@Final-Fan

Ok. Where to begin.

First off, I'm feeling very ganged up on. You and sqrl are labelling me a "dodger," which is somewhat contradictory. You insist that I answer your queries, but label anything I say as an aggressive distraction in the vein of Hubbard's teachings. As you said I largely agree with Sqrl on 90% of the historical wrongs of the CoS presented in this thread. The irony of this is that all my posts are simply false dodgings, and therefore 90% of what Sqrl said is a lie (note that that last part was my attempt at a joke, please don't take it seriously).

Going over the thread, I can see where I have clearly gotten angry and overly aggressive. But in fairness, you will find that this only started after Ssj12 essentially accused me of murder. His apology very generously downgraded the accusation to serious and violent assault. You must understand that the hypocracy of those statements, and their serious nature (essentially he said that if I disagree with him on a few key points I am guilty of murder) along with the fact that poster's like yourself didn't seem to find what he said all that insulting is very offensive to me.

Now this is where I feel the confusion began. I agree with the vast majority of the posters in this thread on two key points. 1. Scientology is a ridiculously bogus religion. 2. There is very strong evidence that suggests that members of the CoS have committed some hienous crimes.

Here is where I made a mistake. I didn't clearly define the fact that I agreed on those two points. As such, I felt the conversation had moved to the issues of accused's rights, due process and reasonable protest methods, whilst others thought my arguments on these issues were simply peripheral parts of an argument that the CoS is not guilty of anything and is justified in all of it's actions.

In response to all of the above: I'm glad you can see where we were coming from and now that you have addressed some of that wrongdoing directly and you've explicitly stated that you agree that many of the wrongdoings I pointed out did take place it definitely helps put to rest some of the past issues that I felt you were dodging/ignoring. I hope you understand how key those issues are and thus why I placed great emphasis on them.

As for SSJ's comments I think he definitely lost his head and I literally shook my head in disgust when reading the comment. However, by the time I saw the comment the discussion had moved on by several pages and as I wasn't involved in it originally it didn't seem necessary. But since you ask specifically, no I don't agree with the comment in the slightest.

I want to make it clear that I absolutely support the right of every CoS member to believe in whatever they choose but I believe that CoS is engaged illegal activities ranging from fraud, extortion, espionage, murder, torture, and other human rights violations in regards to several of its members. My underlying point is that when dealing with an organization you believe to be capable such heinous acts and blatant disregard for human life I believe it is fair to fear for your safety. I'm not asking you to concede the argument but given that information do you or do you not believe someone has a valid reason to fear such an organization? We can debate the degree of fear but I think its important to at least agree that they are justified in their worry.

I agree that we have had a definitional issue with regards to the word official. At the beginning of the thread I nitpicked (something I shouldn't have bothered with) over the use of the word. I would consider official policy to be the policy CoS states when a reporter calls and asks (similar to Microsoft's "we don't comment on rumour and speculation"). Apparently others thought official policy meant what the CoS does in practice (in the thread I labelled this "unofficial" policy).

I think it is fair to say that CoS has learned their internal memos are compromised on a regular basis and that such memos have either been given a higher security priority or have gone to strictly word of mouth to protect their contents, would you agree? If not, specifically why not?

The reason I raise that point is because while we don't have the documents and investigation of the church as of late the stories of the atrocities have continued and given those two points it seems that a logical and likely conclusion is that they haven't stopped but rather they've gotten better at hiding their deeds. Would you agree? If not, specifically why not?

Now on to the CoS and Anonymous:

At the end of the day, I feel Anonymous is practicing defamation for largely technical reasons (which I nonetheless find unacceptable). The majority of the crimes listed in this thread occured some time ago, and noone has as yet provided proof that they represent an ongoing and widespread policy within CoS. I genuinely believe that there should be a general (judicial or Senate) inquiry into the CoS. Furthermore, I feel it is very likely that the outcome of such an enquiry would be very damning for the CoS and result in many prison sentences. However Anonymous goes further than calling for an enquiry, instead labelling everything they claim as undeniable fact. I fully concede that 90% of their claims are very likely to be true, I just happen to believe that that not withstanding, the CoS is entitled to a trial to prove this (and offer a defense) and that they have a fundamental right of reply.

I have in fact provided proof that it is widespread policy within CoS as evidenced by the internal memos from Hubbard himself. While there may not be hard evidence of its continuation to today you yourself admit you think that a formal investigation would result in several prison sentences, so really arguing about that is somewhat moot when we both agree the atrocities are ongoing. But addressing it for the sake of my own amusement there have been new allegations according to several of the news reports SSJ linked to. I personally am no expert on the matter but in just what I've seen it seems that they are in fact continuing and that this continuation is what has stirred so many to join anonymous.

A further issue I have is with the anonymity of Anonymous' actions. I believe that the reasons given in this thread for their continued anonymity are unreasonable. Chinese rights activists in the West operate in the open, despite the fact that China is just as willing (and far more capable) to murder them for their opinions than the CoS is (towards Anonymous). As I said, the vast majority of extreme accusations against CoS are not recent, and I maintain that publicly identifying yourself as a CoS detractor provides you with FAR more protection than risking CoS discovering your identity in private (especially with the media so obviously on Anonymous' side). Furthermore, if any of Anonymous' members actually have evidence or information that could lead to convictions of CoS officials, they could easily provide them to police and receive witness protection, and this would be a far more effective means of bringing down the CoS.

Well in fairness I don't think CoS uses murder as a first resort, but rather they attempt to scare people into shutting up. But on the point as a whole I think there probably is a certain amount of safety in being a public figure for anonymous. But if every member takes off the mask there is far too many names for the spotlight of the media to cover them all. Who is to say that a formerly Anonymous protester getting audited by the IRS was the CoS' doing? How would we know if someone lost their job because of their outspoken position against the beliefs of their Boss? There are so many ways for any powerful organization to negatively influence and affect change in someone's life without anyone being the wiser. And if the mask of that protester allows him peace of mind that none of those things will be because of his protesting then I think that is fair because it is my opinion that CoS lost any moral right to know the identity of their accusers the first time they struck out at one. A moral right such as that is to allow them to face them in honest discussion not to destroy their lives or otherwise hurt them, and once you break that trust of morality you have to earn it back and in this case CoS clearly has done nothing to earn that trust.

Furthermore, Anonymous provides avenues for CoS to reply to their accusations so the idea that they are unable is a farce. Truthfully they are unwilling as shown by the Hubbard memos and their actions in which they have no desire to discuss anything anonymous says but rather to discredit the group as a whole. So with CoS's proven history of attacking the attacker as official policy why then would you think such an organization has any such moral right to know the identity of its accusers regardless of whether they are in a position to exercise such policies? The police don't pick up the Axe-murder and drive him over to the house of the anonymous tipster who turned him in...They don't tell the drug dealer who their informant is when they arrest him for possession with intent to sell.....so how does that make sense in this case?

I would really like answers to those questions but I especially would like to know why you think CoS still has any moral right to know the identity of each Anonymous protestor. What could they possibly do with such information that would be beneficial to them yet not illegal?

I'm sure I'll think of some other things to say, though I admit I'm now struggling to get my head around all the opinions being given in this thread now. I hope I have offered some clarity as to my position. I assure you I am not trying to dodge anything, we simply seem to have differing ideas as to where this thread has gone. I apologize to Sqrl for the implication that he agreed with ssj12's accusations towards me. However I admit it frustrates me that both you and he seem to be largely ok with what he said. I don't think the thread has been helped by those that have come in simply to bash me and imply I have said things I haven't.

Please recognize that I am not attempting to dodge anything, and am not attempting to attack you to cause a distraction. Unfortunately, if you cannot recognize that, then I don't see why we should continue the discussion, as you would not seriously consider anything I said.