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

Active discussions

Email from LaetitiaEdit

Quote

Hi Brian,

Yes, you have made it clear and I appreciate you being upfront on the matter. You can e-mail publicrelations@scientology.net.

Best, Laetitia


Quote

Dear Brian,

Yes -- I do have a problem with you quoting this. You are writing on a help website and it isn't the right source or the "Scientology opinion". Call (323) 960-3500 for information to quote as a journalist -- this is the reception for Church of Scientology International and you can get full information and quotations. I can help you get an appointment or the likes if needed. I definitely want to help you get what you need, but you should get it from the right people, not write in on a help line, which is not the public opinion. Let me know if you want me to make an appointment for you or direct you to someone who can give you information for your report.

Best, Laetitia
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFire1024 (talkcontribs) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 
Quote

Dear Brian,

The activities of Anonymous have been reported to the Authorities and actions are being taken. Their activities are illegal and we do not approve of them. At the same time, our main work is to improve the environment, make people more able and spiritually aware.

So, we do not concentrate or put all our efforts onto handling Anonymous; as that is not our purpose and else all we would be doing is fighting someone against us to the detriment of people in the Society who need help and would be being neglected due to our energies being diverted.

So, yes, 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.

Laetitia


Email from operator of "Operation Clambake" (xenu.net)Edit

Quote

From: Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net

Sent: 29 January 2008 19:28 To: Brian McNeil Subject: Re: Protest link down

Brian,

Very busy times, but I'll of course do my best to assist you.

I created Operation Clambake in 1996 as a direct result of seeing CoS succeeding in removing criticism from the Internet. I believe strongly in freedom of speech and, living in the best country in the world (IMHO), I came to the conclusion that I had to help protest this cult. To me CoS was then, and still is, a fascistic organization and a real threat to our democratic principles.

In the mid nineties the Internet wasn't so easy to navigate and common as it is today. CoS had a scare factor and most ISP's and media channels were very reluctant to challenge them. Almost all ISP's were better safe than sorry and indulged all legal complaints from the cult. This resulted in critical information dissapearing almost as soon as it appeared - and many critics crushed and ruined in the path. I was then an IT professional and made a web page to offer an index to all the key information. The strategy was to disarm the cult; if they took down something I linked to, I had made preparations to link to another copy or host it myself. The more they resisted it the more attention we got, the more the information was spread and the more people got involved. It felt like a cat and mouse game for many years. What for me started as a weekend stunt grew far beyond my initial scope and Operating Clambake became the site most critics linked and referred to.

Ten years later and a lot of amazing changes has occurred:

1. The cult has been forced by courageous individuals (often free speech advocates from the Internet), who dared to go head to head with them in court, to stop their very litigious strategy. While the critics often lost personally, they proved to the cult that if they crushed one critic on the 'Net it would only make ten more stand up. The cult technically won many fights, but the Internet definitely won the war! There are today no major lawsuits ongoing or pending.

2. Media finally understand their tactics. A fancy and threatening letter from a lawyer is usually laughed at. As an example all media, even those not very critical, now mention Xenu - this was unheard of only a few years back.

3. The cult "Orgs" are "dead". Recruiting in most western countries were they once experienced a healthy organic growth is very hard.

4. All their most secret documents are spread beyond recall and easily available for anybody interested.

5. More people than we ever dreamed now know about Scientology and at least that it "smells fishy".

6. All the information we once fought day and night to protect is now easily available for free and on the top of Google. The cult has even given up threatening us.

To mention a few I like...

You ask me to introduce myself. Well, I'm a 43 year old Norwegian, work as a Managing Director in Norway for a huge American corporation. Also been active in ecumenical dialog work where I live, active in local secular humanist organization where I perform humanist marriages and work with youth. Single, so life consists basically of those three things plus friends. That's the simples introduction I can make.

You let me know if any of this triggers more questions. Please forgive my crappy English.

Take care.

Best wishes,

Andreas Heldal-Lund


E-mail from 711chan.orgEdit

Quote

Jason Safoutin wrote:

> Also...do you have any evidence that "The Regime" is or is not affiliated with connected to or working for Scientology?

They aren't. g00ns have a long history with "immortal", and what "immortal" is trying to do is get at g00ns by using 711chan. It's nothing against us.

DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Quote

Got more news. The g00ns, one of our allies, are working on getting "the regime" and told us to get right back into the CoS scene -- which means as soon as 711chan is back online, we will be re-entering raid mode.


Correspondence is from 'Plasma', owner of 711chan.org. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Feb 2 protest in Orlando, FLEdit

Working on a story about the Feb 2 protest in Orlando, Florida. 2 separate news sources already confirmed that 100 people showed up. I think there will be enough info, not to mention that this article is already comprehensive, to put this into a separate article. Cirt 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

SourcesEdit

Not everything in this article is "original reporting" - some comes from previous articles that were sourced to secondary sources. We'll need to add those to the Sources section of this article, to back things up re: Gawker.com, the Cruise video, etc. Cirt 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No we don't. Thats what related news is for...as a reference to old work. OR generally should not be flooded with unnecessary sources. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Really? I did not know that simply using "related news" was good enough. Okay. Cirt 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Why re-add old sources: If we did that, we would have probably close to 50 sources, if not more. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
No no, your rationale makes perfect sense - provided the info appeared in and was sourced in a prior article that is noted. Cirt 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

217 protests...Edit

This text in the article links to a Wikinews.org subpage, User:Skenmy/APC. Is that appropriate? Cirt 21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? you can add the external link if you wish. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean add the external link as a source? Cirt 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If you like. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Leititia or Laetitia ?Edit

Spelling differs in text of email on talk page, and in the article. Cirt 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah...whatever the e-mail says is the correct spelling. Our mistake. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PublishEdit

I would like this to get published at February 4, UTC. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? Looks ready now. Cirt 21:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Because come the 4, this will be yesterdays news if published on the 3. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Cirt 21:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert opinionEdit

Well this was a last minute response to an e-mail I sent to an expert on Scientology and who was also a former CoS member. Sorry folks, all quotes and observations are anonymous. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If they're Anonymous, can we really call it an expert opinion? Sure, we can say the person is a former Scientologist, but "experts" really need to be verified as such. I only mention this since I just noticed the changes the article and thought it might actually be a good idea to remove the "expert" statement. I won't edit it, though, since although the source might have wanted to remain Anonymous, they may well have given you [Dragonfire] their identity which was then verified before posting or something similiar. Fallen-Griever 23:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Forget that, just read the comments properly. Fallen-Griever 23:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

PollEdit

This is a poll from the Wikinews Reports blog, which I will leave on the blog's mainspace for reference for now.

Quote

The internet VS. The Church of Scientology: Being dubbed the 'first great internet war', who do you think will win?

The Internet - 660 (80%)

The Church of Scientology - 63 (7%)

Neither side will win - 66 (8%)

I don't care - 27 (3%)
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFire1024 (talkcontribs) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC) 
How long did the poll run for? (From what date to what date?) Cirt 13:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientologists conspiracy theoriesEdit

Should there be any comment about the Scientology conspiracy theory that Anonymous is an agent of German secret service, Scientology has alerted the Department of Homeland Security, Anonymous is going to be sent away for a very long time for treason, etc http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/04f6d981e166e564/1d2287689758524d#1d2287689758524d LamontCranston 02:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not a "Scientology conspiracy theory", just a conspiracy theory of one individual poster to alt.religion.scientology. I would suggest googling the screenname of that individual poster for more information... Cirt 03:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Image of Internet Vs. ScientologyEdit

The graphic needs some sort of explanation of the different shades of blue with corresponding figures. It just doesn't make sense. Zidel333 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Click on the image. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Site taken down by FBIEdit

A spin-off of the original 2chan, http://www.futabachannel.org/, seems to have been "BEEN SHUT DOWN BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION FOR CONSPIRACY TO BREAK AND ENTER AND CAUSE BODILY HARM." (all caps, as per source). Original source is here: www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Futabachannel

ED has a tendency to... sensationalise events. But I think it could be relevant to this article since it mentions Scientology getting Government agencies involved. Could also warrant a seperate article if it can be confirmed as true, and not just a publicity stunt or hackers etc. Fallen-Griever 11:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, would need more outside sources, preferably at least one or two secondary sources, to confirm. Cirt 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - I wouldn't exactly trust ED to give me the news. Just thought it would be a good point to highlight, just in case something develops. Fallen-Griever 11:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 711chan commentsEdit

These comments are innappropriate in an article which is supposed to be about the Church's reaction to Anonymous rather than 711chan. Also, burying them in the middle of this article does not give them the attention they deserve since they are essentially a retraction of an earlier article on Wikinews. Since they should be considered a retraction to the earlier article, they deserve their own article so people can keep up to date with the event as it happens instead of having to look through this (largely unrelated) story in order to find something which seems to have been buried in order to hide the original reporters mistakes. Fallen-Griever 11:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it reads fine. Could add a Please note: or "addendum" or something, to the bottom of the older story, with a one-sentence clarification and link to this article though. I'll let someone else do that if they wish to. Cirt 11:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This new article the above user speaks of, is just copy and pasted text from this one. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That's because I intend to get the 711chan in this article removed, thus meaning it wouldn't be a copy. Also, the story was expanded to show the reactions given from 711chan/Anonymous users of the website and was put into better context. Equally, I believe you're trying to hide the fact your original article was incorrect by burying the comments in this one - where they have no place being in the first place. Fallen-Griever 11:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of anything like that. News is what it is when its reported. Whatever happens days after is new news. The quotes and or statements are not going to be removed from this article as they are relevent to the current news, in this article. The new article you speak of is not sourced, and is a 100% copy and paste of this article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
They are not directly relevant to the news in this article. This article is about the CoS supposed response to the "threat" from Anonymous, whereas the comments have nothing to do with that. The new article is, mostly, a copy and paste because - as I have already explained - I believe those particular comments deserve their own article and do not deserve to be buried here. Also, I'll accuse you of whatever the hell I want. Fallen-Griever 11:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
One...this is an OR article that we went through great lengths to get the info for. They are not buried. And if you want to take on this attitude with me or anyone else, then you will be blocked for personal attacks. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because it is OR doesn't mean two completely seperate subjects should be glued together for no apparent reason. The Church's response to Anonymous and 711chan's status are two different subjects, yet you've bundled them together simply due to their association via Anonymous. That's like bundling all the Economics news into one article just because it's tied together by Economics - ergo it's non-sensical. Also, if you can't handle personal criticism, don't become a writer. Besides, criticism is not the same as flaming or trolling, learn the difference. Fallen-Griever 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with everything said above by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs), both regarding the inappropriateness of these statements and bad faith assumptions made by Fallen-Griever (talk · contribs), and the inappropriateness of a new article as described above. The information is fairly presented in this article accurately, and should remain here. Cirt 12:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The comments from 711chan have nothing to do with the article title or the rest of the article. They are extremely out of place. It's like reporting on a Manchester United game and sticking in a random comment about Oldham Athletic just for the sake of it. Still, if you so wish to make the article whole again, at least use the edits I made in the seperate article because I didn't just copy and paste what was written here. If your response to this is "this article is too old to be edited" then my changes are "new" and deserve a new article. If this article isn't too old then the edits should be used because they expanded the subject at hand. Your choice.Fallen-Griever 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't start telling us what we have a choice with and what we don't. If you don't want to follow the way we do things here, despite several attempts to inform you, then that is not our problem. You can either choose to follow guidelines, or you can choose not to edit. The quotes are in the order they are in according to the articles flow and WN:SG. There is no need for a new article for developments that are not new. I spoke with 711chan owner and still do. This is what they chose to tell me and that is how much they told me. If you cannot accept that, then you contact them and get new quotes for a new article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"This is what they chose to tell me and that is how much they told me. If you cannot accept that, then you contact them and get new quotes for a new article." What the hell are you talking about? I didn't add new quotes from the Admins and never climed that I did. I also wasn't changing the quotes you got from the original source, and I have no absolutely no quarrel with those. What I did was add comments and reaction from members of 711chan to the situation, as well as from members of Anonymous in general, and change the wording to make it read better. Please check what you are arguing against before posting a reply, thanks. Also, "we"? Admin solidarity is such an annoyance. Fallen-Griever 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We meaning the community accepted guidelines and such. We is everyone who is part of the Wikinews community. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, whatever. /eyeroll. The new article I made wasn't intended to change the quotes you got from your source or to edit the order in which they were shown, it was intended to make them more obvious to those who might have been following the 711chan developments specifically, rather than the entire "War on Scientology" - those interested in The Regime and not Scientology, for example. Either way, I've edited the article with my expanded text, none of which seems to be against any policy. I still thoroughly expect it to be reverted back, though, so if someone does revert it back at least give me a good reason why. Fallen-Griever 20:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: This article has been cited by a secondary media sourceEdit

According to website WikiNews, the Church of Scientology has reported the web attacks to authorities.

"Activities of Anonymous have been reported to the Authorities and actions are being taken. Their activities are illegal and we do not approve of them. At the same time, our main work is to improve the environment, make people more able and spiritually aware. ... yes, we are taking action," said one Church of Scientology representative contacted by WikiNews.

Good job to Brianmc (talk · contribs) and DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs). Cirt 13:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro text is fineEdit

Intro text was reviewed by both Brianmc (talk · contribs) and DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs), and is worded appropriately and should not be changed. Cirt 13:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"should not be changed" Now that is rich. This is a wiki, Cirt. --JustaHulk 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"should not be changed" because the version published by Brianmc (talk · contribs) and DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) is worded appropriately. Cirt 14:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, maybe these gentlemen and/or ladies would appreciate my editing the article to make it consistent with their sources. That makes them and the project look better, you know. --JustaHulk 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It says "a person", not "a representative", or - as would be more appropriate - "an employee". --Brian McNeil / talk 14:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Where can I view the entire email exchange, please. Thanks. --JustaHulk 14:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Brian. I have limited time available right now to review this but I appreciate the effort. I still think that you need to make it very clear that this was just a person trying to help and answer questions, not any official outlet. Best. --JustaHulk 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List of questions sent to knowledge@lrh.orgEdit

Quote

Laetitia,


Wikinews has some coverage on the recent attacks on several of the Church of Scientology’s websites, see the following:


http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Hackers_attack_Church_of_Scientology_website

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/%22Anonymous%22_releases_statements_outlining_%22War_on_Scientology%22

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/%27The_Regime%27_hacks_711chan.org_in_response_to_%27Anonymous%27_attack_on_Scientology%3B_takes_web_site_off_line


The whole series of incidents appear to have been provoked by the posting of a Scientology video featuring Tom Cruise which was initially taken down – I believe – following a DMCA action or similar from the Church. What has not been done to date in Wikinews’ coverage is any official Scientology comment on the whole debacle. I would like your assistance in getting that.


Firstly, can you explain what your position with the Church is? Are you in their employ or simply a volunteer? In addition a surname for use in attributing your remarks would be appreciated, although if you would rather not then just say.


Can you specify when your website first came under attack? What form does the attack take, I’ve heard reports that it is UDP flooding, and other reports that it is flooding with image requests and malformed page requests.


How many of the Church’s websites are currently under attack?


What measures has the Church taken to mitigate the attack and deal with the associated spike in traffic?


The attack group claims to have compromised Church servers and retrieved confidential documents; can you comment on this claim and the material currently being put on torrents?


Long-term critics in the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup have condemned the DDoS attack on free speech grounds. Does this surprise you?


The video “Message to Scientology” featuring Tom Cruise has been viewed over a million times. Do you believe this has any influence on public perception of the Church of Scientology?


The initial DDoS was claimed by a group calling themselves “Anonymous” and “Project Chanology”. A number of other measures including faxing black pages to Church numbers were mooted. Have these tactics been employed to disrupt Church business?


Has any peaceful protesting been carried out at or near Church premises by “Project Chanology” members? What is the Church’s position on this?


Does the Church make any distinction between the various disruptive acts? Are any legal actions planned against members of “Anonymous”/”Project Chanology”? If so, what acts do you consider actionable?


What is the Church’s position on the allegations made by “Anonymous” that their attack is due to the Church’s Internet censorship?


Have any contacts with law enforcement been made to lodge complaints? If so, which agencies?


Have you, or are you, considering any legal action against ISPs hosting “Project Chanology”?


In response to “Project Chanology” a previously unheard of group calling themselves “The Regime” hacked the 711chan.org site. Do you have any comment on these actions?


There is a video purporting to be from “The Regime” on YouTube. Do you have any comment on this?


There is no certainty that the video was produced by the same group as performed the hack; does the Church have any association with either group?


Do you have any figures on the costs associated with the Church websites coming under attack?


Sorry the list of questions got so long, there is quite a bit of interest in the issue from my fellow reporters.



Regards,



Brian McNeil

Wikinews Administrator and Community Accredited Reporter


Forwarding of statement from 711chanEdit

Quote

Just to try and keep you in the loop here, we at Wikinews have received a statement from 711chan.org regarding the attacks against your websites. Their administrators have denounced the attacks with the following statement:


“It has been said before that this raid would fail, and although we do not see that happening at this moment, we as a network have taken a vote and decided that this raid on Church of Scientology was not done correctly. It has come to our attention that this raid has evolved into more than Anonymous attacking Co$, the raid has turned into namefagging, giving people an area to attack. This is not what the raid originally started as. Partyvan declares this as a threat to the network, and Anonymous alike. We have been under constant botnet attacks, 711chan hacked, and tons of drama over this. You guys did a very poor job of staying Anonymous. It's obvious that a lot of you broke rules 1, and 2. We are sorry to inform you that any more of this Scientology stuff will no longer be allowed on this network due to the epic amounts of spam, namefagging, and bullshit that goes on.”


Personally I suspect this means the attack will continue, but with an ever-diminishing number of participants. In addition to the questions I sent earlier I would appreciate your feedback on this development.



Regards,



Brian McNeil

Wikinews Administrator & Community Accredited Reporter.


Initial email to Church "PR" address - unansweredEdit

Quote

To whom it may concern…


I am trying to progress the below chain of conversation which is aimed at getting the Church of Scientology’s position on the leak of a video featuring Tom Cruise; the removal of this video from certain sites - per copyright law; and the apparent backlash in the form of attacks on Church of Scientology websites including alleged plans to employ measures such as faxing all black pages to Church numbers.


I attach two emails from my earlier discussion with Laetitia, and would appreciate any and all comments you can give on these issues. I have personally criticised my colleagues for not making earlier attempts to obtain a statement on the Church’s position regarding the attacks. Should such a position not be currently well formulated I would appreciate you reviewing the questions posed in my attached emails and giving the most considered response you can.


Regards,



Brian McNeil



Original Message-----

From: Int'l Basics Project [1] Sent: 29 January 2008 01:12 To: Brian McNeil Cc: publicrelations@scientology.net Subject: Re: Developments on attacks against Church websites



Hi Brian,

Yes, you have made it clear and I appreciate you being upfront on the matter. You can e-mail publicrelations@scientology.net.

Best, Laetitia


Original Message -----

From: "Brian McNeil" <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> To: "Int'l Basics Project" <knowledge@lrh.org> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 2:09:40 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: RE: Developments on attacks against Church websites

At all times I have tried to make it clear I am a journalist. I am community accredited on the Wikinews website (http://en.wikinews.org), a sister site to the WMF Wikipedia project; as well as being an administrator with extended privileges on the project.


If you cannot provide me with quotable material I would greatly appreciate providing me with the email address of someone who can. At the moment it is nearly 11pm here and I am working on my own time. The time difference between Belgium and California makes telephone contact problematic.


The email address knowledge@lrh.org is not obvious as one specific for initiates into Scientology and I have – as already said – been totally up front about who I am and the fact that I am a journalist. Since you now claim not to be qualified to answer my questions please either forward this email conversation on to someone who can make official, quotable, answers to my questions; rr provide me with the address of someone who can and I will do so.


I do apologise from distracting you with this issue where you have made it clear the address was inappropriate. At the time I initiated email contact this was one of the few Church of Scientology websites I could get to load that had an email contact. My personal preference is for conducting the majority of my investigative journalism work by email. It gives a second – and possibly third – opportunity to review what is written before clicking send.



Regards,



Brian McNeil Wikinews Administrator and Community Accredited Reporter


Original Message-----

From: Int'l Basics Project [2] Sent: 29 January 2008 00:56 To: Brian McNeil Subject: Re: Developments on attacks against Church websites



Dear Brian,

Yes -- I do have a problem with you quoting this. You are writing on a help website and it isn't the right source or the "Scientology opinion". Call (323) 960-3500 for information to quote as a journalist -- this is the reception for Church of Scientology International and you can get full information and quotations. I can help you get an appointment or the likes if needed. I definitely want to help you get what you need, but you should get it from the right people, not write in on a help line, which is not the public opinion. Let me know if you want me to make an appointment for you or direct you to someone who can give you information for your report.

Best, Laetitia


Original Message -----

From: "Brian McNeil" <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> To: "Int'l Basics Project" <knowledge@lrh.org> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 1:08:55 PM (GMT-0800) America/Tijuana Subject: RE: Developments on attacks against Church websites

Thank you for your email,


I assume you do not have any issues with me quoting this as I have made it clear I am a journalist.


I would greatly appreciate though if you could answer some of the more specific questions I posed earlier. In particular, can you specify what – if any – law enforcement agencies are involved in tracking down with a view to prosecution the group known as “Anonymous”.



Regards,



Brian McNeil



Original Message-----

From: Int'l Basics Project [3] Sent: 29 January 2008 00:31 To: Brian McNeil Subject: Re: Developments on attacks against Church websites



Dear Brian,

The activities of Anonymous have been reported to the Authorities and actions are being taken. Their activities are illegal and we do not approve of them. At the same time, our main work is to improve the environment, make people more able and spiritually aware.

So, we do not concentrate or put all our efforts onto handling Anonymous; as that is not our purpose and else all we would be doing is fighting someone against us to the detriment of people in the Society who need help and would be being neglected due to our energies being diverted.

So, yes, 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.

Laetitia


Original Message -----

From: "Brian McNeil" <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> To: "Int'l Basics Project" <knowledge@lrh.org> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:24:14 AM (GMT-0800) America/Tijuana Subject: RE: Developments on attacks against Church websites

I am neither. As I stated, I am a community accredited reporter for the Wikinews website. I.e. a journalist. Personally I do not approve of the attacks mounted by “Anonymous”, but that is more due to my beliefs in free speech and opposition to vigilante justice than holding any position in favour of the Church of Scientology.


As a journalist I want to see all sides of the story presented and am disappointed my colleagues have not made efforts earlier to contact the Church about the attacks.



Original Message-----

From: Int'l Basics Project [4] Sent: 28 January 2008 22:48 To: Brian McNeil Subject: Re: Developments on attacks against Church websites



Dear Brian,

Tks - I don't understand why you are writing to me. Are you part of Anonymous or are you pro-Scientology?

Laetitia


Original Message -----

From: "Brian McNeil" <brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org> To: "Int'l Basics Project" <knowledge@lrh.org> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 4:51:17 AM (GMT-0800) America/Tijuana Subject: Developments on attacks against Church websites

Just to try and keep you in the loop here, we at Wikinews have received a statement from 711chan.org regarding the attacks against your websites. Their administrators have denounced the attacks with the following statement:


“It has been said before that this raid would fail, and although we do not see that happening at this moment, we as a network have taken a vote and decided that this raid on Church of Scientology was not done correctly. It has come to our attention that this raid has evolved into more than Anonymous attacking Co$, the raid has turned into namefagging, giving people an area to attack. This is not what the raid originally started as. Partyvan declares this as a threat to the network, and Anonymous alike. We have been under constant botnet attacks, 711chan hacked, and tons of drama over this. You guys did a very poor job of staying Anonymous. It's obvious that a lot of you broke rules 1, and 2. We are sorry to inform you that any more of this Scientology stuff will no longer be allowed on this network due to the epic amounts of spam, namefagging, and bullshit that goes on.”


Personally I suspect this means the attack will continue, but with an ever-diminishing number of participants. In addition to the questions I sent earlier I would appreciate your feedback on this development.



Regards,



Brian McNeil

Wikinews Administrator & Community Accredited Reporter.


-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.


-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.


-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.


-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.


Broader Content Than Title Suggests?Edit

This article has a pretty wide scope of content - perhaps a more generalised title should be considered? The current title only accounts for less than 1/3 of the article. Also, this is more a continuation of the whole "Internet/Scientology" saga than simply an article focused on Scientolgy's response as the current title heavily suggests. Fallen-Griever 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Return to "Church of Scientology: '"Anonymous' will be stopped"" page.