GlossLip » Fact From Fiction: Not All Members Of Anonymous Are Created Equal

03/31/2008 (12:53 pm)

Fact From Fiction: Not All Members Of Anonymous Are Created Equal

When I began writing about Anonymous’ protests against the Church of Scientology I had NO idea what to think, expect or envision. As far as I was concerned, they were two sinister organizations battling it out, and it was good idea to stay removed.

During my coverage, I was rickrolled, memed, exposed to weird variations of intentionally misspelled words and utterly lost in this seemingly surreal world. At some point, I visited Encyclopedia Dramatica and the Something Awful forums to do some research on “Anonymous” and I genuinely thought to myself, “how is it possible I could be blogging for over six years and be so clueless about an entire subculture of people.”

In all fairness, Anonymous does have a fairly sordid past, with a strange sense of humor. Both sites listed above have a tendency to make fun of the kinds of people and things that society politely protects due to an abundance of political correctness. The SA and ED sites are not for the PC or easily offended. You’ve been warned.

This however, does not mean that all individuals who call themselves Anonymous, are in fact “Anonymous.” Even those people who are Anonymous aren’t even Anonymous. Does that make sense? It shouldn’t. For months now I have read various parties try to define who Anonymous are and who they aren’t. Most Anonymous feel there is no proper way to define the group, and many are repulsed at the idea of even trying to do so. From my perspective, this stems from the very nature of the word “anonymous.” From Merriam-Websters definition:

anonymous

1 : not named or identified 2 : of unknown authorship or origin 3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability

Still confused? That’s natural. While I am not an authority by any means, I feel as informed as anyone else in the media to make distinctions. Yes, even in a group calling itself “Anonymous” there are distinctions. And in this case, quite marked.

Glosslip has actively chosen to interact with all sorts of people calling themselves “anonymous” and from what I have observed, there are three distinct groupings of Anonymous. I will attempt to define as best I understand.

“Anti-Scientology” Anonymous - these are the people who were against the Church of Scientology long before Andrew Morton’s book, long before the Gawker/Tom Cruise/YouTube video incident, who in the darkest corners of the internet criticized the CoS for their oppressive efforts to censor information about the organization’s practices, crimes, abuses and policies - and of course — the CoS “copyright” data principle which they use to extract large sums of money from their adherents, and as tool in which to litigate anyone who criticizes them. Anonymous, at its very core is a rogue sort of group who dislike information being kept from the masses. This variation of the group are the ones I am most familiar with. They are serious, often quite compassionate, extremely intelligent and fairly ego-less. They have a goal and focus: dismantle the abusive and corrupt hierarchy of the Church of Scientology. By far, this is the largest percentage with their numbers growing exponentially.

The “In It For the Lulz” Anonymous - these are your fairly harmless Anonymous who enjoy being part of the movement, are generally well-informed and good-intentioned, but whose focus on the CoS movement waxes and wanes. If things get too heavy, too detailed, too “boring” or “warm and fuzzyish” they back off or attempt to interject levity with a “Rickroll” or a “long cat is loooooooooooong” or “show us your tits” sort of thing. It lightens the mood and injects some laughs, which let me tell you, when you cover the Church of Scientology, a good laugh can do wonders. This is depressing business. This group is silly, but *mostly* good-natured.

Then there’s the “bad” Anonymous. They’re bad, they know it, they don’t care. Their idea of lulz is to hurt people, scare people, harass people and in general be internet dickheads. They’re amoral (and at times immoral) they are smart, nasty and savvy as to the ways of the internets. They hack, they prank, they play practical jokes which are more often than not, mean-spirited and lack forethought. I doubt they are as evil as the media portrays them, they are probably not even as evil as they want you to think they are, but they are pains in the asses to the rest of Anonymous who are becoming really weary of being blamed for the actions of a very small percentage of the overall numbers who claim to be “Anonymous.”

Hey don’t hack me bro, just calling it like I see it. Your skillz are mad, of that there is no doubt.

The main issue right now, is a divide I see coming between those who don’t want to be associated with “the bad” but still wish to remain “Anonymous” in many ways you can’t eliminate the bad from the good due to the very nature of anonymity. ANYONE can call themselves Anonymous and do good or bad. There is an obvious answer to this problem, but no one will like it.

The latest episode is related to an attack on a forum for those suffering from Epilepsy. Several news reports are claiming internet pranksters posted images which were designed to trigger seizures in epileptics, some people were adversely affected. The news reports are claiming that the internet pranksters belonged to “Anonymous” and associated this attack with the CoS Anons. The CoS Anons were quick to denounce the attacks and deny any involvement.

This coverage of this story shows shortsighted reporting if you ask me, but hey, I don’t fully understand every aspect of this group either despite communicating with many of them.

I guess to put it in perspective, there are good and bad elements of any mass of people. Should we hold ALL Muslims responsible for the actions of a few? Certainly not. Should we assume all Scientologists are bad, because we know some who are? That would be unfair. Essentially, I would encourage the media to attempt to distinguish between those elements who wish to stage peaceful, legal and compassion-driven protests, from the handful of common-sense challenged cyber-bullies who get their kicks from being cruel.

The only thing they have in common is a desire to remain “Anonymous.”

Posted by D
Filed under: Anonymous, Crazies, Crimes and Punishment, Scientology, WTF?, Weirdos

90 Comments »

Great reporting Dawn. It’s great that someone in the media is able to understand just how “anonymous” works and why attributing anything to the group as a whole is impossible.

Out of curiosity has reporting on Anonymous changed the amount of readers you have, or is it roughly the same?

Comment by Ahriman — March 31, 2008 @ 1:33 pm

Group #1 has been around since at least 1994 (when I got involved), and did not call itself “Anonymous” until very recently. In fact, it generally consisted of people who made their names well-known in both online forums and public street protests. It originated in the Usenet group alt.religion.scientology.

Comment by Ron Newman — March 31, 2008 @ 1:40 pm

In some ways, Anonymous can be compared to the phenomenon known as Critical Mass — a leaderless group of urban bicyclists who periodically meet in many cities, carry out a scheduled activity, then disperse until the next one.

Comment by Ron Newman — March 31, 2008 @ 1:43 pm

Ron, I like that second analysis. That’s very insightful.

Comment by D — March 31, 2008 @ 1:51 pm

Dawn points out the obvious to everyone when the simple truth of the matter should be as plain as the hands everyone else is currently using to cover their own eyes with. Anyone can look for themselves and see that there can be different groups of anonymous people out there. For those that are siding with “lol, it r anonnymus doing teh seizers, so it r teh other Co$ protest anons, amirite?”, I posit that you are implying that ALL forms of anonymous were a part of the attack.

You’re saying that Alcoholics Anonymous did this. You’re saying that people that report tip-offs to the police did this. You’re saying that anyone anywhere that has used the name anonymous (or Anonymous, whatever capitalization does for you) is responsible. That’s not just bad reporting, that’s plain old ignorant and stupid. Go out and do a little legwork and see what comes up, and maybe you’ll be taken as seroiusly as Dawn.

For those of you that want to come back with “well, you’re doing the same thing”, all I can say is that payback is a bastard, and you aren’t exactly giving me much to go off of with your minimalist investigating skills. Enjoy your ignorance.

Comment by anon — March 31, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

The word “anonymous” is an adjective, not a proper noun. It’s impossible to categorize further.

Comment by BooBear — March 31, 2008 @ 2:11 pm

But it’s being used as a noun whenever someone makes a video saying something like “Message to the Church of Scientology from Anonymous”.

Comment by Ron Newman — March 31, 2008 @ 2:15 pm

This isn’t an isolated event - it isn’t the first time the hooligans at 7chan instigated an attack on epilepsy forums. They do it periodically. I issued a press release ( http://www.pr.com/press-release/60959 ) after they attacked CWE ( http://www.coping-with-epilepsy.com/ ) last November. They have attacked the NSE forums ( http://www.epilepsyforum.org.uk/ ) several times over the last couple years.

Comment by cwe — March 31, 2008 @ 2:16 pm

We luuurve Dawn! <3

There is no organized group of Anonymous, just a whole heaping mass of people claiming anonymity. One subset of these people are protesting the abuses and crimes of the CoS, another subset doesn’t care, another subset gets its kicks from stuff like the epilepsy thing.

Even these are rough classifications…its not like there are membership cards or anything. There is a certain “hive mind” or groupthink aspect to each subset, however, so it is fair to assert certain behaviors are or are not characteristic of a group. The group aligned against the CoS would not be involved or condone the epilepsy attack for two big reasons:
1) The overall mantra whenever some new topic is brought up is “Stay On Target.” The CoS organization is the focus, and anything else distracts and takes away from the efforts there. Attacks on epilepsy boards do not remotely help that goal.
2) The attacks were well on the cruel side of most people’s moral scales, and as such went too far. Its one thing to make an offhand joke about something in private discussion or messageboard; its quite another to go out of your way to inflict harm like that.

Many anons that I have spoken with have sympathy for those affected.

As an aside, keep in mind that “Having Sympathy” for someone is 0.9 on the Tone Scale for scientology as held by the CoS. “No Sympathy” is 1.2–and the higher you are on the scale, the closer you are to “total freedom”–the ultimate goal of scientology.

Ergo, any sympathetic remarks by scientologists either puts them ‘out-ethics’ (acting against scientology) or is done out of schadenfreude in seeing the distraction away from them.

Comment by Rick A — March 31, 2008 @ 2:21 pm

Critical Mass as well as being leaderless, there is never to be flyering for anything other than critical mass. Anyone who has taken part in demonstrations has suffered that dude with the Ron Paul poster or other off topic signage.

Comment by Good Doc — March 31, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

[…] Fact From Fiction: Not All Members Of Anonymous Are Created Equal Posted by Anonymous on March 31st, 2008 VIA GlossLip […]

Pingback by Fact From Fiction: Not All Members Of Anonymous Are Created Equal | It's Over Nine Thousand — March 31, 2008 @ 2:28 pm

wise lipstickchick is wise

Comment by anon — March 31, 2008 @ 2:34 pm

Thank you for proving that all media is not the same, just as Anonymous is trying to prove that all Anons aren’t the same.

It’s just a shame that you seem to be the only one in the media who utilizes the internet for true research.

Thank you again. It’s appreciated.

Comment by Ohnoanotheranon — March 31, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

I really like this article, though I’d like to point out something that’s bothering me. It’s just that your definition of “Anti-Scientology” Anonymous is not exclusive to that group alone, and neither is the “In if for the Lulz” Anonymous definition. Personally, I do it for the great justice (the Anti-CoS Anon), but in the end the lulz will always be there. The same can go vice-versa (just take Tory Magoo, for instance, who is delighted by the concept of RickRoll, and other memes).
Also, many of the “For the Lulz” anon find things that the “bad” anon does is funny (I personally don’t find the epileptic forum attack funny, but some do). Just like some of the “bad” Anons do bad things for the lulz. I don’t know if there’re any relations between the “Anti-Scientology” and “bad” anons, though I’m pretty sure there are.
tl;dr Anon is Anon is Anon. It’s all the same.

Comment by Anoynymause — March 31, 2008 @ 2:38 pm

Thanks Dawn for this. I can only add that while many who are currently part of the anonymous group who are seeking the reformation of the CoS this does not mean that all who currently participate would do so on another topic/cause. You can walk in a field of daisies and think all you see are daisies. But each of those daisies is quite unique. There are no two completly alike. The use of the Guy Fawkes mask is much like that. It is eerie to see all those same faces yet the wearer gives it a unique personality, even how a person walks gives it a unique identity. The use of anonyminity as I see it is to enable a lot more people to come out and support this cause with some degree of protection from the juggernaut legal tactics of the Cos to sue its critics into submission or oblivion. Watching the old guard critics has shown us that in spades. It has also enable many ex scientologist to tell their stories in the relative safety of “hive”. This obviously has driven the CoS nuts because they have lost their ability to target any one person and use their considerable resources to overwhelmed. Can’t do that with 10,000 people and perhaps much more when you consider those are only the ones who make it to actual pickets. The justice system is not set up to protect an ordinary person from being unjustly attacked. I am sure this will make a great research project for some academics out there but I can only say I’ve never seen anything like it and it is fascinating to follow its development.

Comment by Mitsu Too — March 31, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

Group #1 is misrepresented. Also, I am apparently in none of the above groups.

Group #1 is not Anonymous. They are the Old Guard. This is the people who have been anti-Scientology prior to 2008.

Group #1.5 is the new Anonymous. This is people who are not and/or have not been part of *chan, SA, etc. They may not know all the memes and such, but they have realized that CoS is evil and needs to be stopped. They have been attracted in various ways, like reading about the Tom Cruise video on news sites.
This is where I fit in. I have known of the existence of *chan, SA, etc. but they were not my cup of tea. I knew of Scientology prior to 2008, but as nothing more than some weird cult that took all your money. Dianetics seemed like a seperate thing. Come january, the Tom Cruise video created a bit of talk. nothing special, until the “Message to Scientology” video and followup. I somehow found my way to partyvan.info and the rest is history.

Comment by Ole Hansen — March 31, 2008 @ 3:03 pm

Great points by all, and in no way did I wish to pigeonhole or typecast anyone, but I would like the mainstream media to see that like any species, there may be sub-species with the whole group.

While my titles and distinctions may be rudimentary and crude, they are as I see them in my mind. I have tried hard from a sociological aspect to understand Anonymous which is why I often refer to it as a phenomena more than anything else.

Others, more intelligent than myself, have also seen it this way too.

Please forgive me for any oversimplifications I may have committed.

Comment by D — March 31, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

This is great #16, in some way I was hoping to get a finer more sophisticated definition for the groups, despite the intense desire to avoid it.

The media needs things defined in specific terms, or they are unable to discern any differences. Truth be told, we have short attention spans.

Comment by D — March 31, 2008 @ 3:37 pm

I think your descriptions are accurate enough for Joe Public to “figure Anonymous out” and make distinctions. It may, however, be important to note that being part of one of these “Anonymous Subsets” does not require or result in exclusivity in the remaining “subsets”. I’m sure there are those who are types 1 and 2. Those that are 2 and 3. Those that are all three. The generalizations are good to keep your head straight, but I’d say every individual Anonymous member is its own individual subset that contributes and reacts to the “hive mind’s” consensus.

I think it all boils down to intentions. One part of your brain would have you eating all the delicious high calorie caek you could stomach while the another part would have you opt for dry tuna and crackers and a steady regimen of exercise. While still another part would have you strangle your boss for making you work overtime which is at odds with another part that has a good work ethic and wants to help.

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — March 31, 2008 @ 4:05 pm

In thinking about the walking contradiction that is Anonymous and your segmentation of them(us), I’d say (spurred by your [DAWN’S] article) that Anonymous is the living embodiment of Freud’s “Psychic Apparatus”:

The Id manifests itself in the form of the Anonymous who attack epileptic message boards acting off some primal deep rooted desire for, what else: lulz. Because the Id is a lusty beast, it’s undertakings are often not aligned with society’s morals. But sometimes the Id finds good causes rather lulzy (see Chris Forcand) and persues them as well. This Anonymous started the current CoS v. Anon conflict and still has some representatives in it for better or worse as few as they may be.

The Superego Anonymous is the Old Guard/ARS and those of Anonymous with strong moral compasses that have fallen in step behind them. These are the “MORALFAGS” that the Id Anonymous dislike and seek to distance themselves from. These Anonymous take up the banner of Sweet Justice and will likely tell you to stay on target if the lulz prove to be too much of a distraction from toppling some evil entity or another. Namely the CoS.

The Ego takes the form of the levity injecting yet mostly morally upstanding Anonymous. This Anonymous does right for the most part but still finds the lulz in some socially unacceptable places. Seeking to find a balance between the Id Anonymous and Superego Anonymous, the Ego Anonymous will fight the good fight while humming Rick Astley. Or, he’ll get bored and spend a few hours making lolcats or shooping things onto Dakota Fanning’s face.

I’d say Anonymous past, present, and future will loosely fall into these categories with most of them being Ego Anons that fluctuate between Id and Superego, seeking balance.

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — March 31, 2008 @ 5:01 pm

@ Ron Newman #2

Hey dude. A quick question, please correct me if I’m wrong. I was on another comment page and noticed how when someone gave a shout out to the “texas fags”, you thought it was an insult to gay people. Then on this page I read that you’ve been involved with some form of the Anonymous groups since 1994. That phrase is not new. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t make sense to me that you didn’t know what that meant and people had to explain it to you but you’ve been “involved” since 94.

Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2008 @ 5:52 pm

A comment from someone who’s a bit of an outsider to all this, so I hope I’m allowed…

Don’t you think y’all are overthinking this just a wee bit? I mean, come on…

You’re anonymous. You’re a great big group of people. Like any great big group of people, some are going to be troublemakers and some are going to be hyper-committed and some are going to be marginal and some are going to be lulzy and some are going to be serious and some aren’t going to fit into any categories. It’s called differing personalities. But the thing in common is that all y’all want to make sure the word gets out about the CoS.

Why should the CoS send anyone to try and dismantle or rattle or make problems for anons? You guys are doing a great job of doing that to yourselves. The CoS is probably sitting back clapping its fat little hands with glee, watching y’all try to define yourselves, snipping amongst yourselves, and nitpicking stuff that in the end doesn’t really mean anything. They don’t have to do anything, you’re doing their job for them.

There are anons who are doing really stupid things and they aren’t representative of the body as a whole. They need a kick in the butt. Okay, got it. Moving on.

Comment by k — March 31, 2008 @ 6:02 pm

@k

I agreed with your first paragraph. We definately are a big group of very different people. But to ask “Why should the CoS send anyone to try and dismantle or rattle or make problems for anons?” it makes me feel like maybe you aren’t aware of all the maddening things they create. They don’t ever stop.

I could go so far into their crimes, operations, black PR war, and abuses against people but I won’t. If you really want to learn this, you can look it up on your own. May I suggest reading the OSA leaks off of Wiki leaks. I read that recently and it blew my mind the lengths the COS is willing to go to. And I’m not saying Ron is doing this. But I’m curious. But the SCi Tie have put their people here just to create confusion, give false information and just to simply inject some kind of chaos. They really are that mad.

Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2008 @ 6:21 pm

p.s. I thought I had asked Ron that question very nicely.

Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2008 @ 6:39 pm

@ 21

Ron, on this comment board, is likely talking about ARS. He’s likely been a CoS critic on ARS (and in protest) since 94. The “Anonymous vs CoS” in its current form started in January of 2008 in response to the TC video being yanked from YouTube. The “Old Guard” and those fighting CoS since the 90’s (as mentioned in Dawn’s article as being part of “Group 1″) typically refers to a collection of high profile ex members and critics like Zinj, WBM, Arnie Lerma, Bob Minton (you’re missed, buddy), Magoo, Andreas (OCMB) and the like. This fight was started long ago by them and the members of ARS when they started spreading CoS materials and CoS’ devil woman lawyer tried to remove the ARS newsgroup.

@ 22 (K)

Agreed…I was just bored and thought Dawn’s explanation sounded a little like Freud’s psychic apparatus. I personally don’t like being lumped in with the immoral attacks at the hands of other Anonymous members, but I expect to be judged by my personal actions as I would judge others. Same goes for Scientologists. I’ve said countless times that the intentions of the members are right but, at what point, does the end not justify the means.

One big revamp to CoS policy might be to have the group dynamic redefined to mean the Human Race and not just Scientologists. We might see an end to at least some of the abuses then, right? Of course, from my understanding of the texts, those 2.0 and below on the tone scale might not even qualify as being part of the Human Race…especially if they aren’t easily indoctrinated. Then we what? Dispose of them silently and without sorrow, right Terryeo? Right, BGodley? If I’m misunderstanding something here, explain, please. However, I spent years as an English major and, while Hubbard’s writing is atrocious, I think I caught his meaning.

As a side note, Terryeo, why, when you have recently sported the “don’t you guys have anything better to do?” attitude, can you be seen commenting on just about every new Scientology story out there? Honestly answer me this: Is your moniker used by several Scientologists to make pro-CoS statements or are you employed to run internet damage control for the CoS? If no to both, how can you be instructing people to “get a life” as it were. Perhaps you’re unaware how many Anonymous there are. There only seems to be one Terryeo (aside from obvious fakes) and he seems to be telling people on SEVERAL threads, ironically enough, to “get a life”.

Yep.

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — March 31, 2008 @ 6:47 pm

@ Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend’s Back!

Thank you, that makes sense. Much appreciation!

Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

#23: Maybe you don’t know me. I cowrite this site with Dawn. I’ve read what she’s posted, she and I have talked, I’ve been privy to the radio shows, and I’ve done my own independent research. So perhaps you can stop assuming I don’t know what is going on?

MY point is that if an organization, however loosely-knit, is arguing amongst themselves, the person they are fighting against just has to stand back and let it implode. Why should the CoS send someone to destroy anon, when anons can do it on their own?

So…stop squabbling about pittances and focus.

Comment by k — March 31, 2008 @ 7:11 pm

Agreed…I was just bored and thought Dawn’s explanation sounded a little like Freud’s psychic apparatus. I personally don’t like being lumped in with the immoral attacks at the hands of other Anonymous members, but I expect to be judged by my personal actions as I would judge others.

Agreed.

Comment by k — March 31, 2008 @ 7:15 pm

Yes, I’ve been involved in anti-Scientology activity since 1994, though not that much in recent years. I’ve never called someone a “fag” and don’t recall any of the other people that I worked with using this insult either. We should be reaching out to gay people, not insulting them this way.

Comment by Ron Newman — March 31, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

And if you’re curious what I was doing back then, here’s my old web site on the subject:

http://www.thecia.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html

Sorry for all the broken links — it’s been more than 10 years since I last maintained it. But it will give you some idea how “Scientology vs. the Internet” started.

Comment by Ron Newman — March 31, 2008 @ 8:01 pm

I, for one, am pleased to see Dawn make a responsible statement. I completely agree with Dawn’s analysis of three divisions. The Anonymous title was preemptively taken by the third group. For good or ill, all that follows has and will carry that stigma.

If you intend legitimate and legal actions, it would behoove you to de-stigmatize yourself. Possibly by taking another name.

The situation is not greatly different from a large group who enter a museum. Within the group are several criminals who stole from the museum and who announce that they are members of the group.

Comment by Terryeo (yes, that one) — March 31, 2008 @ 8:47 pm

@Ron: Someone on SA said the fag monniker started as follows:

The phrase “I’m gay for [SOMETHINGYOULIKE]”–I saw this on an episode of the Simpsons, where Bart and Lisa eventually ended up saying stuff like
“You’re gay!”
“No you’re gay!”
“You’re gay for ___”
“Yeah, well, you’re gay for the moleman!”
(And then the moleman (which is just some guy with a funny-shaped head), sadly, “No one’s gay for the moleman…”

A lot of memes start as funny phrases from cartoons, such as Sexual Harassment Panda (South Park) and the phrase “This makes me a saaaaad panda. :(” Memes are, in essence, taking something that’s funny and repeating it over and over again until it stops being funny (re: Chuck Norris).

So, for example, a House /b/tard (someone who goes on 4chan’s /b/) would say, “gay for [subject]”, as in, “I’m gay for House. House is totally awesome.”

And eventually that got shortened into [subjectfag], as in, “I’m a Housefag. Did any other Housefags else see the latest episode? lolCameron.”

I dunno if it’s true or anything, and of course there’s still the “hey you fags!” usage (almost exclusively used within the group, and not to outsiders). You can kinda see evidence of this in current usage, where people go, “Britfags” or “Ausfags”, in reference to themselves and with no actual homophobia.

There’s also “Scifags”, of course, but really, no one’s going to type out “Scientologists” every time and the alternate usage is “Scilon” for those who aren’t into the -fag suffixes, and no one’s ever implied that Scilons (too looooooong to write it all out) were actually gay and should be treated poorly for it (ribbing Tom Cruise or John Travolta for their sexuality is done because it’s funny, not for any other reason).

I don’t know if this explanation is true or anything, but the guy who posted it presented it as fact, and it seems plausible enough.

Also, re: Anonymous

The problem with Anonymous is that, well, it’s anonymous and you’ll never really know who’s who–but there’s a lot of lurkers too. There are people who go on XChan but not YChan, who look at /X/ but not /Y/, who like /X/ and /Y/ but never go on /i/, etc. You’re allowed to pick and choose, and no matter what you pick, you’re still part of it. There are people who are shy and don’t post, don’t join in on raids or pranks, but they lurk and watch and keep an eye on what’s going on. They’re Anonymous too, and the only way to separate them from the other people is to approach “punishment” on an individual basis.

It’s like being a college student, where the individual subforums are majors and you’re just one person, and the entire school is one chan. You can be an English major or a History major, or a Computer Science major.

And it’s like the CS majors suddenly pulling a major, albeit mean-spirited prank and now your English club’s protest thing is being lumped in with what the CS majors did because the news said your school’s students did it, not that some guys in some club in some group you never talk to did it, so you get a share of the blame you didn’t deserve and suddenly all your friends are saying,

“What if the police arrest us? What if people say we aren’t legit because of what they did? How were we supposed to do anything about it? What if the guys we’re protesting tells everyone about what they did, and we get all the blame?”

It’s a complicated thing, and really, this “inner conflict” will die down when the media and authorities realize that no, really, we’re not an organization and they have just as much a right to the name “Anonymous” as we do, and we can’t stop them, and that everyone else is perfectly willing to go after them for what they do if they’ll leave us alone.

I’m not too worried about it, but I’d like for people to stop bitching about a name change. We don’t need a name change.

Also @21:

The first of the *chans started in 02-04, I don’t exactly remember. He’s not understanding what “version” of anonymous we’re talking about–ie, the Internet Hate Machine/sewer of the internet/rule 34 is my bitch group that goes by Anonymous.

Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2008 @ 8:51 pm

By “chans” are you referring to IRC channels?

Comment by Ron Newman — March 31, 2008 @ 8:59 pm

I have made a personal decision to not post on your site but after reading this particular article I felt compelled to offer something.

And before the rest of the crowd start to dogpile, I am not a plant, a seed or any such thing. I am a concerned Scientologist who has spent a portion of my free time addressing misconceptions about the church.

I am afraid that opinion can breed opinion or affect opinion. I have researched much including all the key critic sites and I can definitely say there is quite a bit of opinion floating around. Opinion does not guarantee truth, never has, never will. I think anyone with any defining logic would agree with that statement.

Now, to the point at hand.

You stated:

“I guess to put it in perspective, there are good and bad elements of any mass of people. Should we hold ALL Muslims responsible for the actions of a few? Certainly not. Should we assume all Scientologists are bad, because we know some who are? That would be unfair. Essentially, I would encourage the media to attempt to distinguish between those elements who wish to stage peaceful, legal and compassion-driven protests, from the handful of common-sense challenged cyber-bullies who get their kicks from being cruel.”

Your statement is quite far reaching and I agree with most of it. I agree that all groups have had to deal with an unethical few. The problem with Anonymous is that they have no organization in which to deal with the transgressions of any of those that call themselves such.

What they are learning is what all groups in the history of groups has learned, people will join without the best of intentions. This is why all groups have some method of handling the deviants.
You can’t survive as a group if you don’t. I am afraid that Anonymous will suffer the same fate of all groups who could not address this trouble. This unfortunatley will probably not be the last immoral act done in their name. That is the nature of being with, connecting with, and working with such individuals.

The Church of Scientology does have a system for dealing with the small percentage of folks who upset and cause trouble for the group and other individuals. The main part of that system offers a personal ethics technology to handle things and take responsibility for what one has done. We all screw up and there are few saints where I live. If the individual is beyond taking responsibility for any violation of the moral code of the group than that individual risks being kicked out.

Now to the crux of my point. The church has had unethical individuals in it’s organization in the past. One such example was with the small band that undertook the only action where Scientology staff members in the US were criminally charged with anything. The prosecutor of the case affirmed that this group was operating autonomously and the actions were not known about by the bulk of the church and even L. Ron Hubbard himself. This was a mistake in all senses. However, some individuals use this as some type of affirmation of wrongdoing by church officials and members still today. Included in that band were ex-Scientologist who were summarily kicked out and in turn became vehement critics.

So if there are bad in any group. How much bad is there among Sceintologists and how much bad is there among ex-Scientologists? I can guarantee you that they do not share their whole stories. They act the victim but have a hard time taking any responsibility for any unethical activity they were involved in against the church itself.

Just some points to consider when taking testimony of any ex-Scientologist. Again not that all are bad but are all of them the innocent victims they profess? Which one is which?

Any to D the author of this piece and website.

I will contend with you that you are rubbing elbows with some very unethical people in your campaign to show the evils of the church. It is not necessarily a good group to hang out with. These individuals often live in a bleak world. They will smile to your face and offer extreme fake praise which somehow doesn’t sit right. They are usurpers of energy. They will drain the very life out of you. This sounds harsh but I figured I would give it one shot to try and convey something that may prove to important to you. You may find yourself getting more and more troubled and eventually they will have you seeing evil Scientologists around every corner. I have followed your commentary and I can see something happening to your disposition.

If I am mistaken than operate as you will. If not than for your health and your peace of mind I suggest you get some distance from all these folks. I am not asking you to change your opinion necessarily. I am only trying to offer some counsel from a very unlikely source in all this.

Comment by bgodley — March 31, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

If L Ron Hubbard didn’t know about the “small band of criminals” in the Guardian’s Office, what does that say about his marriage? One of those criminals was LRH’s wife Mary Sue.

The Guardian’s Office still exists today, but is now called Office of Special Affairs. Different people, same dirty tricks.

Comment by Ron Newman — March 31, 2008 @ 9:17 pm

No. You seem fairly uninformed about the current Anonymous/channer thing, no offense, Ron.

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Chan

*chan means [identifier]chan. It’s basically a big imageboard thing that started from 2chan, a Japanese thing. Moot (a user) from SomethingAwful made 4chan a few years ago, and after a while started banning people for forum invasions/raids and posting kiddie porn (Normal Person + Anonymity + Internet = Raging Asshole, or something like that, as the phrase goes).

The users bitched about it, and then banned users ran off in standard “FINE THEN I’M GOING TO TAKE ALL MY TOYS AND PLAY IN A DIFFERENT SANDBOX, SO THERE.” fashion, making their own *chan. One was 7chan, and after that, splinter groups have splintered.

Each one is still “Anonymous”. Uh… Kirtaner or something was banned from SomethingAwful (members are called Goons, no relation to the hacker-group g00ns) for something or other. Kirtaner made and moderates one of the chans, but I don’t remember which.

Encyclopedia Dramatica is run by the *channers, linked above. It’s not actually a serious wiki, but it’s “meh” if you’re experienced at rifling through chaos to find what actually happened, and it’s chock full of catchphrases and memes that are currently being used as Shibboleths in the Anti-Scientology Anonymous. It’s not safe for work, it’s chaotic, it’s stupid in lots of places, etc, but it gives a good history of “Anonymous”.

Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2008 @ 9:18 pm

The Anonymous title was preemptively taken by the third group. For good or ill, all that follows has and will carry that stigma.

Respectfully, I submit that is true only if you allow it to carry that stigma. You do have a choice in the matter. You can choose to look at it as a bunch of hooligans, or you can choose to not let the actions of a few color the actions of the many. You can choose to look at it as perhaps there are people who might have something important to say.

Either way, you do have a choice. Words only carry around what we attach to them.

Comment by k — March 31, 2008 @ 9:22 pm

@bgodley

You don’t get it. ANONYMOUS CAN NOT DISCIPLINE ANONYMOUS. How would you?

Guy A: “Hey I did that illegal act.”
Guys B-H: “You’re a retard.”
Guy I, who was Guy A but is now someone else: “Yeah, you’re a retard.”

No one knows Guy I is really Guy A, and thus, there is nothing that can be done. Anon does not, ever, require verified information about who you are in “meatspace”, therefore, you will never be penalized by fellow anon in “meatspace” unless you really mess up.

Then what do you do? It’s a case of a “People at the Mall” organization. Someone acts up? Well, what do you do if he stops going to the mall, or he comes back and says he’s someone else (you can’t tell who they are, remember, and IP-bannings are laughably ineffective (Tor)). Someone’s being a dick? Well, what’s the other person at the mall supposed to do? He’s all the way over in the food court–he didn’t even know about the guy being a dick.

If someone does something illegal, report them to the police or the FBI. Anonymous will happily do that, and will very happily not “harbor criminals” or protect them or any of that. Anonymous has a [i]very, very[/i] tenuous grasp of loyalty, and it never applies to someone who, well, is basically pissing in the pool and wrecking it for anyone else.

We’re not joking when they say we have no leaders. We have good advice, and bad advice, and we only follow advice we agree with. The Church of Scientology can say “Do this or else we’ll remove your privileges”.

What can Anonymous say? “Do this or else we’ll be mean to you on the internet until you change your username or we forget about it?” Yeah, like THAT’S an effective thread.

If someone says, “Let’s do this stupid plan,” someone else will say, “No, that’s stupid, and here’s why.” And subsequent viewers will take BOTH posts into account before deciding what to do and how to respond. But no one’s looking for a “Big Brother”-like figure to tell them what to believe, and there’s no way to enforce discipline.

Don’t like how you’re being treated? Make a new email, make a new username, and forget about the old one. Or, hell, just leave to somewhere you like more. No one’s going to care, and no one’s going to Fair Game you (no Anon is, that is). Hell, no one’s going to notice.

Comment by Anonymous — March 31, 2008 @ 9:28 pm

Hey, thanks for writing about this. It is sad when a positive movement has a negative past, but it’s true with a number of organizations geared toward the greater good.

Comment by Bellesouth — March 31, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

To the Anonymous poster above.

If I didn’t make it clear I apologize but the fact that Anonymous can not enforce any ethical code is exactly my point.

Yes, the nature of Anonymous creates an environment where any type of individual can participate no matter if they are a choir boy or a ex-con.

My point is again is that you don’t really know who it is that you align yourself with. If you take this group’s name and consider yourself a part of that group than you share some responsibility in all actions of that group. Your only salvation in that situation is to then be able to distance yourself with no loyalty because of the anonymity you enjoy but then that would be going against the only know code you have:

We are anonymous.
We are legion.
We don’t forgive
We don’t forget
Expect Us.

By the way, the fact that you don’t forgive is also a bit telling. I would like to leave you with a quote from a famous non Scientologist. One who has earned some respect out of personal sacrifice and endeavor.

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”

Mahatma Gandhi
Indian political and spiritual leader (1869 - 1948)

Comment by bgodley — March 31, 2008 @ 11:08 pm

It’s the actions we don’t forgive, not the people.

Another interpretation of that particular phrase is that, Anonymous being the entity that it is, will never forgive, but it’s individual “members” will and do forgive.

I had a big long response to your last post BGodley but I accidentally hit ctrl-r and wiped it out. But, one of the points you would appreciate is that I thanked you for such a levelheaded post regardless of the fact that I disagreed with a lot of what you said.

Hopefully open communication can be achieved soon. A lot of understanding would come from that..

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — March 31, 2008 @ 11:16 pm

bgodley,

I just read your comment and I am pondering what you have said. On one hand I am very suspicious of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, but your sentiments are..well I’m not sure, let’s just say I appreciate your effort to express yourself to me in a thoughtful and non-accusatory way. It shows you have read what I have written and understand to a certain degree my nature.

But two corrections, I am only 1 of 2 authors of this site. k being the second, together “we” are the site.
Though with me running rough shod over the content you wouldn’t know

As for the “fake praise” statement. Any and all praise I receive is of little or no consequence to me at the end of the day. While it’s nice to hear, and I prefer it over criticism, it isn’t what motivates me. Doing the right thing motivates me. I am no moral compass on anything, that is for certain, but I feel compelled to assert what little power and influence I have in this effort to help people who have been hurt.

bgodley, I don’t begrudge you your experiences if they are positive, I SWEAR it with all the sincerity I can convey, but I know people who’ve been deeply hurt by the Church. Jean Marie, Tory, Arnie and several others who shall remain unnamed. I have grown to care about the well-being of these people and those they love. They matter to me now and their perception has become my reality. They were hurt, and in some cases damaged beyond repair.

I couldn’t face MY divine being if I walked away and turned my back.

I hope you understand. I don’t want to hurt you or anyone else.

I also want to say the Anons I interact with *personally* offer nothing but real and genuine appreciation. I trust them. This isn’t something I give freely.

Good luck bgodley, I hope you stick around the site and help balance things out. We only want to help.

Comment by D — March 31, 2008 @ 11:23 pm

@ BGodley

I’ll attempt to reconstruct my post and hopefully I won’t fat-finger it this time. The original was better and well thought out, this one will just hit the main points…

I am afraid that opinion can breed opinion or affect opinion. I have researched much including all the key critic sites and I can definitely say there is quite a bit of opinion floating around. Opinion does not guarantee truth, never has, never will. I think anyone with any defining logic would agree with that statement.

Testimony is not opinion. It is first hand experience. I’m not saying all testimonies are true, however, depositions and signed affidavits lend more credibility to said testimony.

I agree that all groups have had to deal with an unethical few.

So, you now have the opinion that Anonymous’ unethical members number in the few? Assuming you haven’t just recently arrived at this compassionate opinion of Anonymous, why, on other threads, have you (BGodley) damned Anonymous as a whole knowing the moral outweigh the immoral/amoral? Isn’t that spreading half-truths, dead agenting, in essence, fair gaming?

This unfortunatley will probably not be the last immoral act done in their name. That is the nature of being with, connecting with, and working with such individuals.

The name Anonymous is not ours. It is a word that belongs to the English language. Everyone is Anonymous before you meet them. And, even after that, if they so choose to take up that persona. That being said and, to your point, Anonymous can be easily infiltrated and have all manner of evil deeds carried out in our name. Where Anonymous differs from the CoS is in the fact that most of us will readily admit, while not aware of or a party to them, that the recent epilepsy board attacks were likely members of Anonymous and not some plant. We can accept that there are those bad seeds among us and most, myself included, welcome investigations into and punishments for those who were responsible for the attacks. Now, with THAT being said, is it not possible that there are bad seeds in the CoS who are resonsible for the allegations being leveled at it?

The Church of Scientology does have a system for dealing with the small percentage of folks who upset and cause trouble for the group and other individuals. The main part of that system offers a personal ethics technology to handle things and take responsibility for what one has done.

Various governments have this system in place, too. It is their function to investigate, judge, and punish, not the Church’s. To my previous point, is it possible that the hypothetical bad seeds in the CoS might be in control of your justice system? And, what about Kha Khans? The high producing, upstat (see salespeople), staff members who can “get away with murder”? That isn’t justice.

Now to the crux of my point. The church has had unethical individuals in it’s organization in the past. One such example was with the small band that undertook the only action where Scientology staff members in the US were criminally charged with anything. The prosecutor of the case affirmed that this group was operating autonomously and the actions were not known about by the bulk of the church and even L. Ron Hubbard himself.

It stands to reason that an operation of Op Snow White and PC Freakout poportions being carried out in the name of Scientology from within it’s walls and literally right under the nose of it’s founder, could happen again. And, it also stands to reason, that if a bad seed gained control of the CoS, this would not only be allowed but easy and likely wouldn’t be common knowledge. Would you hypothetically agree with that?

This was a mistake in all senses. However, some individuals use this as some type of affirmation of wrongdoing by church officials and members still today.

It’s used to establish a modus operandi. Oftentimes an organization’s/individuals track record is called into question to show the plausibility of the present day charges. This isn’t anything new. And, when the CoS dissolves the GO, renames it, shuffles a few members to new positions, and fires a few scapegoats, the plausibility and probability increases. This reform was cosmetic at best.

I can guarantee you that they do not share their whole stories.

I can guarantee that the above hypothetical bad seeds wouldn’t share their whole stories, either. Would you hypothetically agree?

Just some points to consider when taking testimony of any ex-Scientologist. Again not that all are bad but are all of them the innocent victims they profess? Which one is which?

Who cares which is which when they all say the same thing. Let’s just believe whoever the honest ones are and move on to third party investigations already. It would be in both our best interests. If nothing is found, Anonymous can stop wasting it’s time and CoS can go on clearing the planet. If something is found, and you are the good Scientologist that I believe most of you to be, the bad will be removed from your church and you can reform and go on clearing the planet. Win/win don’t you think?

I will contend with you that you are rubbing elbows with some very unethical people in your campaign to show the evils of the church. It is not necessarily a good group to hang out with. These individuals often live in a bleak world. They will smile to your face and offer extreme fake praise which somehow doesn’t sit right. They are usurpers of energy. They will drain the very life out of you. This sounds harsh but I figured I would give it one shot to try and convey something that may prove to important to you. You may find yourself getting more and more troubled and eventually they will have you seeing evil Scientologists around every corner. I have followed your commentary and I can see something happening to your disposition.

I won’t launch into the diatribe I had on this section as Dawn can and has stepped up for herself and who she rubs elbows with. But, you were doing good up until this point. You contradicted yourself…

If I am mistaken than operate as you will. If not than for your health and your peace of mind I suggest you get some distance from all these folks. I am not asking you to change your opinion necessarily. I am only trying to offer some counsel from a very unlikely source in all this.

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — April 1, 2008 @ 12:22 am

I think the article serves as a pretty good “primer” for people who are completely unfamiliar with the whole Anonymous thing.

To put a bit of a finer point on it (especially in response to bgodley), there isn’t even any “group”, as such. The name “Anonymous” is more of a long-running inside joke. The fact that various media outlets, in reporting on the issue, have referred to it as a “group” doesn’t change the fact that it is, in fact, a bunch of individuals and not a “group” with any sort of structure, membership, or leadership.

You can’t even really say that the people who are doing stuff like the epilepsy forum raids are “bad apples within the group”, because -there is no group-. They are acting “anonymously”, but that doesn’t make them any more related to the anti-CoS people than it does to the original writer of “Beowulf”.

Comment by Sue Donym — April 1, 2008 @ 12:34 am

One additional point:

No one can “speak for” or “act on behalf of” “Anonymous”. They can act anonymously, but for someone to claim that they are speaking for everyone anonymous is like saying that when it rains, there’s a lead raindrop that directs the others where to go. The closest thing to “organization” that occurs within these sub-communities (of which the whole Chanology thing is one) is a sort of social consensus, (ie. “Don’t be a moron and make illegal threats”).

Comment by Sue Donym — April 1, 2008 @ 12:38 am

You’re not getting it.

Anonymous IS NOT an organization. It’s just a name. A free name that anyone can use. All these posts? All this “PROTEST ON THIS DAY”? They’re all suggestions. None of them are requirements.

”
My point is again is that you don’t really know who it is that you align yourself with. If you take this group’s name and consider yourself a part of that group than you share some responsibility in all actions of that group. ”

You are responsible for yourself, and ONLY yourself–which means if you do something stupid, or take bad advice, it’s on your head and no one’s going to be there to bail you out if you didn’t listen to their warnings.

This isn’t a supersecret club of people who are making supersecret plans that you HAVE TO FOLLOW or you’ll be kicked out. Not really. It’s a bunch of people going, “What do you think of this idea?” and “look at what I found out!” and “hey can you check this for me?”

And there’s a community forming, and there’s communication and “organization” forming. But YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.

I’m American. I associate with Americans. Do I share responsibility for Charles Manson? Do I share responsibility for the US branch of the CoS? Am I responsible for Fair Game and Operation Freakout? Is LRon Hubbard my fault?

I associate with Americans, and when I consider myself an American, I am aligning myself with psychopaths and cults and serial killers, and I share responsibility in all actions of that group.

Is this true? Is this what you believe?

Why?

PS: Does anyone really take the “We are anonymous, we are legion, blahblahblah” creed seriously? Really?

Comment by Anonymous — April 1, 2008 @ 12:40 am

In response to the eariler communication I don’t communicate to try and impress. I say what I think and feel.

In addition, to also say “who cares which is which” in my eyes is an irresponsible thing to say. This is not some little point. There are individuals who will do all manner of things in this world. The more upset they feel, the more righteous in their deluded cause the more active they become. This issue cannot be ignored with any level of correct estimation. This campaign incites many things, the mockery, the inuendo, the ill gotten concepts. By those actions you incite things in others whether you personally desire to or not. Responsibilty is not just about what you do directly. It is also about the effects you create on others. You create things in this world whether constructive or destructive. When an individual attains the ability to say, “I created that thing” he is much more able to handle the thing. By avoiding responsibilities we continue those things which have always plagued mankind in it’s various forms whether it is prejudism, war, or even marital strife.

I will send this communication also to D. I simply do not have the time to spend discussing the finer points of this debate on all sites. I will say this. In your effort to help those ex-Scientologists you name you have to weigh in the hundreds of thousands that are still Scientologists. These individuals do not share the horror stories that these ex’s proclaim. The additional trouble is that no matter how many times I repeat this it seems this communication does not get through. Within that group there maybe some disgruntled individuals but they are allowed to leave at any time. Most Scientologists who left have never been considered persona not grata or any such thing. Only those smaller few who took their time to publicly decry the church which have overtones of a destructive nature have been labeled as unfriendly by the church.

The problem with their professions of changing the church after they left is that their accusations are often so full of twisted fact that any benevolent intention stated seems highly suspicious. They will often say or do anything to the prove their victim status. Why is it that their lives are so embroiled when other ex-Scientologists are not? Why is it that their actions or stories are often met with disbelief and disdain by run of the mill Scientologists, not just the church management that they profess to attack? If these horrors they present were the reality of the church why is it that 98% of the people don’t see all these nefarious actions? If 98% of the people haven’t experienced these things than how is it that this band of “truth tellers” is actually telling the truth.

The problem as I see it, is that they often lie. Maybe not having been a Scientologist you may not be able to spot the inconsistencies in their testimony but I have. They will also not give you the full story of working with individuals who gave every them every opportunity to address any grievances or claims. Scientologists as all individuals do make mistakes. I can guarantee there were mistakes made with some ex-Scientologists. However, it is the basic driving intention that seperates and defines. These ex’s and critics offer stories that only suggest evilness in their nature. They talk about beatings, and deprivation and brainwashing, and fraud and more. These accusations are of such a wild and varied type that they don’t even come close to describing the actual existence of what Scientology is.

In addition, to attack and ridicule without any mention of the postive things Scientologists do including church management is a telling point to their whole stories and those of other critics. In a personal note anything that I have personally done and any help I have offered is invalidated and belittled by their comments. They say they are not trying to cause this effect but the communication is insincere. They really don’t care. They truly don’t. I don’t pretend to myself that I will reach any who are hell bent on destroying my church or care little for those they hurt or upset on their way to their “nobel cause” of reaching to individuals like Tory C. I can only communicate as best as I can and take up any cause of injustice that I see. That communication will often fall on deaf ears but some will understand. I have already reached others in this way even if I don’t reach you.

Comment by bgodley — April 1, 2008 @ 1:10 am

One more note to the earlier poster.

The idea that you forgive people and not actions does not make any sense. What are you forgiving in people if not their actions, how they look? the size of their feet?

This does not hold water. If you don’t subscribe to this code than you are not anonymous and should publicy state this. If you do subscribe to the code than my earlier comments hold.

I will leave you with three more quotes from another historical figure I truly admire.

“He who knows best knows how little he knows.”

“He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”

“The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory.”

— Thomas Jefferson

Comment by bgodley — April 1, 2008 @ 1:30 am

In fairness to D, she only has to contend with tens of thousands of scientologists. Tops. Worldwide–this is based on census records and eyeball accounts of org activity. Counting everyone who’s ever taken a personality test or bought a copy of dianetics as a scientologist is just a teensy bit disingenuous.

I think the last 6 digits or so on your IAS membership card indicate what number scientologist you signed up as (and this is over the last 30 years or so–people leave, die, etc). Not sure on that trivia bit, but from the card scans I’ve seen it seems to hold up.

As for anonymous…we hold everyone PERSONALLY accountable–that is, if you do something illegal and it is discovered, its your ass reported to the federales. In that regard, Anon eats its own. The group cannot be held accountable because, well, its not a group. Most people calling themselves anon have zero idea or participation in what most others do.

I know that concept of organization (such as it is) runs utterly counter to the philosophy of the CoS, but hey, its how we roll. Is it something that will last the test of time? Hell no! Anonymous as a collective doesn’t remain the same hour to hour, let alone day to day or year to year.

The clusters, the spinoffs, the “subsets”–they sometimes have some staying power and last. How long? Who’s to say? Even then, they change.

Chaos is not something that is bad. It is not something good either. It just is. It was chaos that gave us penicillin–random chance. Chaos can also determine who dies on a battlefield.

Oh, and one more thing: if you’re taking any part of this seriously, you’re doing it wrong.

Comment by Anonymous — April 1, 2008 @ 2:09 am

This isn’t an isolated event - it isn’t the first time the hooligans at 7chan instigated an attack on epilepsy forums. They do it periodically. I issued a press release ( http://www.pr.com/press-release/60959 ) after they attacked CWE ( http://www.coping-with-epilepsy.com/ ) last November. They have attacked the NSE forums ( http://www.epilepsyforum.org.uk/ ) several times over the last couple years.

Comment by cwe — March 31, 2008 @ 2:16 pm

I’ve seen this posted on a few blogs, is this statemnent by cwe some more fair-gaming?

Comment by bob dobbs — April 1, 2008 @ 5:27 am

bgodley..
1. Thank you for your comments, the best I’ve seen so far from a scientologist though I do not agree with a lot of what you stated. At least you stayed on topic. Unfortunately your suggestion that poeple who go by the name of anonymous should “organize” will not happen becuase at that point they will be :fair game” in every sense of the word.
2. How many “victims” does it take, really, for something to be credible. Really I want to know just how many ex scientologist does it take to tell their stories for a problem to be seen as to exist. Are they all liars? For every one that has the courage to stand up how many more are too afraid or just want the whole sordid thing to go away, to forget it ever happened. While it is true that some of what they say may be embellished as they are human after all and thus have their own unique point of view there are far too many stories, too many similar events to dismiss it as simply being dissatisfied or disgruntled former members. This is true of any organization who seek to discredit the whistleblowers but in the end there is truth in what they say and only a thorough open investigation of the CoS where people can truly speak without fear of reprisal will the wheat ever be sorted out from the shaft. Key words SPEAK FREELY AND FEAR OF REPRISALS. And unfortunately at this point an internal investigation will not be enough due to the number of possible and alleged criminal activities within the CoS.
3. “I can only communicate as best as I can and take up any cause of injustice that I see. That communication will often fall on deaf ears but some will understand. I have already reached others in this way even if I don’t reach you.” Your own words. Well said but these apply to the other side of the coin just as well and maybe more since most of what has come from the CoS up to this point has not been reliable nor credible from my point of view.
4. I truly wish you well if you were sincere in your remarks above. I do not speak for all those anonymous and they don’t speak for me. However, my opinion is that the propensity of the evidence is not in the CoS favor at this point and I remain skeptical but open minded though doubtful.

Comment by Mitsu Too — April 1, 2008 @ 6:27 am

bgodley,

I am quite disappointed in myself. Here I go proclaiming my ability to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to well-intentioned people. Just when open myself to your comments because of my own compassion, then you dismiss me. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, well you know it goes.

What this tells me perhaps is instead of remaining open-minded I must harden myself to the whispers from all sorts of poorly-intentioned people who provoke me with words of wisdom, only to suck me in and spit in my face (figuratively of course.)

Look, there are several things you said which sound not just off, but false.

As an Anon mentioned above, there are NOT hundreds of thousands of active CoS members to contend with. I will be fair and say maybe there are 100 thousand and that’s being REALLY generous. Every one I have spoken to who was “entrenched” deeply in this organization and who leaves, is damaged. Every single one. Without exception. I have talked to or interacted with in the course of the last three months about 300 - 400 ex-Scientologists in one form or another.

Those are just the ones willing to talk. Just recently, someone whom I consider a pretty good friend now, read his disconnection letter. It wasn’t made up, it was real. As long as disconnection exists in ANY FORM AT ALL, I can’t stop fighting the CoS.

Disconnection is the most vile, evil and cruel policy I have ever contemplated forced on a group. Sick and twisted.

What do you say about this policy bgodley?

Comment by D — April 1, 2008 @ 7:44 am

@bgodley,

If everything is so wonderful in Scientology why is David Miscavige’s own family speaking against it?

Love your religion all you want. I love my religion and hate my church for the hypocrisy’s and atrocities it has committed. But by continuing to try and deny the crimes that the upper levels of Co$ are committing only continues to add to the stereotype of the members being brainwashed and hypnotized.

And yes we forgive people. We forgave Tory Magoo and welcomed her with our arms wide open to give her the love, friendship, and support she needed after she blew and was disconnected. We will do the same things with Mary DeMoss and Mike Rinder, and any other Scientologist that blows and loses everyone that they thought loved them because of Co$’s disconnection policy. and even if they never feel able to cross to our side and just want to be left alone in order to try recover from the abuses that the fair game policy will most certainly heap upon them, our support is still there for them.

What we will not forgive is the policy of disconnection. The policy of fair game. Lisa McPherson. Rorschach’s cat Mudkips. Child abuse in the Sea Org. Paulette Cooper. The lies. The fraud. The cruelty. The murders. The list goes on and on.

If you are one of the Co$ members that is honestly good and has not been taken advantage of then congratulations and I wish you all the best on your path to Clear if you have not all ready attained it. But your arguments are not winning Scientology any bonus points.

Comment by Anonygirl — April 1, 2008 @ 10:32 am

@48 BGodley

Forgiving the person but not the actions is a foreign concept to you? It doesn’t hold water? Let’s say, when you were growing up, your father was an alcoholic who hit you a few times. Finally, one day, he realized what he was doing and sought help. He apologized profusely and you forgave him but you condemn what he did. Those acts and what he did to you are held in contempt but you still love your father and you forgive him FOR his mistakes but not the mistakes themselves. They can leave scars. Make sense?

Also, your “if you don’t subscribe to this creed you’re not Anonymous” comment is bunk. Anonymous, again (talk about communication falling on deaf ears), is NOT a club with rules and creeds that have to be followed. There’s a loose set of “rules” that I’ve seen broken and have broken several times. Keep in mind, these are not moral rules I’m talking about, but more like the rules of Fight Club. So, of all people and, in all fairness, you really shouldn’t be saying who is and isn’t Anonymous. Hell, you’re Anonymous just for the fact that we don’t really know who you are…

On to the good stuff:

I’ve got one for you, BGodley, using your own words (and I hope I’m not playing into your “we’re paid by psychs” theory here):

I will send this communication also to [BGodley]. I simply do not have the time to spend discussing the finer points of this debate on all sites.

I will say this. In your effort to help those [negatively affected by psych treatment,] you have to weigh in the [millions] that are still [positively affected by psych treatment]. These individuals do not share the horror stories that these [negatively affected ex patients] proclaim.

The additional trouble is that no matter how many times I repeat this it seems this communication does not get through. Within that group there maybe some disgruntled individuals but they are allowed to [stop treatment] at any time. Most [patients] who [stopped treatment] have never been considered persona not grata or any such thing.

Only those smaller few who took their time to publicly decry the [psych industry] which have overtones of a destructive nature have been labeled as unfriendly by the [industry, however, they are entitled to their opinion and, under protection of the constitution of the United States, are allowed to speak it. So, the only thing that remains to quell the negative opinion is to be as transparent as possible and reform practices because, afterall, psych(ology, iatry) is not an exact science like Dianetics is, right? I mean the failure rate of Dianetic Counseling/Auditing when compared to the number of people exposed to it is nil when compared to the monster that is the psych industry, right?].

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — April 1, 2008 @ 10:54 am

@25 who said: “One big revamp to CoS policy might be to have the group dynamic redefined to mean the Human Race and not just Scientologists.” - Hubbard’s division of the areas of life were Self, Family, Groups, Mankind (the human race). “The Group Dynamic” that you address would be any group, Glosslip writers, Boy Scouts, Anonymous, or Scientologists. Whereas there is but one forth dynamic. But if you want to reverse that sequence, that is up to you.

@25 who said: “…those 2.0 and below on the tone scale might not even qualify as being part of the Human Race”. It always bothers me to see that someone misunderstands a plain statement. The Human Race, any dictionary will tell you, is composed of human people, do you see how that follows? Said another way, people are people, no matter what their tone level. When you create a misunderstanding like this for yourself, the most likely reason is a misunderstood word; a just previous, misunderstood word. Possibly “groups”. And no part of the Hubbard’s writing suggests that mankind rid himself of any part of the human race.

@25 – Because of your frequent misunderstandings while holding tight to the idea that your misunderstanding is not your responsibility, but Hubbard’s, I’m not going to relieve your urge to understand how ‘terryeo’ is be a commonly used editing identity, but have a nice day anyway. Oh, the Lulz!

@53 - That happens because Miscavige’s family is individual. And because Miscaviage doesn’t suppress her right to publish her opinion.

Comment by Terryeo — April 1, 2008 @ 11:24 am

“who said: “…those 2.0 and below on the tone scale might not even qualify as being part of the Human Race”. It always bothers me to see that someone misunderstands a plain statement.”

You’re so right Terryeo. I hate it when people misinterpret statements, like the statement below:

“The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes.
The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered.
It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line–a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred–or simply quarantining them from the society. A venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.”

– L. Ron Hubbard, Science of Survival, Book I, Chapter 27 (Column Y: Method Used By Subject To Handle Others), page 157

Su-per-slam!

Comment by Anonymous — April 1, 2008 @ 12:33 pm

@ Terryeo

I was just saying that, if so many people are outraged and so many ex members are telling of abuses, what of the Mankind dynamic? If that’s the top of the line, why the abuses? Why the outrage? I know why. Because you believe you’re saving mankind and the only way to achieve that is with Scientology. So, consequently, by furthering the Church’s goals, you’re furthering mankind. This “ends justifies the means” attitude is a great way to absolve yourselves of responsibility, isn’t it?

My only misunderstanding is in how you can continue to spin this drivel time after time. I understand the English language. And, sorry, not everything that is true for you should be true for you. There are absolute truths in this world that are not open to interpretation and perspective. But then, I should expect that from a lot that don’t believe children need to go to school because they already know everything.

You couldn’t even answer a simple question simply:

Because of your frequent misunderstandings while holding tight to the idea that your misunderstanding is not your responsibility, but Hubbard’s, I’m not going to relieve your urge to understand how ‘terryeo’ is be a commonly used editing identity, but have a nice day anyway. Oh, the Lulz!

In your attempt to talk circles around an answer and try desperately to convey your pompus sense of over-inflated self worth (translation: you come across as a condescending, egotistical prick) you a) spent an entire paragraph to say “A lot of people use “Terryeo”, not all are from me” and b) included an awful, grammatical error: “is be a”? Way to go, Einstein.

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — April 1, 2008 @ 1:25 pm

@ Terryeo RE: 56’s comment

Let’s examine what kind of people are 2.0 and lower on the wonderful tone scale:

Some of these make sense and some don’t, but none warrant deletion from society. None should be disposed of silently and without sorrow.

2.0 Antagonism - Make sure you stay neutral, Sweden
1.9 Hostility - Ever seen the bullbaiting videos?
1.8 Pain - Huh? I can’t feel pain? Ever?
1.5 Anger - Again, the bullbaiting videos?
1.4 Hate - Bull. Baiting. Videos.
1.3 Resentment - We’re splitting hairs, this is the same as anger

1.2 No sympathy - I guess I didn’t understand: silently and without sorrow

1.15 Unexpressed resentment - Don’t bottle it up!
1.1 Covert hostility - Because open hostility is better!

1.02 Anxiety - Stage fright? GTFO.
1.0 Fear - OSA holding a gun to your head? Scared? You just gave em justification to pull the trigger.

0.98 Despair - This, by official definition is the SAME as hopelss. Someone went crazy with a thesaurus when they drew this up.

0.96 Terror - More split hairs. Fear, terror, toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.

0.94 Numb - I assume they mean emotionally. If not, I’m never going to the dentist again.

0.9 Sympathy - So, sympathy is lower than no sympathy? And hate? And hostility? How charitable can you be without sympathy?

0.8 Propitiation - I guess Jesus was not only a pedophile but a 0.8 on the tone scale too.

0.5 Grief - Don’t cry for me, Argentina. No, really, don’t.

0.375 Making amends - Really? So, you don’t want the “I’m sorry” quilt I made you?

0.3 Undeserving - Of what? Don’t you say the CoS is undeserving of the criticism it’s received?

0.2 Self-abasement - So, don’t beat yourself up, got it.

0.1 Victim - What? Really? The CoS has been crying victim for years.

0.07 Hopeless - If I were you, I’d opt for despair…it’s a .98

0.05 Apathy - I have no feelings on this one.
0.03 Useless - Wow. Isn’t that a matter of perspective? Useless to who? CoS?

0.01 Dying - Luckily, you’re dying so, we don’t have to kill you. We are all dying from the day we’re born, guys.

0.0 Body death - Pesky body death.
-0.01 Pity - So, pity is worse than being dead?! No more free drinks for my broke friends then.

-0.02 Shame - Don’t feel bad about your black ops, they might delete you

-0.07 Accountable - Uhm, so being responsible is also worse than death?

-1.0 Blame - I’m confused. Are you blaming or being blamed here?

-1.3 Regret - I wish I hadn’t eaten so much chinese food last night.

-1.5 Controlling bodies - Like a necromancer?
-2.2 Protecting bodies - Like a coffin?
-3.0 Owning bodies - Uhm? This bodies talk is beyond creepy.

-3.5 Approval from bodies - So, a thumbs up is no good?

-4.0 Needing bodies - Does wanting someone’s body count?

-5.0 Worshipping bodies - OK, enough.
-6.0 Sacrifice - What would you call working 40+ hours a week for less than minimum wage?

-8.0 Hiding - Really? What was L Ron doing the last few years of his life after he was CONVICTED?

-10.0 Being objects - Don’t posess that phonebook after you die.

-20.0 Being nothing -
-30.0 Can’t hide - Hiding, can’t hide. WTF?!
-40.0 Total failure - Again, to who? The CoS?

-9000+ EPIC FAIL - CoS, welcome to the bottom of the scale

OK, I added the last one…

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — April 1, 2008 @ 2:15 pm

Anon, Anon My Boyfriend’s Back! I think I luv U. LOL. Thank you for the run down. I have cpied it for my “Reasons why the CoS needs to reform or die file”. Thanks. And by die I do not mean in the literal sense. Wouldn’t want to be mistaken for one of those terrorist.

Comment by Mitsu Too — April 1, 2008 @ 4:14 pm

Scilon trolls seem to forget that the majority of the new critics of the CO$ have come to their conclusion from examining BOTH sides from an objective point of view. Most have had little exposure to the CO$. Through their own investigation prompted by their own motives they have found themselves aligned with the “old guard” critics and ex-sci members.

Comment by truthseeker — April 1, 2008 @ 4:59 pm

D

Maybe I said something that you took personally, that was not mine intention. Maybe you also considered my communication too harsh. My purpose is only to offer up points for consideration. Often I lack certian communication graces.

I am not saying all ex-Scientologists are ill intentioned, however I am saying not all are purely positively intentioned either. The question becomes how do you seperate the two. If many Scientologists, paritioner and staff alike, do not see these abuses, or more correctly, do not see any of the policies or procedures in the same light that these individuals do, it becomes hard to adjust their understanding to what these critics desire. Sort of like enforcing someone else’s reality on someone.

Scientologists follow a code of honor. One point of that code is to never let your affinity be alloyed. Meaning that if you care for someone or something don’t let someone else talk you out of that. This allows you a richer life in you can maintain affinities despite introduced obstacles to that affinty. Another point of the code of honor is to keep your own counsel. Here is where you operate from your understanding and evaluation of a thing. This is one reason I will never try and get a critic or ex-Scientologist to change their personal reality by brow beating them with mine. I only take up this cause as some try and affect the realities of others not just their own.

This all dove tails into another part of the philosphy which is, what is true for you is true for you.

As these datums are held by Scientologists as workable in their lives it would suggest that getting a Scientologist who does not see these evil intentions of church staff to accept this reality would be a tough sale. In other words if it isn’t true for them it isn’t true. That is part and parcel to the philosophy and you would be running up against that as a minimum. This does not give one a deluded concept of life and things, it ony allows one to be stable and hold their position when confronted with various views and situations. It lends itself to less introversion more extroversion and more causitivenss. This by the way, is also known to be a hallmark of successful people, written in books of non-Scientologists like Napolean Hill.

My true understanding and this is held by many Scientologists too, is that deep down everyone does what they do because they consider it survival.

I know that people who are critical of the church take their actions because in them they see a path to more survival. I obviously don’t agree with the actions, especially of some of the minor few, but I understand more about this stuff than when I wasn’t a Scientologist.

Deep down we are all good even if we act badly. Deep down even the harshest of criminals who takes advantages of others or creates havoc is good. He is just buried in stuff which offers very little solution other than what he does.

I know in some way that you do what you do because you think it survival. Just as I do what I do in contending with you out of those same basic instincts.

As I have mentioned in other posts the way I look at the world is not in black and white. I see value in all things and negativity in all things. The way I judge is by a gradient scale of good and bad. How much good vs how much bad and can plot that on the scale so to speak.

In the church I do not see a perfect structure. In L. Ron Hubbard’s philosophy I do not see an absolute of rightness or perfection. However, I see so much rightness and so much positiveness that it out ranks any mistakes that I have seen made. Those mistakes are however, not on the order of what some of these critics contend. Which I guess brings us back full circle to the original discussion.

As I have mentioned to many in my posts, despite the fact that I bring up this good and bad intention thing and disagree with much, I don’t hate you or any critic, even the nasty part of the Anonymous group.

I truly value your existence as I value all individuals. I only formulate a reality on what those individuals do and don’t do. I think possibly you could understand my position in that if you were faced with the mockery and antagonistic communication that I have had to deal with that you might understand some of my shortcomings as well.

I will say this one more thing. The only reason that I have not reacted even more negatively in light of what I just said is due the philosophy of Hubbard. If you knew me years ago you would understand what I say.
It is that very same philosophy that some attack which has enabled me to not antagonistically react back out of my desires to be right about the philosophy in the first place. I don’t know if that makes sense or you get the flavor of what I am trying to communicate but there it is.

Comment by bgodley — April 2, 2008 @ 12:22 am

At least you’re admitting that the “tech” makes you resistant to the idea that Bad Stuff Goes On. Its good to know that this is the case and that most of you guys aren’t knowningly and actively defending abuses because you’re a party to them–just that you’re very committed to the Ostrich Stance of debate.

Very well.

As for why we protest–it is not for “more survival”–unless you guys start going R2-45 crazy, I sincerely doubt you’ll impact my survival rate.
However, there are those that the CoS organization IS adversely impacting the survival of. For THEM, we seek to illuminate the problems and glaring abuses of the system.

We’re protesting the organization doing business as the CoS. No anonymous–to my knowledge–has tracked down and harassed any individual scientologist. The CoS HAS, on the other hand, made it a point to identify, publicize, and harass critics. Shawn Lonsdale had his SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER plastered all over town with other personal information tacked on. An anon was followed by two scientologists with a sign listing his personal information on it at the LA protests. Several anons have reported PIs or scientologists loitering outside their residence with cameras and filming them and their home. A few have had charges levied against them that–to my knowledge–appear to be trumped up at worst and marginally actionable at ‘best.’

I’ll ask you point blank: can you honestly sit there and say—with ACTUAL honesty, not just an “acceptable truth”–that Fair Game/Gaslighting as a practice is no longer performed (in action if not by that name)? Can you actually believe that these are credible defenses against the serious claims and charges levied by the ex-scientologists, critics, and anonymous? If so on the latter–how exactly does that disprove them?

Comment by Anonymous — April 2, 2008 @ 3:21 am

@50 - No, I’m just shining a light wherever I can on the subject. Cockroaches don’t like the light, do they?

As the admin of CWE, I have first hand experience in what went down both last November and just before Easter this year. They tried to hit CWE 3 times in the week leading up to the recent NSE and EFA forum attacks.

I saved copies of the 7chan /b/ threads where the attacks were being instigated both times (ie. last November and the recent EFA strike - see http://www.vbseo.com/f106/refback-came-handy-last-night-18013/ ). Shall I post the transcripts?

This attack had nothing to do with Anon or CoS IMO. It’s just 7chan /b/tards doing what they do (over and over again). 7chan admins should stop condoning this crap and protecting the instigators IMO.

Comment by cwe — April 2, 2008 @ 11:32 am

@ BGodley RE: 61

I am not saying all ex-Scientologists are ill intentioned, however I am saying not all are purely positively intentioned either. The question becomes how do you seperate the two.

To my previous point, why does it matter which one is telling the truth if they’re all saying the same thing? If you have 10 people in a room all saying that John Doe raped them. You know 2 of them are telling the truth with the other 8 embellishing or outright fabricating, but you don’t know which. And, for the sake of argument, you know these statistics to be cold hard facts. Didn’t John Doe still rape 2 people? Do you really need to know which 2 are telling the truth before you start investigating John Doe for rape?

Meaning that if you care for someone or something don’t let someone else talk you out of that. This allows you a richer life in you can maintain affinities despite introduced obstacles to that affinty.

This very dangerously closes your mind and makes you an unreasoning individual. The “reactive mind” is NOT a bad thing. It allows you critical though and reasoning. The one thing that separates us from animals is our ability to reason. Clinging staunchly to your “affinity” in this way closes all avenues to critical thought. No one can talk you out of something. When you say “what is true for you is true for you”, examine that. If that statement is true, then no one can TALK you out of anything. If someone presents an alternate point of view, and you accept it, BAM, it’s now true for you. But with what you’ve described, alternate points of view, or at least presenting them, is frowned upon and most will simply plug their ears in the face of it. It is really sad because you all had to have been very open minded to accept Scientology in the first place but it’s turned most of you into non-critical, unreasoning, unvaried zombies, in essence.

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — April 2, 2008 @ 12:57 pm

@ CWE

To borrow a phrase, “These are not the Anonymous you seek”

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — April 2, 2008 @ 12:58 pm

The “tech” as you put it, does not make you resistant to bad things going on. The concept I mentioned has to do with actions and judgements you make in your life with regards to others. I find myself liking things in people and finding positive points that others can’t see. It doesn’t mean I don’t listen to others or don’t acknowledge things that I find for myself to be disagreeable, I just don’t let those other opinions interfere with the things and people and things in people that I like.

In terms of harrasment, lets first define it.

ha·rass
tr.v. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es

To irritate or torment persistently.
To wear out; exhaust.
To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.

No, I don’t know of any Anonymous tracking down any Scientologist and causing them trouble. However, I believe their is harrasment as in definition number one. I have personally been called a littany of names, I have had anonymous individuals use my moniker bgodley on message boards pretending to be me while saying things I wouldn’t. I have seen them use altered quotes of mine and more.

In addition, the church has received numerous antagonistic messages, death threats, etc .

I don’t remember Martin Luther King staging this type of activity when he protested and often he was confronted with individuals who would string people up in a tree.

If you want to list out somethings you think are bad fine. If you have testimony of some ex-Scientologist in which you find immoral things fine. If they have evidence of illegal actions than please take them to the authorities. But stick to the facts.

Heldal-Lund’s Xenu site is the one most often linked to as a site for “research” and on his site he states the following in his own words:

“I do not state anywhere that I am objective. On the contrary, I am a thinking human and I have my personal opinions.”

“I made a web site to inform others about my concerns. It is not unbiased or objective, and it never claimed it was. Why should it be?”

He then goes on to contradict himself:

“I do not want others to base their opinions on censored or biased propaganda.”

He says his site is basically his personal opinion but then says he does not want other to base their opinions on biased information. He states that his web site is based upon “documentation” but his “documentation” is almost all opinions written in other books or from someone’s statement. These in themselves are opinion.

So you have opinion based upon opinion. Which again is a violation of his own statement above.

If you cannot see what it is that I am telling you than I must profess that I am uncertain of how to present it in any other way.

Comment by bgodley — April 2, 2008 @ 4:13 pm

As someone looking from the outside in I can understand your concerns regarding this fair gaming issue. If I only had the information that you may have to hand I might feel the same way.

The concept of what fair gaming is was, whatever, is a whole argument unto itself. There is much misconception about it.

I will defintely say that the church takes keen interest in those that publicly decry it. I know of private investigators hired, I know of protests leveled at church critics etc. There is truth in some of what you say.

The question is how nefarious is this activity or how illegal. The question also is how much truth is involved and how much misconception.

I won’t defend every action that church staff have undertaken in this endeavor. I am sure someone took it too far or did someting not okay. After all, Scientology staff are humans.

What I will say is that only those who have taken their time to slander the church have gained this attention. Why? Why would the church do this?

Well, in order to fully appreciate this you would have to have been there during the many years as a Scientologist. It is no secret that Scientology has had it shares of rough patches. It has had individuals both within the organization and without it undertake some very unscrupulous activities.

It is those unscrupulous activities that can put any group on the defensive. For example, when someone comes out and calls Scientology a cult and calls for it’s destruction I think anyone would take an interest in that. I guarantee you if you took a sign out to DC and called for the destruction of the US govt. you would receive more attention than that of a private eye. If you published papers that said Avis Rent a car was involved in nefarious activity, that you wanted to see the destruction of Avis, that you called the CEO of avis a criminal etc, etc. and if you went on the radio saying these things over and over you may be slapped with a civil suit.

Heck even National Enquirer has a huge history of litigation for things they print about celebrities and those celebrities sued.

Now with that said. You probably don’t know about the abuses the Church and Scientologist have received unlike the employees of Avis, the staff of the US govt. or the celebrities as I mentioned.

In many countries Scientologists have been physically assaulted. In some countries Scientology kids were kicked out of schools because their parents were Scientologists. The church has receive tremendous harrasment and threats including the ones most recently by some calling themselves anonymous. In some countries Scientologists had their bank accounts frozen or business contracts cancelled because of the religion. The church was infiltrated by individuals seeking to bring it down early on. If you knew the real truth behind the whole Operation Snow White thing and what the staff of the church had to do to handle it you would be amazed. Those who did infiltrate got control over church copyrights and legal structure, beyone the reach of the rest of the church and Hubbard himself, it was a mess. The church was sued by Lisa Mcpherson’s family on a bogus charge which was later acknowledged by the guy paying for and running the trust that took up the case. Hubbard himself was attacked on numerous occasions including one where they tried to kidnap him at gun point, they were going to fly him off to an institution so he wouldn’t be heard of again. The FBI raided the church in DC based upon bogus information provided, wherein the church had to resort to legal methods to regain property and set the record a little more straight. On and on and on.

You could also ask yourself why the church received this much attention and dealt with this much hostility but that is a matter for a whole other conversation.

So, yes slander and some critics are taken seriously.
Is it illegal and immoral to harass - yes. Is it a right to hire a private investigator, protest or find out what some critics themselves are doing, no. Will Scientologists act bias towards other Scientologists and no so allowing for others probably but not to any awful extent.

There is my take. Judge as you must.

Comment by bgodley — April 2, 2008 @ 4:58 pm

@ BGodley RE: 66

First off, what you’ve presented here are not answers. No matter how deeply we look and how hard we try, there are no answers found in your post.

And, as for Andreas,

He says his site is basically his personal opinion

Yes and no. The site was put together “to inform others about [his] concerns”. This doesn’t mean it’s opinion. If you’re concerned about starvation in third world counries, does that mean it is only your opinion that it happens? No. Concern =/= opinion.

…but then says he does not want other to base their opinions on biased information.

Ok, so, let me get this straight: He claims that neither himself nor his site are objective, then implores people to not “base their opinions on biased information”? What a monster! I mean, who would present such admittedly non-objective information while simultaneously telling you to form your opinions objectively?! Probably someone that linkED (go here for the story http://www.clambake.org/censoring_cult/main_cos_site.html) you to directly to scientology.org on their home page. Or, someone that sets up an area for Scientologists to refute what’s on his site. Or, maybe someone who has a dedicated area in his forum for open debate.

So, tell me, is the CoS site objective? Once an objective source forms an opinion about a subject, it becomes non-objective or biased. Wonder why there are so many cirtical sites about CoS? And the only supportive sites owned or operated by the CoS?

How many turns in this discussion are you going to take anyway? I’m growing tired of debunking post after post only to be met with some new schlock and no answers…

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — April 2, 2008 @ 5:06 pm

My comments won’t post. Test, test.

Comment by Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend's Back! — April 2, 2008 @ 5:11 pm

Anon Anon: I found your comment…for some reason it ended up in the spam blocker.

Did you just have the one, or were there more?

Comment by k — April 2, 2008 @ 5:20 pm

Interesting. Nice side step.

Your post boils down to “Stuff’s been done. Some of it might be shady. People call us names sometimes.”

I shall repeat the ~~auditing command~~ direct questions:

Can you honestly sit there and say—with ACTUAL honesty, not just an “acceptable truth”–that Fair Game/Gaslighting as a practice is no longer performed (in action if not by that name)?

Can you actually believe that these are credible defenses against the serious claims and charges levied by the ex-scientologists, critics, and anonymous?

If so on the latter–how exactly does that disprove them?

I do appreciate the candor, but not the evasion. I do recognize how the situation you guys are in can lead to some paranoia–hell, I know I’d be careful. However, this situation is hugely due to the mismanagement of CoS officials, the utter lack of discourse promoted by same, and the focus on evading direct questions and transparency.

Others may differ, but my goal for the protests are to dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form. Not to “destroy” it per se–just make it open. Accessible. Free. Honest. Transparent. Non-hostile. Like every other accepted religion out there. End the bait and switch, end the “fair game” or whatever you call it now. End the RPF, Disconnection, and dead-agenting.
In other words, be more like the freezone and less like Oceania.

Comment by Anonymous — April 2, 2008 @ 5:53 pm

71:

In consideration of what I have read what some critics think fair gaming is and what the polices of the church are, I would answer yes, “fair game” is not practiced. I must say I have never heard of “gaslighting”.

Again, does the Church hire private eyes? Yes. Does the church investigate people, yes? Have Scientologists protested the protestors, yes.

As for the rest of what the visions of the term “fair game” bring to mind I would say no.

68. I do not know what “answers” you are looking for. This is a common criticism of what I communicate but I can only think it is because you disagree.

When you are faced with accusations such as “prove to me you are not a criminal” it is a bit hard to do. You can say all the good things you do as proof but someone can always come back and say “well, that doesn’t prove you are not a criminal or have never done anything illegal”. Many individuals involved with reasoning and logic will tell you it is near impossible to prove a non-negative.

That is why the weight for proof is always placed upon the accuser not the accused. I have said this until I was blue in the face. If you have evidence of illegal activity bring it to someone who can do something about it. To just declare the accusation publicy over and over has the conotation that the intention is to not rectify but to sensationalize so as to deter. I know that some use this campaign to try and get non-Scientologists (and sometimes Scientologists) to think bad thoughts about the Church of Scientology or Scientologists. I know that some simply don’t want other people becoming Scientologists. I know this because they have said it on their posts and on their sites.

This public campaign seems very similar to the, we don’t need to prove only to accuse idea. I can see why some ex-Scientologists would want to engage themselves in this activity to level some form of retribution for wrongs they feel were commited. The rest, well I am still looking for the answer on that one.

You know what I just realized in typing this.

Not one single ex-Scientologist has had any criminal activity perpertrated against them. NOT ONE!

If they did there would have been a criminal case started. If there was no criminal case started it would only be based upon the fact that no ex-Scientologist filed charges or that no district attorney found sufficient evidence to start one.

Now, they could say that they were not the vicitms of criminal behavior themselves only others that they witnessed. This would place the weight of bringing forth claims o