Slashdot Mirror

If privacy is so important why parade around nude or in outlandish costumes then?

Because parading around nude, or in outlandish costumes, at a private event with a cohort that shares many of your values, is different than parading around nude, or in outlandish costumes, out in the mundane world.

Many people face the possibility of losing their jobs - or even their kids -- if their participation in events outside the cultural mainstream is found out. If someone can get their kid taken away for being at the SubGenius's "X Day", it could certainly happen to Burning Man attendees.

Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with this solution -- at events like Starwood and the Free Spirit Gathering, the rule is basically "You may not take a photo of anyone without their permission". If you want to add a DMCA-takedown enabling clause to that, it seems to me (though IANAL) that adding "If you do take any photographs during your attendance at this event without the permission of all identifiable subjects, you surrender all copyright interest and they immediately become the property of $EVENT_ORGANIZERS".

That way, legitimate photos are yours, and this kicks in only when you've violated someone's subjectright.

Is J.R. "Bob" Dobbs, the icon of the Church of the SubGenius and a fixture on the Internet as long as there's been one. Many are the followers of the SubGenius.

This huckster's appropriation of Smilin' Bob for his advertising is itself subtle worship and as such, could be protected speech. Of course getting caught is a cardinal sin in the huckster's ethos so perhaps he's excommunicated.

In protest we should all donate to Rev. Magdalen's Legal defense fund because she's worth it even if this twerp isn't.

Wikipedia is a geek's best friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson One ironic note about that Wikipedia article is that it was created by a Scientology sock puppet, especially to tarnish Henson's reputation with their ongoing smear campaign to make it seem as though he is a dangerous bomb-making terrorist (and a "child molester" -- they even dug up one little snippet from his divorce papers of 25+ years ago to blow it up and try to label him as that, too. His ex-wife laughed that one off and has denied the accusation as fervently as he has.) To get an idea of what Scientology has been trying to do to Keith Henson, you should go to their own hate site on the Internet: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religiou s-extremists/keith-henson/ -- but be sure to check the whole site out and see the outlandish, unbelievable BS they pile up on there. It all falls just a whisker short of libel, of course. (My own commentary on "Religious Freedom Watch:" http://www.modemac.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Religious_F reedom_Watch ) It should also be noted that Wikipedia's entry on Scientology is probably the most informative, comprehensive, and UNBIASED look at Scientology in the entire world today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Too bad High Weirdness By Mail hasn't been updated since 1988. Would be nice to put him on the foreskin savers list.

Try this and this, both offer a brief introduction into the Scientologists' mindset from an outsider's perspective.


------------------