a statement of fact from the source. It also sounds incredibly testable and verifiable. If it could be shown that Clears never get sick, or get sick at a significantly reduced rate, the scientific community would be shocked.
Dianetics also claims that Clears have perfect recall, but the spectacularly failed demonstration of Sonya Bianca proved that false.
>Moreover, although you might have been made to believe that Scientologists are out to get everyone into Scientology, this is simply not true.
What does “Clear the planet” mean except making every person a Clear?
@Snowboard Guy:
>Also, I really, really encourage those who dislike SCN… to actually go to a church. Meet some Scientologists.
I am not opposed to Scientology or local Scientologists. I’m sure most of them are great and nice people. My dislike is associated with the organization controlling the religion.
>I was leaving the org one day … and a whole bunch of folks in masks were screaming at me and calling me a murderer.
Sorry, but I don’t believe this paragraph is an honest recollection of the events of Feb 10. Anonymous went in with an understanding that we were not opposing the members. I saw videos of some people saying, “Scientology kills” but none of “You’re a murderer!” There is a huge distinction between those two statements and Anonymous, by and large, understood it.
Further, that paragraph reads like a fantasy of “I really showed those dumb misled kids!” I mean, come on: if they were wearing masks, how could you tell what they were thinking when they were looking at you?
@T:
>anon(s): I believe your so called “proofs” are handled at []scientologymyths.info in a nicely organized manner. Go check that site out.
Actually, they’re not, and that’s why I’m here. Where possible, most of the information on that site is copied directly from the official Scientology FAQ.
I’m here because this is a slight opportunity to call out the falsehoods on that site, both logical and factual. Unfortunately, nothing has changed, even on the pages that contain gross misconceptions of the actual criticism.
@Lou:
>Gun firings in the windows of two Church buildings, I’ve seen the holes.
You will have to excuse my skepticism but can you provide more proof than that? Perhaps a news article, or a copy of a police report? You have to understand how weak it appears to be using personal anecdotes in this context.
>Again, the timing is very much against Anonymous (zero anthrax scares before Anonymnous, 23 after Anonymous)
Admittedly true, but completely circumstantial, and openly decried by the near entirety of Anonymous. Anonymous by and large understands that physical threats only threaten the movement.
>and a campaign to beat up Scientologists
Ridiculous. Source?
>Be smart. Turn yourself in before somebody else does it.
Lou, I fear no police. I fear no courts. I have done nothing wrong. Your misguided commands will not keep me away on March 15th.
Since January, Anonymous has not been considered harmful in any way outside of Scientologists. It is only Scientologists using labels like terrorist, hate crime, bigot, and criminal. The rest of the world understands that this is a peaceful set of protests.
@Lou:
>And that’s why you vowed to destroy their religion?
Not their religion. The organization that controls the religion, in its current form.
>“They have court documents.”
>ORLY? Wow! I got hundreds of them, too. I must be the Goddess of Truth then!
Hundreds, really? I’ve only seen a handful posted on the site. And I see a few affidavits that have been directly contradicted by other affadavits. (LRH’s on Fair Game, the two on LRH saying the way to make money is to start a religion)
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 6, 2008 8:58 pm
“/cricket /cricket. Helloooooo! Anyone there?”
Hm?
– Lou
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 6, 2008 9:25 pm
Don’t tell me you did not notice that I introduced a new subject?!
“I actually find it shocking how many people try to make money out of this Anonymous vs Scientologists “debate”. Sure the usual critics try to survive, Anons get revenue from porn ads, ok, but THIS beats it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7mqploZK4mE ”
I’d understand if you are not interested. But I find it shocking in what ways people try to make money with this.
– Lou
I got a confession to make: I hang out in YouTube much too often. So I downloaded a little program to find YouTube clips faster (www.koyotesoft.com) and looked for different stuff. I actually find it shocking how many people try to make money out of this Anonymous vs Scientologists “debate”. Sure the usual critics try to survive, Anons get revenue from porn ads, ok, but THIS beats it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7mqploZK4mE
-Lou
I’m having a real hard time figuring out what is supposed to be “proven” by this youtube ad. Perhaps you can illuminate me.
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 6, 2008 9:06 pm
You putting lot of effort in denial, no?
I got a confession to make: I hang out in YouTube much too often. So I downloaded a little program to find YouTube clips faster (www.koyotesoft.com) and looked for different stuff. I actually find it shocking how many people try to make money out of this Anonymous vs Scientologists “debate”. Sure the usual critics try to survive, Anons get revenue from porn ads, ok, but THIS beats it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7mqploZK4mE
-Lou
“Again, the timing is very much against Anonymous (zero anthrax scares before Anonymnous, 23 after Anonymous), but the final proof is when you guys get a visit from the party van.”
And as long as we’re listing fallacies, here’s two more for the checklist.
* Post hoc ergo propter hoc. “Churches” of Scientology received letters with fake anthrax (White Powder! White Powder! White Powder!) after the Anonymous protests, therefore they must have been sent by Anonymous protestors.
* Argumentum ad baculum. “Oh yeah? Well, you’ll believe me when you’re in jail. Nyeh!”
well, obviously I’m going to agree with scientology on this question.
my take on anonymous is that
Anonymous is internet hate machines, who hack, may or may not use steroids, are funded by evil psychiatrists, as well as the German government (and possibly the communist governments around the world), are obsessed with hentai (which may include rule 34 of L.Ron and David), and of course, are controlled by the Marcab’s 4th or 5th fleet (endorsed by our savior, Xe nu)
about the bullets, guns are not endorsed by anonymous at protests. whoever did this (or didn’t) may even not be anon.
however, who’s to say that CoS didn’t do this as a plant to discredit us?
oh and for downstat reasons, CoS endorses that hydrogen bombs were dropped on hawaii and the universe began trillions of years ago (which defeats the big bang theory where the universe is only billions of years old)
“Assuming of course this actually took place, which the report that was filed will confirm right?”
In my country we have a saying for this sort of thing. To wit: dox or it never happened.
/cricket /cricket.
Helloooooo! Anyone there?
Agreed.
If someone fired something at a building (or anywhere), no matter if it hit anything or not, I hope they catch the bastard, no matter who they are or where they’re from, and take them for the full extent of the law.
What’s in for you that you bend around my words? I have seen it and you won’t be able to take this away from me. And yes, I believe Anonymous is responsible, as laid out, because no such things happened BEFORE Anonymous was carried away.
– Lou
Lou, you’re entited to your beliefs, just like anyone else. I hope they catch this a-hole and he gets what’s coming to him. Assuming of course this actually took place, which the report that was filed will confirm right? :D
@Comment by nunnimuss on March 6, 2008 8:07 pm
“Oh, already answered. That’s not proof, just an excuse. Again, don’t make claims unless you can back it up. if you’re not allowed, too bad, nobody is going to believe you though…”
Believe me, I am a little pissed myself but I promised to hang low for a bit. I think they are waiting for the next public appearance (for “body count…”) or whatever. Anyway, as soon as I can I’ll post my photos.
– Lou
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 6, 2008 8:09 pm
Your proxy sucks. Click once, ok…
– Lou
Noticed an error, so I tried to hit stop. Refreshed the page, didn’t see my post. My apologies.
In and around L.A.. As I said earlier I have been asked not to interfere with ongoing law enforcement activities, so I will have to remain silent at this point.
– Lou
Ok, so there is a police report then. Because you can’t have law enforcement working on a case without a report. Anyone feel like contacting the LA Police Department and finding out if a report actually exists and posting the document online (someone from LA, Long distance is murder on my bills).
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 6, 2008 8:09 pm
Your proxy sucks. Click once, ok…
– Lou
@Comment by nunnimuss on March 6, 2008 8:07 pm
“The only ‘definite’ has been that Lou -definitely- believes bullets went through church windows somewhere, sometime, and definitely believes Anonymous is responsible.”
What’s in for you that you bend around my words? I have seen it and you won’t be able to take this away from me. And yes, I believe Anonymous is responsible, as laid out, because no such things happened BEFORE Anonymous was carried away.
– Lou
Nunnimuss, you are incorrect.
There isn’t any proof that is visible yet.
And you can’t know what Lou is thinking. No one can. You can go only by what he said. Which was that Anonymous’ protests coincided with the shootings. He does not claim anonymous did it.
Nunnimuss, you are incorrect.
There isn’t any proof that is visible yet.
And you can’t know what Lou is thinking. No one can. You can go only by what he said. Which was that Anonymous’ protests coincided with the shootings. He does not claim anonymous does it.
@Comment by ohwow on March 6, 2008 7:53 pm
>>@Comment by Lou on March 6, 2008 7:51 pm
>>“See the difference?”
>LOL. No. Anyone else?
I understand.
– Lou
Oh, already answered.
That’s not proof, just an excuse.
Again, don’t make claims unless you can back it up. if you’re not allowed, too bad, nobody is going to believe you though…
Yeah, someone keeps trying to misdirect the issue.
No proof of the bullets-through-church-windows has been offered. The only ‘definite’ has been that Lou -definitely- believes bullets went through church windows somewhere, sometime, and definitely believes Anonymous is responsible.
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 6, 2008 7:58 pm
“It’s not totally unbelievable that people are acting stupidly because of the anonymous protests. However, with bullet holes going through the window, I’d figure that the scientologists would have filed a police report. That’s what we call evidence.
And where were these churches located that had bullet holes?”
In and around L.A.. As I said earlier I have been asked not to interfere with ongoing law enforcement activities, so I will have to remain silent at this point.
– Lou
“Gun firings in the windows of two Church buildings, I’ve seen the holes. In 10-20 years there NEVER have been gun firings on these buildings, only when “Anonymous” got active this happened, together with threatening or harrassing calls.”
It’s not totally unbelievable that people are acting stupidly because of the anonymous protests. However, with bullet holes going through the window, I’d figure that the scientologists would have filed a police report. That’s what we call evidence.
And where were these churches located that had bullet holes?
I believe this is on topic becuase it will change my opinion on what my take on Anonymous is.
@Comment by Elial on March 6, 2008 4:39 pm
“What goes through your head when you read about operation freakout? Where is your outrage? How can you feel good about being a part of an organization that, at one point, advocated blackmail?”
I answer up on this here:
– Lou
Ok, genuinely sorry for that , please do delete my last comment, something had gone wrong with proxy and the previous posting of the same hadn’t shown up yet.
@Comment by Lou on March 6, 2008 7:51 pm
“See the difference?”
LOL. No. Anyone else?
@Comment by FreedomOfTruth on March 6, 2008 7:51 pm
“(posting SECOND time from deletion)”
??? See, that’s what happens if topics get mixed up. Readers get confused and see deletions where there are none. Now you double-posted. But thanks for the on-topic comment. I actually answered on that on.
– Lou
@Comment by ohwow on March 6, 2008 7:48 pm
I didn’t talk about guns being fired in the direction of churches. I talked about two church buildings being shot at with the bullets going through the windows. See the difference? Yours was propaganda soap, mine is definite.
– Lou
To be fair I haven’t seen a single claim of “bullet holes”, only unsubstantiated claims from the few Church of Scientology members here that guns were fired in the direction of CoS buildings.
PS. This is part of objectivity, see? I process both sides, and rationalize my findings, giving equal weight until an abundance of impartial evidence points towards the truth.
(posting SECOND time from deletion)
@Comment by EastOrth on March 6, 2008 7:31 pm
Thanks! Finally someone answering up on the question here, which was: “What’s your take on Anonymous?”.
– Lou
In response to your previous question, YOU said that. Earlier today? Did you forget? Or was that somebody else?
Comment by Lou on March 6, 2008 5:49 pm
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 6, 2008 9:26 am
“1: Please provide evidence of these “gun firings”. Assuming you can do that much, please provide evidence that it had -anything- to do with Anon. Otherwise, that part of your “take” is obviously based on a blatant fiction.”
[b]Gun firings in the windows of two Church buildings, I’ve seen the holes. In 10-20 years there NEVER have been gun firings on these buildings, only when “Anonymous” got active this happened, together with threatening or harrassing calls. [/b]
@Comment by FreedomOfThesis on March 6, 2008 6:59 pm
“This has not been disproved. it’s a fact LRH wrote it, and it’s no good linking to your ‘does-scientology-teach-lying’ story as you neither print LRH’s words for people to consider, nor do you allow any comments there.”
Off-topic, the eighth time the same text. That’s trolling. If you can’t read or accept that there are on-topic areas and off-topic areas here you will never get an answer to anything you post. What you are posting has been taken up weeks ago on this blog (in the on-topic area) and was even put up on scientologymyths.info . Your constant reposting of the same long statement just shows that you are not actually interested in an answer but rather to spam this place with off-topic messages. That’s not acceptable.
– Lou
“Why are comments that are directed to an existing post on this thread considered off topic?”
The topic is about Anonymous. About Scientology is at another place.
– Lou
I understand that and can respect that. What I’m asking you is that if a post by T was on topic (as it wasn’t deleted 15 minutes after posting) and I confine my comments to his post, how is my post off topic and his is not?
One might say that’s actually carrying the discussion in the right direction.
@Comment by FreedomOfTruth on March 6, 2008 7:36 pm
“To be fair I haven’t seen a single claim of “bullet holes”, only unsubstantiated claims from the few Church of Scientology members here that guns were fired in the direction of CoS buildings.”
Really? Who said that? When?
– Lou
@Comment by mangopoop on March 6, 2008 7:09 pm
“Please do not delete posts, Lu. It just shows that you are unable to accept or even acknowledge the existence of offensive views.”
Read the thread. Read the FAQ. I won’t allow people to trash up the place, intentionally or unintentionally. I think there are areas on this blog for everyone. You expect me to keep up with dozens and dozens of trash messages? No, I will continue deleting spam.
“Please leave all posts as they are, and you can refute anything you see fit.”
No. That would kill the conversation. And I want this blog being alive.
– Lou
To be fair I haven’t seen a single claim of “bullet holes”, only unsubstantiated claims from the few Church of Scientology members here that guns were fired in the direction of CoS buildings.
PS. This is part of objectivity, see? I process both sides, and rationalize my findings, giving equal weight until an abundance of impartial evidence points towards the truth.
As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I can only support Anonymous and what it is doing to expose the crimes and human rights abuses. The other charges of being porn freaks and such is mere ad hominem kerfuffle meant to distract people from looking at the real fact, that the cult of scientology destroys lives and families.
Go, Anonymous- go forth and testify.
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 6, 2008 6:51 pm
“Why are comments that are directed to an existing post on this thread considered off topic?”
The topic is about Anonymous. About Scientology is at another place.
– Lou
“Now, that is a lie, a blunt one. Nice try. Sorry, but it’s so obvious that you are a trained propagandist (choice of words, propaganda lines) that I had to point it out.”
Lou, there are many other threads that require your attention. If you are really unbiased, you’ll point out the lies that are being stated by Lake, Lu and T regarding the actions of Anonymous.
For example, they claim to have seen bulletholes in windows. Yet no link to an article in the press where it’s been confirmed. No news of a police report (would have been prudent to write up considering the “love” of anonymous).
I look forward to you keeping the posts fair and factual. That is to say, unless you’re biased like T, Lu and Lake. But I have a really good feeling that you’re different.
Please do not delete posts, Lu. It just shows that you are unable to accept or even acknowledge the existence of offensive views.
Please leave all posts as they are, and you can refute anything you see fit.
Why are comments that are directed to an existing post on this thread considered off topic?
Ooo, my topics are being deleted too.
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 6, 2008 6:26 pm
Off-topic. Deleted. Please put it here:
– Lou
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 6, 2008 9:49 am
“There are some flaws in that argument. One, Scientologymyths.info is, sadly, not a reliably objective source.”
Again massively off-topic, but I’ll let that slide. ScientologyMyth.info is as good as you help it to be. I take questions here and put them on the site once we have an answer for it. There is no faceless big Church behind the site. It’s just me and I am not selling Scientology.
“The critics, by and large, have evidence to back them up.”
By experience, they have out-of-context quotes bent in a way to make their point.
“They have court documents.”
ORLY? Wow! I got hundreds of them, too. I must be the Goddess of Truth then!
(See how it goes with the out-of-context quotes?)
“They have documents from primary sources, including internal memos and the writings of Hubbard himself.”
And they usually show you only the part which supports their point of critique, and not the bookloads of memos and writings which disprove them.
“They have extensive documentation of patterns of behavior by the church, from the undeniable Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout to modern day harassment and attempts to deceive.”
Now, that is a lie, a blunt one. Nice try. Sorry, but it’s so obvious that you are a trained propagandist (choice of words, propaganda lines) that I had to point it out. This statement exposes you as mere propagandist, the “they” is actually “you”, and there is no sense spending another minute with you. Dig up some real evidence, Mister, and put it in the appropriate sections of this blog. I’ll deal with it. Otherwise, get lost.
– Lou
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 6, 2008 9:49 am
“There are some flaws in that argument. One, Scientologymyths.info is, sadly, not a reliably objective source.”
Again massively off-topic, but I’ll let that slide. ScientologyMyth.info is as good as you help it to be. I take questions here and put them on the site once we have an answer for it. There is no faceless big Church behind the site. It’s just me and I am not selling Scientology.
“The critics, by and large, have evidence to back them up.”
By experience, they have out-of-context quotes bent in a way to make their point.
“They have court documents.”
ORLY? Wow! I got hundreds of them, too. I must be the Goddess of Truth then!
(See how it goes with the out-of-context quotes?)
“They have documents from primary sources, including internal memos and the writings of Hubbard himself.”
And they usually show you only the part which supports their point of critique, and not the bookloads of memos and writings which disprove them.
“They have extensive documentation of patterns of behavior by the church, from the undeniable Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout to modern day harassment and attempts to deceive.”
Now, that is a lie, a blunt one. Nice try. Sorry, but it’s so obvious that you are a trained propagandist (choice of words, propaganda lines) that I had to point it out. This statement exposes you as mere propagandist, the “they” is actually “you”, and there is no sense spending another minute with you. Dig up some real evidence, Mister, and put it in the appropriate sections of this blog. I’ll deal with it. Otherwise, get lost.
– Lou
@Comment by FreedomOfThought on March 6, 2008 5:24 pm
Statement. Off-topic. Deleted.
– Lou
PS: And: false, see here:
http://www.scientologymyths.info/random-rumors/does-scientology-teach-lying.php
@Comment by mangopoop on March 6, 2008 5:43 pm
Statement. Off-topic. Deleted. RTFM.
– Lou
PS: You are welcome to post here.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 6, 2008 9:30 am
“I honestly don’t think anyone is questioning that most Scientologists are good, intelligent people. Despite my feelings towards the organization, I have absolutely no antipathy towards the average church member”
Aren’t you a nice guy…uuuh. Most Scientologists are good intelligent people. And that’s why you vowed to destroy their religion? Give me a break, why don’t you ask some Scientologists if they want your “help”?
– Lou
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 6, 2008 9:26 am
“1: Please provide evidence of these “gun firings”. Assuming you can do that much, please provide evidence that it had -anything- to do with Anon. Otherwise, that part of your “take” is obviously based on a blatant fiction.”
Gun firings in the windows of two Church buildings, I’ve seen the holes. In 10-20 years there NEVER have been gun firings on these buildings, only when “Anonymous” got active this happened, together with threatening or harrassing calls.
“2: Aside from the original DDOS attacks, please provide evidence of -any- illegal activity directly linked to Anon. Please note, the white powder mailings are not valid evidence, given the -complete- lack of anything to link it to an Anon and the church’s history of attempting to frame its critics (see: Paulette Cooper).”
Nice propaganda coup. A Couper, so to say. Bringing up Paulette “explains” everything, sure. A person who got terribly treated more than 30 years ago, by people who got sacked and prosecuted for it, a single individual treated like this in the history of Scientology in America now qualifies as a GREAT reason to whitewash Anonymous from their criminal activities? You must be joking. You don’t have the slightest understanding of Scientology if you seriously believe that Scientologists would do something like that, to anybody and especially to other Scientologists. Again, the timing is very much against Anonymous (zero anthrax scares before Anonymnous, 23 after Anonymous), but the final proof is when you guys get a visit from the party van. Sorry folks, I have no mercy here at all. I told you about my friend who almost lost her baby due to the anthrax scare. This one is personal.
“3. If you are unable to fulfill either 1 or 2, what are we left with?
-Peaceful protests in -every city- in which they happened.
-Comments from the police departments present that the protesters were remarkably civil and well-behaved.
-A couple of incidents of -Scientologists- reacting violently/inappropriately to the protesters.”
Propaganda shit. I accept that you are unwilling to look or too blind for it or paid for not to, and I will not bore the other readers with repeating my earlier statements and links. Right this second there are several death threats still out on the internet, at least 2 incitements for mass murder of Scientologists and a campaign to beat up Scientologists, produced and put up by Anons. I understand that Anonymous tries to backpaddle on their criminal activities by putting up a “peaceful face” (like they do to their mom when she is paying an unannounced visit to their room). Ebaums tactic. Cheap, old, ineffective. Be smart. Turn yourself in before somebody else does it.
– Lou
It would be able to accept your explanations at face-value if the Scientology organization had a track record of integrity.
Unfortunately thats not the case.
What goes through your head when you read about operation freakout? Where is your outrage? How can you feel good about being a part of an organization that, at one point, advocated blackmail?
ErroneousAssumptions:
I think I got your point and and I see why people could be skeptical.
But now I don’t see why you are here. If scientologymyths dot info is not a useable source of information to you then what makes you think that this site, run by the same person, is going to be of any use?
As I pointed about in my last post, the guys that call themselves “critics” have created a virtual reality with misdefined words as its boundaries and you got sucked into that virtual reality. As long as you are looking at Scientology through the those altered definitions, you are not going to see anything else but the distorted reality that those “critics”, which Anonymous now admittedly accepts as wise mentors, have carefully crafted around you.
This is what I mean:
When I say “SP” you get a picture of anyone with the intelligence to question something before accepting it as true and thus appearing to disagree with the teachings of Scientology.
When I say “disconnection” you get a picture of families torn apart by a brainwashed individual cutting all ties to their loved ones and breaking their heart because they are all SPs and one must cut all ties with SPs.
When I say “Fair Game”, you get the picture of illegal actions being taken against an SP with impunity, and that SP could be anyone who disagrees with Scientology as that is how “SP” is defined.
This is mad but let’s just play with these for a minute, it should be enlightening. So let’s assume the above definitions are correct. What would that imply?
That would imply that you’re all SPs. It would also be implied that I am violating the “disconnection policy” by talking with you. It would also be implied that I could go out and shoot you on sight and my Scientologist friends would cheer in excitement and even help me get away with murder, since now it’s “Fair Game”.
But hey, the Way to Happiness booklet clearly “requires” me not to murder and thus the above would imply that I am violating another “policy” by following the Fair Game “policy”, and that’s obviously crazy to have two opposing policies so this whole thing is just plain madness!
And now, it would also be implied that I am truly in total confusion as to what Scientology is because I’m not stupid and a system with two opposing policies cannot be right so as per your definition I’m suddenly an SP and wow, we’re in the same boat! Got a cigarette…?
I hope you will excuse the excitement, nothing personal, I’m just trying to make a point, which is this:
Doesn’t the above sound a little bit off? Do you think it’s possible that there is something wrong with those definitions?
Someone above said that people lie to you to control you. Well, I think Anonymous has been lied to big time.
In fact, let me put this in a different context:
Let’s say several people leave the FBI, from positions ranging from lowly desk clerk all the way up to regional directors. These people claim that the FBI has been conducting illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens. They have documents to back them up, including internal memos from the FBI that detail these plans for spying. Furthermore, all of them tell a similar story, including those who left years ago.
When questioned about it, the FBI says, “Of course, that’s all nonsense and conspiracy theory garbage. That’s just a few ex-employees with axes to grind, and they’re probably all criminals and sex offenders anyway.” By way of proof, they refer you to fbi.gov, where they have a statement saying “We do not spy on American citizens.”
Do you see, perhaps, why people might be a bit skeptical?
T-
There are some flaws in that argument. One, Scientologymyths.info is, sadly, not a reliably objective source. It would be like me saying, “Cigarettes are -awesome-? Don’t believe me? Visit the Marlboro website!”
Two, you assume that “we” have -not- critically examined the evidence and made an effort to listen to both sides of the argument. I can only speak for myself, but I have.
I have read Scientology’s claims.
I have listened to the claims of -several- ex-members from numerous positions within the church.
I have read the claims made by outside critics.
I have read court documents.
I have watched video-taped depositions.
I have listened to well over a dozen radio interviews with Scientologists and critics alike.
Want to know what I found?
The critics, by and large, have evidence to back them up. They have court documents. They have documents from primary sources, including internal memos and the writings of Hubbard himself.
They have extensive documentation of patterns of behavior by the church, from the undeniable Operation Snow White and Operation Freakout to modern day harassment and attempts to deceive.
The Scientologists have…other Scientology-run sites and the assertions of people -still within Scientology- that these things are incorrect. They have no documentation. They have no video evidence (or, if they do, it is edited, and once the original is viewed in its entirety, the deception is made clear).
What they -do- is attempt to attack the critic. Always attack, never defend, right? “What are your crimes?”, “What are you hiding?”, and accusations of religious bigotry and terrorism.
So, let me ask you this. If -you- were an outside observer, weighing the arguments presented by those two sides, which one would you tend to believe? I understand that, being within the church, your perspective is very different, but try to put yourself in the shoes of a “wog” for a second.
anon(s): I believe your so called “proofs” are handled at http://www.scientologymyths.info in a nicely organized manner. Go check that site out.
The made up controversy about Scientology that you are peddling is not very interesting, to tell you the truth. The techniques to create that controversy are very old and quite boring. For instance you take a term like “disconnection”, give it a false definition and use that false definition to scare people.
Check that link on Wikipedia you provided and you will see that trick pulled on you over and over again. Disconnection, dead agenting, fair game, you name it – the definitions given there have little bearing on what those terms actually mean.
I guess many people have no clue what those terms really mean so it can be appealing to some to take those false definitions and be enraged by the story they are used to tell.
This is how one is hooked on a story that holds no water and then goes out to the street to protest against a made up enemy.
As one of you so strongly emphasized, people lie to you to control you. Well, guess what, you might be the ones being controlled.
I wish you had the courage to find the actual definitions to those terms. You could even start by asking questions right here in this forum, if perhaps not in this topic.
To Snowboard Guy (and T):
I honestly don’t think anyone is questioning that most Scientologists are good, intelligent people. Despite my feelings towards the organization, I have absolutely no antipathy towards the average church member. I would very much -like- to speak to some local members, in fact, simply to try to get some insight into their perspectives.
I think this is the important distinction: When people protested the Catholic church’s policy of covering up the long history of abuse that occurred within, people were NOT attacking Catholics; rather, they were attacking actions by the -leadership- of the church which were, by any standard, reprehensible. Of course, until the truth was indisputably revealed, many Catholics believed that the leadership of their church would never do such things and that all these claims were simply anti-Catholic propaganda or fabrications by enemies of the church.
The parallels should be pretty clear.
Lu-
The problem with your original post is that it’s based on false assumptions and unsupported claims.
1: Please provide evidence of these “gun firings”. Assuming you can do that much, please provide evidence that it had -anything- to do with Anon. Otherwise, that part of your “take” is obviously based on a blatant fiction.
2: Aside from the original DDOS attacks, please provide evidence of -any- illegal activity directly linked to Anon. Please note, the white powder mailings are not valid evidence, given the -complete- lack of anything to link it to an Anon and the church’s history of attempting to frame its critics (see: Paulette Cooper).
3. If you are unable to fulfill either 1 or 2, what are we left with?
-Peaceful protests in -every city- in which they happened.
-Comments from the police departments present that the protesters were remarkably civil and well-behaved.
-A couple of incidents of -Scientologists- reacting violently/inappropriately to the protesters.
Somehow, I’m not seeing the “hate crimes” or “terrorism” here. I mean, I know those are easy terms to toss around in hopes of shutting down the reader’s ability to reason, but let’s be serious.
Additionally, those links you mentioned before, that aren’t “on topic” regarding “What’s your take on Anonymous?”: They are -very much- on topic, as the entirety of your take is based on the assumption that the claims being made against the church are entirely false and that the complaints made by Anon are baseless. Those links, read with a critical eye, more or less render that assumption completely invalid.
To be fair, though, you’ve at least remained true to the title of the site, if not the spirit: It remains filled with myths not only -about- Scientology, but directly created by it.
anonymous: You seem to be operating under the assumption that a bed time story is the culmination of one’s progress in Scientology. Well it’s not, and you won’t understand anything I say until you get that assumption out of your head.
As to me willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the “church” to read the OT III materials when they tell me to, look at it this way:
I am eager to pay for each and every auditing session from the bottom of the Bridge to the top because it pays off big time. I could join staff for say five years and get that auditing for free but joining staff is not my thing so I choose to pay instead.
Even if it was hundreds of thousands of dollars as you claim, which it isn’t, I would be paying for *each* auditing session in a long series of auditing sessions arching way over OT III; I wouldn’t be paying for one single story along the way. Yeah, the total cost may add up but I am getting something out of the smaller fees along the way all the way up, some little thing that I am happy about and happy to pay the price to get more.
This is not very complicated if you care to listen.
Lu,
Great site. You’re putting yourself out there in a way that even the anti-Scientology folks have found courageous.
On that note… disagreement and debate is fine. But to those who make personal attacks against Lu… c’mon. That’s not what this site is for. Discuss the issues. Get to know another’s viewpoint. You don’t do your argument any favors by calling Lu a “dumbass”.
Also, I really, really encourage those who dislike SCN… to actually go to a church. Meet some Scientologists. If you go in with guns blazing (you’re evil murders!) you may not be received too warmly. Sorry – just want to give you a head’s up on that point.
Be honest (and diplomatic) with reception staff members. Tell them that, frankly, you’re a huge skeptic, but you’d just like to take a look around and talk to some people. And then just talk to some people. See who’s there. See what they’re about. Don’t even talk about SCN. Ask people what kind of music they listen to, their work, what they do in their spare time, etc. You might actually LIKE someone! :) Go at 11:45 on a weekend. That’s just before lunch break. You can catch people on their way out of the Academy.
I used to be a HUGE Scientology hater (seriously). Then (through unforeseeable twists of fate) I met some Scientologists. And they were cool people. And I learned a bit about Scientology. And, like sushi, it looked weird; but I liked it. And I was incredibly embarrassed that I liked it because… it’s SUPPOSED to be weird!!
I’m totally fascinated by how excited the anti-SCN groups are to go after SCN. I was leaving the org one day (SCN slang for Church, though you may already know that) and a whole bunch of folks in masks were screaming at me and calling me a murderer. Some of the other anti-SCN folks, looking visibly confused, just stared at me. I think that they were expecting Darth Vader to walk out. But they got me, someone who looked like them. A few blocks away, a protester came to my car with an anti-SCN flyer. This was a little funny. “Aren’t these guys supposed to recognize the face of evil when they see it?!” :)
So go to an Org. Be honest, but diplomatic. If you want to get responses on real “trigger point” issues (Lisa McPherson, what, what!) , at least wait until you’ve been in a few times and found someone that you trust and like. If you’re unwilling to go into an org and meet some Scientologists (and be diplomatic), then it’s going to become more and more difficult to take your cause seriously.
You could even call a meeting with a few Scientologists (if you don’t want to go to an org). You’re smart people. I’m sure you could set something up. I’m sure someone could even help you do this. The first meeting you’d just meet some Scientologists. You wouldn’t take about any trigger points. You just grab coffee at Starbucks and get a sense of what Scientologists are like (when they’re not being picketed). You can talk about music and complain about the traffic together. The second meeting you could go do something productive together. A park clean-up, maybe. Then, when everyone feels like they know one another, you could have a third meeting and get into some of the questions which vex you so.
Best of luck to all the anti-SCN folks on your quest for answers. You’re doing the right thing by talking to Scientologists. Keep it up. The next logical step would be to actually meet some Scientologists in person. I’m sure you’ll find the time well spent.
Lu, best wishes on the site.
massively off topic.
Lu you have very pretty eyes (pic from faq) , I hope one day they see the truth.
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 6, 2008 3:57 am
I am cleaning up a bit, getting rid of double-posts and so on, a little spring cleaning. Sorry for the delays. I have not been at home for some days and could check in only occasionally. This thing here is actually called “What’s your take on Anonymous?” and not “That’s why I am right about Anonymous”. Or a dumping ground for messages like “look over there, here is some crap on Scientology, and look, here, there’s more of it”. Neither this is a SEO linking contest. Allright? I’m with you that there are plenty of misconceptions about Anonymous, especially those “Anonymous” members who are satisfied jer*ing off in front of their screens and killing imaginary “enemies”. But there are others, and if I would be Anonymous, I’d get them under control NOW. Before somebody else does it, and that’ll hurt.
– Lou
Sorry about that. I was just having trouble posting under that name. For some reason it was getting caught by the spam filter, even though I thought I had fixed my URLs. Oh well.
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 6, 2008 3:34 am
Sure, why not? As long as you follow rule 1 of 1 you are ok.
– Lou
@Comment by EM on March 6, 2008 1:20 am
“Hahahah Lu, the word “prudent” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Better look it up! Study Tech! HAHAHAHAHA Dumbass.”
Shit, the joke is on me. I meant “prude”. Anything else intelligent you gotta say?
– Lou
Can I even post under this name any more?
Re-post, since Lu is a dishonest coward. (No, you are just not able to RTFM, big guy. Don’t go so low to call me names, thank you. – Lou)
“I just wonder what your response would be if I demanded proof…”
My response would be as follows.
h t t p : / / w w w . c o s v m . o r g / d i s r u p t . h t m
h t t p : / / w w w . l e r m a n e t . c o m / s c i e n t o l o g y / L a w r e n c e W o o d c r a f t A s b e s t o s . h t m
h t t p : / / w w w . c s . c m u . e d u / ~ d s t / N a r c o n o n / s o u r c e s / r e p o r t s / h o g g . h t m
h t t p : / / e n . w i k i p e d i a . o r g / w i k i / E l l i _ P e r k i n s
Each link backs up one of my claims. And they are conveniently in order.
>> T: “Why do you guys keep demanding evidence to support someone’s opinion when at the same time you show an astonishing lack of diligence in demanding proof or evidence concerning the serious accusations that your new friends lay on the Church?”???
First of all, you claim that this is only your opinion. In other words, you only spew “normative statements”. Opinions can’t be objectively proven. I’m glad you’ve admit that.
>> T: “You can beat the drum as you please but that won’t hide the fact that you and/or your friends made a complete fool of themselves in front of the whole world. I mean just think about it! You accepted blatant lies on face value, went out to the streets to cheer at cars passing by and honking to signal that they, too, “hate Scientology” and then you documented the whole circus for the world to see. Any possibility that you made a mistake? Boy, would that be a tough one.”
This is an ad hominem here. I don’t see how this attack on Anonymous somehow disproves the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversy
Its the same thing as someone making the argument that “She’s a hooker, therefore her claims that 2+2=4 are incorrect.”
You say that anon are a bunch of fools, therefore our arguments are flawed. How does that work out?
Ad hominem is ad hominem. Its still a logical fallacy no matter how many times you use it.
>> T: “Now it’s quite understandable that you are in desperate need of any plausible justification for that blunder. And you’re organizing another show? No wonder. I mean, if you go out and make a fool of yourselves again and again then you can avoid the shame of admitting that the first occurrence was a mistake, right?”
You are making fun of anonymous. Boohoo. Stop with the AD HOMINEM attack against anonymous and maybe you should start countering their arguments. What are their arguments? The following sums it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversy
Once again, I present a “positive statement” which can be proven with objective evidence. You have already claimed before in the quote: “Why do you guys keep demanding evidence to support someone’s opinion” that all you hold is an opinion.
You can present your opinion on anonymous over and over and over again, however that still does not disprove anything listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversy
“you don’t care what those materials are”
but you’re willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the “church” to read them when they tell you to.
Interesting.
“you don’t care what those materials are”
but you’re willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the “church” to read them when they tell you to.
Interesting.
@T
We have plenty of proof. If you give us a couple of minutes to track down links, we’d love to show you. As a matter of fact, we do, but the comments keep getting deleted.
ARC Break:
Why are OT materials kept secret? I don’t know and to be honest I don’t really care. I will know what those “secrets” are when I get there and I am willing to pay for what I get out of Scientology. So far it paid off pretty well and I don’t expect that to change at the higher levels either.
I admit, there were times when I was curious as to what could there be but that was before I personally experienced what auditing can do. That lack of personal experience was driving me to try and substitute that experience with an intellectual approximation of spiritual gains, which naturally led me to try the limits of what can be known about Scientology’s upper levels. And that’s a very fascinating subject indeed!
But having the personal experience of auditing, I no longer have the desire to waste my time and energy on something that I will learn anyway in due time and which, I now understand, has no bearing on my immediate life. Curious as it is, an auditing level in Scientology becomes relevant to you only when you complete the last level. Until then, it’s just simply irrelevant. This is the case with OT III as well. Until you complete OT II, whatever is in OT III is completely irrelevant to you and even the material were public, you would not be able to make any use of it until you completed OT II. That is my understanding and I’m happy with it as I don’t go around hating Scientology for keeping things secret from me but go about my business of doing things I like doing instead.
So in short, I don’t care what’s in those materials. I just don’t.
As to the possibility that those materials are kept secret until one is indoctrinated enough that the effect is minimized: I don’t understand what effect you’re referring to but the term indoctrination is in stark contrast with what is actually going on in the lower levels.
You seem to imply that on lower levels you are learning and accepting more and more stuff until you are ready to accept something that earlier you would have considered nonsense.
*That* is nonsense. But if you choose to believe it is indoctrination and that belief prevents you from ever experiencing Scientology auditing, well that’s your choice and I’m happy for you.
With regard to my comment about the word “take”: I provided my “take” on Anomymous and some anons began demanding proof. Ok, maybe they were misled by the fact that I didn’t prefix each and every single sentence with “I think” or “In my view” or “My opinion is that”. I don’t know, I just assumed there was enough intelligence around to understand that when I begin my post with “My take on Anonymous”, readers tend to understand the post to be my take on anonymous. I can’t be more literal than that, can I? I am not going to prove my personal opinion and I hope you all can live with that.
As to your final question, assuming I was brought up to believe the preaching, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know the priest and his wife were lying until either I see something that does not fit the theory or someone comes along and puts that idea in my head. But even then it would take courage to go out and see for myself.
Was that a trick question? Perhaps you’re trying to explain to me what indoctrination means, I don’t know. But let’s turn this around.
Let’s say I wonder around the world and find in a farm and I fall in love with how its isolated from the rest of the world and it also turns out that I love spanking monkeys. Fascinating thought indeed.
There is also a priest and his wife living in that farm and any time I ask them about the world, all they say is “Here’s a map of the area, go and look for yourself!”.
Then one day when the priest and his wife are gone, some stranger comes up to me and tells me that what the priest and the wife are actually saying is that the world is full of evil people out to get me. When I ask the stranger if they ever talked to the priest or hist wife, the guy says “No and I wouldn’t ever do that, they will just corrupt my intellect just like they corrupted yours.”
What do you think are the odds that I won’t consider that stranger a reliable source of knowledge about the world?
Why do you keep deleting comments that are perfectly on topic, but just difficult to answer? If you don’t have an answer for them, maybe we are right? Deleting comments just makes you look bad. There are probably dozens, if not hundreds of people (thousands?) reading this page and we do notice when you delete a comment for no good reason.
Okay, You’re Anonymous Now: Yep, that’s what I’m talking about. Just keep convincing yourself.
I just wonder what your response would be if I demanded proof…
“But you must keep assuming that Scientology is harmful to keep the logic about your tax dollars supporting Scientology valid. Good luck with that one.”
Derp-a-derp-a-derp.
* The “Church”‘s “Volunteer” “Ministers” interfered with rescue efforts after 9/11, Katrina, and at least one tsunami in order to administer provably ineffective “assists” and collect photo ops.
* The “Church” exposes top-level members to inexcusable levels of blue asbestos on board its floating death trap, the Freewinds.
* The “Church”‘s “Purification” Rundowns are both medically worthless and, by confining people to saunas for extremely long periods of time, potentially hazardous.
* By vilifying the fields of psychiatry, psychology, and neurology, the “Church” has retarded the growth of (real) science and caused countless people with mental disorders to go untreated and become a danger to themselves and others. (Jeremy Perkins, anyone?)
I could go on, if you’d like.
Hahahah Lu, the word “prudent” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Better look it up! Study Tech! HAHAHAHAHA Dumbass.
Hey, your right. That makes a lot of sense now. Ive been using the word wrong too. Well done for getting me to look it up. Made things a bit clearer. Thanks for helping…Your not a scientologist are you?
No one has replied to my posts where I point out your fallacies, yet.
Uncle-Anon: I don’t know about property taxes but assuming the Church pays no property tax, I see what you are trying to say.
The reasons for tax exemption normally have to do with the subject otherwise being beneficial to society. Now, I know you vehemently deny the possibility that Scientology can be otherwise beneficial to society and so I think your conclusion is correct in that narrow scope.
But you must keep assuming that Scientology is harmful to keep the logic about your tax dollars supporting Scientology valid. Good luck with that one.
“Since then I am convinced that there are no “acceptable” hate crimes and that it is correct to call those guys criminals. If they want to j**k off in front of their screens, fine, I am not prudent. But I won’t accept incitations of hate and attempts to get others to harm Scientologists.
– Lu”
Hahahah Lu, the word “prudent” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Better look it up! Study Tech! HAHAHAHAHA Dumbass.
Stop deleting our comments. Its intellectually dishonest and only makes Scientologists look bad.
This post is made of FAIL and AIDS. Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02/alea-iacta-est-die-has-been-cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does your AD HOMINEM FALLACY make sense to you?
Lu you are a god damned moron and you should be ashamed of yourself. What’s the “tech rundown” for apologising to your family and friends and begging their forgiveness?
Kim: because this is as far from “neutral and unbiased” a site as you could possibly get. He/she/it/whatever actually gets super-powerz points or whatever this contrived and conniving “church” gives out for feeding the general public their company line.
Bt he gets negative points when I say things like “L.RON HUBBARD WAS A CON ARTIST”
So keep saying stuff like that and watch your comments get deleted.
What about the long time critics, like Tory Christman? Or the Ex sciento kids website that has started up. Why havent you got pages about them ?
Stop deleting our comments. Its intellectually dishonest and only makes Scientologists look bad.
This post is made of FAIL and AIDS. Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02/alea-iacta-est-die-has-been-cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does your AD HOMINEM FALLACY make sense to you?
Jed you are a dumb bunny.
Stop deleting our comments. Its intellectually dishonest and only makes Scientologists look bad.
This post is made of FAIL and AIDS. Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02/alea-iacta-est-die-has-been-cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does your AD HOMINEM FALLACY make sense to you?
Davey the asthmatic gnome is also a squirrel. How funny is it that this will make sense to you.
Stop deleting our comments. Its intellectually dishonest and only makes Scientologists look bad.
This post is made of FAIL and AIDS. Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02/alea-iacta-est-die-has-been-cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does your AD HOMINEM FALLACY make sense to you?
YetAnotherAnon: I wouldn’t expect too many responses to your questions in this hostile environment but here’s my take. Please keep in mind that these are just my personal opinions and I wish not to furnish “proof” or go into details as to the teachings of Scientology, that would be your responsibility to study without anyone’s interpretation getting in the way.
1. I guess Clearing the planet does not involve going around parading with one’s physical abilities. In my understanding Scientology places primary focus on the spiritual aspects of life, not the physical aspects. It’s not kung-fu. You seem to think that OT abilities have to do with more of something tangible when in reality (my reality at least) it’s quite the opposite: spiritual abilities have to do with having less mental burden to carry around and thus having more freedom and more potential.
Or put it this way: How would you go about demonstrating abilities like having less and less conflicts in your life because you gradually stop causing them unconsciously? We demonstrate these things every day but no one notices it and frankly, that would be very difficult to demonstrate, don’t you think?
But even if some of these abilities are demonstrable, they are personal gains and there are no promises anywhere in Scientology as to gaining those abilities. Parading with them in public to attract people into Scientology would be quite deserving your criticism in my view.
Moreover, although you might have been made to believe that Scientologists are out to get everyone into Scientology, this is simply not true.
2. Maybe as a symbol of the breakthrough that Dianetics claims to be in the field of mental health. You’re probably getting at the volcano story being surreptitiously sneaked into the cover of a basic book but seriously, what would be the point of that? On one had the Church claims that accidentally wondering into the OT III incident may cause you harm or something and on the other hand they turn around and put a symbol from that story to the most widely circulated book in their history? Why, to make people sick way before they can reach the level that could handle the cause of that sickness? That’s just nonsense.
3. Because research did not stop when Dianetics was published and its tenets that were clearly confined to a finite world had to be revised as the view expanded to include more and more of the non-finite. Survival by means of procreation just couldn’t any more hold its status of being an intrinsic urge when applied to a spirit that cannot help but survive (the assumption in Scientology), as opposed to being applied to a finite organism, the human being (the assumption in Dianetics), where it made sense.
4. Possibly because the Church’s policy on entheta is to ignore it and just keep flourishing and prospering.
5. No clue…
T, I’m a critic of scientology and I’m going to post to you calmly. I’m hoping you’ll be able to process my statements and discern my intent.
But first, a couple points from your thread:
> Scientologists don’t really care about Xe nu or space opera for that matter. These are nice stories and all and I can understand why you are fixated on them but they have little to do with Scientology, they bear no significance, they are just stories, albeit intriguing ones.
My question to you is this. Why is it that they are kept secret then? Because currently, I’m of the opinion that if they were made public and shown to people outright, people would not join scientology would it not? Could it be possible that maybe, just maybe, the church keeps them secret until members have become indoctrinated enough that the effect is minimized? I look forward to your insight on this question.
> You accepted blatant lies on face value, went out to the streets to cheer at cars passing by and honking to signal that they, too, “hate Scientology” and then you documented the whole circus for the world to see. Any possibility that you made a mistake? Boy, would that be a tough one.
This is another logical fallacy. In this case it’s ad hominem circumstancal. You place the “person” of your attack into a situation of your own creation to explain their actions, thus their actions are wrong. Here’s an example from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). I’d suggest you read it over, because certainly a WOG shouldn’t be pointing this out to a scientologist…
– “He’s physically addicted to nicotine, of course he defends smoking.”
– “He’s accepted blatent lies, of course he’s protesting scientology.”
> And apparently some of your friends don’t understand the word “take” for they keep demanding proof of one’s personal view. Go figure. I’m sure my statement about Scientology being an *applied* philosophy will bear no meaning to some either.
There is a difference between belief and fact. A belief is usually something that cannot be proven. For example, I believe God exists. That’s a belief. A statement of fact would be something like… “God came down and pimpslapped 24 prostitutes on Ventura Ave before hopping in his hydrolically powered cloud which was playing “Living La Vida Loca” by Ricky Martin.”
As a statement of fact, one can in fact challenge the viewpoint. To which I would have to supply evidence. So, when Lu, Lake or yourself suggest “People are going to be arrested, anons brought weapons, they set fires, etc.” those are statements of fact, not statements of belief. If you were to say “I believe Anonymous members will be arrested because I feel they commit hate crimes.” that would be fine. Do you see the difference?
> Now it’s quite understandable that you are in desperate need of any plausible justification for that blunder. And you’re organizing another show? No wonder. I mean, if you go out and make a fool of yourselves again and again then you can avoid the shame of admitting that the first occurrence was a mistake, right?
Ad hominem again. But that’s beside the point. When you read the above statement that you wrote T, do you actually see why people don’t lend any sort of credibility to arguements made by you or Lu or Lake? Could it be because the majority of your posts are spent telling people how they actually think and claiming things that happen which actually don’t?
————————————————————————————————————
I am not Anonymous. Even though I choose to use the name so I’m not able to be identfied. I don’t agree with their illegal actions and I consider their motivation somewhat suspect.
So, what is my motivation to be here. To spend the last 45 minutes writing a post that tries to reach out and touch someone I don’t even know. The answer is because I care and I want to help people.
My grandfather had a saying. Nothing is 100% right and nothing is 100% wrong. Scientology works for some people. But it doesn’t work for some too. This is evidenced by people who left the church.
I’d like to ask you one final question. This goes to Lu, Lake and T. And I want you to stop and really think about it.
Let’s say you all live on a farm. There are animals such as cows, sheep and monkeys. No one is around for hundreds of miles and there is no way anyone can contact you. The only people you three have with you on the farm is an old catholic minister and his wife. They tell you the world is full of evil people who look to harm you. And that the only true path to happiness is staying on the farm and spanking the monkeys.
My question is this. How do you know they’re lying?
Now, don’t cop out and say “It’s so silly it can’t be believed.” Assume you were brought up to believe it. That your mind’s frame of reference was so out of tune that this actually made sense.
Now, for one step further. What if someone came to the farm one day while the minister and his wife were gone and told you that you had been lied to. Would you be able to accept it?
Take a trip to Clearwater, Florida.
Look at all the property that is owned by Scientology.
Care to guess how much property taxes they pay?
Any less then other businesses in the area = my taxes support them.
Nice try at a distraction though, keep digging.
Whats going on, I saw 2 posts earlier asking ‘What other religion performs invasive security checks, ever, let alone regularly?’
and now they’ve been deleted, I wanted to know the answer :(
Uncle-Anon: I’m not sure what you keep referring to as your “tax dollars supporting Scientology”. Your tax dollars support e.g. the drugging of millions of children (assuming you’re American) but Scientology is simply a tax-exempt organization, meaning that churches of Scientology don’t pay taxes on their income. Your taxes and Scientology have nothing in common, Scientology is supported by its members, not you.
Apparently one of us has a misunderstanding concerning the term “tax-exempt”.
T –
Scientologists obviously care about the xe nu story as evidenced by the amounts of money and effort they’ve put forth towards keeping it secret.
Also – how much money and time does it cost to reach OT3? Clearly they dont really care about it
Again – more deception and spin from the scientology camp.
Scientology is a dishonest organization.
For what its worth I dont care what you believe personally, whatever gives you purpose.
It shouldnt be my taxes supporting scientology.
The inherent problem and crux of this is NOT the religion of Scientology, you are free to believe in whatever you want. The problem is that the ‘church’ is responsible for adding and abetting in crimes ranging from child labor, to murder (even child molestation by OT’S)! Yet most scientologist’s confronted with the facts cannot face them. We have heard DM’s explaination off the LM saga. We seen the dog and pony show relating to his mother in laws ‘suicide’ (shot three time’s in the chest and once in the head). We have seen the autopsy report of LRH and are amazed about the Vistaril® in his system. The coup d’état that DM might have orchestrated and YOU KNOW WHAT?
WE ARE NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST BIT SURPRISED.
Ask yourself this. If all tech comes from source? How can there be new tech? When by DM’s own admission LRH has yet to reveal his new incarnation.
If OT’s have half the abilities that they should have, how is it there are those who contend that Scientology might not be all it’s cracked up to be?
These are all easily referenced issues, granted thecoup d’état might have Diana ring to it, but still you counter with….. Well have you actually countered anything?
Scientology has a lot to sort out, YOU HAVE TO BE SEEN TO DO IT! Or else more and more will come to the conclusion I have. Scientology in it’s current form is a clear and present danger to all humanity!
@Lu:
>Apart from that I am very curious who is going to be arrested next.
As someone else mentioned: Who, exactly, was it who was arrested last?
>I think that the FBI got to know about this particular clip in numerous way, incl. YouTube, and if I remember right they have no other choice then to go after it. Cross fingers they get the crim(s).
I am. Anonymous doesn’t allow real threats like that – that’s why they flagged and reported the video and got it taken down in a matter of hours.
@Jenova:
>sounds like scientology nothing more than a made up fantasy just like all religions.
This is not an argument that will win. I don’t care what Scientologists believe.
@T:
>Anonymous, the morons that harass people and laugh at others’ tragedy.
And yet, Jackass, Kenny vs Spenny, South Park, every sitcom ever, Dr Strangelove, Mel Brooks movies, and Three Stooges films could all be accused of the same things, and they’re all wildly popular. If that’s Anonymous, then Anonymous is much larger than I thought it was.
>The third group … [is] the guys on the streets protesting in front of Scientology organizations.
No, actually, there were a bunch of morons there. But Anonymous does not discriminate. So your first and third groups have quite a bit of overlap.
>I wish those in the third group addressed with the same passion the true “disconnection” that actually ruins lives: disconnection from reality caused by psycho-tropic drugs.
I was wondering if this would crop up here. I’m well aware that this is a common piece of misdirection in comment lists like this. Do you expect me to say, why yes, you have convinced me, and I will immediately drop my cause and pick up your own?
@T:
>As to news reports of the kind you so kindly brought up: go to YouTube and type the words “anti-depressants” in the search field
Do the same and type in “UFO” – Wow! They’re going to crack this conspiracy wide open!
@Paul:
>The latest attacks on scientology seem to be channelled ‘Not at the Faith’ but the ‘Oppressive Hierarchy’.
>But just like me… you can find out if this is actually true just by walking thru a door and asking questions… ?
The Church of Scientology has a terrible track record of lying to the public, its members, and itself. For example, how many active members does the CoS have? They claim 10 million. Several independent studies over the last ten years indicate that the actual number is less than 100,000. Even if you include those with multiple affiliations or other problems with the survey, I seriously doubt you’re going to find a hundredfold mistake.
The CoS lies about Narconon success rates. They claim Narconon has a 70% success rate, but the actual number appears to be between 6% and 30% and probably on the low end of that. Considering that Narconon is one of the CoS’s main examples of their community involvement, this is significant.
If you walk through the door of a Church of Scientology and start asking questions, you’ll probably get a reading of the Scientology.org FAQ, which is exactly what you get on scientologymyths.info.
Paul, I’m glad you have had a successful experience with the Church of Scientology. I don’t believe that everything about the CoS is bad. I believe there are a lot of good people involved in it. But I believe the bad elements need to be routed out, and given the CoS’s history, I believe this is unlikely to happen on its own.
Why do you guys keep demanding evidence to support someone’s opinion when at the same time you show an astonishing lack of diligence in demanding proof or evidence concerning the serious accusations that your new friends lay on the Church?
You can beat the drum as you please but that won’t hide the fact that you and/or your friends made a complete fool of themselves in front of the whole world. I mean just think about it! You accepted blatant lies on face value, went out to the streets to cheer at cars passing by and honking to signal that they, too, “hate Scientology” and then you documented the whole circus for the world to see. Any possibility that you made a mistake? Boy, would that be a tough one.
Now it’s quite understandable that you are in desperate need of any plausible justification for that blunder. And you’re organizing another show? No wonder. I mean, if you go out and make a fool of yourselves again and again then you can avoid the shame of admitting that the first occurrence was a mistake, right?
Uncle-Anon: Scientologists don’t really care about Xe nu or space opera for that matter. These are nice stories and all and I can understand why you are fixated on them but they have little to do with Scientology, they bear no significance, they are just stories, albeit intriguing ones.
Even if as your sources say OT III is about Xe nu, who gives a damn? Scientology is an *applied* religious philosophy and I would be curious how you would go about applying the piece on Xe nu or space opera to everyday situations that Scientology is in general applicable to. Quite a challenge, isn’t it? I mean, facing the wrath intergalactic warlords is not exactly an everyday occurrence in my village.
To tell you the truth, I have heard a few pre-OT’s giving an account of what OT III is like and the stories from your sources on OT III just don’t add up. Sorry, I won’t buy those stories and I would take anything from the same sources with a tablespoon of salt. You are just destroying your credibility by peddling those stories.
And apparently some of your friends don’t understand the word “take” for they keep demanding proof of one’s personal view. Go figure. I’m sure my statement about Scientology being an *applied* philosophy will bear no meaning to some either.
Well, I just hope someone else will get the point.
Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02 … -cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
This may be off-topic, but I’m curious if a scientologist can answer these:
1. If Scientology’s goal is to “Clear The Planet”… Why not have one of your OTs Demonstrate their abilities in public. People would flock to your religion. Why is this not done?
2. Why is there a Volcano on the cover of Dianetics?
3. Why was the second Dynamic changed from “sex” to “creativity”. Do you really think LRH could have overlooked that, or that could have been mis-transcribed. Is it possible that David Miscavige is Squirreling the tech?
4. Why is the RTC unable to stop all this “entheta”?
5. If there were even one OT, would you be reading this post?
Paul –
Nice piece of propaganda, ‘go to the church and ask questions – find out for yourself’
Scientology parishoners have no problems lying to your face – as long as it does the most amount of good across the greatest number of dynamics.
How many times have they denied the Xe nu story?
It is a good thing that it does not require interacting with a scientologist to learn about the organization.
I dont want my tax dollars financing the harassment of anyone.
@Comment by Paul
LOL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
^^
So what you are basically saying is that Scientology is a business that sells business related products? AWESOME! Thats part of what we’ve been saying. We need to get rid of that tax exempt status then, as obvious business does not deserve tax break.
My Take on anonymous.
The internet has given us a great opportunity to allow us to say our ‘2 bit’ worth on any subject we so desire to make comment on.
Years ago I had a good read of horrendous things about scientology.
It seems that regardless of all the attacks and bad press they seem to keep going so I thought I should start to talk to someone in Scientology to really get a better picture.
I did that a several years ago.
I walked into a big building of theirs and asked loads of questions… everyone seemed genuinely open and nice.
If you walk into a bar with ‘looking for a fight’ on your mind: you’ll get one… so I was just polite.
Being a business owner myself I asked loads of questions about their organisation structure and then people were literally clambering to show me how they organise their church structure all the hierarchy etc, etc, and how they organise on a global level etc. based on scientology principles. It all seemed very logical to me and what I saw gave me some brilliant ideas to help my business expand.
They were most certainly not secretive about anything.
I said what’s to stop me taking these ideas and using them myself?
They said well, to help keep us here and put food in our mouths we’d prefer if you actually ‘bought’ the OEC (Organisation Executive Course)Volumes and you will need this particular ‘course’ and that particular ‘course’ (all business related)
Again seemed perfectly reasonable to me… It’s quite standard in life to have to pay for something you want that doesn’t belong to you.
Subsequently… applying what I’d learned, my business boomed astonishingly and I’ve got a big group of people (not scientologists) whom I can call friends, I pay them very well and they don’t give a f##k about my Scientology connection and the way the business is run using scientology administration technology.
I’ve made a very good living using Scientology Principles. I have a beautiful family in a lovely home.
The money I’ve made from using scientology
(using the supposedly secret organisation hierarchy Info… ha ha is it fuck secret ) is literally tens of thousands times more than I spent with scientology and quite well deserved…
I recently decided to become a member of the IAS because I felt I owe these guys something a little more for their help.
The latest attacks on scientology seem to be channelled ‘Not at the Faith’ but the ‘Oppressive Hierarchy’.
But just like me… you can find out if this is actually true just by walking thru a door and asking questions… ? mmmm… not quite such a closed, secretive cult like group as is being indicated.
I swear if you asked nicely and politely and persisted assertively with common manners you would be able to get to speak to anybody in scientology… Yes even Mr Miscaviage… It just ain’t a closed secretive group as is being portrayed.
Any time Scientology got any bad press… while it may put a few thousand off the subject… a hundred thousand more will probably then hear of scientology and some of those would be naturally inclined to get both sides of the story.
Believe me I was very sceptical of scientology initially based on all the bad press and weird rumours.
I looked and looked and looked to ‘uncover’ something bad based on the rumours… I just simply couldn’t find it.
To really get in close and have a good look… I did a load of work as a volunteer individual living 6 months on site on site and worked alongside the ‘Sea Org’ and ‘RPF’ doing construction (I’m an engineer) and plenty of other things besides.
I stayed in modest but clean quarters but was very well fed and cared for and had a great time with all the people I worked with. Really good company.
I’ve taken time out and travelled round and spoken to probably hundreds of sea org staff many in high positions.
Just nice, pleasant, hard working people with a good sense of humour and a very good grip on things.
They are there because they WANT to be… Anyone is free to choose to leave. I admire them for their dedication. They are doing what they want to do!
I’m running my own business because that’s what I want to do.
Bigotry based on falsehoods has questionable successes for a group in the long term.
One has to wonder why Scientology continues to expand if it is so insidiously corrupt and sinister as described.
But everyone is entitled to their opinion. Your ‘Facts’ flying around seem to clearly indicate Scientology to be the most god awful thing on the planet.
My ‘Facts’ based on my actual personal investigation behind the lines indicate otherwise, but of course that is just my opinion.
I bet it will be really interesting at the moment for many individuals going to these ‘anonymous’ demonstrations because they will feel adventure and excitement about being able to do something different to help what they feel is a worthy cause, to feel part of a group amongst individuals they’ve never met before.
I do not dispute that you ‘anonymous’ believe utterly you are being right in what you are doing.
I bet its quite a buzz.
This post isn’t addressed to those ‘anonymous’ whom would rather die than even remotely consider that the scientology organisation may not be as bad as people make out.
Look forward to all the negative replies.
Kind Regards.
I don’t think Psychiatry is evil, thus I’m not protesting them. I feel that the CoS is very dangerous and harmful to society, thus I’m protesting them. Is that such a hard concept to understand? Our reasons have been laid out, but ignored. We’ve provided proof for our claims, but that’s also been ignored. It’s really quite astounding.
Afraid to get downstat so you delete my posts?
Anyway,
@T:
(for Terryeo?!)
“…Looking at the most recent posts here, I see a faithful representation of a group that anyone above 5 (age or IQ, pick one) would feel utterly ashamed to be associated with.”
Yes, they would feel utterly ashamed to be associated with individuals who can point out the fallacies in one’s argument. Want my to pick out the fallacies in yours?
1. Get yourself some sources for those “three types of anonymous”. Until you do, that part of your post will be regarded as a “strawman argument” where you misrepresent anonymous and then you attack that misrepresentation. That is a logical fallacy which you have undoubtedly committed. Read up strawman: http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
2. “What apparently happened with regard to Scientology is that the first group misunderstood the copyright law”? I think you forget about Scientology’s litigious nature and how it has been trying to censor anyone it has spoken about on the internet through lawsuits, trolling, and etc. The suppression of free speech through such means is what got Anonymous riled up against Scientology. Once again I provide proof for my claims: http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientolog … e_Internet
3. “…a drive that has been hijacked by vicious lies to attack a bona fide target, one that may very well be the single most important source of sanity in this sick and corrupt civilization.”? Evidence please. Prove how Scientology may be “the single most important source of sanity in this sick and corrupt civilization”. Third party scientific peer-reviewed studies would be really helpful to your cause right now. In other words, your post boils down to a moot point because you fail to provide objective evidence for your claims.
4. “Looking at the most recent posts here, I see a faithful representation of a group that anyone above 5 (age or IQ, pick one) would feel utterly ashamed to be associated with.”?? Look at points 1~3 that I have pointed out for you. 1: Fallacy. 2: No proof for claims. 3: No proof for your claims. Why should I feel ashamed of knowing my fallacies and then pointing them out in opposing arguments?
5.”I wish those in the third group addressed with the same passion the true “disconnection” that actually ruins lives: disconnection from reality caused by psycho-tropic drugs.”??? This also another fallacy. Also known as the RED HERRING. It is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn’t address the issue in question. In other words, this post is about ANONYMOUS and NOT PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS.
So ultimately, please fix up your arguments my good sir Terryeo.
nunnimus: I posted YouTube search results as a response to this:
“how many news reports end with the phrase ‘this happened after he neglected to take his anti-depressants?'”
I thought I clearly indicated that by introducing the respective part of my response with “As to news reports of the kind you so kindly brought up.”
News reports, see?
But I agree with you, YouTube links are fun, especially those where a group calling itself Anonymous musters up a lot of creative imagination, sense of style and brilliant rhetoric to attack a fictitious evil. I really enjoyed those videos, the scenery, the tone and the editing was impressive.
Boy, did I wish those videos heralded a chain of world wide protests against the actual source of evil on this planet.
That would take real courage, wouldn’t it?
lol please dont post stuff like that, they will quote that part only when they make press releases if they use your post
PS: You guys are HILARIOUS. Are you seriously posting youtube search links as proof? XD lol. Dude, give it up, you’re not impressing anybody but the feeble minded.
@LAnon:
You said, “Just to establish, firmly, the downstat:
L. Ron Hubbard was a liar, a thief, a con man who started this bullshit religion to make a quick buck.
David Miscavige is an angry little midget. He’s squirreling the tech! He’s squirreling the tech! He’s squirreling the tech!
WBM, or Mark Bunker, is NOT our leader. He is our mentor. He is our dear friend. He does not lead us. Nobody does. People take initiative, culminating in what becomes YOUR FAILURE.
”
Silly anon. Don’t you know that downstats only happen when you post MISTRUTHS? Posting the truth is ineffective.
L. Ron Hubbard, if I recall correctly, had sex with his mother, three sets of siamese twins, all while taking it up the pooper by Xe nu.
@ LU:
“@Comment by Mike Rinder on March 4, 2008 11:58 pm
“how would you know about it and the bomb threat if it had not been posted by OSA itself?”
Wake up and smell the coffee. Or at least the criminals in your group, and throw them out. You seem to live in some kind of dream about big bad organizations and James Bond hopping around.
I have no indication that OSA would do such things, not even on “anti-”sites. Those of their staff I have gotten to know in the past were pretty busy with human rights events, media clippings or at trials and so on. However I saw and still see a shitload of Anons posting clips about slaughtering Scientologists, laughing about real life misery and burning down churches. So which group, you think, is more realistic to be the source? Apart from that I am very curious who is going to be arrested next. I think that the FBI got to know about this particular clip in numerous way, incl. YouTube, and if I remember right they have no other choice then to go after it. Cross fingers they get the crim(s). ”
First of all, please prove that you saw and still see a shitload of Anons posting clips about slaughtering Scientologists, laughing about real life misery and burning down churches. The burden of proof is on your shoulders. You simply can not say something happened without proof to back yourself up. You may reply telling me to prove that anonymous didn’t post that, but that is called “proving a negative”, which is impossible. You claim that something exists. Well prove it with objectivity.
Second of all, even if your claims are true (which they are not), this brings forth another fallacy within your argument: composition. Say if there were the one or two anon who posted those clips. How can that prove that all anons post these clips or that all anons boast these opinions?
Third of all, even if someone has posted such material (which whenever someone did, we flagged it and got deleted thereafter), you can’t pin the blame on the entire collective. It defies logic to do so.
You then say “I am very curious who is going to be arrested next.” **NEWSFLASH** No one has been arrested yet for anything! However, if you wish to talk about arrests, lets look at the latest exploits of your Church. “Three French members of the Church of Scientology, suspected of holding a fourth person against their will, were arrested Monday in Nuoro, Sardinia, a local police spokesman told AFP.” Proof: http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=116530
Now you see, Lu? In this situation, I made the claim that Three French members of the Church of Scientology were arrested. Since I made the claim that such a situation exists, it was my duty to prove it. As you can see, accordingly, I provided a link to the news article.
This is the key difference between my post and yours. I have provided sources for my positive claims. All you have provided are statements without backup.
Also, you have yet to answer my question about your entire post:
“Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02 … -cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?”
So yes. Answer my question: Does the case presented make sense to you?
If it does make sense to you, then you admit that you aren’t using logic to think. gb2/school/
FoT: I believe this thread is about one’s take on Anonymous, not about answering questions. Or did I misunderstand the question “What’s your take on Anonymous?”
chz brgr: Well, thank you. But I wish you demanded proof with the same eloquence from the wise guys who convinced you that the Church of Scientology is evil, ideally *before* your average kinda guys went out to the streets to chant nonsense in front of church buildings for hours.
As to news reports of the kind you so kindly brought up: go to YouTube and type the words “anti-depressants” in the search field (without the quote marks, obviously) and be amazed at how little else you find among reports of just the kind you’re looking for.
Like so: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=anti-depressants&search_type=
That wouldn’t be T for Terryo would it now? Thank you for your obvious biased contribution and attempt to derail the thread. Sorry to resort to Godwining the thread, but I’m sure if the internet existed and Hitler was online in 1939, and Anonymous was sided with the Allies, he and his followers would have been very fond of “guys, guys, look over there! don’t you see how evil the Illuminati is, godverdamt! you’d better go DO something about that!”
I hope when Lu and Lake return we can get back to actually having questions answered.
How about a few more too, where does all the money really go as most Scientologists working their way along the bridge through the orgs seem to live in total squalor.
Where do thetans go when removed?
Is Xe nu the master of all Lies? And as such doesn’t telling ANY lie bring you closer to him? Can any amount of auditing truly save you from that?
Does anyone in Scientology understand objectivity?
You say ‘forget X that was in the past, we’re not like that now’ but wouldn’t a religion based on the books of one man, that cannot and must not be altered, be stuck in the ways of the past? or is someone at the top of the church squirreling the tech?
Oh, and please don’t forget to answer my question of “how many other religions practice regular SECURITY CHECKS.”
heaven forbid anyone might accuse the CoS of repressing free will, or free thought! surely it must be common practice?
@ dumbass above
tl;dr oh wait… i saw this little snippet
“Why don’t I see you guys protesting in front of the APA and every single psychiatric hospital where people are actually held against their will and are actual victims of human rights violations?”
well, first of all mr smarty pants i love your fluid and logical use of language to disuade one into a sense of open mindedness…but im not of the third group as you so slyly placed me, I am of the fourth… regular guy/girl of the ages 13-40 who just has an internet connection and a job and all those normal things….you know a random anonymous person….
second….. GIVE US PROOF OR GTFO! how many MORE people will be killing randomly if they go off thier meds?
how many news reports end with the phrase “this happened after he neglected to take his anti-depressants?
My take on Anonymous:
There appears to be three distinct groups of people in this Anonymous phenomenon.
The first group is the bunch of brats that just recently began to demonstrate their intellectual supremacy right here, possibly the same characters that form the original core of Anonymous, the morons that harass people and laugh at others’ tragedy.
The second group is the drop-out circus, the guys who relentlessly repeat the same allegations concerning Scientology over and over until they sound true. You can’t see them in Anonymous colors but you can smell their breath from every accusation Anonymous are now echoing for them.
The third group consists of those intelligent and semi-intelligent people who first visited this forum and asked questions. These are the guys on the streets protesting in front of Scientology organizations.
What apparently happened with regard to Scientology is that the first group misunderstood the copyright law and thus found a new target in the Church of Scientology and began their usual harassment tactics, then the second group noticed the sudden reinforcement, realized the potential behind it and stepped up as a voice of wisdom and began to fuel the antagonism of the first group by a flood of allegations about the Church, then the first group expanded their efforts to recruit the third group by selling them a virtual reality where there is a clearly identifiable evil that must be destroyed.
And now we have a few hundred guys with an honest drive to stand up for something, a drive that has been hijacked by vicious lies to attack a bona fide target, one that may very well be the single most important source of sanity in this sick and corrupt civilization.
Looking at the most recent posts here, I see a faithful representation of a group that anyone above 5 (age or IQ, pick one) would feel utterly ashamed to be associated with.
I wish those in the third group addressed with the same passion the true “disconnection” that actually ruins lives: disconnection from reality caused by psycho-tropic drugs. You will most likely find these behind every single act of senseless violence, be it school shootings or suicide bombs.
Why don’t I see you guys protesting in front of the APA and every single psychiatric hospital where people are actually held against their will and are actual victims of human rights violations?
i already asked that question… apparently contributing to society is a terrorist act!
oh boy… my uncle the drill Sargent is gonna have a field day with my face for being a TERRORIST!
It’s funny how a lot of the anti anonymous sound more and more like scientologists.
Think about it?
Xe nu? Thetans? (spell check)
sounds like scientology nothing more than a made up fantasy just like all religions.
however it is pretty sad that even in a cult like scientology favors such everyday lifestyles that they take for granted that is based solely on other religions.
Free speech, the law, household items, and thousands of other things they do in their everyday lives that in one form or another originated from other religions.
scientologist are stuck in a fairytale, they think they are supreme, they think they are ultimate, they are sadly mistaken. The blood spilled on the soil of other countries were based on religious beliefs, men and women died so that their children can live a free life and not experience poverty, dismay, and heartache.
To have a cult like scientology built on that very soil is like telling our fathers and their fathers and so on and so on that they died for nothing, that they died so a cult can spread its disease to other un-educated and indecisive people who are confused and are being used as tools for the cult’s higher cause…
Ultimately scientology is the result of a group of humans who just can’t comprehend their existence. I feel bad for those people who just don’t know what to do, whom are too afraid to speak out against their cult because of the threats within it.
Anonymous is the only entity who will exploit scientology… and succeed.
*soils self in awe of godlike logic*
you sir take the fuckin’ cake!
“Apart from that I am very curious who is going to be arrested next. I think that the FBI got to know about this particular clip in numerous way, incl. YouTube, and if I remember right they have no other choice then to go after it. Cross fingers they get the crim(s).”
Sorry Lu, Anonymous is not a group. It is a collective of people. The contributions of these people are judged on their merit and usefulness to the causes of the group, not their personal life outside of their affiliation with Anonymous. Even if there are criminals in the collective (I wouldn’t know, they’re anonymous too), it would not matter as long as their contributions are legal, peaceful and in context with Anonymous’ ambitions. To respond to another point of yours, fortunately and unfortunately Anonymous cannot ‘throw people out’, even with a cursory knowledge of the collective you would know that this is not possible. The most we can do is alienate, but I’ll get to that later.
Also, you did not answer the question. How do you know about the bomb threat video that was posted on Youtube? Using the Anonymous credo does not in any way mean that it came from a supporter, and in fact the numerous factual errors in the video’s transcript as well as the video’s direct opposition to all of Anonymous’ goals suggests that it did not come from the group at all. I could even send you the page in which hundreds of Anonymous flagged the video to get it removed from Youtube as quickly as possible, what does that say about the ‘terror group’? Seeing as how it was quickly removed and very few people ever knew of its existence, how do you?
You also make plenty of claims about Anonymous being guilty of numerous illegal activities as well as terror acts against Scientology. These claims cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet that I know of, so please, post proof. Post links that directly connect Anonymous posters to terror acts. Forum posts do not constitute proof. Any response you post that is defamatory to Anonymous that does not link to proof for these claims will become immediately invalidated as it proves that your claims are sourceless. Prove to me that you are not a Scientology propagandist. I’m sorry, but here I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt.
An Anonymous will never be arrested on criminal charges. The numerously stated goals of the collective are peaceful and extensively legal, and the exact second that anybody affiliating his or herself with Anonymous commits an illegal action, they are effectively expelled. To state it simply, the only membership requirement for Anonymous is that your personal motivation and actions resemble those of the collective. The motivations and actions of Anonymous are legal. Therefore anybody who commits an illegal act and consequently gets arrested in the name of Anonymous is not part of the collective.
I’m looking forward to your response.
@Comment by Mike Rinder on March 4, 2008 11:58 pm
“how would you know about it and the bomb threat if it had not been posted by OSA itself?”
Wake up and smell the coffee. Or at least the criminals in your group, and throw them out. You seem to live in some kind of dream about big bad organizations and James Bond hopping around.
I have no indication that OSA would do such things, not even on “anti-“sites. Those of their staff I have gotten to know in the past were pretty busy with human rights events, media clippings or at trials and so on. However I saw and still see a shitload of Anons posting clips about slaughtering Scientologists, laughing about real life misery and burning down churches. So which group, you think, is more realistic to be the source? Apart from that I am very curious who is going to be arrested next. I think that the FBI got to know about this particular clip in numerous way, incl. YouTube, and if I remember right they have no other choice then to go after it. Cross fingers they get the crim(s).
– Lu
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 5, 2008 12:43 am
“Where the heck is Lu, anyway? And Lake, for that matter. Did we scare them off or did they get RPF’d or what? ‘Cause if they’re gone, I’m totally claiming this thread in the name of France.”
(pulls flag) Sorry, no frogs allowed.
I am right here. Dunno about Lake. And I’m f***ing busy, be back tomorrow.
– Lu
we germans are sure persistant! I RETURN to claim this site in the name of the germans!
you may delete the post… but will NEVER delete the poster!!!!
*plants artillery and railway station*
Lu
you made referance to guns being fired at scientology churches during the recent protests. I have not seen any news reports regarding this. ive searched online and found nothing.
could you post a referance to this statement? did it actually happen?
Where the heck is Lu, anyway? And Lake, for that matter. Did we scare them off or did they get RPF’d or what? ‘Cause if they’re gone, I’m totally claiming this thread in the name of France.
*plants tiny French flag*
“Wait until someone knocks at your door. ”
Say, *that* sounds like a threat!
Can’t you morons just take it like men? (I don’t care what gender you are, Lu.)
THE PROTESTS WERE PEACEFUL.
NOBODY BROUGHT WEAPONS.
NOBODY THREATENED THE CHURCH.
At the very least, the Church should learn how to take some fucking criticism. *Srsly*.
Oh, and as we like to say; Dox/pix or it didn’t happen.
Just to establish, firmly, the downstat:
L. Ron Hubbard was a liar, a thief, a con man who started this bullshit religion to make a quick buck.
David Miscavige is an angry little midget. He’s squirreling the tech! He’s squirreling the tech! He’s squirreling the tech!
WBM, or Mark Bunker, is NOT our leader. He is our mentor. He is our dear friend. He does not lead us. Nobody does. People take initiative, culminating in what becomes YOUR FAILURE.
But hey, maybe if you keep posting random ad hominem attacks you’ll get an upstat. In a few years.
You can leave if you want to. Remember that.
You mention the bomb threat posted on youtube that we assumed was from OSA. After we flagged it and comment spammed it, the video got taken down after a couple of hours at most. If the video was actually put up by somebody else that had nothing to do with the CoS, how would you know about it and the bomb threat if it had not been posted by OSA itself?
Silly Lu. You and I both know this is silly to argue over– it’s a waste of your time, because we’re pushing you to defend, something you should never, ever do.
Is that why you stopped commenting? Can’t think of a new angle to attack from?
We have all the time in the world to point out where you have failed miserably. We will continue to do so, so that those who watch from the sidelines may come to their own conclusions.
Still waiting on that proof, by the way…
Aww, Lu got all butthurt because s/he can’t find a counter argument to justify his/her ad hominem attack?
Anonymous demands a reply.
Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02 … -cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
“Comment by anonymous on March 3, 2008 11:21 pm
Listen. At times like these we need a leadership. It takes a lot of planning to organize our protests. We started something here and we are not going to stop until we complete our mission. If we have to organize and create a leadership then that’s what we will have to do to make sure our voice is heard.
In many areas we have to meet with the authorities permission to stage protests.
We can’t do that wearing masks.”
No leaders. The moar you ramble about leaders, the moar stupid you will sound.
@LU: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XWGLfQ-RSlc
Enjwoy :D
Anonymous believes in freedom of speech.
Anonymous is protesting lack of freedom of speech, lack of investigation into obvious crimes, lack of communication between family members, and what seem to be major human rights violations. Anonymous might be wrong. Anonymous might be right. Anonymous feels it has the right to know what is going on and to protest what could easily be construed as organized crime.
@ Lu
“Wait until someone knocks at your door.”
Why would somebody come knock on my door? I have done nothing illegal, except for accidently jay walking at the last protest. If a cop really wants to track me down for that, go for it. I’ll pay the ticket.
I have no participated in DDoS attacks, bomb threats, death threats, or anything like that. All I’ve done is protest an organization that I see as corrupt. I am not protesting the religion. I am not protesting peoples right to practice any religion. I am protesting, like a said, an organization that I feel is corrupt and dangerous for many people. Go ahead and do what you want, but when you start hurting people, like the CoS has done, I will step in and say something.
Again, why would a cop come to my door over this? Free speech is perfectly legal. As a matter of fact, it’s in the US constitution.
The guys who get the permits to protest aren’t leaders. they’re just taking initiative. just like someone took the initiative to let us know of this fine blog which seems perfectly willing to spread lies and slander about Anonymous, with no proof to their claims, and an inability to back down from said baseless claims. I mean, seriously, shooting at a church? Honestly?
Listen. At times like these we need a leadership. It takes a lot of planning to organize our protests. We started something here and we are not going to stop until we complete our mission. If we have to organize and create a leadership then that’s what we will have to do to make sure our voice is heard.
In many areas we have to meet with the authorities permission to stage protests.
We can’t do that wearing masks.
Just seems like a group leadership evolving to me. We ain’t supposed to have leaders. Don’t call me a stupid fuck.
You stupid f##k.
Of course we have to meet with the press. How are we going to get the message across correctly?
If we don’t organize then we can’t advance.
http://www.enturbulation .org need you to pay close attention to the directions given on the site.
You can donate to the cause via paypal.
We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
If anonymous have no leaders, why am I reading on the enturbulation forum that people from anonymous are meeting with the press?
Isn’t that making us slightly less anonomous?
Can’t we just keep doing the things we are doing?
Awww, am I late to the one-sided debate?
Except that the Pope, to my knowledge, has never claimed that Protestant services cause cancer.
True, but I wanted to keep my post simple. I could have gone off on three or four different tangents if I wanted to go in-depth, I think. =p
“As the official viewpoint of the “church” this is basically the equivalent of the Pope condemning all non-Catholic religions for claiming to practice “Christianity.””
Except that the Pope, to my knowledge, has never claimed that Protestant services cause cancer.
I want an answer, Lu. I’m print screening this entire conversation to make sure I have proof that you are intellectually dishonest.
Aww, my comment got deleted. What’s wrong? Don’t like your hypocrisy being thrown in your face?
Nice that you can call other people out on being “religious bigots” and then say something like this.
“You continue to equate Scientology with the Church of Scientology.”
Exactly right. This is the place where all of Scientology is available and where all of it is being applied, not just “what you feel to apply” or “oops, he got cancer from a squirrel process”. Violation of true Scientology costs lives and any “Scientology” outside of the Church of Scientology is BASED on such violations. I am truly fascinated by the screwed up logic those morons apply to justify their Road to Death.
As the official viewpoint of the “church” this is basically the equivalent of the Pope condemning all non-Catholic religions for claiming to practice “Christianity.” It’s stupid, it’s ignorant (as in most cases the tech is being practiced the same) and in your case it’s most definitely hypocritical. Anonymous can’t protest the administrative actions of the “church” of Scientology without being labeled “bigots” but YOU can attack someone else’s religious viewpoint and still claim to be “impartial?”
I figured my post would get deleted. Why the intellectual dishonesty, Lu? Afraid you can’t stand up to logic?
Once again, this post is made of FAIL and AIDS. Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02/alea-iacta-est-die-has-been-cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me.
NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION: Does your argument make sense to you?
“Comment by David Miscarriage on March 3, 2008 1:21 am
This post is made of FAIL and AIDS. Ironically, Anonymous already guessed that the OSA would say this exact same thing in this blog: http://funky-bunch.blogspot.com/2008/02 … -cast.html
“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967
In other words, this entire post consists of a major logical fallacy: ad hominem. However, David Miscavige, the asthmatic dwarf, was too stupid to get into college so its only fitting that he wouldn’t teach his OSAgoons what Logical Fallacies are. Also, all the Church of Scientology can do is make Ad Hominem attacks as proven by L Ron Hubbard when he explicitly told you to use ad hominem attacks to dismiss your opponent’s claims.
Basically, ad hominem means “against the man” rather than “against the argument”.
A typical Ad Hominem Argument has the following form:
# Person A makes claim X.
# Person B makes an attack on person A.
# Therefore A’s claim is false.
In this case:
# Anonymous claims that the Church of Scientology is a dangerous institution
# You attack Anonymous on the basis that we were internet troublemakers
# Therefore, for some reason, Anonymous’ claims are false.
This case doesn’t make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?”
QFT. What’s the matter, Lu? Unable to ack your irrationality?
Sorry if this should go under something else, but since I’m technically Anon I’ll put it here (also it’s a follow up to a statement in this thread). Also I’ll try to be as polite as possible as I’d like to have a serious answer.
Either Lake or Lu stated that Anonymous lets criminals into our group. How do you reconcile that with scientology drawing members from Narconon & Crimonon? (I throw Narconon in there as drug use is illegal even if never arrested)
Now the obvious answer from your side will be that those people are rehabilitated and thus no longer criminals. To that point my question would be then why does Scientology use criminal records to try to discredit critics? I’ll direct you to the BBC documentary where a scientologist states that Sean Lonsdale had sex with dudes in public and has a copy of his criminal file. (The other answer would be that those programs only licence the tech, but you must get some carry over if the tech helps as many people as they say they do)
My point is this: If we are to assume that Crimonon & Narconon people are rehabilitated due to them not re-offending, then can’t the same be true for people who never went through the program (or went through different programs)? So why are members of your organization using events from the past to try and discredit people now?
You state Operation Freakout & Snow White happened years ago and Scientology today should not be judged on the actions of the organization in the past, but isn’t that exactly what the organization is doing by using critic’s pasts against them?
If the only standard that people are criminals are that they have a criminal past then by definition you let criminals into your organization as well via Crimonon & Narconon. If you believe that they have reformed then you have to also accept that critics with a criminal past could also have reformed.
How that relates to Anon today? Anon did do a DDoS on Scientology sites (an act they take credit for). We’ve reformed and taken out the criminal elements of the campaign (hell I didn’t even take up the cause until post DDoS as I thought it was a stupid idea).
There is no evidence to point to either the white powder or the bomb threats coming from Anon. I don’t even know where the gun shots thing comes from but since there appears to be no evidence of that ever happening I’m going to assume it didn’t. So, without further evidence of criminal misdeeds is it not fair to say that we’ve reformed? You want us to believe you reformed post Freakout & Snow White. Why so unwilling to believe Anon reformed post DDoS?
And bear in mind, if we the critics are unable to reform, then all people you consider “criminal” have not reformed, your organization must be unable to reform and the members you have recieved via Crimonon & Narconon have not reformed either and thus, you let criminals into your organization as well.
Hey now, why aren’t my comments showing up?
@Comment by Lu on March 2, 2008 11:31 pm
Dunno any TV preacher by that name. You must be hallluzinating.
Oh Lu, your subtlety and wit are rivaled only by your tact and spelling.
HOLY SHI*… Dude that was the winner of the best post award!
on an unrelated note I’m about to procreate… Wish me luck!
( I hope it’s a boy!)
@Comment by Rao on March 2, 2008 9:58 pm
“I think Davey Miscarriage would be none too pleased to supply his records.”
Dunno any TV preacher by that name. You must be hallluzinating.
– Lu
“Lake said: “What more transparency would work for you? Like sending out financials on a quarterly basis? I mean, in comparison to the LDS Church and Christian Science and Catholicism, who were in similar situations in the past, what additional transparency do they provide that Scientology doesn’t?
Actually, US Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is presently investigating the finances of a bunch of TV preachers. It’s a different context,of corse, but I think Davey Miscarriage would be none too pleased to supply his records. Yet it could well happen.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080216/NEWS/802160336/-1/BUSINESS04
And since you refuse my help, you must now accept my harm. I shall take a side in this conflict, and it is not yours.
What’s this? NOT-QUITE-ANONYMOUS is evolving!
.
.
.
NOT-QUITE-ANONYMOUS evolved into OKAY-I’M-ANONYMOUS-NOW!
“Well, I think the IRS decision provided quite a bit of transparency.”
Right, right. The CONFIDENTIAL agreement between the Church and the IRS provided TRANSPARENCY. Head, meet your old friend desk.
“The Church’s willingness to open its doors to media, including some of the core Sea Org locations, provided transparency.”
Proof or it didn’t happen. And even if it did, photo ops do not constitute transparency. Now, if the church allows unscheduled visits from members of the public or investigative reporters posing as same (à la the “mystery shopper” programs at many retail chains), then you might be able to make a case.
“Miscavige’s willingness to be interviewed on ABC News after the Time story provided transparency.”
Again, that’s not transparency. That’s spin. There is a difference.
“He regularly speaks to the membership about goals and ideals, and invites participation from everyone.”
Good for him, but irrelevant. “Transparency” means to the outside world, to us preclear wogs.
“What more transparency would work for you?”
Let’s start with a full federal investigation and negotiate up from there. There are some pretty serious allegations being leveled at your Church. What better way to shut Anonymous up than by showing the FBI and the world that these allegations are baseless, if these allegations are baseless?
“No NotQuiteAnonymous, you’re asking Scientologists and the Church to change its principles and spiritual beliefs, simply because you don’t agree with them.”
So, and let’s be clear about this, “always attack, never defend” is an involiable dogma of your religion? Smearing your opponents as HATE-mongers and TERR-orists is a sacrament? Calling all your critics bigoted liars, paid off by the psychs and the Germans, is a holy ritual?
Well, it’s not my bag, but I won’t argue with the First Amendment.
“It’s not going to happen.”
Then you have already lost. May God have mercy on David Miscavige, because the courts won’t. I just have one final link, one final warning before I leave you to your fate:
http://scientology.facts.qlnk.net/
“And all we’ll end up with in the end will be more and more opportunities and platforms for Scientologists to actually explain themselves.”
Oh right. No publicity is bad publicity. That’s why membership in the People’s Temple skyrocketed after that whole dealie in Guyana.
“Anonymous will continue to be seen as the group that they profess themselves to be — a group that laughs when people get killed senselessly.”
It’s called black comedy, and it’s a perfectly sensible reaction to this age of information overload, when every five seconds we’re hearing about some other shooting in some other podunk town. I mean, do you really expect people to mourn for everyone who dies? Because if you do, there will be no time left for living and, paradoxically, no reason then to mourn.
“Getting a bunch of listless college kids to rally meaninglessly behind masks, does not a group make.”
And that’s why you can’t fight them. Anonymous isn’t a “group.” It’s a movement. It’s a philosophy. It’s a way of life.
“When they come to their senses, most will realize that religious bigotry and “no remorse” are not values that they aspire to.”
I am now convinced that you are legally retarded (no offense). Anonymous is not, never was, and never will be about “religious bigotry.” For what I hope is the last time, I remind you that they are not fighting the FAITH of Scientology, but the CORPORATION of Scientology, as represented by the Religious Technology Center and its subsidiaries.
And most Anonymous are a lot more forgiving, a lot more merciful, and simply a lot nicer than their collective creed implies. But as long as someone holds a grudge, Anonymous does not forgive. That’s the whole point of the statement, “None of us is as cruel as all of us.”
NotQuiteAnonymous wrote: “I’m asking you to re-evaluate your strategy for fighting Anonymous.”
No NotQuiteAnonymous, you’re asking Scientologista and the Church to change its principles and spiritual beliefs, simply because you don’t agree with them.
It’s not going to happen.
And all we’ll end up with in the end will be more and more opportunities and platforms for Scientologists to actually explain themselves. Anonymous will continue to be seen as the group that they profess themselves to be — a group that laughs when people get killed senselessly.
Getting a bunch of listless college kids to rally meaninglessly behind masks, does not a group make.
When they come to their senses, most will realize that religious bigotry and “no remorse” are not values that they aspire to.
Lake wrote: “If so, what questions remain?”
NotQuiteAnonymous wrote: “Yes, and I have just one simple question. Why should I believe a word of it? The only way to restore that credibility is with total transparency…”
Well, I think the IRS decision provided quite a bit of transparency. The Church’s willingness to open its doors to media, including some of the core Sea Org locations, provided transparency. Miscavige’s willingness to be interviewed on ABC News after the Time story provided transparency. He regularly speaks to the membership about goals and ideals, and invites participation from everyone.
What more transparency would work for you? Like sending out financials on a quarterly basis? I mean, in comparison to the LDS Church and Christian Science and Catholicism, who were in similar situations in the past, what additional transparency do they provide that Scientology doesn’t?
@ Lake:
“Have you attempted to calmly read the Scientologists’ responses?
If so, what questions remain?”
Yes, and I have just one simple question. Why should I believe a word of it? Operations Freakout and Snow White shattered the Church’s credibility. The only way to restore that credibility is with total transparency, which (for thirty years now) has not been forthcoming. The Guardian’s Office was disbanded after it got caught, but it was replaced with the just-as-secretive Office of Special Affairs, and many of the Church’s other facilities have never taken kindly to scrutiny. Your pleas are like those of a Soviet agent during the Cold War, telling the American government to turn a blind eye to the KGB, because it was the NKVD doing all the bad things and, hey, we got rid of *that*.
“You seem ready to come to the defense of Anonymous as a “misunderstood group” and that its “strongest supporters” mean no harm. Did it ever occur to you that Scientology is also a “misunderstood group” and that it’s “strongest supporters” (made up of it’s leadership on down) mean no harm?”
I suppose this is possible. In which case, however, the Church’s abuses are doubly tragic, for both the abused and the abuser become victims, victims of a fraud that outlived its author.
“You seem ready to support the Free Zone. But do you realize that the “Free Zone” claims to fully support what LRH said? Are you saying that the current Church of Scientology is not following LRH’s words and intentions?”
Well, in terms of administration, I would say that the Church is being truer to Source. That is not a compliment. I would rather have harmless heresy than deadly orthodoxy. But if the Free Zoners have deluded themselves into thinking that LRH would not have approved of his Church’s crimes, so be it. And in terms of the bridge itself, I see no difference between the two.
“For example, KSW was written in 1965 and is fully supported by the Free Zone. Are you sure that if the Free Zone became the “new Church of Scientology”, that Anonymous (and/or other anti-Scientologists) wouldn’t just find the new Free Zone’s leadership as “criminal” and Evil (with a capital E) as the current Church of Scientology?”
Anonymous wouldn’t care one bit, unless the Free Zone continued the Church’s tradition of jihad against the Internet, which doesn’t seem likely. And the other critics would probably quit as well. Those who are only concerned with the current Church’s abuses would have nothing to complain about, unless the Free Zone mutated into a tyrannical racketeering organization. And without the Church to aggressively promote Scientology, those who are bothered by its religious practices would have to pull back also, since participation in the Free Zone is, at all times, a demonstrably voluntary choice. (As long as they are only harming themselves and not others, the critics reason, there isn’t as much need to stop them.)
@ Lu:
“I guess you will have to convince legislators with that. Hate crime laws are saying the opposite.”
FLUNK! Hate crime laws only apply when an actual crime has already been committed. Start.
“Violation of true Scientology costs lives and any “Scientology” outside of the Church of Scientology is BASED on such violations. I am truly fascinated by the screwed up logic those morons apply to justify their Road to Death.”
FLUNK! The only violations are of administrative policies, like Fair Game. The auditing process uses standard tech, as evidenced by the fact that people don’t up and die when they leave the Church. (Unless they’re Lisa McPherson.) Start.
“Bullshit again. You are too much on the internet, man. Look in real life. But even if this were true it would not change my mind. Because I am a Scientologist and not an opportunist.”
FLUNK! In the world outside Flag, Scientology is a laughingstock. You have less than one hundred thousand members worldwide and falling. Anonymous has (at least) tens of thousands of supporters worldwide and rising. Their stats *are* up. Your stats *are* down. I’m not asking you to blow because of this trend. I’m asking you to re-evaluate your strategy for fighting Anonymous. The old tactics have failed, and they will continue to fail until the Church itself fails. So at the risk of melodrama, I will ask you very plainly: do you want the Church to survive? Start.
@notanotheranon
I agree entirely. But. They. Are. Winning. Anon’s stats are up, your stats are down, and unless the Church changes its strategy *yesterday*, it will FLUNK. And to paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, “Who’s the bigger moron: the moron, or the moron who’s outwitted by him?”
.
.
.
.
dude urdoinitwrong…. its “who’s the bigger fool? the fool or the one who follows him!”
…
oh you said paraphrase… nevermind
@Comment by chzbrgr on February 29, 2008 1:14 pm
“I can be arrested for protesting? wow….”
You can be arrested for participation and support of a terrorist group. No whiz required to dig that.
– Lu
you are severely misguided and i feel you will never understand anon if you continue to believe the drivel ladled to you by your superiors…… you read those leaked documents so when you PAY to get to that point they are given to you…. you will know just how much BS you waded through to learn of their lies.
your beliefs are a pyramid scheme
you are calling me a terrorist? my whole family is military… I’m one of 13 family members not in the armed forces… the other 50…… well… either retired, active duty, or on extended leave…..
you, with as much respect as i can muster say this to you
@Comment by Lu
You can be arrested for participation and support of a terrorist group. No whiz required to dig that.
CALL THE FUCKING ARMY ON ME THEN!!! YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE PROOF IM A TERRORIST!!!
>You are denying that DDOS attacks happened, you are denying that bomb threats and murder threats happened,
I never denied them. I accept the DDOS attacks; Anonymous fortunately did not persist with them. I don’t claim they were right.
Yes, there are a few wackos. There always are. You had the Guardian’s Office; Anonymous has equal-opportunity countertrolls. They absolutely should be prosecuted for bomb threats. Anonymous will not defend them. But you have to admit it would be difficult to find them. Anon knows how to find people, and so he also knows how not to be found. Just like it’s hard to sue a lawyer, or
>You deny that Scientologists are continuously being invalidated, harassed and attacked.
I don’t deny this, but I won’t accept it without a source besides you. Isn’t this site supposed to be all about reputable sources? Court documents, news articles, affidavits?
>anmn wrote “where did the $500,000 figure come from”
>Lu answered it earlier.
Not with a source, just with a few reasons why it might cost that much. No one claimed half a million in damages except Lu.
>Further, the losses associated with being able to answer the media’s and the people’s questions in a timely manner by having one’s websites and phone systems up,
Are you kidding me? That’s publicity. Digg and Slashdot don’t get sued for sending millions of interested people to someone’s personal site, even if it uses up all of their bandwidth or makes the site unavailable.
>What’s their new campaign called? Operation disaffection or something?
Now you’re just being dense. It’s Operation Reconnect.
>the Matthew Shepard Act
…has nothing to do with anything here.
>“oops, he got cancer from a squirrel process”.
Do you seriously believe that? I mean, do you have any reason for believing that is possible besides what LRH wrote? Is there any data on cancer rates of Scientologists, in and out of the CoS?
NotQuiteAnonymous wrote: “You have to accept that the Free Zone practices the same religion as you; they just do it for a lot less.”
Ok, so it’s a cost issue for you.
So if I’m reading you right, you support the FreeZone (which claims to fully support LRH).
And which LRH policy(ies) is the “Miscavige administration” currently violating with regard to how much to ask in donations for auditing and training?
@Comment by NotQuiteAnonymous on February 29, 2008 11:04 pm
“You continue to equate Scientology with the Church of Scientology.”
Exactly right. This is the place where all of Scientology is available and where all of it is being applied, not just “what you feel to apply” or “oops, he got cancer from a squirrel process”. Violation of true Scientology costs lives and any “Scientology” outside of the Church of Scientology is BASED on such violations. I am truly fascinated by the screwed up logic those morons apply to justify their Road to Death.
“But. They. Are. Winning.”
Bullshit again. You are too much on the internet, man. Look in real life. But even if this were true it would not change my mind. Because I am a Scientologist and not an opportunist.
– Lu
@ Lu:
You continue to equate Scientology with the Church of Scientology. Please stop that. Unless one of the tenets of the faith is blind obedience to whatever the Der Fuehrer David Miscavige says, one *can* leave the Church without losing one’s faith. You have to accept that the Free Zone practices the same religion as you; they just do it for a lot less.
“They are irresponsible, allow criminals in their ranks and they will have to eat it. That’s the behavior of a moron but that is what these guys want to be, dumb, disgusting and stinking out of their mouth.”
I agree entirely. But. They. Are. Winning. Anon’s stats are up, your stats are down, and unless the Church changes its strategy *yesterday*, it will FLUNK. And to paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, “Who’s the bigger moron: the moron, or the moron who’s outwitted by him?”
@Comment by NotQuiteAnonymous on February 29, 2008 9:30 pm
>>“You are trying to belittle the fact that such “game” as presented on YouTube is meant to incite violence…”
>In Half-Life 2.
>>“…and get people to kill Scientologists….”
>In Half-Life 2.
>>“That is disgusting and criminal.”
>Sure, if you can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
I guess you will have to convince legislators with that. Hate crime laws are saying the opposite. In the United States federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity. As of October 2007, Congress is considering the Matthew Shepard Act (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007), legislation that would add gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability to the list.
Check Wikipedia for the other countries.
– Lu
Alright NotQuiteAnonymous. You said “Calling an organization to account for the criminal behavior it promotes is not ‘hate speech.'”
Fair enough.
And Marge responded to OnTheBridge’s 4 points to Scientology that you had re-posted.
Did OnTheBridge capture what you believe is the criminal behavior of Scientology? Did Marge not fully respond? If not, what additional questions remain?
As I’m sure you are aware, this site takes up the most common ones: Fair Game, SP, Guardians Office, Lisa McPherson, et al.
Have you attempted to calmly read the Scientologists’ responses?
If so, what questions remain?
You seem ready to come to the defense of Anonymous as a “misunderstood group” and that its “strongest supporters” mean no harm. Did it ever occur to you that Scientology is also a “misunderstood group” and that it’s “strongest supporters” (made up of it’s leadership on down) mean no harm?
You seem ready to support the Free Zone. But do you realize that the “Free Zone” claims to fully support what LRH said? Are you saying that the current Church of Scientology is not following LRH’s words and intentions?
For example, KSW was written in 1965 and is fully supported by the Free Zone. Are you sure that if the Free Zone became the “new Church of Scientology”, that Anonymous (and/or other anti-Scientologists) wouldn’t just find the new Free Zone’s leadership as “criminal” and Evil (with a capital E) as the current Church of Scientology?
In summary NotQuiteAnonymous, do you really think you have looked at both sides of these arguments in an honest and balanced way, to come to the conclusions that you have reached? Or are you mostly relying on what others have told you?
@Comment by anmn on February 29, 2008 10:33 pm
“Would you describe yourself as a “critic” of Anonymous? Is it acceptable for a critic to not change his or her mind?”
Yes, and I did change my mind. First I though that this is a bunch of college kids with nothing better to do. I changed my mind after online research, personal observations and a personal experience (which I let certain government agencies deal with, so that you will have to wait a little).
Since then I am convinced that there are no “acceptable” hate crimes and that it is correct to call those guys criminals. If they want to j**k off in front of their screens, fine, I am not prudent. But I won’t accept incitations of hate and attempts to get others to harm Scientologists.
– Lu
@Comment by NotQuiteAnonymous on February 29, 2008 10:26 pm
“That is why you don’t see them attacking the Free Zone orgs.”
Bullshit. You don’t see them attacking FZ because they are PROMOTING the FZ as a “save haven” for Scientologist giving up their faith. What’s their new campaign called? Operation disaffection or something? Making people feel bad for their religion? Anonymous is destroying people, and I don’t care how often you deny that. I can see damn well and I won’t look away.
“That’s why I want to help you understand Anonymous, so that you can at least stand a chance agains them, but you don’t strike me as particularly receptive.”
That went to Lake, but I’ll answer on that as well. NQA, I do understand Anonymous but I disagree with whitewashing them. They are irresponsible, allow criminals in their ranks and they will have to eat it. That’s the behavior of a moron but that is what these guys want to be, dumb, disgusting and stinking out of their mouth. Eeks!
– Lu
anmn wrote “where did the $500,000 figure come from”
Lu answered it earlier. To move a website like scientology.org to a hardened server — which the Church was forced to do after anonymous started attacking it — is very costly. On the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Further, the losses associated with being able to answer the media’s and the people’s questions in a timely manner by having one’s websites and phone systems up, particularly during the firestorm over the TomCruise/anti-Scientology biography and no-doubt orchestrated video release, was also costly. I don’t know what kind of dollar figure a court would put on it, but I’m sure once the culprits are caught, we’ll find out.
@Comment by anmn on February 29, 2008 10:05 pm
>>Repetitions, repetitions….
>That thread went nowhere.
Because you insisted to not look.
>>Wait until someone knocks at your door.
>Until then, will you stop making these absurd, baseless claims?
You are denying that DDOS attacks happened, you are denying that bomb threats and murder threats happened, yet you have seen them on YouTube and other online pages. You deny that Scientologists are continuously being invalidated, harassed and attacked. What cave are you sitting in. Next thing you deny is having an internet line.
– Lu
>I’m sure if Fox News, or Scientology, or CNN, or the Catholic Church came out with an official video statement that said “we laugh when hundreds of people die in plane crashes,”
What if it was one employee or believer writing the same in their blog or journal?
I’m not saying that Anonymous is a nice group, but I have seen almost nothing negative or illegal, save the half a week of DDOS, since the first Message to Scientology video went up.
>True “critics” are willing to engage in rational conversation and re-evaluate their conclusions based on new (or old) evidence.
Actually, that sounds a lot like an apostate’s logical process when they’re about to leave the CoS.
Would you describe yourself as a “critic” of Anonymous? Is it acceptable for a critic to not change his or her mind?
“Yeah, I’m sure if the Scientologists in those videos were replaced with Jews, Muslims or Catholics, it would be soooo easy to just laugh it off and call it “fantasy”.”
If you understand the nature of Anonymous, yes, it is. Their jokes are offensive and cruel and in many cases obscene, but they are just jokes. Anonymous shuns IRL violence as counterproductive, and it mocks those who do use violence to achieve their ends.
“Would that be the “proper debate” of replacing someone’s post with your own hate-speech (as you just did with my post), and calling it “Fixed”.”
Hate speech? Isn’t that what NAMBLA calls it when people point out that, hey, maybe having sex with children isn’t such a good thing after all? Calling an organization to account for the criminal behavior it promotes is not “hate speech.” Heck, that’s the very thesis of your anti-Anonymous writings (the extent to which one can call Anonymous an “organization” notwithstanding). The point of my “fixed” post was to make clear that Anonymous has no quarrel with the religion of Scientology, as strange as its teachings are to outsiders, but with the secular practices of the Religious Technology Center and the Church of Scientology International. That is why you don’t see them attacking the Free Zone orgs.
“Why not respond to the official Anonymous statement that people dying in airplanes and being killed by school shooters is “laughable”?”
That sounds about right. Anonymous, for the most part, consists of jerks, idiots, and perverts who DO get lulz from news stories that others call tragic. There’s a reason 4chan’s /b/, the original home of Anonymous, is called “the a**hole of the Internet.” Fortunately, being an a**hole is not a crime, or else every American would be in jail.
“You seem to be concerned about criminal organizations. I applaud that. Are you denying that the one you have adopted (Anonymous) is the real criminal one here?”
Tsk. I haven’t “adopted” Anonymous. Frankly, I have no dog in this fight. Yes, I’m convinced the Church of Scientology is Evil with a capital E. But you know what? I *admire* you for it. Becoming a tax-exempt Mafia is an *achievement*. It’s the American dream, and I don’t want to see that go away. That’s why I want to help you understand Anonymous, so that you can at least stand a chance agains them, but you don’t strike me as particularly receptive.
>Repetitions, repetitions….
That thread went nowhere; half of your accusations there are equally baseless (where did the $500,000 figure come from?), and the other half are unprovable either way.
>Wait until someone knocks at your door.
Until then, will you stop making these absurd, baseless claims?
NotQuiteAnonymous wrote: “Sure, if you can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality.”
Yeah, I’m sure if the Scientologists in those videos were replaced with Jews, Muslims or Catholics, it would be soooo easy to just laugh it off and call it “fantasy”.
NotQuiteAnonymous wrote: “I know the tech doesn’t teach you how to engage in a proper debate”
Would that be the “proper debate” of replacing someone’s post with your own hate-speech (as you just did with my post), and calling it “Fixed”.
Nice “proper debating” style there NotQuiteAnonymous.
Why not respond to the official Anonymous statement that people dying in airplanes and being killed by school shooters is “laughable”?
You seem to be concerned about criminal organizations. I applaud that. Are you denying that the one you have adopted (Anonymous) is the real criminal one here?
“True “critics” are willing to let go of their initial hatred, once it becomes clear that in the end, we are simply dealing with a criminal organization masquerading as a religion and people’s religious fanaticism. True “critics” simply agree to disagree.”
Fixed.
“You are trying to belittle the fact that such “game” as presented on YouTube is meant to incite violence…”
In Half-Life 2.
“…and get people to kill Scientologists….”
In Half-Life 2.
“That is disgusting and criminal.”
Sure, if you can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality.
…
Ohhhh.
“Wait until someone knocks at your door.”
Traditionally, when one asks for “proof,” one expects PROOF, not threats. I know the tech doesn’t teach you how to engage in a proper debate, but this much should be obvious.
anmn wrote: “Do you agree with that statement?”
Of course I agree with it. That’s exactly why I said what I said right afterwards. And it is exactly what Scientology is all about.
anmn wrote: “Read Enturbulation and see what Anonymous is saying now.”
Yeah, that’s it. I’m sure if Fox News, or Scientology, or CNN, or the Catholic Church came out with an official video statement that said “we laugh when hundreds of people die in plane crashes,” it would be completely reasonable for observers – six weeks later – to simply accept that Fox News, or Scientology, or CNN or the Catholic Church has changed.
Get real anmn. All the attempts at damage-control and spin are not going to change what Anonymous is about.
It’s a hate group, in all likelihood now being prodded on by the handful of hard-core anti-Scientologists out there (see next question).
“New critics must be led by old critics? No new critics ever arise on their own?”
I think you mean “haters”. True “critics” are willing to engage in rational conversation and re-evaluate their conclusions based on new (or old) evidence. True “critics” are willing to let go of their initial hatred, once it becomes clear that in the end, we are simply dealing with a religion and people’s religious choices. True “critics” simply agree to disagree.
“Haters”, on the other hand, are incapable of doing any of these things, and instead of working to gain greater understanding in order to resolve a conflict (or recognize a simple disagreement based on religious principles), they continually find ways to keep the hatred and conflict going.
What is happening behind the scenes with Anonymous, has all the ear-marks of the influence of the hard-core “haters”, as listed elsewhere on this site.
@Comment by anmn on February 29, 2008 7:38 pm
Repetitions, repetitions….
“Also, Lu, did you really have to look up the Ides of March?”
Yes, I first thought it is an Iron Maiden song…
“>You can be arrested for participation and support of a terrorist group.
I’m still waiting on the proof of bomb threats, death threats, and shots fired.”
Wait until someone knocks at your door.
– Lu
@Comment by anmn on February 29, 2008 8:57 pm
Sure a computer game is so much the same as a religious community, right. You are trying to belittle the fact that such “game” as presented on YouTube is meant to incite violence and get people to kill Scientologists. That is disgusting and criminal. I haven’t found one mass murdering Mormons or Christians, so why is that? Are these groups too big for the cowards of Anonymous?
– Lu
>How many viewers does it take for the first one to take a real gun and go “visit” a church?
That is a very good question. I can’t tell you how many times I wanted to grab a crowbar and beat up crabs in the sewer after playing Half-Life. Or infiltrate government buildings with a tranquilizer pistol after playing Metal Gear Solid. I mean, I never did, but out of the tens of millions of people who bought those games, surely someone was influenced to do so, right?
Things to chew on a bit, for the blind ones amongst us:
How many viewers does it take for the first one to take a real gun and go “visit” a church?
– Lu
>That’s hilarious.
Don’t dismiss that line. Keep it with you.
You should never be afraid to ask questions.
Do you agree with that statement?
>ANONYMOUS ITSELF, in recent months, said:
One member so said. While statements like that are as official as things get, Anonymous has changed much in the last six weeks. Read Enturbulation and see what Anonymous is saying now.
>In all likelihood, the folks currently “anonymously” prodding Anonymous on is probably a sub-set of these long-time haters.
That’s it? New critics must be led by old critics? No new critics ever arise on their own?
None of the old guard would have lasted two minutes on the chans. They are not “hip;” they are not “with it.” And it doesn’t matter who started it; thousands joined for their own reasons.
Also, Lu, did you really have to look up the Ides of March?
>You can be arrested for participation and support of a terrorist group.
I’m still waiting on the proof of bomb threats, death threats, and shots fired. Actually, I’m just waiting for you to try to support those comments, since I know you have no proof.
@Comment by chzbrgr on February 29, 2008 1:14 pm
“I can be arrested for protesting? wow….”
You can be arrested for participation and support of a terrorist group. No whiz required to dig that.
– Lu
Just did a little looking around… The newest campaign of Anonymous with the name Ides of March is named after the assassination of Jules Caesar. How is that for a “peaceful group”? Plus, taking a historical term to emphasize the purpose to “destroy the Church of Scientology” looks like it was born in some old fart’s brain rather than something a young crowd could want. Gosh, please guys, wake up!
– Lu
There was an earlier question in another thread, which was “who do you think is behind Anonymous?” or something along those lines. To anyone who has been following the Scientology debate online for some time (as I have since the early 90s), it’s pretty obvious that the folks (now) behind Anonymous are the same folks that have gone pretty batsh*t crazy in their anti-Scientology rants over the years.
In all likelihood, the folks currently “anonymously” prodding Anonymous on is probably a sub-set of these long-time haters. Lu summarizes the list of these haters here:
http://www.scientologymyths.info/cult-or-religion/who-is-accusing-scientology-of-being-a-cult-and-attacking-it.php
anmn wrote: “You should never be afraid to ask questions.”
That’s hilarious. How do you respond to the fact that ANONYMOUS ITSELF, in recent months, said:
““We are the face of chaos… We ruin the lives of other people simply because we can … Hundreds die in a plane crash. We laugh. The nation mourns over school shooting, we laugh. We’re the embodiment of humanity with no remorse, no caring, no love, or no sense of morality.”
Why don’t you question the motives of Anonymous, anmn?
That same question goes to anyone siding with this group.
I can be arrested for protesting? wow….
you must be a whiz at the law
>this group got hijacked
Nonsense. Prove it.
>Bomb and death threats on YouTube and other public places were followed by the firing of guns against Church buildings.
I love you, Lu. This is hilarious. Prove it.
>to set them lose
The word is “loose.”
>It stops to be a civil right the moment someone gets terrorized
Incorrect. Unless this is your opinion. Then it’s merely illogical.
>The joke is over since a long time
And yet, Anonymous has only begun.
>The joke morphed into something you can be jailed for.
The joke became you, Lu.
Lu, I want to say one final thing on this site, and I hope you realize how reasonable it is. It’s a simple statement that everyone can get behind. The concept has been around for thousands of years. And I hope it means as much to you as it does to me.
You should never be afraid to ask questions.
(Note: this got stuck in the comment filter because it has more than one URL. Just put “(dot)” instead of “.” for external references. – Lu)
From http://www.net-security.org/news.php?id=15730 :
“Anti-Scientology agitators have repeatedly harassed and threatened violence against a 59-year-old PG&E worker and his wife, who were mistakenly flagged as pro-Scientology hackers.”
From http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/A_NEWS/801310319 :
“Lawson [the PG&E worker] said he doesn’t feel one way or the other about Scientology. But he said the harassment so scared him he planned to buy a gun. He said he still might.”
Here’s one from a Church statement published in a FL newspaper:
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/07/Southpinellas/Church_of_Scientology.shtml
“They have also engaged in other harassment, including threats of violence in telephone calls, fax transmissions and e-mails”
While the current anti-Scientologists who are trying to do damage-control after the media made it pretty clear that Anonymous is a pretty creepy and potentially dangerous group, here is what the group publicly said as recently as July 2007:
“We are the face of chaos… We ruin the lives of other people simply because we can … Hundreds die in a plane crash. We laugh. The nation mourns over school shooting, we laugh. We’re the embodiment of humanity with no remorse, no caring, no love, or no sense of morality.”
This is the group that the anti-Scientologists apparently feel can best represent them in their crusade against a religion they don’t like.
I tried to find a decent website with more or less unbiased debate between Scientology and the recent Anonymous movement. This was the best I could find. Discussion with a Scientologist is rather scarce online.
Lu, I applauded you for standing up to a barrage of well thought out criticism. You were never exactly as neutral as I would have liked but you gave answers and that is more than I can say for most Scientology sites. I eagerly awaited your take on this bizarre group called Anonymous.
Now I have it. I’ve been following Anonymous since the original ‘Message to Scientology’. Not once in my repetitive clicking on Google News did I find anything of shots being fired at any Scientology building. Nor bomb or death threats.. There was the powder scare of course, but that has already been discussed on this site.
For what it’s worth, I don’t approve of many of Anonymous’ actions. They’re disorganized, impulsive and more than a bit strange. However, I did see videos of their protests, and they did it peacefully and without incident. I’ve seen Anon here and elsewhere voice intelligent questions. You answered those questions intelligently until now.
That’s my take.