Comments:"Anonymous" plans to protest Church of Scientology on February 10

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments


fake news[edit]

someone is posting tons of fake news, wtf is going on—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.202.131.180 (talk • contribs)

be specific. why and what is fake news. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal != Morally wrong[edit]

"I'm mainly concerned because you shouldn't be doing things that are illegal, you just shouldn't. It's not morally right, and it's not right when Scientology does it, it's not right when we do it." This quote really annoys me, just because something is illegal does not mean it is immoral. The law is not a perfect source for moral guidance. 58.167.206.7 07:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

e.g j-walking an empty street, smoking a joint, wheras a 30 year old sleeping with a 16 y/o is morally legal!--77.99.171.94 11:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seriously now, you can't argue that bringing someone's datacenter to it's knees or ordering spam pizza and taxis and making prank calls to people who've been conned by the cult are morally righteous things to do. justifiable perhaps but not good, and no anons claim they are doing those bad things for good reasons. violating copyright law is the only moral but illegal thing that has happened in this campaign 86.159.107.182 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

legal Vs illegal[edit]

Generally (i dont know the specifics of this case) but the most effective way to make a big change is a combination of legal and illegal protests. If only legal protests took place then nothing would get the attention it deserves, if only illegal protests took place nothing constructive would ever be done. Gandi & black activists both had to use illegal methods to get the support/attention they needed but if it wasn't for the legal follow up it would have been pointless. --77.99.171.94 11:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazis![edit]

Anonymous is a bunch of Nazis. If someone wants to believe in a religion, no matter how crazy it is, they should be allowed to do so. This whole thing, trying to defeat the Church of Scientology, is completely wrong. It's just the same as trying to defeat Christianity, or Islam. Scientology may be taking rights away from people, or whatever, but we need to remember that people chose to believe in Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.213.36 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that attacking a belief in inherently wrong, it goes against all forms of free speech and has no place in our society. However, as I understand it, the group 'Anonymous' is not attacking the belief itself, but rather the corporation behind it, which Anonymous accuses of illegal practices (specifically cases such as the death of Lisa McPherson and Operation Freakout). In some of the new video's on youtube the public is told explicitly that, though I of course cannot judge whether this is really Anonymous speaking or some someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.120.95 (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous has no central organisation, the only "official" standpoint is that every person is anonymous and answers only to themselves and "the lulz". any post to do with anon is a troll, any video made is a lie or propaganda, every post is a repost of a repost of a repost, and if it exists there is porn of it- no exceptions 86.159.107.182 23:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop[edit]

I'm as intolerant of Scientology as the next bigot or sane person, but please stop using Wikinews as a platform to promote this "conflict." This is why people think that anthropogenic global warming is still disputed by sane scientists. -161.88.255.240 17:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, but you've made a logical fallacy. We're not using WikiNews to promote anything. This is a hot news story and WikiNews is covering it. End of logic. 76.1.180.28 08:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's so bad about Scientology?[edit]

I'm not a scientologist, a proud atheist actually, but seriously. What's so bad about Scientology? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.122.222.79 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than they rob you point blank of money, nothing. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the US you can believe what you want and it's your business. I don't thing there is anything wrong per say...I just don't hold their beliefs and find them ridiculously funny. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous is composed not of high tech hackers but a group of single teenage boys about 15 to 20 year old who are very low toned and upset about things in their own lives and are putting the blame on an external source such as Scientology to get away from taking any responsibility for their own lives. These cult and conspiracy theories about Scientology are a sign a schitsophrania and should be handled by a competent medical professional —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.202.38 (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You spelled "schitsophrania" wrong, it's Schizophrenia.
  2. It is interesting that you bring up the term schizophrenia, because that has in the past been applied to the Church of Scientology:

Cheers, Cirt 23:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is trying to spell Schizophrenia. But seriously, after reading up on this controversy over the last few weeks, the opinion that scientology is dangerous seems to be well founded. It is certainly the case that the psychologically powerful methods used by this organization are able to influence a high proportion of ordinary people to believe unusual things. Of course, vulnerable people would be more likely to be captivated by these methods of persuasion, but a person would not have to be unbalanced or mentally ill to come under the power of these methods. They are powerful methods. I am submitting this viewpoint because I am an old psychologist, and I see too many people who easily believe 'unusual' things. Most of the time, however, they are not under coercive pressure to spend large amounts of money under the direction of those they hold in awe. 209.89.17.121 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is so bad about Scientology. It consists of mostly intelligent people (likely more intelligent on average than many groups) engaging in something they believe and supporting their group and their leaders. If you want to attack something, go attack w:De Beers. Now perhaps there is a group that truly abuses people. Critics of Scientology actually have scant material to work with. I mean, come on, the "crown" in their case is poor Lisa; a tragedy - no doubt; should never have happened - no doubt. But we are talking about an anomaly that happened 13 years ago. Yet critics continue to piss on her grave by using her to attack a group she was a member of. --JustaHulk 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea of saying this is "wrong" or "good" is really quite unnecessacary. They obviously believe that taking down scientology is the "good" thing to do so why go around shouting it's a "bad" thing to do when they obviously don't see as such? As far I can't determine who these people are. Though to make judgements like they're 15-20 year olds having personal problems and deciding to dish it out on scientology or they're schizophrenic is a stupid thing to say as there's no proof of this. As far as this goes I seriously doubt that this "anoymous" group has any ability whatsoever to in getting rid of scientology. This religion{or philosophy as some may call it} is a strong enough religion/philosophy to not be taken so easily by these idiots. It would take a powerful political power to destroy any religion like this. Anoymous doesn't have this power, however. So in terms of them being a threat to scientology, they are very minimal. Scientologists aren't necessarily intelligent, because a belief doesn't determine intelligence.--drewthedude 02:00, 31 January 2008 {EAT} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.65.65 (talk)

Scientology sucks[edit]

any 1 that belongs to this Church of Scientology like tom cruise is a moron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.221.32.20 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moral justice will prevail. Down with Scientology. They are a bunch of blood sucking morons who know how to take money: from people in a vulnerable state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.148.178 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANONYMOUS VS SCIENTOLOGY[edit]

Alright. The Church of Scientology is a scary cult. They state a "truth" and expect you to follow without questioning. They use leverage against their followers and use strange brainwashing tactics to gain this leverage.

Consider this for a moment. You are having this done to you every day. EVERY RELIGION does this. EVERY RELIGION is flawed. EVERY INSTITUTION is flawed. If you question, they may be wrong... and nobody wants to be wrong.

Think about Christianity and the outlandish fairy book stories we are expected to believe. When we question, we are told to "pray" to find out if it is true. If we were to pray to find out if "God" looks like a pink elephant, many of us would find THAT to be true. That is how the brain works. Proof of this --- Scientologists think the world works like BATTLEFIELD EARTH. Instead of worrying about the evils of our government, we are told to fear gay marriage. WHY???

Think about our medical institutions. They tell us what drugs are good and what drugs are bad. Some of what Scientology is not off base. We are medicating our kids too much. Anti-depressants are harmful and end up being no more effective than an placebo. I highly suspect the use of vaccinations that we give ourselves and our children. Etc Etc Etc etc... ... ...

Think about our governments. If you look closely enough, how possible is it for elections to be rigged? How possible is it that 9-11 was either staged or allowed to happen by its own government? --- WATCH ZEITGEIST THE MOVIE FOR MORE DETAILS ---

Think about our news organizations. How difficult is it to assume that the truth is twisted and spun to appease one small group of society instead of the common man? Even further, how about our educational institutions? Some schools still think evolution is ridiculous.

Brainwashing happens here and we accept it. We just call it "advertising" and "spin".


Anything you believe whole-heartedly can bite you in the a-- later. We do need to look at SCIENTOLOGY closer. They are using very questionable tactics and I hope Anonymous can help us to get to the bottom of it... but I really hope they don't stop there. I hope WE do not stop there. I am optimistic that we as a WHOLE will start thinking more critically as INDIVIDUALS! I hope we stop using herd mentality and SEEK OUT the truth instead of just praying for guidance or believing because "they" told us to... whoever "they" may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.215.18 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SCIENTOLOGY = GAY. Maybe now the world will realize it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.88.144 (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal process[edit]

If the Church of Scientology is suing people for "interference with business", then all is said.

Brothers fight on long live anonymous. why is the truth being cencored on youtube? why cant man tell the truth and have freedom of speech ? well here is a good example anonymous is being cencored by youtube aginst what they believe. - anonymouscccc from youtube —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.95.219 (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Anonymous is based in New York and is financed by New York Crime Gang.

Anonymous information website "Radar magazine" was set up by Maer Roshan with funding from Mort Zuckerman and Jefferey Epstein.

Jefferey Epstein was charged with numerous child rapes but managed to beat the charges witht he help of his Lawyers Alan Dershowitz and Kenneth Star.

Epstein financed the political campaigns of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer who recently resigned to his involvement in a Prostitution Ring.


Both Zuckerman and Epstein are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.130.243.184 (talk • contribs)

Bullshit! You and you only know the truth about Anonymous? Do you really think CoS wouldn't have found something like this out long ago, and proclaimed it to the world? Anonymous is not made up of criminals or adolescents looking to take out their teenage angst on someone else. Anonymous, to borrow their own words, is legion. They are composed of some of the best educated people in the nation. Stating something that obviously untrue is nothing more than an infuriating display of your ignorance and arrogance. --132.38.190.10 19:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Comments:%22Anonymous%22_plans_to_protest_Church_of_Scientology_on_February_10&oldid=766566"