The point here is that those who just go on demonstrations because they're fun or cool are nearly always unaware of the darker side of some of their instigators. That can lead to some relatively innocent people getting busted by association.
*Something* must be going on for you to get so angry so fast at a simple statement of fact that specifically stated it dealt with "*some of*" Anon's organizers. It wasn't even knowingly directed at you.
But I fault myself for not making this point more clearly: Author John Cook does neither himself, nor his publishers, nor you any favors by so clearly taking sides and omitting facts that you and more casual readers have a right to know.
Actually, you probably already knew the criminal nature of Anonymous's acts, but many don't.
But a writer does his craft and profession--and his own credibility in future articles--a large disservice by writing one-sided articles. If his next article on a different topic offends you, you now have ammo to point out he's intellectually dishonest.
If he took any journalism courses, his profs taught him differently. Serious reporters, even if they're evaluating the new iPod, need to be honest and inclusive of all sides of the story.
And before you begin the rote litany about Scientology's crimes," here's my invitation: Prove Anything. Prove Something.
There were some fanatics who went overboard and broke Church policy in the 1970's--that's nearly 40 years ago. No argument there. But that level of personality has been straightened out or expelled. We did the house-cleaning.
So come up to present time. Look at what really exists around you today.
And stay in countries where there's religious freedom. Yes, you can look to Germany for that Gestapo government's recent condemnation of Scientology. But look deeper and you'll see that its churches and psychiatrists are pushing that movement--and for good reason!
Churches in Germany get money directly by voluntary payroll deduction, whether people go to church or not. And no bishop wants to lose those cash cows because too many people become Scientologists.
Thus endeth the epistle!
ml,
H
That's so cute! All unpleasant truths are "Scientology lies." And no one in Anonymous has done ehhnnything wrong.
Yup "delicious cake" is a meme, too.
Try looking at things with both eyes. Or is it more comfy to close one, so you have no messy real-life contradictions to deal with?
Here's a cool vid!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4Pwq3EtdelY&watch_response
Bet you'll like to read its chatter and reach for the olive oil!
Here's one of my favorite comments under that vid: "Only a minority of Anon are paedophiles."
Btw, that was all I said. No massive condemnations.
Good company you keep. And of course your boards get cleaned up...now that the world is watching.
May your children never know you...biblically.
Giggles and grinz!
Still waiting for some journalist to have the cojones to investigate the links between *some of* Anonymous's original cast to kiddy porn and child molestation.
I've seen the sites with their chatter. I saw an admission of it in a YouTube post by a longtime anti-Scientology poster there. I saw an Anonymous "call to arms" (cute) that ended with some phrase like, "When we're done (with the protest) we'll all go eat delicious cake." "Delicious cake" is code for either cp (child pornography) or molestation.
There's a story there, guys. Or are you afraid Anon will hack your Web site -- like they did Fox News -- if you get into their private unpardonable pedophilic penchants and personal proclivities?
And...you slid right over the fact that to deliver a DDOS (distributed denial of service) attack. But props for mentioning that it was "distributed"; most media didn't. The hackers had to be running a botnet of innocent people's distributed PCs they had hijacked to send the packets that crashed Scientology's sites.
f you're going to carry a keyboard for a living, you owe us all sides of the story.
The point here is that those who just go on demonstrations because they're fun or cool are nearly always unaware of the darker side of some of their instigators. That can lead to some relatively innocent people getting busted by association.
*Something* must be going on for you to get so angry so fast at a simple statement of fact that specifically stated it dealt with "*some of*" Anon's organizers. It wasn't even knowingly directed at you.
But I fault myself for not making this point more clearly: Author John Cook does neither himself, nor his publishers, nor you any favors by so clearly taking sides and omitting facts that you and more casual readers have a right to know.
Actually, you probably already knew the criminal nature of Anonymous's acts, but many don't.
But a writer does his craft and profession--and his own credibility in future articles--a large disservice by writing one-sided articles. If his next article on a different topic offends you, you now have ammo to point out he's intellectually dishonest.
If he took any journalism courses, his profs taught him differently. Serious reporters, even if they're evaluating the new iPod, need to be honest and inclusive of all sides of the story.
And before you begin the rote litany about Scientology's crimes," here's my invitation: Prove Anything. Prove Something.
There were some fanatics who went overboard and broke Church policy in the 1970's--that's nearly 40 years ago. No argument there. But that level of personality has been straightened out or expelled. We did the house-cleaning.
So come up to present time. Look at what really exists around you today.
And stay in countries where there's religious freedom. Yes, you can look to Germany for that Gestapo government's recent condemnation of Scientology. But look deeper and you'll see that its churches and psychiatrists are pushing that movement--and for good reason!
Churches in Germany get money directly by voluntary payroll deduction, whether people go to church or not. And no bishop wants to lose those cash cows because too many people become Scientologists.
Thus endeth the epistle!
ml,
H