Comments:Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting

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

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

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


What do you think about these claims made by the Church of Scientology?[edit]

Unfortunately, this just seems like more of the same from them. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.181 (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Shocking...[edit]

Then they're so shocked that someone launched a DDoS attack on their website... Ihatefile007 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolute bull.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.85.202.27 (talkcontribs)

LOL[edit]

I completely laughed when I saw this news. They (scientology chruch) really have gone beyond mastering the art of losing credibility to my eyes by now. --Z E U S0 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I lolled too. Fephisto (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Linky[edit]

Scientologists Beliefs Are Dangerous[edit]

I think they blame everything on Anonymous because they blindly believe that Anonymous is funded by psychatrists. Thats another lie that these cultists believe. This proves that without psychiatric medicine, which they argue for, Children like these people who went on rampages, which the cult loves pinning to Anonymous, die.

Scientologists beliefs are very dangerous in the world and without the being checked, it could be worse. They say they have the answer but the answer is false, it doesn't work, there hasn't been any real studies on what Scientologists believe, such as the book Dianetics which is pretty much a 1950's snake oil scam. Their mind is convluded to a point that this L. Ron Fellow says is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamAnon (talkcontribs) 23:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabricating lies just to fight a group of peaceful masked protesters?[edit]

Anonymous has not been violent (physically or digitally) since February. The CoS is still fighting back violently against peaceful protesters. The only thing special about these protesters is that they have figured out ways to save their own butts from being harassed by the CoS, wearing masks and being careful when leaving (making sure they aren't being followed), and they have backup plans in place should the CoS somehow get their identities. The difference between Anon s and average protesters is the intelligence. The Anon protests are no longer drawing attention to the CoS, and they're losing support constantly. Its all a pity, too, since Anon was doing so well at drawing attention to the CoS with the DDoS attacks and communication jammings, but they suddenly gave up and switched to purely peaceful means, which, while it sounds nice and all, is not anywhere near effective enough to fight the CoS. It was about that time that I myself lost almost all interest in "Chanology" or "CoS sux GTFO", or whatever they're calling ti these days. While Anon likes to think that they are beating the CoS, I know they are not winning or losing. They brought the CoS to a reasonable size, then gave up. The Chanology Raids quickly lost major media attention. At the height of the Chanology raid, more than half the top 10 stories on Digg.com, and now, it has become a rarity to even see a single Chanology-related article on Digg's upcoming, top ten, front page, or even on the the new suggestion engine. Instead, there are recipes hitting front page. RECIPES! Anyways, I'm getting off-topic here. I guess what I'm saying is that the CoS is fighting back against peaceful protests that aren't receiving major media attention, and instead of hurting Anonymous, they are making themselves look like morons.

P.S. If there are any Anons here, I support Project Chanology and the dismantling of the Church of Scientology. I just don't believe that peaceful protests are anything more than a polite request for them to stop, with no consequences for when they refuse.

--Nuck Chorris 0 (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

For the vast majority of those /b/ tards who took part in the Anonymous protests in the early spring, it was just something to do to have a bit of fun. Most of them weren't interested in a long-term battle to bring down Scientology; they were just in it for the LULZ. So they drifted away over time, and the numbers dwindled. But this isn't because Anonymous was losing its effectiveness; likewise, the media coverage lessened because the media got used to Anonymous as well. One protest is big news; the fifth or sixth protest would hardly make a dent in the media coverage.
But Anonymous has indeed been effective. How so? It was Anonymous that brought the Ex-Scientology Kids site into being, as they encouraged David Miscavige's own niece to step forward to help others. Anonymous is considered a hard-core foe of Scientology, to the point where their presence at Katie Holmes' recent Broadway stage debut got them worldwide coverage. [4] And Anonymous has scared Scientology to the point where they are planning their public appearances especially to avoid Anonymous. [5] Scientology is scared, to the point where they are resorting to smear campaigns like this one in the hope that something sticks, and gets them the sympathy they are begging for.
This isn't the movies -- there isn't a single magic bullet that is going to bring Scientology down. Most of the short-term /b/ kiddies have left the fold, but the ones who are still there in Anonymous know that they're likely to be there for the long run.
And they're still giving us lots of LULZ. [6] --Modemac (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not this again...[edit]

They just don't get it. Anonymous is not a group or organization. Anonymous does not have members. It is an idea. Ideas don't die, don't bleed, don't feel love, don't crumble, and sure as hell don't give a flying F if some moneymaking scheme, Oops I mean religion, says they were behind a school shooting. Which I can guarantee you we weren't. (We had a good laugh on /b/ about it though).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.84.28.207 (talkcontribs)


PS: THE PEOPLE PROTESTING IN V MASKS ARE NOT ANONYMOUS, REAL ANON HATE AND DESPISE THEM. STOP SAYING THE MORONS DRESSING UP AND PROTESTING ARE ANON, THAT IS NOT OUR WAY. JUST A FRIENDLY HINT. (Because everyone seems to think they are.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.84.28.207 (talkcontribs)


I totally agree. Anonymous tends not to agree within itself with methods but rather works towards a single goal. 195.10.114.211 09:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. How can there be a "real" Anonymous, if Anonymous is not a group or organization. It would seem that the only prerequisite is to remain anonymous. Also, again, how is it possible for anon to have a "way" if they are not a coherent group? Perhaps this is only your perception of what the "group" should be? --204.81.231.139 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this so inconveniently absurd?[edit]

Accusing an activist group or hacker organization of being the driving force behind a mass-shooting and personal feud is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I really can't imagine how anyone could believe that. If Scientology is really going to try to defame the group Anonymous why aren't they using a more believable accusation? At first I thought they were going for the "Big Lie" technique, but even this seems like it just wouldn't work given the utterly bizarre nature of these charges.

It'll be interesting to see if it works for them.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.209.87.112 (talkcontribs)

Could this be considered defamation[edit]

... and if so , is the church of Scientology exposing themselves legal threats. --Z E U S0 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again the Church of Scientology has made more baseless claims against Anonymous. They never provide any form of reasoning or logic behind their allegations. They just go with their warped view of reality that says everything that a failed Science-Fiction writer (L. Ron Hubbard) says is perfectly correct and nobody can go around changing it and if people speak out against it they are terrorists. This is precisely what the Church of Scientology has attempted to do here, they have attempted to defame a peaceful group of protestors simply because they are sheding light on a dangerous and incideous cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.160.253 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally insulted[edit]

To think they would take advantage of a tragedy such as happened in my country! I take this as a personal affront towards the Finnish people! What the hell are those scientologist freaks thinking?! "<INSERT PTS> is responsible for <INSERT RANDOM FOREIGN TRAGEDY>" I am shocked and disgusted beyond words. This sort of propaganda will only drive informative young internet surfers towards Anonymous, instead of away from them. I, honestly, am thinking of joining them just for this unwarranted attack by scientology and reminder of the tragedy that happened in 2007, and its relapse just last month.

Anyone in the US, I beg of you, someone do something to ban scientology! Ban it as a cohesive organization! They are even worse than the Westboro Baptist Church! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.230.103 (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what you get...[edit]

... when you have sex with aliens in a Boeing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.111.53 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so insensitive... they were DC-80's. --204.81.231.139 12:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

lol. -66.41.147.177 03:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.[edit]

Look. Anonymous is not a "protest group", is not an "anti scientology group", or any whatever else these stupid news sites seem to think. Can't any of you get your facts straight before writing something?

And to the author of 'Not This Again...', damn right, but you forgot rules 1 and 2, idiot.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.114.83 (talkcontribs)

Fair game[edit]

Is not a 'tactic', it's a 'policy' stating that members of the Church may retaliate on behalf of it. --85.82.179.226 18:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be consistent[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) Don't be like Foxnews by legitimizing myth. Wikinews should be better than that. There is no such group. --Burbledwar (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Impressive[edit]

Just what we've come to expect from a group with a belief/faith based on the musings of a science fiction writer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.239.130 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous is not a group.[edit]

Anonymous is not a group. It is basically just a categorization for people who post anonymously on the Internet and was given a proper noun name by 4chaners or /b/tards (people who use the /b/, or random, forum on 4chan). Therefore, it could be said that Anonymous is behind everything perpetrated by an anonymous person. The news is basically talking about a fictional organization, giving a name to an incohesive number of people, most of whom protest Scientology for fun. Anonymous is just a personification of everyone who is anonymous, not a real group. Anonymous is not a group. (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, channer (or *channer) was the more popular way to someone who posted on a *chan imageboard (other than 4chan) until the Fox 11 news report came along. It only really took off due to the hilarious claims about Anonymous being an internet hate machine and such. The report itself was sparked by an largescale phishing operation by members of anonymous on a certain IRC network (It was referred to as Luk0r's house of lulz, most people not from the network know it as operation /b/spays or operation myspays.) While it could be argued that Anonymous as a proper noun is indeed a group, the affiliation between "members" is extremely loose, much like any other online community with no specific purpouse. --204.81.231.139 12:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is dangerously ignorant.[edit]

Hey Scientology, if you like Lord Xenu so much, why don't you marry him?

If you haven't figured it out by now, Anonymous is just what goes by your comment if you choose... to... remain... anonymous. The Illuminati are more likely behind school shootings and myspace suicides.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.186.99.80 (talkcontribs)

I don't think Scientologists seriously believe that Xenu is real. He is meant to be a fictional character. Basically, Scientology is an ideology (not a religion) that nobody really knows what the hell it's about, like Freemasonry. Anonymous is not a group. (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit more than that, L Ron tried to marked Dianetics on its own before starting Scientology, but it ended up flopping. He later remade Dianetics into a central Scientology doctrine. Scientology itself is mostly marketed as an alternative to psychology (it would seem that they hate psychology so much because it contradicts many of their own beliefs.) It involves funky voodoo like teaching cognitive dissonance and mental projection (really believing you are somewhere else when you are not.) In L Ron's defence, he was apparently taking copious amounts of different drugs (don't mix yer pills, kids) when he wrote the section on Xenu. --204.81.231.139 12:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re protected talk page comment[edit]

In response to this, "an hero" simply means someone who committed suicide. (It originates from when friends of Mitchell Henderson, a boy who committed suicide supposedly over the loss of his iPod, called him "an hero [sic].") It doesn't literally mean "a hero." Furthermore, even if people claim that he is a hero, those people are just individuals and represent no group because Anonymous is just a personification of everyone who is anonymous, not a real group. Anonymous is not a group. (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Not to mention, that's on Encyclopedia Dramatic, which isn't exactly a bastion of serious political statements;). (Strangely, I happened to stumble upon (not using the plugin) that An Hero article a few weeks ago.) Gopher65talk 01:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer at the top of 4chan boards[edit]

Does nobody actually read that? Something along the lines of "Everything here posted here is a creative work of fiction. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. --204.81.231.139 12:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What do I think about these claims?[edit]

Impressive... I mean, first scientology have 3 problems - They are popular for a lots of hacker since they are popular... - Some group made a war on them... Annonymous is one of them. - They are hard to believe with the way the act and the accusation made are important

I fond no link beetwen annonymous and the hacker world, firstly... This part is hard to said, since is underworld and well... Hacker are a bit annonym but annonymous also. But, it's exit some trace and substance: IP, date, hour and facturation... That some trace: I fond no important link, but I'm no police officer.

Secondly, I fond no substance on this accusation beetwen this accusation on annonymous. It's look a bit like defamation to me, but did they have proof? And who gona sue? A "nobody" sue for been link to "nobody"? Common.

So, I really fond it weird that kind give accusation ,like that, without substance. Is might be false, but I don't know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.53.250 (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

CO$ is nothing but a cult![edit]

Lets talk about the people that have died at the hands of CO$? (Trumpy (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpy (talkcontribs) 10:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and it's damages.[edit]

/ merely wanted to say that no group has damaged more people in as short of a time. CoS has haraunged and attacked over 25 people that I know personally. The attacks are sometimes generated by the flimsiest of excuses. (One friend, we'll call him Ben, enjoys the movie "V for Vendetta" and is a huge fan of the graphic novel. He bought the "V" costume and was stopped out side of the costume store by the owner. The owner claimed that Ben had shoplifted and demanded that we wait while he calls the police. The patrolman who arrived is a friend of mine and a fellow bouncer at a bar I used to work at. He asked me for the truth and I told him the unbiased and honest facts. Ben was by my side the entire time and did nothing. The officer arrested the owner for Filing a false arrest claim. The man was out in, literally, 3 hours. All processing fees and such paid for by the CoS.) I don't understand why the store owner even sells the costume, if he hates it that much. That is ONE situation. I am not a fan of Anonymous' style of protest, however, we do need to show the Scientologists and others like them the line and say DO NOT CROSS.

T.J. Kibbee 10/29/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.199.176.125 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

INTERNET INTERNET DSL OR RED WHITE WET. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.89.3 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If there's any question about the character of Rev John Carmichael, do a youtube search of his name. It's eye-opening, if not unsettling, even repugnant (yeah this is who this "church" calls reverend). While you're at youtube, type in "Graham Berry", he gives a detailed and informative talk about the "church". Other suggestions: google "Scientology + fair game" and "Paulette Cooper." All this may be disturbing, but people have a right to know.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pk (talkcontribs)

No surprise[edit]

the church is stupid, some tactic they use ey. they should go find something better to do than to create a stupid religion that you have to pay for. I have better things to do with my money than to pay to believe in aliens that came in space ships that look like a dc plane, like health care for example. —99.151.87.175 02:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

False Claims[edit]

I think it is a desperate attempt on the part of the Church of Scientology to "dead agent" the anonymous group. Since it is a false claim it can backfire on them.

The Church is trying to survive as a group, but when they misunderstand or apply the wrong policies they just add fuel to the anti-Scientology fire.

They should be applying the policy that says for them to "ignore" potential trouble sources. They should review to find what they are doing that brings about so much anomousity and find a better solution.

It isn't the body of data that is Scientology that is at fault. It is that this information is in the hands of those who do not always apply it correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.14.207 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

AVS: Anonymous vs Scientology[edit]

Whoever wins... we laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.154.138 (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology Kills[edit]

Scientology Kills. A security guard at a Scientology church killed an unarmed man. For more information about the dangers of the Scientology Cult go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_McPherson and http://www.whyaretheydead.net


Scientology has already been declared an illegal organization within the Nation of Germany - a practice that should have been adopted by the rest of the world a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.128.101 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on, people....[edit]

Are you seriously kidding me? Maybe they're just trying to boost their popularity by pinning the blame on the closest looking, little known organization?

People: "Hey, you Scientologist guys think you know the answers to everything? Who did it?" Scientologist: "Uh.... They did! *points in a random direction and prays he's right*"

Yeah, maybe next we'll hear the Anonymous admit to doing that, and then we'll find out that they were under duress? —75.75.23.160 06:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous makes Scientologists nervous.[edit]

I think Scientologists are afraid of what Anonymous represents; A group of people who are, for the most part, unknown to each other, yet able to coordinate their activities by group effort without face to face meetings.

Anonymous is functional anarchy, and they don't like Scientologists. This scares the Scientologists, because how do you assail a group of people who have no names, faces, or practical identities? Anonymous mocks Scientologists, and repeatedly taunts them, but they can't fight back because they have nothing to fight back with. Anonymous has never commited any crimes (aside from maybe public mischief), and if someone who claims allegiance to Anonymous ever commits a dangerous crime, or threatens to commit a crime with Anonymous' knowledge, they don't try to hide that person when the law comes knocking.

Anonymous is the best counter to the cult of Scientology that you can find on the internet. It's too bad that sort of functional anarchy doesn't work so well in real life.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.65.208.174 (talkcontribs)

That's just retarded... - P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.237.98.156 (talkcontribs)

You misunderstand who, or rather what, Anonymous really is. It is not an organisation. It is not an individual. Because none of us can be as cruel as all of us.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.209.158.223 (talkcontribs)

Libel[edit]

I'm pretty sure there are laws against libel and defamation, which aren't protected under freedom of speech. The "Church" should be held legally responsible for these outrageous comments. 99.236.129.191 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)