Wikipedia - Scientologists not welcome

Sergio Zamora · May-29th-2009, 02:49 PM

Mixed but mostly positive feelings about this.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05...s_scientology/

stonemonkts · May-29th-2009, 03:38 PM

Sticky situation. I did enjoy the article (and others linked within it) mostly for the snarky style.

Also, I learned a new term:

sockpuppet
A false identity adopted by trolls and other malcontents to support their own postings.
She brought in six friends to back up her story, but five of them turned out to be sockpuppets.

sonic1 · May-29th-2009, 08:20 PM

I think this is a brilliant move and not at all counter to their mission. If anything they are way too tolerant of people trying to manipulate the democraticness of Wikipedia. Yay.

Ron Thorne · May-29th-2009, 10:20 PM

L. Ron Hubbard's dead. Who's gonna give 'em grief, Tom Cruise?

ran · May-29th-2009, 11:12 PM

I'm not sure what the big deal is about this. Is it that WYK> has made a stand on propagating and endorsing or is everyone just happy that these scient. have it coming to them?

I don't know what these people are about just the same way I don't know what christian-catholic-baptist, muslim , shiks (sp) , hindus or any other form of belief. It's not that I'm ignorant of what's happening or the culture that we live in. I belong to the oldest church in the christian world. (I'm not too sure of that.)

Having said that what is really the problem with this scientology and why is there such a movement against them. Are they so different then any other organized belief system ? I'm asking and I want to learn. I'm not trying to provoke.

I've heard and read the stories of the mind washing and such , I fail to see the exceptions in this when compared to other systems of belief . Are there things that they have done that our more traditional belief systems have not ? What is it ?

Among this group of people here , I'm not trying to be a smart ass nor am I a member of scient.. And I'm wanting to hear what the basis of this outrage and why are the lions at the gate , with respect to this group ?

kenny weir · May-29th-2009, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ran

I'm not sure what the big deal is about this. Is it that WYK> has made a stand on propagating and endorsing or is everyone just happy that these scient. have it coming to them?

I don't know what these people are about just the same way I don't know what christian-catholic-baptist, muslim , shiks (sp) , hindus or any other form of belief. It's not that I'm ignorant of what's happening or the culture that we live in. I belong to the oldest church in the christian world. (I'm not too sure of that.)

Having said that what is really the problem with this scientology and why is there such a movement against them. Are they so different then any other organized belief system ? I'm asking and I want to learn. I'm not trying to provoke.

I've heard and read the stories of the mind washing and such , I fail to see the exceptions in this when compared to other systems of belief . Are there things that they have done that our more traditional belief systems have not ? What is it ?

Among this group of people here , I'm not trying to be a smart ass nor am I a member of scient.. And I'm wanting to hear what the basis of this outrage and why are the lions at the gate , with respect to this group ?

I can't claim to be any kind of expert, but I have read widely on Scientology (and Exclusive Bretheren and Morman offshoots - why do these types attract me).

Without going into detail (I am loafing on the sofa with my son, watching anime and perusing the Dusty groove site), it goes something like this...

One of Scientology's basic claims - and one that seems aimed at preserving their tax status as a religion, along with their legal standing and protecting general opinions of them in their communities - is that it is just another religion.

But that claim is consistantly and constantly undermined by any or all of the following:

*The ridiculous ends to which they will go to protect their standing viz a viz the topic of this thread.

*The sometimes vicious way they will play at the very least an aggressively passive role in the splitting up of families and loved ones, and the subsequent misery, when one or more people decide to leave the, ahem, "church". They share this trait, of course, with the likes of the Exclusive Bretheren and Mormon sub-cults.

*Especially where money is concerned.

*The utterly unquantifiable (and to my mind, totally nuff nuff) nature of their teachings, their hush hush progress through higher and higher successive levels. With each one, of course, costing more and more money. Sure, there are plenty of even mainstream religions about which much the same could be said. But the Scientologists to seem to have aan even higher order of nuttiness and venality with their schtick, and that combined with their rather stridently nasty nature has - rightly IMHO - earned them a plenty bad image.

*Tom Cruise is nasty piece of shit.

The Operation Clambake site has oodles of stuff unmasking Scientology. I've only ever browsed lightly. I may find these motherfuckers fascinating, but life's too short to spend too much time boning up on them.

http://www.xenu.net/

ran · May-30th-2009, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny weir

I can't claim to be any kind of expert, but I have read widely on Scientology (and Exclusive Bretheren and Morman offshoots - why do these types attract me).

First off thanks for responding. Are the Morman's really part of this ?

Without going into detail (I am loafing on the sofa with my son, watching anime and perusing the Dusty groove site), it goes something like this...

Wonderful.

One of Scientology's basic claims - and one that seems aimed at preserving their tax status as a religion, along with their legal standing and protecting general opinions of them in their communities - is that it is just another religion.

That's the one that I can clearly see, tax status. But I never said religion , do they claim to be one?

But that claim is consistantly and constantly undermined by any or all of the following:

*The ridiculous ends to which they will go to protect their standing viz a viz the topic of this thread.

*The sometimes vicious way they will play at the very least an aggressively passive role in the splitting up of families and loved ones, and the subsequent misery, when one or more people decide to leave the, ahem, "church". They share this trait, of course, with the likes of the Exclusive Bretheren and Mormon sub-cults.

*Especially where money is concerned.

All of these sound very similar to what organized beliefs and religions do. Especially when money is concerned.

*The utterly unquantifiable (and to my mind, totally nuff nuff) nature of their teachings, their hush hush progress through higher and higher successive levels. With each one, of course, costing more and more money. Sure, there are plenty of even mainstream religions about which much the same could be said. But the Scientologists to seem to have aan even higher order of nuttiness and venality with their schtick, and that combined with their rather stridently nasty nature has - rightly IMHO - earned them a plenty bad image.

*Tom Cruise is nasty piece of shit.

I'd never want to belong to any group that would have me or Tom Cruise as a member , so I suppose that says it all. On top of that he can't act his way out of a paper bag. I on the other hand do a great Burt Lancaster laugh.

The Operation Clambake site has oodles of stuff unmasking Scientology. I've only ever browsed lightly. I may find these motherfuckers fascinating, but life's too short to spend too much time boning up on them.

http://www.xenu.net/

Agreed , but I had to ask .

ran · May-30th-2009, 12:37 AM

sorry about the mix , I thought I did it the right way. I can't figure this shit out.

kenny weir · May-30th-2009, 01:04 AM

Oh yes, they definitely claim to be a religion, and are very touchy about claims that they aren't.

As for the Wikipedia stuff, I'm not so sure that what they've been up to is any more smelly than what various politicians and many others have been doing.

No, Mormons aren't part of "this", but the nefarious, brutal doings of various Mormon offshoots have tendencies in common with Scientology and Exclusive Bretheren that fall within my interests.

ran · May-30th-2009, 01:23 AM

Kenny ,

Again I have to ask what it is that they are doing that others haven't done before ?

And that what WYKP. has done , is it not the same fear that amounts to the same thing as book burning ? Even if they were the be all to end all , isn't being banned just the start of being a martyr ?

I'm not endorsing Scien. , it just seems a bit extreme to me to ban it. Where do you stop ?

rollhead · May-30th-2009, 02:14 AM

You see no difference between learning, for example, Catholic catechism and being asked to drop a few dollars in the plate every Sunday, and being brainwashed, "audited" and sucked dry of nearly every dime in your possession?

ran · May-30th-2009, 02:27 AM

[QUOTE=rollhead;824437]You see no difference between learning, for example, Catholic catechism and being asked to drop a few dollars in the plate every Sunday, and being brainwashed, "audited" and sucked dry of nearly every dime in your possession?

Well when you put it like that , no I don't. The Catholic church is the biggest land owner in the world. They have enough money to bury the sins of the past with out the help of the insurance money that's used to cover it. I suppose they got that way by a few worshipers dropping a buck or two into the plate.

Again , I'm not trying to say one is more legitimate then the other. I'd like to understand the venom that comes about when this group is being talked about.

Are they the Jim Jones of the world ?

kenny weir · May-30th-2009, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ran

Kenny ,

Again I have to ask what it is that they are doing that others haven't done before ?

And that what WYKP. has done , is it not the same fear that amounts to the same thing as book burning ? Even if they were the be all to end all , isn't being banned just the start of being a martyr ?

I'm not endorsing Scien. , it just seems a bit extreme to me to ban it. Where do you stop ?

Ask away, but don't look to me for definitive answers. They're out there and easily available if ya want 'em. And our blackeyed peas are bubbling away. My own chicken stock, bacon bones, celery, green pepper, onion, herbs and spices, served over rice in about, oh, two hours.

And hell I actively loathe the Catholic church - but for mostly different, if somewhat related, reasons.

But I'm with Rollhead: The Scientologists suck people's lives away.

It may sounds pretty strong, but here's what I reckon: Catholic church - incidentally evil; "church" of Scientology - creepily, scarily, deliberately evil.

And please, I mean no offence to Catholics: I mean this in the sense that your church is as flawed as we all are as humans. And in the context of recent revelations of evil out of Ireland, it's hard to argue otherwise.

No apologies whatsoever to resident Scientologists. Do we have any?

kenny weir · May-30th-2009, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ran

Are they the Jim Jones of the world ?

In a specific sense?

No.

In a more general sense?

Yes.

Ron Thorne · May-30th-2009, 02:38 AM

Fixed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rollhead

You see no difference between learning, for example, to become a Catholic altar boy while asking your parents to drop a few dollars in the plate every Sunday, and being brainwashed, "comforted" and sucked dry ...?

ran · May-30th-2009, 02:47 AM

So in your view ( I'm not to far from agreeing with this ) this thing is more a cult then anything else ?

Again I'm not trying to be coy and play the devils advocate on this. But against the more traditional beliefs and religions , I fail to see the difference so far.

As a side note , I'm not a big believer in these type of groups and religious followings, I think on the face of it , it's more of a burden and hinderance to what an open and society should be concerned with. But the censoring of it , is what bothers me a bit.

kenny weir · May-30th-2009, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

Fixed.

Ha ha.

kenny weir · May-30th-2009, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ran

this thing is more a cult then anything else?

Yes, for sure.

Having said that, there have been aspects of the Catholic church that have been cultish to one degree or another.

kenny weir · May-30th-2009, 03:05 AM

I'd love to lighten this up by throwing in a few Scientology jokes, but Kenny don't know none.

Anyone?

ran · May-30th-2009, 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenny weir

I'd love to lighten this up by throwing in a few Scientology jokes, but Kenny don't know none.

Anyone?

Did you hear the one about the two scientoligist ........................

I guess one of the reasons it can't be taken seriously is that they're not funny.

Tom Cruise can't tell a joke if his life depended on it. Either could Travolta , and Anne Archer broke my heart.

kenny weir · May-30th-2009, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ran

they're not funny.

That's certainly true.

However, Travolta - quite the frequent visitor to Australia it often seems - actually comes across (in the media at least) as a pretty decent bloke.

Of course, that could merely mean he's better at covering his nutjob tracks than Cruise.

But collectively, Osama Joke Laden they ain't.

Mike Schwartz · May-30th-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

L. Ron Hubbard's dead. Who's gonna give 'em grief, Tom Cruise?

Reports of L.Ron's demise (and his many returns) have been greatly exaggerated

Jazzzoline · May-31st-2009, 09:14 PM

I've left my last job because of someone from a sect. I was tired of been asked all the time "do you have any proof of what you're saying" for all the frauds the guy was doing on a daily basis. No I dont have any proof, the guy's bright enough to not leave any. I had to leave a live camera in my office so he would stop to come and sneeak into my files.
I chose the promotions from having to prove myself for the rest of my carreer. I was going to be accused for his frauds. Plus, my work would have pushed him up the ladder. NO WAY!
I'm sorry for my colleagues though, since I was the strong one of the gang.

kenny weir · June-1st-2009, 12:01 AM

On reflection ...

While I despise these goons, I have somewhat mixed feelings about this Wikpedia business.

On a site/institution at which everyone is free to edit/dabble, why should Scientologists be singled out?

During our lst federal election here in Australia, it was revealed that staffers of (now) former Prime Minister John Howard had been doctoring his entry to remove negative material.

I'm sure this goes on at thousands and thousands of Wikipedia entries.

The Exclusive Bretheren entry is also a battleground.

I don't know enough about Wikipedia to know, but maybe they have a policy that bans organised editing.

I have a friend who regularly edits and contributes on several entries; I'll ask him tomorrow for his lowdown.

Tom Storer · June-1st-2009, 02:04 AM

Kenny, read the linked article, it explains it.

Quote:

policing edits from Scientology machines has been particularly difficult because myriad editors sit behind a small number of IPs and, for some reason, the address of each editor is constantly changing. This prevents admins from determining whether a single editor is using multiple Wikipedia accounts to game the system. In Wikiland, such sockpuppeting is not allowed.