From the shadows, Anonymous battles Scientology

Garance wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you honestly believe what you are spewing? I suggest you adopt the sanitizing salve of 'reality'
Reality #1: Posting on 'public' message boards does not mean that you are operating 'in the open'. It means you are hiding in your homes playing '1960s protest movement' inbetween your round of Halo.
Reality #2: Gathering bedecked in masks and capes is hardly a sign of engaging in an open discourse.
But that's okay. Have fun playing. The big boys and girls will do the actual heavy lifting to preserve civil society - via courts, political movements, academic discourse, authorship, volunteerism, civic activites, etc.
You go on and put on your masks and capes and play in the fountain at Mil. Park.
I suggest you take a look at
http://www.halloweenexpress.com/
their costumes are fantastic.

So, how is operating and planning in a completely open forum (Registration not req'd for posting) not operating in the open? I fail to see the logic here? Since when does discourse need to be in person in order for it to be discourse?

And yes, we'll go and play. It's fun. That's the point. We're not the Corporation of Scientology who frowns on fun. Kinda like how Big Brother frowned upon Winston Smith having fun.

Civic activism can be fun. Educating the public can be fun. Why should it not be?

So, pardon me while I go and get 1000 fliers printed to be handed out.

-- A Heavy Lifter

Shizzle wrote:

I find it amusing that, in the last 300-something odd posts, we have a few dissenting voices, a few random comments, and then a group of maybe ... I can't tell, 15 or 20 people who essentially run around, post the same spew again and again, and then (this is the best part) congratulate each other / pat one another on the back for their supposed 'intelligence' and the 'rightness' of the anonymous group.
Such behavior is neither intelligent nor suggestive of a group with a strong foundation in being 'right'.
(Also like the constant references to various allegations with - of course - the usual caveat: "honestly, it's out there, go look it up")
Let me coin a word here: wingnuticism. Symptoms: reference to 'fantastic proofs' that are 'out there'. Circle jerk (pardon the expression) discourse. With-us-or-against-us (Bushy!) line drawing.
Dateline 2020:
'A new internet 4.0 movement, "onymous" has sprung up to expose the dark side of the once-viral "anonymous" movement, which took a turn toward the perverse following their failed campaign to expose Scientology. Onymous makes itself known through completely nude protests. Their slogan:'Out in the open'"

What I find amusing is posts like yours that criticize, carp and sneer at things they know nothing about, with no facts to back them up, dispensing their opinion like it was some valuable commodity, but who "don't know" about the subject and can't be bothered to educate themselves.

It's "so cool" to sneer at other people, don't you know.

You just wasted time posting nothing about something you don't know anything about. Now everybody has seen that you're an ignorant snob. Well done.

Fact:

I've read through all the comments

Fact:

Based on the names and the locations-from-ip, it's pretty clear that there are 15-20 of you.

Fact:

Although there are many idiotic posts, there are many that bring forth strong critiques. These aren't addressed. No, I shouldn't say that: they're addressed quite crappily.

Fact:

Following these addresses, the same 5-10 people congratulate one another on how smart they were and how awesome their post was and on how right they were.

Fact:

There are ... God, has to be 50 references in the last 300+ posts to 'facts' that will 'prove' everything bad about Scientology. I struggle to find ... let's see ... more than 3 posts which attempted (God it might be less than 3 as I think about this) to actually establish their argument and the substance of their amazing 'facts'. No, telling someone "x" and then saying "and just search on the internet or go to website 'a'" does not equal validly established facts.

Fact:

Whenever someone - not an idiot coming by randomly, but someone with a head on their shoulders - disagrees with you (and by 'you' I'm generalizing to again, that small group who have camped at this board for at least the last day) you'll quickly see the posts turn to ad hominem crap slinging - usually on YOUR part. E.g. right there above. You called me an "ignorant snob". How hospitable of you. Another internet tough guy.

What this really shows is that you (again, the general You) get frustrated and perplexed when someone soundly challenges your views. You behave like toddlers.

Fact:

The magnitude of absoultely off-the-wall statements by members of Anonymous over the last 300 posts - rants about world governments a few pages ago, discussion of secret agents, talk about secret documents everywhere, several members thinking that anyone who disagreed with them is some ... I don't know matrix agent or something - is stunningly high.

For a group that claims to be battling a cultish sci-fi fictional master Church, YOU (again, general anonymous supporters here today on this board) bring a tremendous amount of that same garbage into your own posts and thoughts.

Shizzle wrote:

Fact:
I've read through all the comments
Fact:
Based on the names and the locations-from-ip, it's pretty clear that there are 15-20 of you.
Fact:
Although there are many idiotic posts, there are many that bring forth strong critiques. These aren't addressed. No, I shouldn't say that: they're addressed quite crappily.
Fact:
Following these addresses, the same 5-10 people congratulate one another on how smart they were and how awesome their post was and on how right they were.
Fact:
There are ... God, has to be 50 references in the last 300+ posts to 'facts' that will 'prove' everything bad about Scientology. I struggle to find ... let's see ... more than 3 posts which attempted (God it might be less than 3 as I think about this) to actually establish their argument and the substance of their amazing 'facts'. No, telling someone "x" and then saying "and just search on the internet or go to website 'a'" does not equal validly established facts.
Fact:
Whenever someone - not an idiot coming by randomly, but someone with a head on their shoulders - disagrees with you (and by 'you' I'm generalizing to again, that small group who have camped at this board for at least the last day) you'll quickly see the posts turn to ad hominem crap slinging - usually on YOUR part. E.g. right there above. You called me an "ignorant snob". How hospitable of you. Another internet tough guy.
What this really shows is that you (again, the general You) get frustrated and perplexed when someone soundly challenges your views. You behave like toddlers.
Fact:
The magnitude of absoultely off-the-wall statements by members of Anonymous over the last 300 posts - rants about world governments a few pages ago, discussion of secret agents, talk about secret documents everywhere, several members thinking that anyone who disagreed with them is some ... I don't know matrix agent or something - is stunningly high.
For a group that claims to be battling a cultish sci-fi fictional master Church, YOU (again, general anonymous supporters here today on this board) bring a tremendous amount of that same garbage into your own posts and thoughts.

I think you need to look up the definition of FACT. Most of what you've put down under "FACT" is speculation, opinion, estimation and so forth. Just introducing each paragraph with the word FACT does not make what follows automatically "fact".

It is obvious that you disagree with those who criticize the Church of Scientology -- and that's fine. But where are your FACTS to support your position? You just neglected to provide any facts.

In your previous post, you presented much sneering and much opinion and stated, as you have in this one, that (because you are either too lazy or otherwise handicapped) you can't locate information on the Internet, despite many links helpfully provided. Now, this would indicate, first that you are, by your own statements, ignorant on the subject, but since you go ahead and insist YOUR opinion is correct IN SPITE OF the ignorance you, yourself profess, that indicates you are a snob, by definition.

Now, if you wish to change your OWN description of yourself, feel free to do so. However, as it now stands, by your own statements, you ARE an ignorant snob.

1. The Oxford English Dictionary Definition of a fact:
Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it.

These are exactly what I produced in the above post.

2. I'm surprised that you think it "obvious" that I disagree with those who criticize Scientology.(I assume, by "criticize" you mean "criticize the Church of Scientology concerning its characteristics as the Church of Scientology" rather than "concerning its choice of landscaping or food service staff")

Surprised, because it's a completely incorrect statement. I think there are many regretful aspects of that cult-like organization. However, my posts have had nothing to do with Scientology. I was (and continue) to criticize "Anonymous" particularly individuals posting on this board under the guise of that movement. The one (criticizing Anonymous) does not follow from the other (disagree with critiques of Anonymous).

3. You know full well - or you suppose full well - that I am neither lazy nor handicapped. Underhanded, poorly constructed or otherwise (un)subtle ad hominem is nevertheless ad hominem. The burden is upon the vociferous mouthpieces that have invaded this discussion board to support their various claims and allegations, not on the public at large as recipients of such (?lunatic?) offerings to have to go out and 'make sure it's true'. Do you really believe what you even write? I'd love to see you try this in an academic or a legal context. Go to a courtroom - or before a peer reviewed panel - and make a variety of statements. When you're done and they say "where's the substantiating evidence?" say "oh, you're too lazy to go and seek it out. Your problem not mine"

Moreover, you realize how broadly idiotic it is to claim to be part of an organization designed to expose Scientology and inform the public about its 'ills'(I assume you are a part of this organization - certainly many on this board so-claim) and then, in the next instant, to turn around and say 'but the facts are out there, you should get them yourself'. Um ... that's called an aboutface.

4. Let me teach you what "snob" means. Again, from the Oxford English Dictionary.

snob: "One who has little or no breeding or good taste; a vulgar or ostentatious person"
or,
"One who meanly or vulgarly admires and seeks to imitate, or associate with, those of superior rank or wealth; one who wishes to be regarded as a person of social importance."

I am no such thing in real life, and my post suggested no such thing. Don't deploy words that you don't understand.

Booker J wrote:

Help me out here. You wear the masks because you are ______ of being harrassed by the people you are harrassing?

Let me help you out with your misunderstandings

Your quote should have read:

Booker J wrote:

Help me out here. You wear the masks because you are aware of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_ (Scientology) and understand youre being harrassed by the people you now better realize, consider themselves autonomous over all laws except their own"

http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html
http://www.fairgamed.org/

Watch and see just how scientology cannot better a persons communication.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Shizzle wrote:

I find it amusing that.....

>I< find it amusing, that you are apparently just another cult sockpuppet, to try 'align' peoples 'reality'.

Too bad youve been puinted from Wiki, eh Terryeo?

Has James Lightfield blown?
Coz he doesnt seem to be popping up all over comments sections to try align peoples realities with your "tell an acceptable truth"

Gold Mask wrote:

<quoted text>
>I< find it amusing, that you are apparently just another cult sockpuppet, to try 'align' peoples 'reality'.
Too bad youve been puinted from Wiki, eh Terryeo?
Has James Lightfield blown?
Coz he doesnt seem to be popping up all over comments sections to try align peoples realities with your "tell an acceptable truth"

I knew you'd find this thread infinitely amusing GM.

Gold Mask wrote:

Watch and see just how scientology cannot better a persons communication.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Ah yes, the "communications" course on display for all to see. How much is "the only hope for civilization" charging these days to be able to communicate so effectly?

I cannot help but feel badly for this old guy; he's barely lucid.

Shizzle wrote:

Fact: These are exactly what I produced in the above post.

ORLY?
Let's see:
"it's pretty clear that there are 15-20 of you"
Pretty clear? 15-20 of YOU?

You seem uncertain. And who is this "you" that you are referring to? I'm not Anonymous. Which "you"s are Anonymous. With no specifics, how is that "fact".

Next:
"idiotic posts" ... "quite crappily."

Now THAT's opinion and NOT fact. Perfectly valid opinion, of course, but NOT fact.

Next:
"the same 5-10 people congratulate one another" ...

A pretty vague statement, but... you object to people on a forum discussing posts on the forum? And how would you expect a forum to be run?

Next:
"There are ... God, has to be 50 references in the last 300+ posts to 'facts' that will 'prove' everything bad about Scientology. I struggle to find ... let's see ... more than 3 posts which attempted (God it might be less than 3 as I think about this) to actually establish their argument and the substance of their amazing 'facts'. No, telling someone "x" and then saying "and just search on the internet or go to website 'a'" does not equal validly established facts."

Doesn't need any diagnosis as this is ALL opinion. Nice you have opinions and all, but do not go around claiming your opinions are FACT to anyone but you.

Next:
"but someone with a head on their shoulders "

IN YOUR OPINION.

I am at a loss for words to continue. All you have under facts is either vague statements that would be quite difficult for someone to investigate and determine what you are talking about, or your opinions.

It is perfectly FINE for you to have all the opinions you want. But you provide no facts, just opinion. AND THAT'S FINE. But don't go around thinking that these are FACTS to anyone else.

Thank you for your opinions.

Shizzle wrote:

4. Let me teach you what "snob" means.

Snob: a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field

Like your attitude regarding this forum. You believe yourself an expert, though you provide no facts, and you are very condescending towards others on this forum.

Shizzle wrote:

Moreover, you realize how broadly idiotic it is to claim to be part of an organization designed to expose Scientology and inform the public about its 'ills'(I assume you are a part of this organization - certainly many on this board so-claim) and then, in the next instant, to turn around and say 'but the facts are out there, you should get them yourself'. Um ... that's called an aboutface.

Actually, no. That wouldn't actually be an "aboutface". But that's immaterial. What you've presented here is a "straw man". You've created your own scenario here, not based on anything specific, and you've set this up AS IF IT REALLY HAPPENED. No specifics. Just something you've made up, and then YOU can knock it down. Win!

If you had any interest at all in the crimes of Scientology, you COULD look it up. I know you won't and I don't know WHY you won't, but you won't. It isn't hard. You make it out like the information was difficult to find. If you can't Google "scientology crimes", I'm not going to do it for you.

I don't think you care about the subject. But you want to criticize those who DO care. I admire people who care about things and DO something about it. I do not admire people who just sit back and carp at the enthusiasm of the DOers.

So if I sound like I don't like your posts, it's because I don't. It's an ugly attitude. You don't DO. You don't investigate. You don't care. You just criticize.

I'm not a member of Anonymous, but I am figuring out pretty quickly who is a member of the CoS. It's almost ridiculous. Their arguments make no sense whatsoever. At least the Anonymous members can make a coherent argument. Keep up the good work! I'm glad that there are people out there fighting for the rights of these people who so blindly give them up to be a part of this scam of a "religion."

Shizzle wrote:

1. The Oxford English Dictionary Definition of a fact:
Something that has really occurred or is actually the case; something certainly known to be of this character; hence, a particular truth known by actual observation or authentic testimony, as opposed to what is merely inferred, or to a conjecture or fiction; a datum of experience, as distinguished from the conclusions that may be based upon it.
These are exactly what I produced in the above post.
2. I'm surprised that you think it "obvious" that I disagree with those who criticize Scientology.(I assume, by "criticize" you mean "criticize the Church of Scientology concerning its characteristics as the Church of Scientology" rather than "concerning its choice of landscaping or food service staff")
Surprised, because it's a completely incorrect statement. I think there are many regretful aspects of that cult-like organization. However, my posts have had nothing to do with Scientology. I was (and continue) to criticize "Anonymous" particularly individuals posting on this board under the guise of that movement. The one (criticizing Anonymous) does not follow from the other (disagree with critiques of Anonymous).
3. You know full well - or you suppose full well - that I am neither lazy nor handicapped. Underhanded, poorly constructed or otherwise (un)subtle ad hominem is nevertheless ad hominem. The burden is upon the vociferous mouthpieces that have invaded this discussion board to support their various claims and allegations, not on the public at large as recipients of such (?lunatic?) offerings to have to go out and 'make sure it's true'. Do you really believe what you even write? I'd love to see you try this in an academic or a legal context. Go to a courtroom - or before a peer reviewed panel - and make a variety of statements. When you're done and they say "where's the substantiating evidence?" say "oh, you're too lazy to go and seek it out. Your problem not mine"
Moreover, you realize how broadly idiotic it is to claim to be part of an organization designed to expose Scientology and inform the public about its 'ills'(I assume you are a part of this organization - certainly many on this board so-claim) and then, in the next instant, to turn around and say 'but the facts are out there, you should get them yourself'. Um ... that's called an aboutface.
4. Let me teach you what "snob" means. Again, from the Oxford English Dictionary.
snob: "One who has little or no breeding or good taste; a vulgar or ostentatious person"
or,
"One who meanly or vulgarly admires and seeks to imitate, or associate with, those of superior rank or wealth; one who wishes to be regarded as a person of social importance."
I am no such thing in real life, and my post suggested no such thing. Don't deploy words that you don't understand.

I can see where just because you are not in favor of one group doesn't mean you are in favor of the other group. But at the same time you also are not using your real name here and that makes you anonymous also.
I attend protest along side the members of Anonymous but I ware no mask and make no attempt to hide who I am. But I understand those who do ware the masks. scientology has a long and rich history of trying to hurt anyone who speaks out against them.
In all the pickets I have attended that Anonmous was a part of no laws were broken. No one tried to hurt any member of the public or any member of scientology.
The pickets are to peak the intests of the public in hopes they will learn more on their own and it does work. They have every right just as I do to protest against the very evil action's of scientology.

End of part one

Part two

Just as you have every right to post what you are posting here.
From what I have seen at these pickets the members of Anonymous range in age from 15 to 60 and I have seem mothers out there surporting their teenage children. How cool is it that even the teenagers feel strongly enought to take time out to try to make a difference when it would be just as easy to hang out with friends and chill.

I'm proud of them and I look forward to the next picket with them.

world traveler wrote:

I'm not a member of Anonymous, but I am figuring out pretty quickly who is a member of the CoS. It's almost ridiculous. Their arguments make no sense whatsoever. At least the Anonymous members can make a coherent argument. Keep up the good work! I'm glad that there are people out there fighting for the rights of these people who so blindly give them up to be a part of this scam of a "religion."

PLEASE consider coming and joining us at a protest. They occur monthly and are in major cities, and many small ones, around the world. Two or three hours of your time could make a BIG difference, and it is important!

Thank you so much for you kind and supportive words.

AnonMSW

Would those be the same firefighters that got you folks in trouble? I.e., the falsely awarded honors and other nonsense from your very own plant, who got his fraudulent, lying a$$ fired?

The days of playing people for fools is over..welcome to the world wide web. Get out of your failed cult before it takes you down with it.

Falseanon wrote:

@Lanon. Philadelphia Inquirer, oct 15, 2007. Major article by objective reporter. Many rescue workers success stories. Over 900 now. Maybe you should visit yourself and talk to the firefighters and unload your garbage on them. Then duck. There's your facts. Here's a copy of the article I found on the web:
http://luana1980.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/sci...

Sure, ten thousand people spending hundreds of hours and thousands of their own dollars, making near-daily protests, writing literature, writing legislation, and risking threats, harassment, and other fair-game tactics, month after month, as a 'prank.'

I hear you also have a bridge to sell...

I'm close to forty years old, and I'm an anon. I have teens of my own and a nice career. I've met victims of this nasty, vindictive cult. You can keep on insisting this is "bored teenagers" until you're blue.

Wouldn't THAT be funny...bored kids take down the world's vilest cult?

Anonymous-buster wrote:

I am sick of reading articles in the newspaper that make Anonymous out to be some kind of powerful advocacy group working from the shadows.
Do the research people.'Anonymous' is basically just a name for a collective group of bored teens who gather on sites like 4chan to pull random internet pranks and hack other people's websites. This latest stunt is another prank. The group thinks it would be hilarious to extend their shenanigans to real life and disrupt/bring down the Church of Scientology.
I'm not a fan of Scientology, I'm just sick of these articles that make the 4chan people out to be more sophisticated and organized than they actually are.

Not to derail, but I couldn't help notice you're writing in from my old home town..epic. ;-)

Tommy Davis wrote:

<quoted text>
So, how is operating and planning in a completely open forum (Registration not req'd for posting) not operating in the open? I fail to see the logic here? Since when does discourse need to be in person in order for it to be discourse?
And yes, we'll go and play. It's fun. That's the point. We're not the Corporation of Scientology who frowns on fun. Kinda like how Big Brother frowned upon Winston Smith having fun.
Civic activism can be fun. Educating the public can be fun. Why should it not be?
So, pardon me while I go and get 1000 fliers printed to be handed out.
-- A Heavy Lifter