Comments:Church of Scientology denied injunction against Anonymous

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

---

The quote of what the judge said

The quote of what the judge said has grammatical errrors -- I wonder if it is correct? 161.184.42.167 23:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Wikidsoup - (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

this is the source, I typed it myself so most likely errors. Bjweeks - (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, This is great news for anonymous. I am glad that the legal system is finally recognizing that CoS is ridiculous with its lawsuits. Now if the FBI would just get off my back. Rekov - (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WIN

OF EPIC PROPORTIONS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.196.220 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 24.61.102.23 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews staff and Anonymous

This is running over/above the story "Jimmy Wales accused of editing for donations" on the front page... I think this sums up what wikinews and wikimedia stand for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous

Altough I support Anonymous, I find this story to be quite one-sided, bordering on biased. A news organisation should not allow itself to be pulled to one particular side of an argument.

It's only one sided because CoS refused to comment. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before

I've said this before: Anonymous is the Internet. Hence, Wikinews is written by Anonymous. No-one else gives two shits about this 'war'. It's amazing how many articles there are on the subject on this website. A bogus 'interview with Anonymous' is pretty standard fare for the selectively-reporting, biased Wikinews team. --89.243.182.182 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the internet. I am not a member of Anonymous, nor do I agree with their commonly violent methods. I believe that the CoS is a cult, Anonymous is now in the right in taking it down. Wikinews is not Anonymous, nor is it Legion. Wikinews is on the internet, and Anonymous comprises a large portion of the internet, but Wikinews is still not anonymous. And I highly doubt that that interview was bogus. Project Chanology's Wiki has a press release page, and it wouldn't be hard to get an interview with a member of Anonymous, seeing as they're pretty much everywhere. 64.195.82.235 03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "We are Anonymous. We do not fo..."

We are Anonymous. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us. —216.66.59.69 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)