I just finished a biography on Gandhi.  I think I've figured out
aspects of his methods that can be quite useful for us.
  In Gandhi's case, the British were ruling his country (India)
claiming they had a right to because they were the great moral and
ethical leaders of the world.  Gandhi's simple idea was to let the
British themselves prove that they were in fact immoral for
holding a country that was not theirs.
   All of Gandhi's tactics, while confrontational, were always
peaceful and nonviolent.  The goal was to confront the British
authority and provoke it to either capitulate on a point of power
or to get them to react as the usurpers of power that they were. 
Public knowledge and awareness of the British reaction was
extremely important, as this is what would expose the British true
colors.
   According to this book called Gandhi, by Louis Fischer, the
major event that proved the British were actually immoral,
uninvited foreign invaders (hope I don't hurt any Brits reading
this.  flames accepted) was the Salt Marches.  The British had
passed a law that Indians could only obtain salt from the
government.  Gandhi decided this ridiculous law would be a test of
who was really in power.  The Indians marched up to the Salt Works
south of Bombay to simply take some salt.  Some men walked forward
towards the heavily guarded fence and were severely beaten.  As
these fallen were carried away for first aid, the next group
walked forward and did not resist as they too were beaten by the
police.  The book says this sad but heroic cycle of walking
forward, being beaten, carried away to recover (or die), and the
next group marching forward "continued for several days" (p.102).
   So what came of such a strange confrontation?  The powerful
British government of course kept the powerless Indians away from
the salt with amazingly excessive force.  Could the British, after
such a dismal show of moral character and lack of compassion,
still claim to be the moral leaders of the world?
   "India was now free.  Legally, technically, nothing had
changed.  India was still a British Colony.  But... Europe has
completely lost her former moral prestige in Asia.  She is no
longer regarded as the champion throughout the world of fair
dealing and the exponent of high principle, but as the upholder of
Western race supremacy and the exploiter of those outside her own
borders.  For Europe this is, in fact a great moral defeat that
has happened." (p.102)

   What ingredients did Gandhi need in order to expose the British
weakness?  He needed people who agreed with him and who were
willing to risk a cracked skull in order to expose British
barbarism.  He needed public awareness (Webb Miller of the United
Press witnessed and reported the Salt Marches, as did others). 
And he needed events that would demonstrate that his side was the
moral side and where the other side, while claiming the moral high
ground, would prove itself immoral and weak.

   So, finally, we come to a.r.s.  Scientology claims to be the
ethical and moral leaders of the world. They say they are striving
for a world free of war, crime, and insanity.  But they have
critics who seem to be slowing their ability to take over the
world and create this Utopia.  What does the church do about these
critics?  It raids their homes and steals their private property. 
It sends out private investigators to harass and hound the
critics.  It prevents critics from speaking by cancelling their
posts.  It sues, threatens, harasses, attacks.  Do you see?  These
are not the actions of a moral and ethical organization.

   I've said all the above to say this.  The more we as critics
maintain a moral and ethical position while exposing Scientology's
evil side, the more Scientology will harm itself.  If we take up
the methods the church uses, then we help the church.  If we serve
as a glaring contrast to the church's actions, and provoke the
church to expose themselves as the immoral and unethical
organization they are, then we accomplish our goal.
   Gandhi won, you know.  India is a free, democratic country now. 
And Britain learned as well and changed their ways.  It was a
win-win situation.  And a.r.s. can be as well.

   Lastly, I'd like to quote Dr. John C. Clark, who weathered an
incredible amount of Fair Gaming by Scientology; "My sin... was
publicly saying this is a dangerous and harmful cult.  They did a
good job of showing I'm right."