Comments:Church of Scientology: '"Anonymous' will be stopped"

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

Lol

You can't stop the rock.

scientology petitions

There are 6 petitions with regard to scientology that British citizens and/or residents can sign on line by going to the Downing Street website:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/StopNarconon/ http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/scientologyno/ http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/-Scientology/ http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/anti-scientology/ http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/PoliceandCoS/ http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ScientologyNMW/#detail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2008 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop

There's no reason for these stories to be 2-5 times as long as all the other non-interview stories on WikiNews. Feel free to include links to the sources, but can you please keep it to the cogent details? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.88.255.240 (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be better were the other stories longer, not these ones shorter. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Second. Seconded? Ditto... ^_^; Jihiro 14:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

From: Ryan Hannity

From: Ryan Hannity

[this is not to address the illegality/legality of distributed denial of service attacks or whether or not they even happened.]

What we are seeing here today is nothing short of a social-event unseen since the 1960s and 1970s. Young people for the first time in almost forty years are mobilizing with great speed and maturity to rally behind a cause which they believe in. Do I feel it's a worthless or foolish cause to get behind? If you had told me that a large group of generation-x and generation-y's would be coming together with much older individuals than themselves to rally behind a cause like this I might have told you that you were a lunatic a month ago. However, this does not seem to be the case and the protests in Orlando Florida are supportive of this fact.

Should the Church of Scientology International be demonized? Perhaps not for world history is replete with examples of religious institutions abusing their power over those who trust and believe in them. Most of these religions though when questioned about their seedy and un-palpable past will almost always tell you the skinny on what happened, where it happened and why. This begs the question to me - why does the Church of Scientology International not feel the responsibility to do the same. So what, Mary Sue Hubbard went to prison - people HAVE died; does this not happen in every religion? I saw a video on YouTube the other day where a young man was questioning demonstrators in New York City, rather than admit to the mistakes made in years past, he uttered phrases like "She just went in there to talk to them" or "You heard it all wrong, come in and we'll tell you about it".

I guess perhaps I have never seen an institution wherein the majority of parishioners who consume information from said institution have the facts so utterly and despicably incorrect. I suppose it's almost like the debacle FoxNews has these days where the majority of their views according to an AP news poll stated [incorrectly] that weapons of mass-destruction WERE found in Iraq and that indeed, Saddam Hussein had been discovered as an affiliate of Usama Bin-Laden when indeed the polar opposite was true.

Perhaps some day we will live in a world where everyone takes blame for their problems and admits to the hard-facts presented to them. Until then I suppose we'll all walk around with blinders on hoping no one figures out what we're really doing in the cookie jar. Let me give you a hint ...it's unseemly and probably illegal.

I'd also like to add that you should indeed contact the Church of Scientology International. The only way for you to be a true journalist is to have both halves of the story; perhaps the story you get on either side is incorrect in some ways at least you can still claim you have it. (preceding unsigned comment by 193.125.37.100)

I have made considerable efforts to contact the Church of Scientology. The emails on the talk page are evidence of that. I initially ended up using a web contact form that asked everything except my dick size, the result of the conversation this provoked is the article this comment page is associated with. When I said I was going to quote the person who I was conversing with it was "OMFG! I never noticed the 25' high letters saying Journalist" and I was pointed at an address that goes to /dev/null somewhere in the bowels of the Church's Californian headquarters. They have been offered multiple opportunities to give their side of the story - I just WILL NOT pick up the phone to call them. If one person can answer email then so can the muppet on the press address. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

funny comment at alt.religion.scientology

Here is a funny comment from alt.religion.scientology in response to this story:

Trying to stop anonymous is like trying to eat tomato soup with a fork. (user "Dianetics")

Cheers, Cirt 15:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientologists are delusional.

Scientologists should be treated as if they are plugged into the matrix and we are the ones that must unplug them.

If any of you want an effective logical argument against Scientology/Scientologists then memorize this:

L. Ron. Hubbard, obviously a talented Science Fiction writer and obviously a delusional man created Scientology based on his own personal life experience.

If Scientology is true and the events L. Ron. Hubbard described in his books actually occurred then how could he have known that the events ever occurred at all if the events occurred so long ago? and why did L. Ron. Hubbard base Scientology on his own personal life experience with Psychiatry and Psychology? Isn't religion suppose to be an approach to some form of commonly sought enlightenment that appeals to people in the same mindset because of the humans inability to accept that nothing occurs after death? Why is Scientology so biased then?

Where is the proof that the events L. Ron. Hubbard wrote about actually occurred? and why is Scientology so similar to Christianity if the events L. Ron. Hubbard wrote about actually occurred? Isn't Scientology an original religion? If so then why is it so similar to other religions?

Why do Scientologists keep their doctorate secret from lower ranking Scientologists if Scientology is "98%" similar to Christianity (and no your religions texts do not amount to very large).

One of the secrets of Scientology is this:

The designer of Scientology designed Scientology to be a corporation hiding behind religious status to exploit tax-exemption programs and people. Those that join Scientology are people that have major personal, mental disorders and only join Scientology due to the fact that they desire relief from their disorders but quickly realize that Scientology is only after their personal funds.

That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.127.79 (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well.....

It certainly makes an interesting story! Various individuals groups trying to take out an international organization. Espionage and counter-espionage abound! :U Fephisto 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To RYAN HANNITY

I have been a Scientologist for 41 years quite happily and still am today. I will answer your questions about Scientology to the best of my knowledge. Email: excelmgmt@sbcglobal.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.203.125 (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How much has it cost you so far? I bet no where near the enlightenment area...unless you got 385,000 US dollars. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop the hacking -- let them sound like idiots

Paraphrasing a John Locke axiom: The best way to prevent a fool from gathering a following is to let them speak, and give them as much attention as possible. Trying to suppress them only makes them more appealing--the "forbidden fruit" thing. Bring full attention to their stupidity, their lies, their misdeeds and their murders. Don't try to physically bring them down yourselves: convince others to turn their backs on the dangerous cult by letting them talk and bringing their dark deeds fully out into the light. --72.40.56.71 00:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows...

...that Anonymous is doing it for the lulz.

Also, Anonymous does not forgive. MessedRocker (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

well done

very good article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.46.147 (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Delusional?

"We are taking action, Anonymous will be handled and stopped, but not to the detriment of us stopping all community outreach activities. We've had people throw attacks at us in the past as they do not agree with the betterment of people. History is strewn with such people who start wars, wreak havoc etc. and they never continue to exist in the long run as their purpose is one of destruction. That's a statistical and historical fact," stated Laetitia.

First off, I would assume Anonymous is doing what they do because they believe it's for the greater good. Secondly, Scientology has a lot of "betterment" growing to do if they feel the need to vehemently attack anyone who dares to disagree with them. Hello? It's called "free will", people! Scientology would have us living like China, where pictures of Tienanmen Square are banned. (Google, anyone?) And finally, if it's statistical and historical fact that "people who start wars, wreak havoc etc. never continue to exist in the long run as their purpose is one of destruction", why then, do wars continue to happen? History is, like, really long! >:) Shouldn't the warmongers have all died out by now? ^_^; Jihiro 15:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For too long the teeming millions of the world have sat by and watched the cult of Scientology continue it's suppressive campaign of hate. The teeming millions are now very, very, pissed off.

Anonymous is that feeling given form.

Anonymous is everywhere and everyone. Anonymous is your neighbors. Anonymous is your friends. Anonymous is your mother, your father, your siblings, and your uncles and aunts.

Anonymous is legion.

We do not forgive.

We do not forget.

Expect us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.194.51 (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Attacks On Scientology

Why? Does Anonamous Think They Have To Attack A Known Betterment Group, They (Anonamous) Needs Something Productive To DO Instead Of Destructive Activities.--12.207.93.55 23:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

LULZyeah ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.197.111 (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

wait what

So sorry Scientology, but when you try to stop us, we'll retort a hundred fold. We do not forgive. We do not forget. 124.188.168.143 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)