[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
As I understand it, Scientology isn’t a juice-free group. If anything, Anonymous is pretty late to the party since Time went after Scientology in 1991 (I read the issue when it came out; my previous knowledge of Scientology was mostly derived from a chapter in Martin Gardner’s 1957 Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science).
Just out of curiosity, would it make any difference if there was no stated or implied yuk-yuk value in it; if all Anony statements were sombre and along the lines of “We are seeking to limit the influence of this dangerous organization through various means and we take this mission very seriously and will not encourage or support horesplay in its execution” ?
What bugs you more, the mission or the motive?
[/QUOTE]
The motive. The vigilante bullshit aspect is problematic to me, too, but (and I will probably catch some heat for saying this) there are circumstances in which vigilante bullshit might conceivably have its place. Just wanting to fuck with people who are different than most in some way that stigmatizes them – which is where these yutzes are coming from, make no mistake about that – is something else altogether.