Talk:Scientology and the Internet/Archive 2

message: Fossa, you seem to be doing a superficial Google search and declaring that to be research. Among other things, you don't seems to be searching on variations of the term. If you're searching Google's archives of Usenet, please be advised that the archives that Google later acquired are sometimes quite spotty during that period, especially pre-1995. Note that this post (1995) "CoS vs. Net will be studied in an MIT class this fall" is a repost and the original isn't available. As well, other non-Usenet traffic such as Fidonet isn't archived by Google.
What is your relevance of adding a description of modemac (I assume that's who you mean) as a neopagan in the text of the article? Would "Fossa, who describes himself as a male hetrosexual" (assuming you are and have) be relevant to suddenly drop into an article? It seems to be an attempt to get close to an ad hominum without going over the edge, defended with a weak justification. AndroidCat 23:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fossa's Fluffy Research and Ad Hominum

message: I just removed a specific reference to the fact that the Cult of the Dead Cow declared war to the Church of Scientology in 1995. Admittedly, I didn't know about this event, so I'm not sure it was relevant enough to point at it explicitly in this specific article, as free speech advocates constitute a much broader population than this specific group (although the mention certainly fits well in Alt.religion.scientology). If you think I am mistaken here, sorry for the revert. -- Raymond Hill 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention is in the a.r.s. article as well.  I don't really see why it doesn't fit in here, but I'll leave it be until anyone else opines, when/if that ever happens. --Myles Long 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What did that "declaration of war" amount to? I don't recall anything memorable in results. AndroidCat 19:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the cDc are rather notable.  They may not have been the only notable figures to take a strong stance in that respect, but I'd say that's a reason to note any of the others, not to remove mention of cDc.  Which is why, uh, I already restored it.  Sorry if that was precipitous. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but what did that "stong stance" consist of? AndroidCat 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cult of the Dead Cow

message: There's already a paragraph about YTMND and The Unfunny Truth that's longer than the The Unfunny Truth article. What's to merge? AndroidCat 20:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Unfunny Truth merge

message: "In January 1995, Church lawyer Helena Kobrin attempted to shut down the Usenet discussion group alt.religion.scientology by sending a control message instructing Usenet servers to delete the group on the grounds that" Is the word "kobrinogram" widely used to describe legal threats by Kobrin? We could at least do a redirect from Kobrinogram to Scientology versus the Internet or to Helena Kobrin. Apokrif 17:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Helena hasn't been the copyright/trademark letter lawyer for several years, so "Kobrinogram", "Korbogram" and variations have fallen into disuse. The current nickname for those letters is "Avagram" for Ava Paquette who now fills that role. AndroidCat 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kobrinogram 

message: "In June 2006, Scientology lawyers sent cease-and-desist letters to Max Goldberg, founder of the website YTMND, asking him to take down all sites that either talked about or mocked Scientology, which had recently become a fad on the site following an infamous South Park episode."
I'm not sure if this is entirely accurate. Scientology was not a fad on YTMND until the cease-and-desist letter was sent out; furthermore, many of the sites listed on the C&D actually date from before the airing of this episode. Source: www.ytmnd.com/info/l_ron.html
Something does not have to be a YTMND fad for a few YTMNDs to appear about it over time. The cease-and-desist is what started the fad according to the YTMND Wiki itself: wiki.ytmnd.com/Scientology 81.76.12.234 20:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which episode are you refering to? The Scientology one that aired last year, or the Return of Chef? AndroidCat 00:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article refers to the episode "Trapped in the Closet". 81.76.12.234 19:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YTMND 

message: Clambake wasn't the only website blocked on Wayback Machine: mine was and so were others. Mine is also still blocked. It could also be added that Wayback Machine has now adopted a proper  response policy to complaints. --Hartley Patterson 10:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wayback Machine 

message: I'm not about to edit this page and put this up (for fear my life will be threatened) but I found this pretty interesting:
http://www.scientomogy.com/myspace.php
In essence, it seems that MySpace has been shutting down profiles critical of Scientology.  I'm not sure how founded these claims are,
but many of the websites, when visited, do display the message "This profile has been removed or deleted."  There is also a YTMND outlining some of these events, though I'm too lazy to go search for it now.  
Additionally, I wrote a long e-mail to MySpace simply asking them (almost begging them) if they could explain why they were doing this, as being critical of any religion is seemingly not against their policy.  For gravity, I added "I am considering cancelling my MySpace page if this is not explained to me."  In return I got a customer support e-mail saying "This link should answer your questions."  When I clicked on the link, it took me to a "How to cancel your MySpace account" page.  Creepy, huh?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mileslivingston (talk • contribs) 
Not creepy at all. Hurray for MySpace. Isn't this America? Land of Religious Tolerance. Don't we still have a constitution which guarantees religious freedom. New religions are always criticized. Early Christians were fed to lions. Early Jews were enslaved. At least someone's standing up for religious tolerance somewhere.Countesskrak 04:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MySpace Issues... 

message: Should be moved to comply with generic Wikipedia naming conventions. See Scientology and psychiatry. This title sticks out like a sore thumb. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. How you you propose to rename it in the real world which has used variations of verses, against or plain old war for over 10 years? AndroidCat 06:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll close this as a no consensus, then. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move (April 2006)

message: At least try to punctuate properly AndroidCat 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your kind, thoughtful and helpful suggestion. Its greatly appreciated! BabyDweezil 18:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's its not it's

message: The section titled "The Xenu Revelation" makes no mention of Xenu.
Is the reader expected to find "Xenu" in the "Doctrine" section of the sidebar? Pair O' Noyas 19:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Xenu Revelation" section does not mention Xenu 

message: The following are non-WP:RS sources that should be replaced with reliable sources for their accompanying claims:
"Medical claims within Scientology's secret teachings"
O'Connor, Mike. "How Scientology claims to cure physical illness", 2003
"NOTS34: criminality successfully protected by copyright law"
"'Handling a physical condition' with the NOTs"
---BabyDweezil 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Web sites in question where these essays are hosted (plus the a.r.s. newsgroup via Google) have been authenticated again and again as "reliable sources" here, despite what AI and Terryeo had to say about it.  The content of these essays are also authoritiative and scholarly, as they use Hubbard's own words as a source.  This sounds like an attempt to use WP:RS as an excuse to remove these links,  while the real reason for the objection is they actually contain genuine quotes from the OT Levels -- which Scientology does not want anyone to see in the public domain.  Not even Fair Use quotes. --Modemac 15:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that I revised the way that these links are presented - I don't think they can serve as reliable sources about Scientology but they can be used as reliable sources on criticisms made of Scientology. Anyway, it's a bit academic - I'm planning to rewrite this article. -- ChrisO 16:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that they are genuine quotes from the OT levels was admitted by the Church of Scientology when they sued for copyright infringement--Prosfilaes 09:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-[[WP:RS]] sources in article intro that need to be replaced