Talk:Scientology/Archive 6

message: The frequent edits the article gets have left the style choppy and caused some minor grammar problems.  I've done a first pass of the first few sections (up to the end of 'auditing',) and will continue.  I tried to tread lightly, and I'd like to humbly request that, if anyone finds any problems or anything they take issue with, they please make individual changes of the offending alterations, rather than a wholesale revert.  There may be some things I've changed that are going to cause problems, but it can't all be bad. Thanks! -- Vary | Talk 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: In a letter to Hellen O'Brien, 1953 Hubbard wrote
:DEAR HELEN
:APRIL 10
:RE CLINIC, HAS
:The arrangements that have been made seem a good temporary measure. On a longer look, however, something more equitable will have to be organized. I am not quite sure what we would call the place - probably not a clinic - but I am sure that it ought to be a company, independent of the HAS but fed by the HAS. 
:We don't want a clinic. We want one in operation but not in name. Perhaps we could call it a Spiritual Guidance Center. Think up its name, will you. And we could put in nice desks and our boys in neat blue with diplomas on the walls and 1. knock psychotherapy into history and 2. make enough money to shine up my operating scope and 3. keep the HAS solvent. It is a problem of practical business. 
:I await your reaction on the religion angle. In my opinion, we couldn't get worse public opinion than we have had or have less customers with what we've got to sell. A religious charter would be necessary in Pennsylvania or NJ to make it stick. But I sure could make it stick. We're treating the present time beingness, psychotherapy treats the past and the brain. And brother, that's religion, not mental science." 
:Best Regards, Ron 
Shouldn't this issue be included in the main article? By the way, Ms. O'Brien was later indicted and convicted of various crimes Hubbard et al ordered her to commit. Desertphile January 5, 2006
Since the letter is a personal sort of document, perhaps it be better placed in an article of a personal sort of nature.  Such as L. Ron Hubbard Terryeo 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Religion Angle

message: Get rid of the "Scientology (practice)" name and revert it back to just Scientology.  This article is about the religion (or "workable technology") called "Scientology", it is not just about the practice of Scientology.  Vivaldi 19:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to fix it myself but the "Mistress" quickly reverted my edit and accused me of vandalism. wikipediatrix 22:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seconded, thirded, fourthed, and fifthed. Worst page-move in Wikipedia history. -Silence 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because you did it exactly the wrong way (do not do copy-and-paste moves, they make the page history become really confusing. Instead, use the move button or ask an admin if you can't). However, it cannot be considered vandalism; I've warned the user about it. Since the consensus so far is against the rename, I will move the page back to its previous title. --cesarb 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is now back to its previous name. The discussion that was going on the other talk page is now at Talk:Scientology (disambiguation). Have a nice day. --cesarb 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, we could have Scientology, Scientology (Practices), Scientology (beliefs), Scientology (legal), Scientology (purposes) and Scientology (sandwiches).  Thanks for the reversion, makes sense to me too. Terryeo 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mmmmmmmmmm.... sandwiches. wikipediatrix 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes.  Sandwiches rock!  Terryeo, you forgot the most obvious:  "Scientology (desert topping)" and "Scientology (floor wax)".  Since in places like Israel, the place where one goes to learn about Scientology "technology" is not a church, nor is Scientology even referred to as a religion there (it's an educational facility or Hubbard College).  Scientology is a religion in places where it is economically profitable to be a religion.  Scientology is a "workable technology" in places where it is economically profitable to be so instead of religion (since they figured out that selling another religion to Jews in Israel is not a profitable adventure).   Isn't it wonderful to have a religion/workable technology/desert topping/floor wax that shifts its teachings and viewpoints based on the location of the "church" / "College" / "whatever makes us the most money" ? Vivaldi 07:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please rename this article back to Scientology 

message: We already have numerous references and a link to Church of Scientology in the first paragraph.  There is not a need for yet another disambiguity notice.  It is clear from the article already that there is an organization known as theChurch of Scientology that promotes Scientology. Vivaldi 10:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, disambiguity is not needed here 

message: This article is too long already for a list of meaningless pop culture references to Scientology.   These references do not help people seeking an understanding of Scientology, but they do make the article cluttered and too long.  Therefore I removed them.  There's already a link to these references elsewhere in the article for people that are interested in this sort of trivia. Vivaldi 10:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed list of popular references 

message: The article stated that scientologists claimed an improvement of ADD.  I don't believe that has been published, but the article (with no citation) says it has been published.  Here is the line from the article, cite it or lose it:
and attention deficit problems Terryeo 20:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientology does do this in a two step process: (1) There is no such medical problem as ADD, (2) The problem your child does have can be solved with Scientology. Would a more qualified phrasing help? "Scientologists have claimed benefits from auditing including (..) what they say is a mislabelling as attention deficit problems," This Church of Scientology site appears to offer help to parents of children labelled with ADD. (And note the page keywords.) --AndroidCat 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a failure in that logical chain.  If you tell me there is no such thing as apples, then can I assume that you can cure me of apples?  The Church of Scientology's position is: "There is no such thing as ADDs"  Which Scientologist said, "Scientology has helped me with ADDs?"  That information would be a verification if it were cited.  The ADDs statement was in the article but not cited.  It comes down to some particular and specific (or several) persons being quoted in a publication that "Scientology has cured my ADDs."  But even if that does exist it is not cited, therefore the line does not belong in the article.  And, additionally to that, your reasoning lacks. heh ! Terryeo 21:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scientology tells me that there are no apples, but the red thing in my hand is an orange and they can cure that. Analogies always expand to fill the argument available, however I do have one cite: '"As an educator, I have been able to teach using the methods of L. Ron Hubbard. One 12-year-old boy was sent to me labelled as with [attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]. He had to learn to read from scratch. Five years later he returned to tell me he was now studying at one of the much renowned high schools and was eagerly learning." — R.S., Danish Teacher' Normally unindentified initials wouldn't be good enough, but since it was buried in a CoS document. --AndroidCat 22:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, lol Terryeo 18:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed here for citing and re-insertion about ADD 

message: When I was at school, I read the Scientology article.
Now I come home to link to it on my LJ, and it turns out there was a lot of that article that I hadn't seen before.
Someone has been deleting large swaths of the Scientology article.
I'm glad to see that wikipedia doesn't tolerate this type of blatant censorship.
It seems that the vandal's goal was to strip the article down to it's bear bones, so to satifty the readers curiousity about scientology, while stifiling his access to controversal information.
--ScWizard 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology censorship and vandalizing 

message: Citation 19 (http://www.cchr.org/educate/e_sr.htm) just leads to a 404 page. Ransak 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 19 

message: Should Jerry Seinfeld really be listed on this page as a Scientology celebrity? He might be a celebrity (now), and he's ex-Scientologist, but as far as I know his involvement wasn't more than a few years and he was never pushed as a "Scientology celebrity" while he was in. He's on the List of Scientologists page. Shouldn't mention on this page be more for people who actively combine their scientolgist and celebrity status?
:(Following up my unsigned comment) Since the paragraph starts with "Publicity has been generated by Scientologists in the entertainment industry such as .." and Seinfeld didn't have any crossover between being a Scientologist and being a celebrity that I know of, I dropped his name. I think there's a tendency to add anyone in the entertainment business who is or was a Scientologist, but that's what the List of Scientologists page is for. AndroidCat 13:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerry Seinfeld (former) 

message: As is already mentioned in the article he was decades late, regardless of any debate on the issue most certainly the word "first" added in the last edit should and has been removed: "The word scientology has a history of its own. Although today associated almost exclusively with Hubbard's work, it was originally coined by philologist Allen Upward in 1907 as a synonym for "pseudoscience". [4] In 1934, the Argentine-German writer Anastasius Nordenholz published a book using the word positively: Scientologie, Wissenschaft von der Beschaffenheit und der Tauglichkeit des Wissens ("Scientology, Science of the Constitution and Usefulness of Knowledge")." Glen Stollery (My contributions) 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct yes I missed the second usage of the word "coined" which actually makes the first change redundant as the article still states he created the word. Your suggestion is a very good one and I see no reason not to impliment the change immediately as there is no dispute that Hubbard was not the first to use it - the article states so itself further down as noted in my comment above. Nicely spotted :) Glen Stollery (My contributions) 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its silly, the word is hardly recognized in litature, isn't found in dictionarys and finding a rare use or two of "scien" and "-ology" is more like grasping straws than contributing to what appears before the public today as Scientology.  You don't spend paragraphs discussing how the sun goes around the earth in an article about how the planets go around the sun.  Its not a useful information for a piece on today's Scientology. Terryeo 09:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hubbard NOT the first to use the word Scientology 

message: Doesn't sound NPOV to me! Perhaps a rephrasing is in order? Glen Stollery (My contributions) 18:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Google and Yahoo now link to web sites that are critical of Scientology, including this article). 

message: I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Scientology heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Scientology's view on forgiveness?  Any help would be appreciated.  --speet 04:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help on Forgiveness article 

message: A new user proposed that Scientology beliefs and practices be merged into Scientology.  I oppose such a merge:  the two articles are too large to make a merge practical, and the user's comments at Talk:Scientology beliefs and practices seem to exhibit some confusion about Wikipedia's practice of having summary articles and subsidiary articles going into greater detail:  "There are already many pages about beliefs and practices of scientology. Its pointless to make a new article."  The article is over 2-1/2 years old, hardly "new" in that sense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, doesn't seem like a good idea to me either. This article (Scientology) is the main article and the other one is specifically about the beliefs, like the Church of Scientology is about the CofS. There are also sub-articles to Scientology beliefs and practices, such as E-meter and auditing, and if you follow his reasoning, all Scientology-related articles should be merged into this one, and I don't even want to think about what a mess that would make and how far too long the article would be. (Entheta 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering we're starting to split out beliefs and practices because it's gotten too big on its own, uhm... sounds like a bad idea to me. Ronabop 07:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose, per above.  Ombudsman 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Scientology's beliefs and practices are verifiably more complicated than most other religions, and require more articles, not less. Especially since certain Scientologist editors have been quite vocal about the subject being dealt with in too general terms. wikipediatrix 14:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the proposal to merge has been aired long enough to gather support but it hasn't gathered any.  I think it's justified to take it off the table now. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Scientology beliefs and practices]] 

message: I dont know, but if it was, how do you prove it? if we are a spirit that has been here since before time, and always will be here, why are there no memories?
Also, if it werent true, where do we go after we pass on? Is it oblivion, does everything go black for you? is it like sleeping deeply, you cant keep track of time? Who knows? 67.53.195.38 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Yeah! What he said? --DragonWR12LB 09:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... now to figure out what, exactly, he actually said.... Ronabop 10:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this true? 

message: "However, the Church of Scientology has clashed with other religious groups, including the Church of England[1], the Russian Orthodox Church[2] and the Lutheran Church[3], all of which have at times criticized Scientology's activities and doctrines. Many members of the Roman Catholic Church reject Scientology, because of the CoS's views on Jesus, and believe Scientology to be a form of agnosticism, which many Christians regard as a heresy."
This is very strange – the footnotes given do not support these
statements at all.  I am removing this paragraph.  If it is needed
I can add in a lot of material showing the Church’s interfaith
activities and other church’s support of Scientology’s work in the
community.  I can also provide references that back this up.  This
paragraph is just another attempt to breed “controversy.”
Also...
"Beginning in the middle of 1996 and for several years after the
newsgroup was attacked by anonymous parties using a tactic dubbed
"sporgery" by some, in the form of hundreds of thousands of forged
spam messages posted on the group. Although the Church neither
confirmed nor denied its involvement with the spam, some
investigators claimed that some spam had been traced to Church
members."
Looking over this page, this is just an unfounded, unsourced
insinuation that are nothing more than POV.  And the external links
– same deal, critic and divergent sites abound while there are only
2 official links. I am removing these 3 links. 
--California_guy 18:47, 15 March 2006 (PST)
:Well, it looks like we have a new user who doesn't quite understand WP:NPOV.  Of course, one might wonder how such a new user got in the habit of calling things "POV" before comprehending NPOV, and one might also get a sense of deja vu from the argumentation style... -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With WP:AGF, I'd merely assume that the editor simply doesn't understand that having a POV in an article is *not* a problem. Most of the "POV warriors" (for lack of a better term) in these articles for a month or two already understand that NPOV means that we represent *multiple POV's*, and we don't, and can't, ever represent something as difficult to grasp as any actual "truth". Of course, since Truth (with a capital T) is an *extremely* relative (to each individual) construct in the CoS, the deja vu is something that should be anticipated, IMNSHO. We will (as long as we have articles on Scientology, or any another religion which brokers in such difficult abstracts as right/wrong, true/untrue, good/evil, etc) always have clashes between those who "know" truth, like "they know their hand", and those who try to represent multiple perspectives without ever stating a final, actual, "Truth". All that being said... I think unsourced stuff needs WP:CITE and WP:V, regardless of who is deciding "Truth", "truth", or whatever. Ronabop 11:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have some points 

message: I pulled these links, here's an example why: . In the link, absolutely *no* actual physical connection is made between two people. No statements of emails, sympathy, social interactions, or even meeting at a random birthday party, or even something as trivial as both of them liking to eat pie. Instead, the site insinuates (without any basis, only by URL linking alone) a link, without ever actually showing one, documenting one, or even overtly insinuating one. This site makes wikipedia look good when it comes to WP:CITE and WP:V. Ronabop 12:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ReligiousFreedomWatch

message: Hello editors. It's been some time now. An RfC has been filed on the Talk:Dianetics article regarding its npov status (the main page, not the talk page).  As Scientology and Dianetics apparently have some links, I thought you all might be interested to weigh in here. Admins on this page, I'd be especially interested in your comments on the revert war firing across that page (4 content reversions, and 1 content deletion out of a total of 6 edits for a day?). Thanks for your time and interest. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 07:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Dianetics 

message: "Different countries have taken markedly different approaches to Scientology - such as Durkadurkastan. "
DURKADURKASTAN is not a country. It's a joke. Needs fix to what actually is supposed to be,
:It was vandalism introduced in this edit under a false edit summary.  It was fixed approximately 35 minutes later. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That IP address seems to enjoy petty vandalism.  with a history of being blocked With the current volume of this sort of thing, it's important to check that you're reverting to an untampered version. AndroidCat 00:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All right, who did this? 

message: The Heinlein quote is being repeatedly removed because there is a dispute over whether it is accurate or not.  Presenting only one side of the dispute is pushing a POV and presenting both sides on this particular point seems excessive and almost pointless for an already too long article.  We have discussed this issue numerous times starting here Vivaldi 13:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This urban myth seems to be mutating a little (as they do to memetically "survive"). This one claims a published note by Heinlein, and Heinlein asking Hubbard to stop the bet. (But no sources.) If anyone offers any serious proof of those or other claims in the story, it might be worth looking at, again. I'm not holding my breath. If anyone feels I was abrupt in removing it, that there should have been discussion, request for cites, no--it's been done previously, many times. One debunking was published as part of a Usenet FAQ over ten years ago. If anyone wants to dust off the various attempts by debunkers to finally kill this myth, and put it up on a "That Heinlein bar bet story" page, I'd be happy. AndroidCat 16:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heinlein quote 

message: Around 1965 I was in school and was told the following statement as fact: "L. Ron Hubbard and Hugh Hefner were sitting in a bar and Hubbard bet he could make more money creating a fake religion based upon a sci-fi story than Hef could with his Playboy magazine".
Has anyone else ever heard of this or is it an urban legend?
:Urban legend.  The Hugh Hefner addition to the story is a nice twist. I'm sure Big Foot and Elvis will be along soon. AndroidCat 20:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That story is a variation on a more widely-disseminated (and more credible) anecdote, wherin Hubbard is supposedly heard to say words to the effect of "the way to get rich is by starting a religion."  Most versions of that story involve people in the science fiction subculture that Hubbard was a part of in the 40s--I think Forrest J Ackerman, who was Hubbard's literary agent for a time, claims to have heard such a remark, and Harlan ellison, too.  Enough people have claimed to have heard that one that it seems very possible that Hubbard did say such a thing, and more than once. But there's no evidence of any bar bet, and Hef just seems to have dropped in from some other anecdote. BTfromLA 20:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm being abrupt (have cold), and should be clear that the "bar bet with Heinlein" story is a parasitic urban legend on the documented "start a religion" ones. AndroidCat 20:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question of the Bar Room Bet 

message: I just reorganized the celebrity section, in the hopes of making it a little more coherent and better presented. It's still not up to the standards of the rest of the article, though. There's too much material on very current events (Closetgate) and not enough on the history of celebrity Scientologists.
I wonder if we should fork Closetgate off as a separate article, and make this section into a more general discussion of celebrity Scientologists? --FOo 22:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support spinning out Closetgate as its own article; in fact, I was going to suggest the very same thing.  As for the history of celebrity Scientologists, I've felt for a long time that List of Scientology references in popular culture would actually be better if turned into a more general article on Scientology and popular culture -- covering such things as the Celebrity Centres, Hubbard's "Project Celebrity", the pressure/intimidation campaign over Delirious, etc. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrities and "Closetgate" 

message: I have heard from several people that the Advanced Lectures in scientology cost lots of money for members to take - if that is true, it seems like a very relevant thing to note - that religious advancement is contingent on payment. If it is not, it seems common enough that something stating that it is not true should be in the article.
:Please sign your comments  and new topics should go to the BOTTOM of the page, not the top.  The analysis of the costs over at xenu.net are from 1994/95 so they are a little out of date, so the costs are probably higher.  They estimate that the "total cost for the whole bridge to OT9 readiness is estimated at $365,000 - $380,000."   Chiok 18:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Money/Donations

message: I admit that I don't like to link to Penthouse articles, but I think that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works
clearly states that you shouldn't link to pages that violate copyright. So what's wrong with deleting the link. --Fossa 23:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know that permission to republish this article was not given by Penthouse? Vivaldi 00:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uum, a wild guess? A scanned(!) article that does not link to Penthouse and does not acknowledge Penthouse's copyright? Of course, how would I know that the copy of latest Madonna record on edonkey violates copyright? And that $2 Windows XP copy I found at the swap meet surely also is totally legit. Fossa 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly identifies the source of the article and it acknowledges that is copyrighted by Penthouse in 1983 where it says, "(c) 1983 Penthouse".  This article is not comparable to a $2 Windows XP or a Madonna record, because Penthouse is not marketing this item for sale and hasn't done so for over 23 years.  It is clearly being used in a manner that does not deprive Penthouse of any profits.  It is not being used by lermanet to sell advertisements or other products.  It is used only for educational purposes.  In fact, I would suspect that Penthouse has granted permission for this article to be reprinted for this purpose.  Until it is more clear that permission was not approved or granted, then I don't see the harm in leaving this here.  Vivaldi 02:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrights (@Android Cat) 

message: Can we come to a consensus about the use of Church or church within this and other Scientology articles? (One that doesn't involve discusions of anything other than standard English usage.) Looking at pages like Christian denomination, church seems to be used unless its the actual full name. I have no axe to grind either way, I'd just like to know which way the periodic flip-flops should go. AndroidCat 16:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's "members of 'the Church", then obviously capitalization is in order, because the definite article signifies that this is a case by itself (Tony Blair is a "Member of Parliament" and a "member of a parliament".). If it's "this church", then it's one instance out of a larger set of curches; so it's the context that matters.--Fossa 00:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church vs church 

message: It´s 1984 (George Orwell), so let´s doublethink! Chrintianity made bold statements against CoS. Had they forget their own share of contradictions? Doublethink! CoS attacked psychiatry, claiming their lack of scientific method or proof? When did (S)(s)cientology started caring about scientific method? Doublethink! The list could go on and on. The fact is that the FACTS doesn´t matter! We try to create arguments to critizise the "church". Many, if not all, arguments against CoS could also be made against any (or all) major and minor religion or cult today. The facts doesn´t matter. While there are fools to fund such endeavors, we will have to live with that. "Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens" (Against stupidity even gods contend in vain), Schiller. Regards Loudenvier 17:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound and fury, signifying nothing. What's your point? AndroidCat 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did my words really meant nothing? It´s meaning is straightfoward to me. We criticize Scientology very hard (you may not, but the majority does), but did not criticize Christianity, Judaism, Islamism (oops... now it´s being criticized for obvious reasons). I think it´s unbalanced, perhaps unfair. I think Scientology to be laughable if it was not tragical, but it´s not fair to criticize it while one endorses Christinaity, for example. My point is: What´s the essential difference between those belief systems? Loudenvier 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For someone who's talking so much about "the FACTS doesn´t matter!" you don't seem inclined to provide a single one yourself -- generalizations, after all, are not facts. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did scientologist provides any facts after all? I was talking about facts in a general sense. They really do not seem to matter, because people will fall prey to Cognitive dissonance and believe in whatever they want to believe despite many/any facts to the contrary. This is exactly what happens with any religion. Despite it´s many contradictions, one will believe and endorses it, even when it goes against their own teaching (if it was not this way, how could there be any war in the name of God? Isn´t God all about peace and tolerance?). I´m not attacking Scientology, I´m just saying it´s unjust to criticize it while the majority of its critiques are endorsing other religions. But wikipedia is not a place to discuss religion or any other matter, since I´m not contributing to the article I will refrain from further comments (unless they are about the article itself). Loudenvier 15:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You state that "the majority of its critiques are endorsing other religions", but in the 10 years that I have been criticizing the Church of Scientology for its abuses, I have not ever endorsed another religion in its place.  In fact, I don't recall ever any of the well-known critics of Scientology endorsing any religion.  Do you know David Touretzky's religion?  Tory/Magoo's religion?  Chuck Beatty's religion?  Michael Pattinson's religion? Arnie Lerma's religion?  What is Roger Gonnet's religion?  What is Tilman's religon? What is my religion?  What is Antaeus's religion?  In the 10 years I have spent discussing the criminal cult of Scientology with hundreds (if not thousands) of critics, never have any of the critiques advised people take up another religion instead of Scientology.  Did you just make up this "factoid" on the spot?  Vivaldi 19:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please Vivald, don´t think I´m against you... I can say for sure, I am with you! I just think that the majority who criticize Co$ are Christians/protestants just because the majority of USA are adepts of the religion of Jesus Christ, and the majority of westerns around the world are too. I do not want to criticize Co$ here because it´s not the place, but if it´s possible I will try to contribute to the article, but there are much, much more knwoledgeable people on this matter that I will not "dare" interfere. In no way I did criticize the article itself, I read it all and I think It´s a good, well balanced article. Loudenvier 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: "But wikipedia is not a place to discuss religion or any other matter, since I´m not contributing to the article I will refrain from further comments (unless they are about the article itself)."  Uh-hunh.  Translation:  "I will run in and make malicious accusations against 'the critics' and then when someone points out that I have no support for my accusations I will declare that the subject is now off-limits for reasons that would have made it off-limits when I brought it up.  This will surely convince people that I have made some sort of point."  Well, except for the last part, seems like your plan worked... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very deep thoughts! Now even I am think I´ve planned sothing like that... I´m one of the critiques of Scientology myself (mainly a private one, since I did not make any of my concerns public yet), so I criticize myself in some way! And the support to my "accusations" are only based on statistics and personnal observations. Maybe both do not matter to you, who knows. Maybe your reasoning are the only valid one. Loudenvier 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I suspect that Loudenvier is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. AndroidCat 06:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! How poetic! I think I heard that part about sound, fury and significance before, I just can´t remember where? I really think that you are the one who is aggressive here. I could be wrong, or right, but you will say again that it signifies nothing, I think I´ll have to live with that. Loudenvier 01:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth or reality? Doublethinking a little...