Oh damn those are some big posts :P

ssj12 said: StarCraft - since you seem to be interested in this so much why dont you go to the site I linked on the other page and look at the Co$ financial records. You will notice that they have and fund their own Navy, the SeaORGs. They also get untold amounts of money from their members. All for their training. When someone gets a job at the Co$ you so not get paid even a legal amount. Maybe $20 a week if that. All bills are paid for you but you are expected to by the Co$ back by getting more people to join. That is completely wrong in every way.

Once again.  I'm not arguing that the CoS is a good religion/organization.

 

Final-Fan said: I just want to say that I did it first but Sqrl did it better. [edit: You can respond to him and not me if you wish and I will not mind. But of course you are perfectly free to respond to me as well.]

repost for visibility. 

Final-Fan said: Quoted the start of paragraphs I'm responding to for clarity. "First off" The topic was originally the misdeeds of the CoS. You want to talk about the misdeeds of Anonymous. Since you DID NOT initially agree about the factual nature of the CoS's crimes listed by posters such as Phendrana, but rather gave vague expressions of doubt before moving on to hammer Anonymous for their own alleged abuses, it is very easy to see why we might say that you were practicing the "attack the attacker" strategy as you mirrored it precisely even if unintentionally. I think it's especially understandable considering that you also took time out from advancing your case against Anonymous to berate people for not being able to produc evidence of the CoS's crimes when you now say that you never doubted their existence. And even more so when one of your first posts here contains the comment "The biggest problem with all the conspiracy theories encircling Scientology is that at the end of the day it assumes such monumental stupidity on behalf of all those who were supposedely "duped and extorted."" "Going over" You say I didn't seem to find it insulting. That is COMPLETELY INCORRECT and I don't know what caused you to imagine that anything of the kind was true. ssj12's comment was completely out of line not to mention ludicrous. Just because I didn't jump up and down screaming does not mean I approve or even fail to disapprove -- I mentioned that I expected him to apologize once he got a hold of his emotions (I notice that he has not yet done so AFAIK despite returning to the thread); but he was not posting and you seemed to have his censure well in hand -- in fact I noted that you seemed all too enthusiastic to bring up the subject in almost every post. "I agree" Ah, I see. But why then did it seem that you were saying that the crimes mentioned by posters were "isolated incidents" and not a direct result of the EXPLICIT policies of the CoS? I thought that by "unofficial" you meant the kind of thing where the official (both our meanings) code/rules do not encourage certain actions or even forbid them, but behind the scenes and in the atmosphere is the suggestion that those actions are still expected and the authorities within the organization will look the other way. No, your definition of "unofficial" can still mean explicit written policies handed down concretely and even published internally, and it never becomes "official" to your mind unless the organization shows it all to the world. According to you, for instance, the extermination of Jews was unofficial Nazi policy, not official, since they did not inform the outside world of their actions (nor, for that matter, even their own populace, explicitly and AFAIK). It is clear that the policy formerly known as "Fair Game" is still (or was relatively recently) very much a part of the CoS's modus operandi and no doubt its utilization is expected by its operatives. So this confusion over the true definition of "official", while an important subject, does not appear to me to be enough to explain the apparent contradiction in your posts between your stated belief of the CoS's guilt in these matters and your repeated statements that they were not the result of explicit CoS policy. I would like you to address this perceived inconsistency very much. "At the end" YES THERE HAS BEEN PROOF PROVIDED HERE by Phendrana that the CoS has explicit policy equivalent to Fair Game which extends at least over 20 years past the date that the TERM "Fair Game" was officially discontinued, to the point that many documents hadn't bothered to make the name change they were supposed to. No, I can't provide authoritative proof that the CoS is actively promoting that policy as of April 17, 2008, but I see no reason to suppose otherwise. Do you? If so, please share your reasons and evidence, especially evidence since you demand such strong evidence of others. If the CoS wanted to prove itself innocent it would be child's play for it to engage in (yet another) lawsuit with one of the many, many anti-Scientology organizations out there -- not all of them operate anonymously you know -- and put all this evidence that supposedly exonerates the CoS out into the public record. As for the right of reply, just because they don't know who is speaking behind all those masks shouldn't make them any less able to defend against what those people are saying ... unless of course they plan to do so by attacking the speakers. Ad hominem anyone? "A further issue" If you're saying that Anonymous actually makes themselves MORE open to attack by hiding behind masks, then that may be a bit of poor judgement on their part but I fail to see how it affects things. As for 'Why don't they turn over all that evidence then?', it may not have occurred to you that proof enough to know isn't the same as proof enough to prove in our legal system or even proof enough for a search warrant. That's why so many situations require public outcry to get the leverage for more people to come forward with evidence and to get the criminal justice system to bring pressure to bear where it can to shake things loose. "I'm sure" Once again, I'm mystified as to how you got the idea in your head that I'm "largely ok" with what ssj12 said, given my CLEAR comments to the contrary. I don't remember offhand if Sqrl has spoken on the subject but I'm insulted that you would not give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, he was absent from the thread in the period in which those remarks were made and for some time thereafter. I acknowledge that you may not have deliberately dodged anything, but I also hope you can see why everyone thought that you were doing exactly that. You did fail to respond to any of those points, and only recently did you make it clear that it was because you agreed with them. Apologies for the epic post.

For the sake of harmony, I'll just go ahead and accept that  interesting little apology ssj12 offered a minute ago. 

Ok, first couple of paragraphs first:

I don't feel there is a contradiction.  I went over my first few posts and found that from the very beginning my focus was on what I consider to be the lack of a justifiable reason for Anonymous to be masked.  I went on to illustrate this point with reference to my "exclusive brethren" example.  What I have always, and still maintain, is the fact that a mob of protestors whould not be allowed to unilaterally present the past actions of a few as the wholly endorsed actions of an entire Church.

Do I consider it likely that the CoS was aware (and continues to endorse) most of these incidents?  Yes.  Do I believe that that makes it ok for Anonymous to claim them as fact without anything resembling a judicial or senate enquiry?  No.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  I realize that in the beginning I was not nearly clear enough on the fact I'm not disputing the likelihood that the CoS was aware of these incidents at the time.  I also believe that their biggest regret is not that they committed those crimes, but that they got caught.  But at the same time, my argument remains that that is not enough to condemn the entirety of the organization in it's present form. 

However it is the very nature of the Anonymous protests that would easily protect anyone of their members if they decided to identify themselves.  As I've said, the CoS simply could not risk the PR nightmare of anything happening to a newly identified anti-CoS protestor, especially given the media is on the protestor's side.  What I consider to be a key point within your post was the line stating that you "see no reason to suppose otherwise" (with reference to the apparant discontinuation of the 'Fair Game' policy).  This goes to the heart of my innocent until proven guilty argument.  No matter how much we think we know about a certain crime, no matter how sure we are of who perpetrated that crime, we are not judge, jury and executioner.  If you genuinely feel someone is guilty of a crime, report them to the authorities.  It is your right to protest, but if your going to do so, be accountable for what you are saying.  

Speaking in a broad sense (take the CoS out of your head for a moment), do you believe it is exceptable for a bunch of masked protestors to attack one person or organization?  How is one supposed to defend oneself against an attacker one cannot see or engage?  My problem is, you seem to be so assured, not just of CoS's guilt, but of YOUR RIGHT to declare them guilty.  The problem is, you don't have this right, only the courts (and in some circumstances the Senate or Congress) do.  If Anonymous members identified themselves and fought the defamation court battle the CoS is likely to bring, I am confident they would win based on the strength of their evidence.  But at the end of the day, someone without and identity cannot wage a court battle, and evidence without a varifiable source cannot be used.

What your suggesting is unreasonable.  You wish for the CoS to have to debate with full accountability, against a hidden opposition with no accountability.  Your asking the CoS to justify Anonymous' approach by engaging in a debate with a group that won't reveal itself.  I've stated numerous times that much of my problem with Anonymous members goes away when they remove their masks (and as ssj12 pointed out, many have).  And I extend that to the non-anonymous anti-CoS organizations you refer to. 

Here is another point of yours I take issue with:

"As for 'Why don't they turn over all that evidence then?', it may not have occurred to you that proof enough to know isn't the same as proof enough to prove in our legal system or even proof enough for a search warrant."

This is exactly the point I'm arguing.  You CANNOT unilatterally declare an organization is guilty if you have no accountability and insufficient evidence to prove it in court.  In Australia members of the Lower House of Parliament (our equivelant to Congress) and the Senate have parliamentary privelage that makes them exempt from Defamtion laws, and I'm quite sure this is the case in the USA.  Why does anonymous not work (like some other groups) to lobby politicians to make the same accusations in Congress or the Senate, and in doing so instigate an enquiry.  That way, all due process is observed in that:

-The person leveling the accusations is accountable.

-CoS has the ability to present evidence in it's defense to a verifiable opponent.

-All proceedings take place in a legally-endorsed institution of our democracy. 

"Speaking in a broad sense (take the CoS out of your head for a moment), do you believe it is exceptable for a bunch of masked protestors to attack one person or organization?"

I suppose that depends on the nature of the attack.  If it's a bunch of people doing exercisinzg their constitutional right to free assembly in a civil and peaceful manner, and also speaking out against an organization which has a documented history of persecuting anyone who criticizes it or tries to leave it, well then I'd have to say that Yes, I do believe that such behavior is acceptable, particularly since the masked protesters have provided a (anonymous) avenue by which the organization being protested can confront the protesters and argue with them.

I really think that you are exaggerating the "attacks" of Anonymous.  More importantly, though, I think that you overlook what I see as the primary reason for the right of the accused to confront the accuser:  NOT to see his face, but to have the opportunity to protest and argue against and interrogate, instead of merely being presented with a denunciation that someone has performed against you which cannot be questioned.  The CoS has ample opportunity to interrogate Anonymous, and present counterarguments, etc.

The ONLY thing the CoS cannot do due to the Anonymous mask is discredit or attack the individuals.  There is no impact on its ability to discredit or attack the arguments or the evidence presented -- only the individuals presenting them.  In many situations the identity of the witness is important to the ability of the defense to call into question the credibility of the testimony, but I don't think that is really applicable here.  Do you disagree with that?  If so, why specifically do you think that that is incorrect?

And in any case, we're back to your position that no one should accuse anyone of anything unless they can prove it in a court of law, which I find frankly silly.  (Or was it that we should follow the same rules out of court that we have to in court?  I'm too tired to review the thread right now, but that's even more silly, IMO.) 

I think we've cleared up many of the other major points and I'm frankly starting to run out of steam on this one.  Or maybe it's just that I'm tired; I'll see how it looks tomorrow.

Sqrl said: As response to the last two paragraphs I do think you've made a commendable effort in bringing the discussion back to something manageable and civil. So on that note I'm very pleased and appreciative, but at the same time I hope you'll take this as no offense when I say I'm holding out final judgment for the time being as things could still make just as wild of a turn the other way...although I hope not.

Oh wow thats huge.  I just realized that there were highlighted additions to my post lol.  I think I covered most of it in my response to Final Fan, so I'll just make a few points.

-I certainly agree that there is cause for concern to a modern day opponent to the CoS's actions in terms of their safety.  That said, for the various reasons I have stated I don't think this concern extends anywhere near the neccessity of protecting oneself by wearing a mask:

        -Given the (unwanted) publicity the CoS is now receiving it would be organizational suicide to attack (physically         or financially) any member of Anonymous that showed their face.

        -The media is clearly on the protestor's side.

        -The danger of being found out privately FAR outweighs revealing yourself to camera's, because if you believe             that the CoS could murder someone over all this, their scope to do so is far greater if the media hasn't                         recognized someone as an Anonymous supporter.

-I would accept the strong possibility that things like internal memo's detailing "fair-game-like" tactics have not been halted, but rather reorganized into a more private manner.  That said, as I stated in my response to Final-Fan, our belief that this is likely does not constitute proof.  I guess my biggest gripe with you guys is the impression I get that your willing to bend the rules on things like the "rights of the accused" and "due process" and even "fairness" when it comes to an organization you do not like.  I don't like the CoS at all, but no matter how convinced I (or you) might be of their wrongdoings, I still recognize that this must be proven by a public power higher than myself or a mob.

-Ok, this is my response to the last three highlighted paragraphs.

I firmly believe that a notorious serial killer that has a body found buried in their back yard deserves the right to a fair trial and fair treatment in the media leading up to that trial.  Just because someone has done something wrong in the past does not strip them of their right to fair treatment this time around.  What is this thread about if not holding the CoS to account for it's actions?  Why should we not be able to hold Anonymous members to account for their actions?

At the end of the day I don't think your point about there being too many Anonymous members for the media to protect holds water, primarily for two reasons"

    -The CoS may be evil, but it's clearly not stupid.  The moment a member of Anonymous dies, the media would be         up in arms and public pressure would dictate that the police HAVE to look at the CoS as a possibly involved party.

    -The IRS isn't stupid either.  The fundamental thing I feel your missing is that this is not ten years ago.  The CoS is     now in the public eye, and NOONE wants to appear to be influenced by them.

Here is the final point I want to address.  Your "axe-murderer" analogy.  I fundamentally agree that the police did the right thing in the case you outlined.  The problem is, that isn't what is happening here.  The police are a legally and morally empowered entity within our society.  The mob is not.  I would be completely behind any effort by the Anonymous group to directly involve the police in the situation. 

 

Final-Fan said: "Speaking in a broad sense (take the CoS out of your head for a moment), do you believe it is exceptable for a bunch of masked protestors to attack one person or organization?" I suppose that depends on the nature of the attack. If it's a bunch of people doing exercisinzg their constitutional right to free assembly in a civil and peaceful manner, and also speaking out against an organization which has a documented history of persecuting anyone who criticizes it or tries to leave it, well then I'd have to say that Yes, I do believe that such behavior is acceptable, particularly since the masked protesters have provided a (anonymous) avenue by which the organization being protested can confront the protesters and argue with them. I really think that you are exaggerating the "attacks" of Anonymous. More importantly, though, I think that you overlook what I see as the primary reason for the right of the accused to confront the accuser: NOT to see his face, but to have the opportunity to protest and argue against and interrogate, instead of merely being presented with a denunciation that someone has performed against you which cannot be questioned. The CoS has ample opportunity to interrogate Anonymous, and present counterarguments, etc. The ONLY thing the CoS cannot do due to the Anonymous mask is discredit or attack the individuals. There is no impact on its ability to discredit or attack the arguments or the evidence presented -- only the individuals presenting them. In many situations the identity of the witness is important to the ability of the defense to call into question the credibility of the testimony, but I don't think that is really applicable here. Do you disagree with that? If so, why specifically do you think that that is incorrect? And in any case, we're back to your position that no one should accuse anyone of anything unless they can prove it in a court of law, which I find frankly silly. I think we've cleared up many of the other major points and I'm frankly starting to run out of steam on this one. Or maybe I'm just tired; I'll see how it looks tomorrow.

Whilst I DO see where your coming from, I still do not agree.  So long as Anonymous remains hidden, it can say whatever it wishes to without any risk of philosophical reprisal.  To use the word you used, Anonymous cannot possibly have it's individual members "discredited."  But that's the thing, what if it's individual members are NOT credible?  In most democratic nations, an alleged rapist get's to confront the woman her allegedely raped in court.  She has to undergo rigorous questioning.  And yet it is unreasonable to you for Anonymous' members to have to put their credibility and reputations on the line for their arguments, because the CoS might get the IRA to audit them (that was one of Sqrl's examples)?

I would argue that as long as their opponent remains invisible, there will ALWAYS be an impact on the CoS's ability to discredit the attacks or arguments against them.  But equally, so long as Anonymous remains hidden, the credibility of their argument will always be somewhat dunious.  As I've said, I agree with most of their arguments, but those arguments would be stronger if they made them openly.

I don't believe that noone should be accused of anything unless the accusation is provable in a court of law.  That makes no sense as I fully support the fact that there have been millions of trials over the years that have resulted in aquittals.  I simply disagree with the fact that we (society and the media) have universally declared the CoS to be guilty without a trial. 

 

starcraft said: Whilst I DO see where your coming from, I still do not agree. So long as Anonymous remains hidden, it can say whatever it wishes to without any risk of philosophical reprisal. To use the word you used, Anonymous cannot possibly have it's individual members "discredited." But that's the thing, what if it's individual members are NOT credible? In most democratic nations, an alleged rapist get's to confront the woman her allegedely raped in court. She has to undergo rigorous questioning. And yet it is unreasonable to you for Anonymous' members to have to put their credibility and reputations on the line for their arguments, because the CoS might get the IRA to audit them (that was one of Sqrl's examples)? I would argue that as long as their opponent remains invisible, there will ALWAYS be an impact on the CoS's ability to discredit the attacks or arguments against them. But equally, so long as Anonymous remains hidden, the credibility of their argument will always be somewhat dunious. As I've said, I agree with most of their arguments, but those arguments would be stronger if they made them openly. I don't believe that noone should be accused of anything unless the accusation is provable in a court of law. That makes no sense as I fully support the fact that there have been millions of trials over the years that have resulted in aquittals. I simply disagree with the fact that we (society and the media) have universally declared the CoS to be guilty without a trial.

As I said, I don't think that the credibility of individual members of Anonymous is that important to the CoS's legitimate defense against them as protesters.  Why do you?

However difficult a cross-examination may be for a rape victim, that is hardly the equivalent of the life-ruining tactics the CoS has employed.  I don't think it unreasonable that Anonymous should decline to give it the ability to employ those tactics unless required by law...which it is not.  And again, this is not a court of law.

And you (understandably) misinterpreted what I meant.  I meant that you seemed to be claiming that unless someone felt his case was strong enough to TRY to prove it in court then he should just shut up until he could, instead of, for instance, protesting.  As opposed to the other interpretation, which is that we were all wrong to accuse O.J. of murder.

P.S.  Which is closer, that hypothesis or my later addition, "(Or was it that we should follow the same rules out of court that we have to in court?)"?  Or are neither close enough to the truth?  

Final-Fan said: As I said, I don't think that the credibility of individual members of Anonymous is that important to the CoS's legitimate defense against them as protesters. Why do you? However difficult a cross-examination may be for a rape victim, that is hardly the equivalent of the life-ruining tactics the CoS has employed. I don't think it unreasonable that Anonymous should decline to give it the ability to employ those tactics unless required by law...which it is not. And again, this is not a court of law. And you (understandably) misinterpreted what I meant. I meant that you seemed to be claiming that unless someone felt his case was strong enough to TRY to prove it in court then he should just shut up until he could, instead of, for instance, protesting. As opposed to the other interpretation, which is that we were all wrong to accuse O.J. of murder. P.S. Which is closer, that hypothesis or my later addition, "(Or was it that we should follow the same rules out of court that we have to in court?)"? Or are neither close enough to the truth?

I'm glad you brought up O.J. as I was going to bring him up yesterday and completely forgot.  I think that the credibility of Anonymous as an organization is called into question so long as it calls for it's members to be anonymous.  I still contest your belief that in the current climate the CoS would have any chance of deploying life-ruining tactics against it's detractors. 

I never said someone should shut up if they couldn't prove their case in a court of law.  I merely pointed out that they should hand such a case onto their local authorities or even their constituent's Congressperson of a State Senator.

As for O.J. the victim's family DID go to a legally and morally empowered institution (Civil Court), to prove their case that O.J. was a murderer.  I have absolutely no problem with that, and wish that Anonymous would do anything remotely similar in this case. 

 

Yeah, but it's back to either you have enough evidence to take them to court, or you don't have enough to justify a protest.

Oops, unless they have enough to start an investigation.  But what if the issue is beyond the scope of the "local authorities" and you don't have enough pull to get the attention of Congress, then what?  You fuckin' protest, that's what.  And the beauty of making a public stink is that a lot of times witnesses and evidence tips start coming out of the woodwork. 

I'm going to sleep for real now. 

P.S. I'm still not clear. Would you mind answering my last postscript, or is the answer too complicated?