Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology
El Reg writes "Showing a new-found resolve to crack down on self-serving edits, Wikipedia has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology. According to Wikipedia administrators, this marks the first time such a high-profile organization has been banished for allegedly pushing its own agenda on the 'free encyclopedia anyone can edit.'"
That's exactly what the Christians keep trying to convince us of as well...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
A very small difference, I will admit, but Scientology was manufactured solely as a means of separating fools from their money. At least the LDS can claim to be a thorough bastardisation of a religion that probably didn't have that as its founding statement...
and pastors from certain chrsitian sects rape little boys.. I really don't see any worthwhile conclusion in your correlation. Perhaps the correct one to draw is "faith breeds inanity."
including open source fags. they're like a drugged bunch of hare krishna's chanting their mantra. it's a blind mans religion. it's zealotry and bigotry.
Er, no. They have an excellent family culture as long as you adhere to 'Leave it to Beaver' cultural norms.
Kid misbehavin'? Send 'em for some re-edukashun.
Fags next door creeping you out by getting married and adopting unwanted children? Make sure their relationship is prevented from legal recognition and that their kids don't have the legal protections of married parents.
Pro family my ass. If they were truly pro-family then my family would present no threat to them. However as an organization they spent millions last year fighting against the right for myself and my husband's marriage to be recognized. That money could have been spent subsidizing all the kids in CA who will lose their health insurance now that our state budget is circling the drain. Instead of those millions being spent for something good like treating a kids asthma, diabetes, or leukemia, they spent it on divisive PR campaign to keep me a second class citizen. And don't even get me started on how 'pro-family' they are when their kids turn out to be gay.
Church leaders have lied cheated and stolen to support their agenda. The organization has a longstanding harrassment policy against it's detractors. They are extremely good at abusing the legal system to their ends and mostly getting away with it. Other groups most certainly do not come anywhere near the level of abuse that the Roman Catholic Church does
It's all the same, I'm not just singling out the Vatican. When you live beside a mushroom plant for most of your life, you forget about the smell. Scientology is just the new manure repository.
The CIA created Scientology, too?
Is it better to believe in a religion that was made up by a man 1600, or 2000 years ago?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
How about all GNU and Ubuntu users who spread their propaganda about Linux?
Almost all most used computer articles are biased aboutt hose. One party saying that Operating System ain't operating system if it does not use their software and so on it belongs to it.
And the party saying that Ubuntu is different operating system than Linux and any other Linux distribution.
What I have noticed on the computer science point of view about the Wikipedia, it has failed totally.
Most users on the world does not know computer technology what they use. Their minds are easily twitched with marketing, FUD and other stories.
And then they believe they know computer science when they have visited on Ubuntu forums where people says "Yeah, Firefox is part of operating system" or "Yeah, Mark Shuttleworth developed the Ubuntu, but Ubuntu ain't Linux. It is just a Linux-based Operating System". And then they rush to the wikipedia to "correct" articles as they have seen it. For them the "seeing and hearing is believing".
And when you throw a computer science book in front of them, they turn it away and say "No, that ain't true, that is only for developers, the truth is difference". And then they show you a wikipedia or marketing Ads to tell what the "truth" is.
But on other hands, the wikipedia has proofed it's idea to work. On the areas where the science and logic is what irons out all the lies. Like everyone can understand that gravity exist, just by dropping something (or jumping from the roof).
On every case where you can observe the happening and check does it follow other rules and laws, it is a fact as long other can proof it other way or the that rules and laws where the first is used to proof, can be proof to be wrong.
On computer science, it is exactly the same as the religion vs science. The religion is the marketing (Ubuntu) and political gain (GNU).
Like there is very simple question about computer science, if the B needs A and C needs B and A. How it is possible that B and C are A?
Example, if the CPU needs a motherboard and CPU and motherboard needs a powersource, how these can be parts of the powersource?
If the library needs a OS and application needs a library and OS, how application and library can be part of the OS?
You always end up having bigger environments or systems, not that other stuff belongs to one smaller part at all.
Let me rephrase my earlier statement:
I abhor actions which damage society and uphold actions which cause benefit to society.
I do not say that all of Christianity is perfect, far from it in some cases, but it is clear to me that my particular congregation is based on a foundation of historical documented occurrences and a desire to help others, not a religion founded on books written by a scifi author.
Take your generalization and go away.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
Your response is so far from reasonable that I will only say this: You presume too much about what you think you know about me, my congregation, my faith, my willingness to receive thought out criticisms of the foundation of my faith, and the relevance of charitable works to my faith (doing charity is a vital aspect of my faith, and if you cared to actually learn about my faith instead of attacking me, you would know that).
Get out, get to know some of those who profess a faith in Christianity, and see that we are not "harangu[ing] some poor fellow who is down on his luck" but rather we are providing some meaning and hope to those who often have nothing in which to believe.
Ghah, I don't know why I bother. Too many "christians" have sullied the name of those who truly practice what Jesus taught, and nothing I say to you is going to change your bigoted and biased view of me, my congregation, and my faith.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
Can you please point me towards some historical documentation describing a sky fairy walking on water and pulling loaves and fishes out of thin air? I mean if somebody actually did those things you would have thought that every historian of the time would have written about it, wouldn't you? And please don't say "The Bible", which was written decades after those events were supposed to have happened.
I find it sad that in the 21st century people still cling on to these myths - why on earth do you think the christian myth is any more valid than the Viking or Greek mythology?