Customize

Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

Discussion in 'Translation and Text Composition Projects' started by QAnon, Jun 24, 2008.

  1. QAnon Member

    Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    The Cud, through e-mails to Anon responders, has invited Anon to pen a 500-1500 word response to an article by someone calling themselves "Paul St. Paul". Please consult the original thread for more info: http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/religionist-bawwws-about-protesters-19838/.

    I've been mulling things over in my mind, and I want to take a stab at it. Again, please read the original before commenting, since we've been invited to come up with a rebuttal. I'll be munging the links so that they aren't auto-parsed (I needed the auto-parse on to do the link above).

    The session begins:

    Dear Mr. St. Paul:

    Greetings. I am Anonymous.

    I may be one of the protesters who you were confronted with that day in Toronto. Or I could be a protester in New York, or Chicago, or Los Angeles, or Sydney, or Wellington, or Tokyo, or London, or Berlin, or in over one hundred cities worldwide, all of whom are currently protesting what we see as the criminal abuses of the so-called "Church of Scientology".

    Mr. St. Paul, Anonymous respects the fact that you are a "religionist" and are upset to see someone protesting a religion. The fact is, though, that Anonymous believes that the Church of Scientology is not a religion, or at least not any religion that you might be familiar with. If you had read the literature our Toronto Anons had given you, you would have been presented with some shocking facts concerning this "Church". Anonymous would also like to clear up a misconception that the "Church" has charged us with: Anonymous does not protest the beliefs of individual Scientologists. Anonymous only protests the systemic abuses of basic human rights that the "Church" indulges in, abuses that are enshrined in the "Church"'s doctrines and practices.

    (I've placed the word "Church" in quotations because Anonymous tries not to use that word if possible; Anonymous believes that "cult" sums up this organization nicely, and, in fact, a number of Anonymous in Great Britain have experienced legal action for using it, the police there believing that it incites "religious hatred". Sometimes the truth is difficult to accept.)

    This is a "Church" that requires its membership to pay vast amounts of money to find out its core precepts. The cost to find out its "creation myth", what Judeo-Christians get for free at the beginning of Genesis, is approximately US$300000. It is irrelevant to Anonymous that their creation myth is seen by many as a mixture of pseudo-science and bad science fiction (after all, Scientology's founder, L. Ron Hubbard, was a bad science-fiction author). Imagine having to pay exorbitant amounts of cash to find out that Jesus was the son of God, or that Allah is God and Mohammed is his prophet.

    This is a "Church" that not only pronounces anathema on people who leave, but forces their friends and families still inside to "disconnect" from them, making those who leave into non-persons for those still in.

    This is a "Church" that has a written policy, still in effect despite denials from them, to go after anyone who dares criticize anything about them. This action, called "Fair Game", has, over its forty years of implementation, ruined careers and ruined lives. The Church of Scientology will do anything to punish their critics, from plastering their neighborhoods with notices accusing them of child molestation to calling their jobs and leaking derogatory information to their bosses to filing frivolous suits against them in a court of law. And they go beyond that. Please Google "Operation Freakout" to find out what they did to an author named Paulette Cooper when she dared to be critical. Please Google "Tory Christman" to find out what they're doing to her today, eight years after she left the "Church". You will be horrified by some of the stories.

    And this, Mr. St. Paul, is why we are masked, and why we don't remove them. During each of Anonymous' protests worldwide, Scientologists have taken photos and videos of protesters, even following them to their cars after protests and photographing license plates, to try to identify them and put Fair Game into practice. Three protesters, Sean Carasov in Los Angeles, Gregg Housh in Boston, and Stu Wyatt in Brighton, England, have been Fair Gamed to the point of arrest, despite all the worldwide protests being peaceful in nature; Anonymous has been complimented by a number of police organizations for its politeness and willingness to work inside the law. Housh and Wyatt, at this writing, still have legal action pending against them.

    We have encouraged Scientologists to communicate with us. Their belief system states that even a recent convert to Scientology has the ability to communicate with anyone. But most Scientologists have shown themselves unwilling to do so. It's not only the masks. It's the fact that we possess what to them is very disturbing information. Scientology has been described by Tory Christman as "the Truman Show", a house of cards built on half-truths and lies. Information to the contrary collapses that house of cards. And if Scientologists reflect any doubts in their belief system, they are subject to what can only be described as an interrogation procedure. It's called "ethics handling". Again, please look that up.

    Every religion has its core of True Believers. In Scientology, they're called the Sea Organization. Members are required to sign one-billion-year contracts. This is not a typo; reincarnation is a Scientology belief. They work sixteen-hour days or more, usually seven days a week, for about US$50 a week. They only get this pay if their work is considered acceptable by superiors. And if their work becomes too unacceptable, or they're considered to be trouble, Scientology has a solution for that. It is called the Rehabilitation Project Force. Please Google that phrase. You will find that the activities there can be summed up in one five-letter word: gulag. Children as young as twelve are recruited into the Sea Org, as it's called, and are subject to its punishments.

    I must ask you: is this like any religion you know in the 21st Century? The closest example I can think of to the state of Scientology today is the worst of the Christian Church in the 15th Century. The spirit of indulgences and excommunication, the actions of the Inquisition, and the burning of heretics is alive and well in Scientology.

    You say that you favor separation of church and state. So does Anonymous. But the Church of Scientology doesn't. In the 1970s, they conducted the largest infiltration of the United States government in history, a project called Operation Snow White; again, please Google that. In the 1990s, they pressured the US Internal Revenue Service into giving them tax exemptions that are enjoyed by no other religious organization; there is currently a suit in California by a couple named Sklar which is challenging this decision. They have been indicted in your native Canada for attempting to infiltrate the government there.

    May I state that Anonymous are not all university students, despite those you may have seen. Anonymous ranges in age from 14 to 80. We are simply people brought together, through the medium of the Internet, in a common cause.

    And that brings us to a misconception in your article. You said, "The problem is that all of these groups opposing religious assemblages also want funds and power. Everyone needs money and if there is going to be unity within any given group a certain amount of power has to be exerted by some and given up by others. Every group needs leadership and rules that help it to exist in consistency. We cannot get away from money and organization as a key factor here because money and organization are a necessity in life whether in a tattoo parlor, a government office, Bible study group or in the Communist Party."

    This is not true of Anonymous. Anonymous has no formal organization. Anonymous has no leaders. Anonymous has no membership requirements. Anonymous does not discriminate on any basis. When Anonymous sees a requirement or necessity in the pursuit of its activities, each individual contributes to the extent of his own ability and from his own resources, all done in the spirit of contributing to the group's success; no one is assigned to a task or is coerced into doing anything. Our "rules" are established by consensus of the group, and each individual chooses to follow them of his, her, or its own free will. Our consistency is imposed by the collective will of the group. For Anonymous, money and organization are not a necessity. We are a new phenomenon, and have been cited as such by publications like the Times of London. We are protesters for the Digital Age. It's a difficult concept to understand, sir, even for someone immersed in the unique culture that has spawned Anonymous. But the more you research us, the more you will understand.

    (As an explanation of the Anonymous ethos, this article was written by a single Anonymous who volunteered to do so after Anonymous was asked if they wished to submit a rebuttal to your article. That Anonymous then placed a draft text of this article in a public forum and asked other Anonymous for consensus as to its content. Suggestions were made, edits were made, and Anonymous agreed that it was ready for submission. This is how Anonymous works.)

    Anonymous encourages you to research the issues and to find out how people feel and react when freedom of religion is not free. We suggest visiting the following websites to find out more about Scientology and its abuses:

    www. xenu.net
    www. exscientologykids.com
    www. scientology.org (yes, the "Church"'s official website; we encourage people to find out both sides)

    For more about the protest movement:

    www. xenutv.com
    www. enturbulation.org
    www. whyweprotest.net

    Perhaps after you research this issue, you'll understand why there was a group of ragamuffins in masks creating such a fuss. In fact, Mr. St. Paul, after you conduct your research, you may have a desire to join us during one of Anonymous' monthly protests. You will be welcomed by Anonymous with open arms, and we'll have a Guy Fawkes mask waiting for you.

    This is the end of the session.

    (They asked for 500-1500; that's just under 1500 even with all the edits. Target hit.)
  2. Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Very well written, I'd say it's ready to be sent it in. Excellent work fellow anon.
  3. janon12345 Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    My only suggestion when you say in GB they have faced legal action over the term 'cult', maybe mention the the charges against ENG were in fact dropped by the state..

    Looks very good though IMHO
  4. QAnon Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Janon: It's not only ENG. There's been "cult" problems with Plod in Strathclyde and West Yorkshire, and those are still pending resolution. That's why I left it open like that.
  5. QAnon Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Threw in some edits, and used the process of creating this article as an example to try to explain how we work.
  6. Infernanon Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Just for the record, it's over 100 cities (~130).

    Edit: And other then that, very good.
  7. Legione Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    There are times where you use the article sir for no good reason.

    It makes it seem either belittling or degrading. I can almost see the sarcasm oozing with every "sir"

    It also makes the article just sorta clunky, especially towards the end.
  8. QAnon Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Yeah, too many "sir"s. Cut most of them out and changed a couple to direct references where I wanted emphasis. Reads a little less clunky. And I changed "almost one hundred" to "over one hundred", so that's corrected.
  9. Asian-anon Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Reaction of First Read-through: Good, needs less parentheses. I know the stuff inside are more tangential, but the article can really do without.

    I'll have more stuff to post later.
  10. Upallnite Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Verry good read. I liked how you used the letter as an example of how things work.
  11. TheGeth Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Once again, Anon delivers truth and knowledge. Very well written and very informative. IMHO you've summed up how we work very well. Great job.
  12. Anon-ymous Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Very well written. Great work
  13. evey Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    great work OP, one suggestion for consideration:

    you say anonymous has no organisation. i disagree. we are not AN organisation, but we organise over 9000 people into protests every month, that doesn't happen without anons all collaborating to make it happen. we are leaderless, but organised - this is one of the hardest things for outside observers (and scilons) to accept, and the point st paul so aptly misses in his comment "Every group needs leadership and rules that help it to exist in consistency". every group does NOT need leadership, and anonymous is an example of that. herd of cats, etc.

    i think the way it is he will just rebutt with "but you ARE organised, protests dont happen without organisation, etc etc"

    tl;dr
    we are not an organisation, but we are organised by consensus. the letter example is great.
  14. Lorelei Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Nice. Would add a link to a "is this a cult?" checklist site and invite St. Paul to ask you if he is confused about how the Co$ fits a particular "it's a cult" indicator.

    Also:
    What's the harm in Scientology?
    whyarethedead
    whyweprotest
    wikipedia on scientology
    xenutv
    youfoundthecard
    xenu.net

    A link exposing the front groups and a pointed question about whether he'd like his kids or employees or boss targeted by Scilons in disguise, whether he thinks Narconon / Criminon should be allowed to target desperate addicts in need with crappy "niacin + boiling in sauna" treatments, etc., might also inform the ignorant religionist.

    A gentle nudge to do the bare minimum of research before wanking ignorantly online about any protest would also not be inappropriate. Googling an unrelated search phrase is not adequate research. He assumed Anon gives a shit about the religious beliefs of Scis, and by using that false assumption for his GoogFu attempt, he guaranteed himself a total lack of relevant information. PROTIP: if you don't know what a protest is about, your "best guess" is likely to be completely irrelevant and make your conclusions both wrong and stupid.

    Why people feel the need to post stuff that says, in essence, "I am self-important enough to blog, but not diligent enough to do my audience the favor of informing myself correctly before sharing my pearls of wis-dumb," I'll never comprehend.
  15. Robert S Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    I say GO, & nice tone throughout!
  16. twelve Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Send it, imo.
  17. QAnon Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Okay...I turned some of the parentheticals into semi-colons. I changed the "no organization" reference to "no formal organization", which covers evey's suggestion nicely. I also altered the close to do a Kill With Kindness to establish Anon's openness and friendliness.

    Lorelei: We're already pushing our word limit (they said 500-1500, and with all the edits, I think I'm over the latter, but not by much). I'd love to get into the front groups, but the links cover those nicely. And the altered close is a nice, gentle push toward that research.

    I think I've got enough links in there to cover the basics. I try to avoid whyaretheydead in the initial phase because it's a very anvilicious site, not to mention highly disorganized and unclear for a n00b.

    I expanded one of the early graphs to make clear that we're not protesting beliefs, just the CoS.

    EDIT: Went through and cleared up some of the clarity issues and stilted sentences. Not too many, thank goodness; I'm pretty good at first drafts.
  18. A_nonchalant Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Eeeh. I think there's way too much focus on us, not enough on Scientology. We're not actually talking to Mr. St. Paul - we're talking to his audience, and we want to convince them that CoS is bad, not that Anonymous is awesome. So less of the "Google YYY" and more of the "In 197X, the Church of Scientology was convicted for Z, a practice they still continue today as evidenced by person N, case B, incident Y." Hyperlinks on important words should be all you need. And ditch all versions of "sir". If you subscribe to a local paper, open it up to the letters and see how organizations/politicians respond to bad articles - it's never, ever personally aimed at the writer.

    Mr. St. Paul is making the charge in his article that we are attacking something silly - CoS's need for structure. Point out that he misunderstood - maybe be kind and say it could have been explained better by us - and go on about coerced abortions, child labor, etc. Those are the things that will get his audience's attention REALLY FAST.

    I'm considering submitting a competing piece, if people don't mind? My personal writing style is quite different from most of what's going on above and I want to avoid the too-many-chefs syndrome.
  19. QAnon Member

    Re: Response To The Cud BAWWWWWW

    Yes, we ARE talking to Mr. St. Paul. The piece is designed as an open letter to him. It's not designed as an editorial submission. If it was, the writing style would be completely different and the content would be different. I think the open letter format suits the type of site it would go up at and fits in very well with what Anon is all about.

    "Not enough about CoS, too much about Anon?" First of all, two-thirds of the piece is about the Scifags. And look at the original article again. His piece takes a very personal tone towards Anonymous, one that needs a response (the last third of my piece), and a personal type of response to boot. I found St. Paul's tone very condescending, and thought this approach, addressing his concerns, worked best.

    As for submitting a competing piece, hey, go for it. You've done some damn good writing, so I know that you'll deliver; personally, I can't wait to read it. Who knows? They could decide to print both, which means that St. Paul Lost The Game big-time.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins