Comments on: Church of Scientology banned from Wikipedia updates http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/ General interest observations and true web-log. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:16:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Glenn E. http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531434 Glenn E. Sat, 30 May 2009 05:08:12 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531434 Scientology is run by a bunch of low self esteem runts. I already know Tom C. was short. He probably never would have survived his "Risky Business" days, for too long, if he hadn't had the backing of the cult. But now, seeing the cult's top exec standing next to Tom, and several inches shorter, that cinches it. They've got a Napoleonic complex. A bunch of runts who need this trumped up organization to pump up their egos. As for the ban. Nice try, but it will probably only serve to give the public a false sense of security (as many solutions do) that the cult's interference has been stopped. They'll just allow a couple dozen of their dupes to actually have their own internet accounts (usually they're not allowed to spend the money). And provide them with scripts to follow to edit Wiki from unblocked IPs. I wished the solution did work. But I doubt it. And I wish a few other factions could be blocked too. Like Aryan Nation skinheads, various hate groups, extreme Fundamentalist religious groups, the GOP, the FBI and CIA, homegrown Militia groups, and even the Pentagon. But you know that's never gonna happen. Wikipedia will never be made the pure tool of the people, who aren't part of some sinister organization, who's up to spread its propaganda online. Just so long as the lone voices of free thinking and sanity aren't cut off, as in this blog and others. Scientology is run by a bunch of low self esteem runts. I already know Tom C. was short. He probably never would have survived his “Risky Business” days, for too long, if he hadn’t had the backing of the cult. But now, seeing the cult’s top exec standing next to Tom, and several inches shorter, that cinches it. They’ve got a Napoleonic complex. A bunch of runts who need this trumped up organization to pump up their egos.

As for the ban. Nice try, but it will probably only serve to give the public a false sense of security (as many solutions do) that the cult’s interference has been stopped. They’ll just allow a couple dozen of their dupes to actually have their own internet accounts (usually they’re not allowed to spend the money). And provide them with scripts to follow to edit Wiki from unblocked IPs.

I wished the solution did work. But I doubt it. And I wish a few other factions could be blocked too. Like Aryan Nation skinheads, various hate groups, extreme Fundamentalist religious groups, the GOP, the FBI and CIA, homegrown Militia groups, and even the Pentagon. But you know that’s never gonna happen. Wikipedia will never be made the pure tool of the people, who aren’t part of some sinister organization, who’s up to spread its propaganda online. Just so long as the lone voices of free thinking and sanity aren’t cut off, as in this blog and others.

]]> By: EvilPoliticians http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531412 EvilPoliticians Sat, 30 May 2009 03:59:41 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531412 Is that an alien guarding and protecting Tom Cruise? By golly it is! It is all true! I saw it on pic on the internetwebitubes so Tom was right!! Is that an alien guarding and protecting Tom Cruise? By golly it is! It is all true! I saw it on pic on the internetwebitubes so Tom was right!!

]]> By: ck http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531369 ck Sat, 30 May 2009 03:00:18 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531369 The Scientologists' biggest error was showing how easily Wikipedia can be gamed. Can't have that, of course... The Scientologists’ biggest error was showing how easily Wikipedia can be gamed. Can’t have that, of course…

]]> By: Jägermeister http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531361 Jägermeister Sat, 30 May 2009 02:48:22 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531361 #53 - Angel H. Wong - <i>BTW It’s not a true religion until they start killing others in its name.</i> Oh, <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=l0heJlRGjLg" rel="nofollow"><u>they are</u></a>... #53 – Angel H. Wong – BTW It’s not a true religion until they start killing others in its name.

Oh, they are…

]]> By: Greg Allen http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531259 Greg Allen Sat, 30 May 2009 00:29:32 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531259 >> Ah_Yea said, on May 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm >> I’ve run a little web site of my own and I’m very sure you can block whatever ISP address you want. I could block every *.gov site but I assume that the FBI could get-around that! My main thing is I want the legal ability to sue law enforcement agents for warrantless spying, most likely using the precedent set by anti-hacker laws. >> Ah_Yea said, on May 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
>> I’ve run a little web site of my own and I’m very sure you can block whatever ISP address you want.

I could block every *.gov site but I assume that the FBI could get-around that!

My main thing is I want the legal ability to sue law enforcement agents for warrantless spying, most likely using the precedent set by anti-hacker laws.

]]> By: Angel H. Wong http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531234 Angel H. Wong Fri, 29 May 2009 23:56:58 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531234 BTW It's not a true religion until they start killing others in its name. BTW It’s not a true religion until they start killing others in its name.

]]> By: Angel H. Wong http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531231 Angel H. Wong Fri, 29 May 2009 23:56:29 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531231 Organized Religion = Organized Crime. Organized Religion = Organized Crime.

]]> By: amodedoma http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531165 amodedoma Fri, 29 May 2009 22:33:20 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531165 I think you guys underestimate this 'whacko' religion. I think it's more like a mafia. I remember a small software developer here in Bilbao trying to sell their antivirus and having some success. At one point the boss went to the US (COMDEX i think) and came back 'converted' to scientology. In less than 1 year they'd become one of the most successful AV programs in the industry - PANDA. A coincidence? I think not! I think you guys underestimate this ‘whacko’ religion. I think it’s more like a mafia. I remember a small software developer here in Bilbao trying to sell their antivirus and having some success. At one point the boss went to the US (COMDEX i think) and came back ‘converted’ to scientology. In less than 1 year they’d become one of the most successful AV programs in the industry – PANDA. A coincidence? I think not!

]]> By: Jägermeister http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531141 Jägermeister Fri, 29 May 2009 21:58:33 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531141 http://youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI <object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L_w-YWwC1lI&hl=en&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L_w-YWwC1lI&hl=en&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object> http://youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI

]]> By: Brian http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531092 Brian Fri, 29 May 2009 20:58:52 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531092 I imagine that this probably has to do with a certain level of turnover in content on the page. I would imagine that most wiki pages that COULD have drastically opposing views represented either find a way to voice both on the same page (such as putting headings and subheadings on the order of "proponents/detractors" or something similar), but I would not imagine this to be true of the scientologists. Just from a quick glance earlier today, I can tell you that the ENTIRE discussion about Thetans and the "origins" of scientology has been drastically rewritten and reduced since the last time I read (and got quite a few rolling laughs out of) it just two months ago. I specifically remember it had a reference to a South Park episode that made me go track down that episode to watch it. now, that reference is nowhere to be found in the wiki page. In fact, the entire page looks to be vastly rewritten from the one that existed then, as well, and with a decidedly "scientology is a benevolent entity" slant. I seriously doubt that regular wiki editors desire to leave it that way, so I imagine it has one of the highest content turnovers on the site. Incidentally, I seriously doubt that banning IP addresses includes the home addresses of church members, so this ban is symbolic at best. But what a symbol... I imagine that this probably has to do with a certain level of turnover in content on the page. I would imagine that most wiki pages that COULD have drastically opposing views represented either find a way to voice both on the same page (such as putting headings and subheadings on the order of “proponents/detractors” or something similar), but I would not imagine this to be true of the scientologists. Just from a quick glance earlier today, I can tell you that the ENTIRE discussion about Thetans and the “origins” of scientology has been drastically rewritten and reduced since the last time I read (and got quite a few rolling laughs out of) it just two months ago. I specifically remember it had a reference to a South Park episode that made me go track down that episode to watch it. now, that reference is nowhere to be found in the wiki page. In fact, the entire page looks to be vastly rewritten from the one that existed then, as well, and with a decidedly “scientology is a benevolent entity” slant. I seriously doubt that regular wiki editors desire to leave it that way, so I imagine it has one of the highest content turnovers on the site.

Incidentally, I seriously doubt that banning IP addresses includes the home addresses of church members, so this ban is symbolic at best. But what a symbol…

]]> By: Ah_Yea http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531076 Ah_Yea Fri, 29 May 2009 20:33:30 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531076 Gregg Allen. I've run a little web site of my own and I'm very sure you can block whatever ISP address you want. It's done every day. If there is a "black site" which spews spam or malware, or anything else you don't like, you can block it. You can even have a "white list" of sites which you can allow to see your site, etc. It's not a legal issue. Most website builders have this capability built in. The real trick is finding which ISP addresses those no gooders are using. That might be outside of your, or mine, or even The Pirate Bay's ability to discover and block. Gregg Allen.

I’ve run a little web site of my own and I’m very sure you can block whatever ISP address you want.

It’s done every day. If there is a “black site” which spews spam or malware, or anything else you don’t like, you can block it. You can even have a “white list” of sites which you can allow to see your site, etc.

It’s not a legal issue. Most website builders have this capability built in.

The real trick is finding which ISP addresses those no gooders are using. That might be outside of your, or mine, or even The Pirate Bay’s ability to discover and block.

]]> By: brendal http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1531069 brendal Fri, 29 May 2009 20:25:36 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1531069 NO COMMENT! NO COMMENT!

]]> By: skunkman62 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1530941 skunkman62 Fri, 29 May 2009 17:22:16 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1530941 why is everybody picking on scientology? i heard this one religion believes their leader was murdered, three days later he came back to life then teleported all over the place. why is everybody picking on scientology? i heard this one religion believes their leader was murdered, three days later he came back to life then teleported all over the place.

]]> By: Nimby http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1530914 Nimby Fri, 29 May 2009 16:56:19 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1530914 # 38 bobbo said,"#36–Greg==I don’t know, but interesting question. Legally, I don’t see why not, but its probably a tech or a licensing issue?" Hey, Greg and Bobbo: remember when some web pages with "iffy" content would make you accept their terms of use that included things like -you are of legal age -material not illegal where you lived and (my favorite) -you are not law enforcement? Ahhh, those were the good old days... De-Gay? I find most religions are pretty much a downer. What? Oh, THAT gay. Never mind. BTW - Don't you think AlfalfaOne would make a good Scientologist? Just imagine all the thetans in that empty head... # 38 bobbo said,”#36–Greg==I don’t know, but interesting question. Legally, I don’t see why not, but its probably a tech or a licensing issue?” Hey, Greg and Bobbo: remember when some web pages with “iffy” content would make you accept their terms of use that included things like -you are of legal age -material not illegal where you lived and (my favorite) -you are not law enforcement? Ahhh, those were the good old days…

De-Gay? I find most religions are pretty much a downer. What? Oh, THAT gay. Never mind.

BTW – Don’t you think AlfalfaOne would make a good Scientologist? Just imagine all the thetans in that empty head…

]]> By: Greg Allen http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/05/28/church-of-scientology-banned-from-wikipedia-updates/comment-page-3/#comment-1530892 Greg Allen Fri, 29 May 2009 16:32:51 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=49720#comment-1530892 >> NancyDisgrace said, >> When I’m bored I go on Wikipedia and make stuff up. Why would you do that? Serious question. It would never occur to me to deface a public or volunteer project, of any kind. Has this been a thing with you, in other areas of your life, or just on the internet? >> NancyDisgrace said,
>> When I’m bored I go on Wikipedia and make stuff up.

Why would you do that? Serious question.

It would never occur to me to deface a public or volunteer project, of any kind.

Has this been a thing with you, in other areas of your life, or just on the internet?

]]>