Scientology on the news again, Anonymous owned them again

[Final-Fan]

"I'll say again. Anonymous' reasons for wearing masks may have started out due to concerns for physical safety when it was a tiny number of people, but now there is no remotely credible physical risk to member's safety (even if everything you say about CoS is true) it is abundently clear that it's all about protecting yourselves from litigation. "

Do you so completely fail to understand that litigation is a weapon the CoS eagerly uses and has used to great effect to ruin the lives of many people who chose not to wear masks, even when they were guilty of nothing but an opinion the CoS disliked?

[edit: And if Sqrl ever did such a thing as you describe, I might say he was guilty of that tactic; fortunately, your description is a ridiculous caricature of what he ACTUALLY said, which is that based on his observations your posts appear to be skilfully designed to deflect attention away from the CoS's misdeeds and onto the misdeeds or ill-advised words or even less-than-impeccable sportsmanship* of its accusers; and that he invites you to prove him wrong.

[*And by that last I mean that since the right to question your accusers face-to-face does NOT extend to the streetcorner, and since I believe you have conceded that unmasking WOULD expose Anonymous protesters to the CoS's forte of frivolous lawsuits, all I can think of is that you want the CoS to be able to "shoot back" at the people unfairly not making big fat targets of themselves.]