Anonymous a internet sociological phenomenon?

[suomynonA]

I don’t really know anything about sociology or marketing, but I think this is very interesting. I’ve read two recent articles about how the Anonymous movement against the Church of $cientology with a large number of people acting independently, completely without leaders, to accomplish a single goal is an unexplained social phenomena and a perfect example of viral marketing. I also had always held the assumption that any large group would eventually produce leaders, even if only unofficially, but Anonymous seems to go completely against that. One description I’ve heard is that it’s a real life Stand Alone Complex enabled by the development of more open internet based communication tools.

http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/01/28/scientology-sac/
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/080217-154255

Anonymous is also pretty excited about these observations with a lot of ‘we are awesome’ type comments.

http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3988
http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3855

[Complexity]

I despise Scientology.

I'm not that impressed by 'Anonymous'.

They seem quite impressed with themselves. That's a turnoff.

[Tbone]

Anonymous having no leaders is both factual and not. Anonymous has no recognized elected (either by vote or popular opinion) leaders, but it is not without those who are highly respected (and occasionally listened to), its example-setters, or those who take charge of and organize these "IRL Raids." But these are local leaders, and leaders only in a paticular sense and context (ie. organizing the Scientololgy protests). Outside that context, they are the same as every other Anonymous.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Tinc

[Gord_in_Toronto]

T.i.n.c.

[suomynonA]

I despise Scientology.

I'm not that impressed by 'Anonymous'.

They seem quite impressed with themselves. That's a turnoff.
Like it or not, that is a major part of what Anonymous is. You have to remember this whole thing was born from *chan culture. It's an internet subculture where anonymity is the norm, even praised, but where trying to get attention by getting people to react in any way possible is most posters goal. It's a culture where people that create easily recognized identities (namefags) are despised as attention whores, and where moderators are absolutely never respected and often hated. It's a place where internet is serious business, goatse is no longer shocking, and where the end times are are going to be hailed by the battle between longcat and tacgnol. (If you don't get these reference, it's not important to begin with)

You may think it's a turnoff, but I love it. Anonymous is simultaneously working on a serious cause, and having a playful romp that has lead to some excellent lulz. And how exactly is a purely internet based group with absolutely no leadership holding the largest international protest against the Church of $cientology ever not impressive?

[suomynonA]

Anonymous having no leaders is both factual and not. Anonymous has no recognized elected (either by vote or popular opinion) leaders, but it is not without those who are highly respected (and occasionally listened to), its example-setters, or those who take charge of and organize these "IRL Raids." But these are local leaders, and leaders only in a paticular sense and context (ie. organizing the Scientololgy protests). Outside that context, they are the same as every other Anonymous.
There's a rather large thread about this on the Enturbulation forum.

http://forums.enturbulation.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3577

Basically one person was complaining that anons were taking the no leaders ideal too far. The closest you will come to leaders are people that will volunteer to perform certain tasks. Anonymous has no leaders and really does not want leaders. Orders are not given and orders will often be ignored or thrown right back in the face of the person giving the order in the first place.

[vexed]

I think both groups (Anon & Scientology) need less attention.


Anonymous is also pretty excited about these observations with a lot of ‘we are awesome’ type comments.


Anything to boost the egos of those who sit in their mother's basement.

[Complexity]

Like it or not, that is a major part of what Anonymous is. You have to remember this whole thing was born from *chan culture. It's an internet subculture where anonymity is the norm, even praised, but where trying to get attention by getting people to react in any way possible is most posters goal. It's a culture where people that create easily recognized identities (namefags) are despised as attention whores, and where moderators are absolutely never respected and often hated. It's a place where internet is serious business, goatse is no longer shocking, and where the end times are are going to be hailed by the battle between longcat and tacgnol. (If you don't get these reference, it's not important to begin with)

You may think it's a turnoff, but I love it. Anonymous is simultaneously working on a serious cause, and having a playful romp that has lead to some excellent lulz. And how exactly is a purely internet based group with absolutely no leadership holding the largest international protest against the Church of $cientology ever not impressive?


Well, I can't think of a single reason to pay attention to 'Anonymous' or to you.

Since your only interest seems to be spamming us regarding your little band of little boys, I'm placing you on Ignore.

[LawnOven]

Hmm, a loosely organized group where those that are deemed skilled at a particular task by a jury of their peers are then made, functionally, temporary leaders, is a brand new concept hailed in by the information age?

Err, I don't think so. I do think the chans and anon, could use a bit of learn'in in regards to anthropological theory however. :)

[mrbaracuda]

gtfo newfag. :D

[...]and where moderators are absolutely never respected and often hated.[...]


Yea. I hate them ever since I got banned once for cross-posting Japanese women in b and the animals/ nature forum on 4. The reason I got banned for was "Women are not animals / nature". I mean, come on 4chan. Are you serious? :rolleyes: :p

[tkingdoll]

Of course Anon has leaders. People who work much harder to promote the group than anyone else.

I'd say the person who started this thread is either one of them, or wants us to think he is.

[suomynonA]

Anything to boost the egos of those who sit in their mother's basement.
Ad hominem

Well, I can't think of a single reason to pay attention to 'Anonymous' or to you.

Since your only interest seems to be spamming us regarding your little band of little boys, I'm placing you on Ignore.
And ignoring me is completely okay with me. :D
Everyone should have the choice to say or listen to what they want. Of course since you're ignoring me this statement is mostly pointless.

I do wonder though, since when does two threads count as spamming?

Hmm, a loosely organized group where those that are deemed skilled at a particular task by a jury of their peers are then made, functionally, temporary leaders, is a brand new concept hailed in by the information age?

Err, I don't think so. I do think the chans and anon, could use a bit of learn'in in regards to anthropological theory however. :)
Well like I said in the first post, I don't really know anything about this sort of thing. Most anons obviously aren't going to know much about it. I understand that such structures with only extremely temporary roles of responsibility can happen in small groups, but has there ever been an example for a group that numbers in the thousands?

gtfo newfag. :D
Never going to give you up!

Of course Anon has leaders. People who work much harder to promote the group than anyone else.

I'd say the person who started this thread is either one of them, or wants us to think he is.
Maybe what I mean by leaders is different. I mean no one gives orders or takes orders, allowing everyone to act completely of their own will.

Obviously there are going to be people more involved. I'm really not one of them, not even close. I have enough stuff keeping me busy in the real world. I haven't done much to make or distribute propaganda material, and I haven't done anything to coordinate with other anons in my area.

[Reality Believer]

Tell me how Anonymous is different than any other masked hate group? They threaten and organize demonstrations against people who they don't like, supposedly under the guise of doing society a "favor".

I don't think many people like Scientology, but they have a constitutional right to practice their "religion" and their members have a right to be stupid.

Play back any of the messages recently issued by Anonymous and substitute the word "Scientologists" with "blacks" , "Jews" or any other persecuted group. It isn't so funny anymore is it? They are just the internet version of the KKK.

[mrbaracuda]

Never gonna give you up indeed. :cool: I actually laughed so hard, heh. :)

[vexed]

Ad hominem

Well, an ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.

Did I attempt to counter another's claim or conclusion? NO, because you haven't made any real claims, just a lot of nuthuggery.

I made a personal observation based on Anon 'members' that I have encountered. If that bothers you then change.

[vexed]

Tell me how Anonymous is different than any other masked hate group? They threaten and organize demonstrations against people who they don't like, supposedly under the guise of doing society a "favor".

I don't think many people like Scientology, but they have a constitutional right to practice their "religion" and their members have a right to be stupid.

Play back any of the messages recently issued by Anonymous and substitute the word "Scientologists" with "blacks" , "Jews" or any other persecuted group. It isn't so funny anymore is it? They are just the internet version of the KKK.

Agreed, and an excellent point.

[Moochie]

Like it or not, that is a major part of what Anonymous is. You have to remember this whole thing was born from *chan culture. It's an internet subculture where anonymity is the norm, even praised, but where trying to get attention by getting people to react in any way possible is most posters goal. It's a culture where people that create easily recognized identities (namefags) are despised as attention whores, and where moderators are absolutely never respected and often hated. It's a place where internet is serious business, goatse is no longer shocking, and where the end times are are going to be hailed by the battle between longcat and tacgnol. (If you don't get these reference, it's not important to begin with)

You may think it's a turnoff, but I love it. Anonymous is simultaneously working on a serious cause, and having a playful romp that has lead to some excellent lulz. And how exactly is a purely internet based group with absolutely no leadership holding the largest international protest against the Church of $cientology ever not impressive?

Unfortunately, as with most matters that capture these people's attention span, next week it'll be dropped me bloody milk. Hon -- hon? Can you iron my lulz?

M.

[Big Les]

Thing is, much as a lot of people here seem to dislike the group, it really does seem to be changing. You wouldn't believe the agonising going on on enturbulation.org over what tactics are appropriate, whether it's OK to attack the beliefs of Scientology etc etc.

The irresponsible law-breaking "neckbeard" nihilists are very much in a minority, and being shouted down on a regular basis.

I actually think (and hope) that most, if not all, of the "unfortunate" members have already given up interest. What's left is a hard core of about 6000 Anonymous members who are taking the campaign very seriously, bolstered by a lot of passive critics like myself, and a lot of experienced activists too, who have decided to throw their lot in as far as real life pickets and criticism of their ethics, practices and pseudoscientific nonsenses go.

Yes, there is still enjoyment taken from working against the church - unsurprisingly when you see what they've been responsible for. Yes, there is still a lot of internet silliness involved. But this shows no sign of slowing down as yet.

I really don't understand the accusation of "hate group" and the comparison with the KKK. For one thing following Scientology is a choice, albeit one heavily influenced by the church themselves, and not a state of being. It's a choice that brings with it partial responsibility for the crimes and regrettable activities of the group, and the negative effects of hawking pseudoscience in place of real medical treatments. This is more than deserving of any of the more traditional "South Park" style mocking tactics in my opinion, and yet Anonymous is striving very hard to move away from this, recognising that it can be seen as attacking freedom of belief.

Instead they are going after their practices. Currently the focus is upon their tax exemptions and their policy of disconnecting members from loved ones. Only time will tell how successful all this is, but at the very least there will be a larger number of responsible critics of Scientology left in its wake. If you know the first thing about this cult, that can only be a good thing.

[suomynonA]

Tell me how Anonymous is different than any other masked hate group? They threaten and organize demonstrations against people who they don't like, supposedly under the guise of doing society a "favor".

I don't think many people like Scientology, but they have a constitutional right to practice their "religion" and their members have a right to be stupid.

Play back any of the messages recently issued by Anonymous and substitute the word "Scientologists" with "blacks" , "Jews" or any other persecuted group. It isn't so funny anymore is it? They are just the internet version of the KKK.
Because Anonymous isn't attacking Scientology the religion, but is criticizing the Church of $cientology. There is a difference between what people believe and practice, and the organizations that present themselves as authorities of that religion. Anonymous doesn't have any problem with people believing in Xenu, thetans, or OT superman powers, even if they do come across as silly to most people.

The emphasis is on their church. Now there's nothing wrong with having a church, but the current one is corrupt. They continue to practice fair game, hide their beliefs from people that don't pay them thousands of dollars and spend years in the church, make people disconnect from their families, employ slave labor through the Rehibilitation Project Force. Then there's always Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout, and the mysterious death of Lisa McPherson.

There are no problems with religion. One of the slogans popular with the anons involved with the protests is "Beliefs are free, $cientology isn't". In fact anons are very supportive of Free Zoners. There is no religious hate here, only a movement to bring attention to a corrupt church.

Well, an ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.

Did I attempt to counter another's claim or conclusion? NO, because you haven't made any real claims, just a lot of nuthuggery.

I made a personal observation based on Anon 'members' that I have encountered. If that bothers you then change.
If I really misused ad hominen, then my bad. I'll try to do better in the future. But, you did use an inaccurate stereotype. Then you claim it's an observation, which it isn't.

Unfortunately, as with most matters that capture these people's attention span, next week it'll be dropped me bloody milk. Hon -- hon? Can you iron my lulz?

M.
This has already been going strong for over a month now. There's a protest planned for March 15th. Some people are already discussing protests for April. This is not a case of /b/tards hacking Myspace pages and making prank phone calls. Many people who have never even been on the chans before have joined under this.

[Big Les]

I believe this is representative of the efforts being undertaken by the majority of Anonymous still involved in this project (it was certainly along the lines of what I witnessed at my local protest on the 10th):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2zwtJrGrn7w

I'm not sure what more they can do to demonstrate that the majority are a) serious about this and b) not a "hate group".

[vexed]

In all honesty that lady is just going to look for the next ideology to follow which may be just as crazy as Scientology, who will be there to save her from that?

IMO, Anon is really just cherry picking what they find to be 'corrupt'. If you look deep enough into any religion you can find corruption.

[suomynonA]

In all honesty that lady is just going to look for the next ideology to follow which may be just as crazy as Scientology, who will be there to save her from that?
Oh that's nice. Just go ahead and imply that a person you know absolutely nothing about is gullible and emotionally weak.

She wasn't a Scientologist yet. She hadn't gotten deep enough for the brain washing to take place. She was still at the stage where what Scientology offers is actually pretty good stuff that really works. That's one of the bad things about the Co$. They pull a bait and switch where the initiates are given good advice, but once they invest a certain amount of time and money then the cult aspect comes out.

IMO, Anon is really just cherry picking what they find to be 'corrupt'. If you look deep enough into any religion you can find corruption.
Of course you can find corruption in other religions. Ask yourself this though, how many of those religious organizations are as corrupt as the Co$ is right now? Do you really want a church that was founded on a basis of corruption and greed to continue growing and gain legitimacy?

As for the cherry picking part, I can't see it that way. The Co$ was not picked from a list of religions to attack. It was picked because they specifically did something that pissed off Anonymous, which then snowballed into what it is now. It just happened naturally.

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not sure I have much more to add that Big Les hasn't, but I wanted to voice my feelings are much akin to his. You can't just substitute anything else with Scientology and come up with something remotely close. They call themselves a religion, that doesn't mean it's so, and it doesn't mean hating a very evil organization is wrong.

As for Anonymous, I'm still not sure. I can't help but think it's all going to die out with a whimper, but I'd love to be proved wrong. I may be cynical, but I just can't imagine seeing how this can work beyond a couple (err, well..) lulz. I find it strange that someone can do a great deal of work for a cause and get no recognition. I understand that's the idea, but that doesn't convince me it has any staying power. Perhaps I have a dim view on humanity, or perhaps this is really is a flash in the pan.

But, regardless, what has happened so far I enjoy. Those protests actually turned out a good number. I hope they repeat. I'd have nothing against Anonymous going after Scientology, not just the Church of Scientology, because I don't see how you can remove them so easily as it all stems from L. Ron's directives. But, in any event, the Church of Scientology is an entity that I would dearly like to see stopped or at least hindered, and for that Anonymous is just alright with me. (To borrow a phrase from the Doobies...)

If Anonymous is cherry picking, they're picking the ripest. You may find corruption in other "religions" but I'll eat my hat if you find one that compares with what Scientology does.

[skeptifem]

RULES 1&2! we all know its actually ebaumsworld!!!1

but srsly... i like 4chan and anonymous. this thread still sucks HARD though. ugh. 'irl standalone complex' please, the guys making the youtubes about scientology count as leaders because they started the whole thing. its kind of pointless to discuss anonymous because anonymous will latch onto a meme and embrace it when an hour before the same thing was rejected hard. the group changes too much to say much of anything about it.

[Kopji]

Hey I'm always up for a good dva1d vs g0liath protest. Gettin my avatar ready for the 15th. 800yah!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/106147bd1abbf2674.jpg

[mrbaracuda]

Never thought to see such thread on here by the way. :p

[UserGoogol]

Of course it should be pointed out that Anonymous is a very heterogenous entity. I consider myself a part of Anonymous (in that I post on 4chan, (although I avoid /b/ like hell) and think there is a time and place for lulz), but I am generally against much of the more explicitly trollish side, and even for basically benign things like this I sometimes feel a sort of awkward "cultural cringe" for seeing Anonymous out and about in the world. To identify Anonymous with the loudest dicks is unfair.

[Big Les]

In all honesty that lady is just going to look for the next ideology to follow which may be just as crazy as Scientology, who will be there to save her from that?

You could apply the same laissez-faire argument to literally anything that's discussed here. Why try and prevent people from visiting psychics? From using homoeopathy? From believing conspiracy theories?

What's wrong with a group of people identifying something wrong in the world and trying to do something about it? This whole thing started as a childish knee-jerk reaction to spoiled fun, but is instead becoming a focus for both pre-existing and new outrage at what the Co$ has done, and continues to do.

IMO, Anon is really just cherry picking what they find to be 'corrupt'. If you look deep enough into any religion you can find corruption.

I have to ask you how much you've read about the Co$? It's only a religion per se in the US and Australia, and then this status was only obtained for tax breaks. It's a money-making power-wielding exercise, nothing more.

And yet, ironically enough, it actually seems to ape the methods and behaviour of established religions, back when the original ideas had wandered, individuals were in charge who wanted money and power, and there were no checks and balances there to hold them back. It wants to be the Christian church of about 1500AD - absolute authority, control of government, control of medicine, of morality, massive wealth, etc etc.

Of course Christianity or any other mainstream religion has a history of corruption, money-grabbing, abuse of authority etc etc. No doubt elements of them still would like to. The point is that they have either reformed themselves or been forced to do so along the lines of prevailing ideas in society about what's right and appropriate. Sharp eyes are kept on them and their influence in society is reduced as far as possible to personal choice and individual belief.

The Co$ flies in the face of those ideas. At best it pushes pseudoscience to people who have severely limited choices, and at worst it destroys people's lives. You don't have to believe the more lurid anecdotal evidence to get a grasp of just how much worse they are than any comparable group that's styled a religion (or is actually one). Compare them with Wicca, or even Mormonism.

I can understand reservations about a group like Anonymous, and there is certainly a danger of hubris, of declining interest, and no doubt there are people out there who want nothing more than to persecute people different from them. They are easily able to associate themselves with a group like this, because anyone can. You could argue that people like me are aligning with them as a sort of marriage of convenience, but I have been very sceptical of the group all along the way. It was only when I saw them standing peacefully, trying to engage with the public and obviously knowing their stuff and caring about the issue that I realised a significant number of these people are intelligent and socially responsible. Scepticism is certainly lacking, but that's true of most people, as we know all too well. To anyone critical of Co$ but still not convinced by Anonymous - time will tell.

In any case, please, don't reject the very valid criticisms of Scientology simply because you don't like the idea of internet "mobs" originating within subcultures you find distasteful.

[Big Les]

http://www.michaelshermer.com/2008/02/scientology-anonymous/

This Shermer piece addresses the very concerns expressed here by some sceptics.

[mrbaracuda]

I consider myself a part of Anonymous (in that I post on 4chan, (although I avoid /b/ like hell) and think there is a time and place for lulz), but I am generally against much of the more explicitly trollish side

So you're not a true anon then. Shame.
Unless you've been banned from Habbo more than once..:rolleyes:

[Luzz]

The belief that the "Anonymous" group has no leaders is ridiculous. It is what they want us to believe as it is more difficult to place responsability on someone if something goes wrong.
Of course, this group has leaders, somebody had to come up with the idea of calling themselves "anonymous", someone decided to upload threatening videos on youtube, etc.
I don´t like them at all, they use confrontation instead of reason. Why don´t they start a massive campaigne agaist catholicism?

[Kilgore Trout]

The belief that the "Anonymous" group has no leaders is ridiculous. It is what they want us to believe as it is more difficult to place responsability on someone if something goes wrong.
Of course, this group has leaders, somebody had to come up with the idea of calling themselves "anonymous", someone decided to upload threatening videos on youtube, etc.
I don´t like them at all, they use confrontation instead of reason. Why don´t they start a massive campaigne agaist catholicism?

It's obvious there's someone somewhere that has come up with the idea to wear those masks, the date to protest, etc etc. But, pray tell, who? "Anonymous4232"? That's more to the point, along with the idea that when one comes up with the idea of, say, spray painting Xenu somewhere, they get shouted down by the hive mind. I'm not saying they're a gift of enlightenment or super heroes or something, but I don't think you quite understand.

And, I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold peaceful demonstration against the Church of Scientology. And when it becomes papal direction for the Catholic church to "advise" (read: force) its members to disconnect from family, commit suicide, have abortions they don't want, and pay and pay and pay for church "teachings" then perhaps your analogy will be relevant.

[Big Les]

The belief that the "Anonymous" group has no leaders is ridiculous.

It's certainly proving difficult for Scientology to comprehend and defend against. Is it so hard to believe that a loose affiliation of people with a common cause are able to co-ordinate without leadership?

It's the closest thing to an autonomous collective that I've ever seen. Any time any one person even looks like trying to assert their will over the group, they are shouted down. It's not just part of the origin ethos of the group - it's common sense. They don't want to allow Scientology to fight on their own terms, which is how they have survived this long as a scam.

It is what they want us to believe as it is more difficult to place responsability on someone if something goes wrong.

I won't deny - that is convenient for them. Anything that's bad PR can (legitimately) be put down to the actions of an individual or minority. That's just the way it is - people are aligning behind an idea, not a traditional organisation of any kind. "Anonymous" doesn't exist, and yet it has the potential to be the greatest threat the Co$ has ever faced.

Of course, this group has leaders, somebody had to come up with the idea of calling themselves "anonymous", someone decided to upload threatening videos on youtube, etc.

You really don't get this, do you? I suggest you do some more research. The name came about organically. Whoever posted the first video was simply an agent for a group consensus. Call them a "leader" if you like, go after them if you can. There are many more people creating and uploading videos like that, using common themes and styles, but totally independent of each other. Everything works by consensus - someone suggests something, and if a majority agree, it gets done - the methods, the identity, all of it.

I don´t like them at all, they use confrontation instead of reason.

Do you call youtube videos, internet criticism and peaceful protest "confrontation"? Prank calls and DDOS attacks as used by the first wave of outraged and ignorant members are now being (rightly) condemned by a majority as counter-productive and inappropriate.

Why don´t they start a massive campaigne agaist catholicism?

Non-sequitur much? Scientology started this mess by poking an internet hornet's nest. That's "why Scientology" in fundamental terms. Now it's expanded to embrace just about all critics, everywhere, just about all members recognise that though elements of mainstream religion are controversial and even undesirable, Scientology is in a league of its own when it comes to dubious practices. And unlike those religions, it has singularly failed to react and change along with fair criticism.

[Moochie]

Say, wasn't Hubbard red haired? If so, 'nuff said. :p


M.

[Luzz]

Big Les,
Read that article written by M. Shermer. I agree with him.
The guy running the website Xenu seems like a real honorable person to me. He is not a coward hiding behind anonymity, he provides information so people can make up their minds without inciting to violence.

[Big Les]

Big Les,
Read that article written by M. Shermer. I agree with him.

Did you read the whole thing? IMO he's saying that *if* the Anonymous message had been aimed at a traditional religious or ethnic group, it would have overtones of fascism. He then goes on to outline why many people don't see the church that way.

The guy running the website Xenu seems like a real honorable person to me. He is not a coward hiding behind anonymity,

No indeed, and he's suffered a great deal of persecution at the hands of the Co$ as a result of his bravery. The anonymity is a counter-tactic to the sort of harassment that traditional critics have suffered. I would point out that a single person using anonymity will lack credibility. A group of 9000 people uniting under a common cause have no need of individual identification, and anyone that does break this cover risks harassment. It's already happening to those who have tried to emulate past critics by putting their private lives, families, and jobs on the line.

he provides information so people can make up their minds without inciting to violence.

Inciting to violence? What are you talking about about/basing that on?

[Luzz]

Inciting to violence? What are you talking about about/basing that on?

Ok. they don´t incite to violence, but they do incite to confrontation. I am a peaceful person and I don´t see why I should impose my beliefs or lack of beliefs on other people.

I wouldn´t like a bunch of people trying to silence me over my beliefs on evolution or unicorns, or whatever you want to believe. Personally, I think catholics and muslims are doing more damage to this world than scientologists, which by the way represent only a tiny minority. They are not blowing themselves, they haven´t been accused of massively abusing children, they are not burning witches, so what the hell?

[Kilgore Trout]

Ok. they don´t incite to violence, but they do incite to confrontation. I am a peaceful person and I don´t see why I should impose my beliefs or lack of beliefs on other people.

Are you talking about Anonymous or Scientology? Check out some of the videos on xenutv.com if you want to see some classic Scientology confrontation. I also don't see what Anonymous has done to incite confrontation, as Scientology did their best to just ignore the protests, apart from making some stuff up about them to the press.

I wouldn´t like a bunch of people trying to silence me over my beliefs on evolution or unicorns, or whatever you want to believe. Personally, I think catholics and muslims are doing more damage to this world than scientologists, which by the way represent only a tiny minority. They are not blowing themselves, they haven´t been accused of massively abusing children, they are not burning witches, so what the hell?

Then you clearly don't know what Anonymous is doing. They aren't protesting the beliefs, but the "church." They're even quite supportive of Free Zoners. Have a look here (http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology).

And you're only partially correct, they aren't blowing themselves up and burning witches, but they are massively abusing children, among other things. See the Woodcraft family's account on xenutv.com; Zoe in particular as she was practically raised as a child in Scientology. The reason they haven't done more damage to the world than other religions might simply be because of their size, not their aims or intent (which, by the way, is to Clear the entire planet).

[Big Les]

As for xenu.net's webmaster having a preferable approach; since the core group of anti-Co$ Anonymous proved it could protest and engage in activism peacefully, he (and many other high profile existing critics), has come out in support of Anonymous (http://www.xenu.net/news/20080210-picket_signs.html).

[Kilgore Trout]

At first I thought those masks were a little goofy, but after those pictures.. Very creepy. A good choice.

[Luzz]

Are you talking about Anonymous or Scientology?

LOL.
It is now difficult to distinguish, isn't it? :D

[Kilgore Trout]

LOL.
It is now difficult to distinguish, isn't it? :D

Not at all. You've clearly made your point against Anonymous, yet it is Scientology that actively confronts others and not Anonymous at the 2/15 protests. It is the very definition of irony to insinuate Anonymous as inciting confrontation towards Scientology.

[Luzz]

Kilgore,
Sexual abuse, defamation, harassment, etc. are situations that happen independently of your religious affiliation. I am for putting those criminals in jail, but to target a religious group and pretending that you are "confronting" their abuse is misleading. I do not agree on this.
If you and anons are really concern about their criminal actions then it would make sense to go to the police instead of uploading silly videos on youtube.

I do not expect you to agree with me. This is my opinion and I believe, the opinion of many others who frown upon anonymous.

[Kilgore Trout]

You've clearly done no research into either Scientology or Anonymous. This is where our impasse lies. You are certainly entitled to base your opinion on ignorance, just realize how you've come to that conclusion.

I'm not even sure what angers me more, that you wish to wallow in ignorance, even when provided links and access to information, and still try to reply, or your assertion of the xenutv videos are "silly" which shows you to also be without conscience.

[Luzz]

kilgore,
This is my last post addressed to you. I was referring to the youtube videos, that is the reason I edited my original post :rolleyes: I know the website xenu has grounds and good information, I even recognised the respectable work of its founder.
Bye

[Big Les]

And the fact that that very site supports Anonymous, along with Mark Bunker, Tory Christman, and other critics and ex-Scientologists?

[Kilgore Trout]

kilgore,
This is my last post addressed to you. I was referring to the youtube videos, that is the reason I edited my original post :rolleyes: I know the website xenu has grounds and good information, I even recognised the respectable work of its founder.
Bye

Xenutv has quite the number of YouTube videos; you might have found that if you had even the slightest inclination of looking things up. And Xenutv is not the same as xenu.net. Xenutv is run by Mark Bunker, while xenu.net is Operation Clambake, run by Andreas Heldal-Lund. Roll your eyes all you like, it's quite obvious you're content to hold your opinion even if it flies in the face of facts.

[Dark Jaguar]

I find the anonymous group interesting though amusing. If the idea that they really are a "stand alone complex" is true then just us having this debate spreads the meme around. Also if true then the group is both innocent and guilty, in that since all act as autonymous units there's nothing preventing individuals in the name of anonymous from doing immoral acts, such as hacking. The group could in fact be splintered without even knowing it.

If it's not the case, then it has a leader and it can be sued.

One thing's for sure. Either it has leaders or it doesn't. A definition of "leader" for the group that says anyone that takes any action are themselves a leader pretty much makes the term "leader" meaningless.