Scientology on the news again, Anonymous owned them again

[Final-Fan]

starcraft said:

Final-Fan said:

starcraft said:

Phendrana said:
That's not my interpretation. That's not an accusation. It's just how they work. Like Christians going to church on Sunday, Scientology charges money, has a disconnection policy, forbids medication, and attacks critics. Jesus Christ, why is this so hard for you to understand?

Did you miss the part of my post where I said there are protesters who aren't anonymous, or are you just ignoring that so you can keep saying the same thing over and over again?

And it was a freaking joke, get over it.

But it is your interpretation. Are you a former member? Do you own their official policy guide? Because unless the answer to at least one of those questions is a definitive yes, everything you have posted is your interpretation.

I didn't miss the part about non-anonymous protesters at all. The reason I didn't comment is because I have already made reference to them numerous times in this thread. I will repeat it once more for you. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, LOOK THE CoS IN THE EYE AND MAKE AN ACCUSATION!!!!

Phendrana said:
http://lisatrust.freewinds.cx/scientology/snow-white/index.html
Here you go. A link about the FBI raids on the church, where they found documents on infiltrating government agencies as well as documents on framing people who opposed them.

http://www.clambake.org/archive/disk/fairgame.htm
And a link that has the text of the policy with the "tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed" quote.

You don't have to be a former member to know they do something like charge money or forbid medication. On that note, I'm done with this thread forever.

Unless I missed something starcraft you never responded to this. I understand that this person left the thread but considering the relevancy and your continual requests for proof from other people I think it's important that you respond to this. Otherwise you do nothing but strengthen Sqrl's (and my) suspicions.

In particular, the clambake link contains the extremely important information that the "Fair Game" policy was repealed in name only and continues to this day (or at least 1989) so unchanged that many official documents still refer to it by the old, discontinued name! I was aware that that was the case but I didn't realize it was proven by leaked documents.

"When brought up, they try to change the subject to you, asking what criminal acts you have on your conscience. According to Scientology all critics of Scientology are criminals, that's why they are critics... Nice logic"

Thats a quote from the clambake article. Notice how I have been willingly engaging the subject matter of this thread, without changing the subject? That's substantially contradicts the notion rasied by sqrl that I am simply employing CoS tactics in "attacking my attacker by changing the subject" wouldn't you say? Bear in mind the fact that it was ssj12 that accused me of murder and aggravated assault because I disagreed with him, not the other way around. Why do you accuse me of CoS tactics but not him, when he so clearly conformed to their ideas? I might add that the thrust of sqrl's argument appears to be that because I don't think it is fair to do a hatchet job on all members of the CoS without accountability and without a court judgement, I'm clearly a member of the CoS or at least a sympathiser? Wouldn't you say he is adopting the very same tactic Scientologists do in the last sentence of that quote?

At the end of the day all I have done in this thread is defend two facts:

1. Everyone has the right to question their accuser, and everyone should be innocent until proven guilty (by a legal entity, not by a mask-wearing mob).

2. It is not official Scientology policy to murder and extort it's critics (note that I didn't once say that this means they don't do it, or that it isn't unofficial policy. I just objected to the stupidity of people like PooperScooper that claimed to have read "official" CoS policy that declared it was cool to murder detractors)

I thank you for not attacking me like the others did and simply putting your query to me. Is there any other confusion over or questions about my opinion Final-Fan?

I think we can all agree that ssj12 lost his head a bit and said things he does not in fact stand by. I'm confident ssj12 will agree with that, if not now then tomorrow. You, on the other hand, have been quite calmly and levelheadedly steering this debate consistently away from the actual subject of the CoS's misdeeds and towards the faults of its accusers. Including in this very response!

You said Phendrana was only interpreting/opining and asked him to provide proof otherwise, i.e. that he was stating facts instead of opinion or interpretation. When he did you ignored it. When I asked you to stop ignoring it you found a quote that you decided to use to turn the conversation yet again to UNRELATED things like what some other dude implied you did in your spare time.

You declined to respond to the specific damning evidence I mentioned, either to agree that the CoS is in all likelihood guilty or to attempt to defend it, instead falling back on two personal defenses of yourself, both of which fail for one reason or another:

1. Everyone has the right to question their accuser in a court of law. Which street protests are not. And for the record (again!), just because a large group of people participate in a protest does not mean that all of them are safe from a ruthless organization such as the CoS; it could decide to make a brutal example of a few people via harassment, frivolous suits, poisonous accusations or whispering campaigns in the victims' neighborhoods/businesses, etc. -- standard CoS protocol against "SPs". The CoS's goal might be to make protesters fearful of being the unlucky victim just like a single sniper can stop hundreds of soldiers by killing only a few of them.

2. Actually it IS official CoS policy last we heard to "trick, sue, lie to or destroy" anyone critical of it. They just filed the serial numbers off of the "Fair Game" label it originally had. That continuing policy easily covers such things as extortion and could be interpreted without difficulty as including murder. You have FAILED UTTERLY to address this point and the documents supporting it and the way they contradict your claims that we don't have any reason to think the CoS might condone such acts. Whether or not PooperScooper had any basis for what he said.

As for Sqrl's posts, despite his voicing his suspicions about you, the vast majority of his post was clearly to present the well-documented alleged and proven crimes of the CoS and ask you to finally discuss that instead of specific individuals and tactics of the CoS's detractors. Which you declined to do.

In the end, my only question is whether you truly suffer from the delusion that your post even began to respond to Phendrana's.