Comments on: Member Of Anonymous In Boston Being Fair-Gamed By Scientology

By: Libraesque

Libraesque — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:57:56 +0000

uuuhhhmmm. how is it trespassing to be on the steps of a PUBLIC CHURCH
1. Law. a. an unlawful act causing injury to the person, property, or rights of another, committed with force or violence.
b. a wrongful entry upon the lands of another.

can you explain that to me?

how is it harassing someone to hand them a flier?
1. to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.
2. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:23:54 +0000

#41: I’m “allowed” to do whatever the f**k I want.

#42: Glosslip,
You’re disingenuous.
None of the people posting here (yourself included) have any interest in “fixing” anything.
Read the posts themselves. And search your own Soul (read your own damn site) – you just want us to dissapear, die, wither into nothing. Well, too bad, ain’t gonna happen.

#43: And as far as “freedom of speech,” well, freedom of speech does not include bullying, harrassing, trespassing, insulting, preventing Church-goers from safely practicing the faith of their choice. Get real and stop whining.

Sincerely,
Greg
Scientologist and proud of it
http://www.liveandgrow.org

By: Guía para comprender para entender a ” Anonymous ” « Desde las nubes

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:48:11 +0000

[...] En dÃas recientes, los CienciÃ³logos han enviado abogados a personas que creen que son parte de Anonymous, como le sucediÃ³ a Jonathan. Considerando la agresividad de la Iglesia de la CienciologÃa, seguramente veremos mÃ¡s de estos casos, de hecho ya estÃ¡ sucediendo. [...]

By: judy a

judy a — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:23:40 +0000

i do not believe any annonymous did anything such as what done to that Epilepsy Site.

By: judy a

judy a — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:05:25 +0000

excuse my typos sibs should be signs vie is view sorry

By: judy a

judy a — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:03:38 +0000

the scientology cult has no case if there were not any sigbs in public vie stating no tresspassing and or no soliciting that is the Law they havew such signs and the signs have to be visible to the Public

By: anon

anon — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:57:36 +0000

I have some contacts in Boston biglaw. I’ll ask around if anybody can do work pro bono on his behalf, although i’m not all that hopeful there. Email David Lat at Abovethelaw.com too. He might know some people.

By: D

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:23:41 +0000

No, I am not as biased as you might think. But you seem to believe poptart, that because one rogue faction does something nasty and vile, that this negates the entire movement to expose the abuses and crimes of the CoS.

I let you post your link and comment, which you did more than once, and now I am saying that unless you have something new to add, your point has been made. I just choose not be blinded by your efforts.

The jerk who did that in the epilepsy forum aren’t the same people who protest against the CoS.

Are you the same as David Miscavige?

By: poptart

poptart — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:17:51 +0000

It saddens me D to hear that my opinion is now considered by you to be spam. But you freely allow dozens of anti-scientology made by anonymous members. I guess this just shows bias.

By: diasthema

diasthema — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:01:46 +0000

I reiterate, anonymous is an adjective, and not a proper noun. I wish it had never been capitalized in any of the flyers, handouts, etc. Because it is not some club, it is a state of being: you are a person whose identity has not been disclosed.

Yes, most Anonymous people came from the internet. The chans are not the whole internet, and in fact if you have a look at the chans there are many people there who hate this whole do-gooder anti-Co$ thing and have nothing but contempt for it. These are clearly NOT the same people who protest and only someone who hadn’t thought it through (or who was trying to mud-sling) would say that they were. They’re merely anonymous because nobody knows who they are.

This confusion is not helped by the word “member” as in this article’s title. Member? O really? What membership application did he fill out? What were the fees? Where was the little pamplet of services he would receive? Where is the roll of members his name is on?

If anonymous as a whole gets the blame for that hackjob, then they also get the credit for these good deeds (hope it balances out):

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0204/p12s01-woap.html
http://www.caymannetnews.com/2006/02/1039/letter5.shtml
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/homeandgarden/Days+out-548.html