...
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:09:47 -0800 (PST).
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID:
> <a0379f0b-b694-45ed-aa07-464e96c64
...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> And the Organization Header:
http://groups.google.com.
> The famous author: cultxpt <cult
...@gmail.com>.
> Wrote on the subject: Open Letter to Anonymous:
> >[This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've
> >decided to take on Scientology through harassment, DOS attacks, and
> >dirty tricks]
> >Dear Anonymous,
> > It's understandable that people get upset over the things the
> >Church of Scientology has done online and off. They harass, sue, play
> >dirty tricks on people, lie, etc. They tried to shut down a.r.s.
> >They spam our newsgroup to this day.
> > So I can see why you'd think damn it, it's time somebody shut them
> >down!
> > I'll just give you my insight for whatever it's worth. I've been a
> >public critic of Scientology since 1987. I've been on a.r.s. since
> >1994. My actions are pretty well known, and in fact you can go to
> >youtube and watch a lot of our protests and such, or go to
> >lisamcpherson.org and see some more of my activism. Also, I'm older.
> >I'm 52. So if it's of any value, here's an old, experienced critic's 2
> >cents.
> > The internet has already taken a big whack out of Scientology. Free
> >speech has allowed us critics to expose many of the lies and horrible
> >actions of Co$ for all the world to see. We've protested, right at
> >their front door. We've been on radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. So
> >it's not like you have to jump in and reinvent the wheel, or assume
> >nobody's been doing anything.
> > We've been quite successful because of the Golden Rule of the
> >Internet; Free Speech for Everybody. In fact, whenever Co$ has
> >attacked our free speech, it has spawned dozens and dozens of new
> >critics who would not otherwise have cared about this cult. Most of
> >us, and indeed most netizens, value free speech almost religiously.
> > So, as I understand it, one of your first methods for dealing with
> >Scientology is to shut down their web sites. This goes against the
> >Golden Rule. By silencing them in one format, all you've done is make
> >a martyr out of the cult. Martyrdom is GOOD for Scientology. It's
> >something for the members to rally around. It's proof that they're in
> >the right because they're being persecuted. Externally, it makes some
> >people ask "why is a church being attacked?" So you've lost me at
> >hello.
> > The weapons we choose are important. Our weapons as critics are
> >reason, evidence, argument, and free speech. If we "win" [and by win I
> >mean, Co$ renounces its practices and policies that hurt people], then
> >we've won the argument over their policies and actions. However, if
> >YOU win using dirty tricks, harassment, and such, then you still
> >haven't won over their arguments. You've just pounded them into
> >submission. Their arguments stand.
> > We're supposed to be the good people. They're supposed to be the
> >bad people. If both sides are being creepy, then the public will just
> >look on this as a battle between two creepy groups and not be very
> >interested. If, however, one side is moral, honest, and just, and the
> >other side STILL beats up on them just for speaking out, there you
> >have a story. It is this CONTRAST between us and them that is part of
> >our message. The nicer we are, the better the contrast, the more
> >easily it is to see which side is the right side.
> > I'm very confident that we as critics have severely hampered
> >Scientology. I don't believe our goal is to destroy Scientology as
> >yours seems to be [here I'd better say, I don't represent anybody but
> >myself]. Our goal is to get them to stop locking people up until
> >they're dead, to stop pretending they're doctors, to stop destroying
> >families. If they want to believe in Xenu, fine. No problem. We can
> >still debate that, but believing in weird things is no reason for some
> >group to fear attack.
> > If you don't believe my mamby-pamby methods work, consider all the
> >cases in history where such actions did work; Gandhi, Martin Luther
> >King, Jr., Vaclav Havel, etc. These people didn't harass. They didn't
> >pull dirty tricks. They were straightfoward, honest, moral, and they
> >won. I believe their methods work admirably well on Scientology as
> >well.
> > So my wish for you is that you stop a while, listen to some of us
> >who've already been out there on the front lines working to expose
> >Scientology, and reconsider your methods. You seem to be coming onto
> >the stage presuming that us experienced critics never got anything
> >done since Scientology still exists. You're quite wrong. I hope
> >you'll take time to listen.
> >Jeff Jacobsen
> >for the ARSCC[wdne]
> Don't be so fucking naive Jeff. These people are not really interested in
> the fight against Scientology. They're more interested in testing their
> tech to take down web sites.
> Had it not been Scientology, it would have been any other site of their
> choice.
> Their pathetic excuses and reasons for targeting Scientology is just not
> believable. It's a game to them, nothing ideological at all.
in the cause.
