Attention Devil's Advocates! Scientologists have started to try to argue! This is good and bad news. First, it means they realize they can't overwhelm us when it comes to commenting on online articles. They realize we're a forbidible opponent. This is good. The bad news is, our early responses to online articles were fairly devoid of content themselves. I'm very glad to see that articles coming out this week have brilliant people responding to lengthy rebuttals by scientologists. This is what I envisioned when I came up with 'devil's advocate' threads. i want an elite crew of people trained in debate and with relevent information at hand ready to debunk the lies and refute the arguments provided by these elite CoS posters. Consider the discussions at http://rinf.com/alt-news/sicence-technology/anonymous-why-we-fight-scientology/2560/ or http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/02/kids-against--1.html. This is going beyond what we saw in late Jan or early Feb. Now, the Anons I'm seeing in those threads are doing a fantastic job. Those of us that participate in Devil's Advocate threads, however, ought to consider collecting the lengthier, more persuasive CoS posts and research the ideal refutation for each claim. They likely have a checklist of points to make, we can reverse-engineer that checklist from their posts, and create a resource of refutations that our guys can use in response. So what can you do? Post any lengthy CoS comments you find on online news articles here. Research the points made in any of those, formulate a refutation, brainstorm on the most effective and persuasive way to express that refutation, and post it here. Ideally, this thread should be a resource for anybody that's combating the OSA posters on those sites.