Talk:Church of Scientology

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

It's own category

I think that the CoS is enough of an issue that it deserves it's own category. Is there any way we could do that while still having it in the "Cults" category? Greatnecro (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean like this category which we've had for six years & which this article is already in & always has been? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

OK let me rephrase that. Can we get the category box on this article so people know that category actually exists?

Three Stooges

Interesting factoid: the huge Scientology building in Los Angeles[1] located on L. Ron Hubbard Way was the site of the opening shot to The Three Stooges Film Men in Black, the movie has the famous "Calling Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine" routine.[2] By the way, the LA City council mostly knuckled under to Scientology-pressure in 1996 to rename the street.[3] Bongolian (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Unreadable text

Other extremely successful move has been Norway-based Operation Clambake, by Andreas Heldal-Lund, who nonetheless supports freedom of religion, shows the great scam Hubbard started and fed the people. He allows access to many documents, videos and assorted media (including several hilarious series of e-mails exchanged between the site's owner and Scientologists where they demonstrate the great good all that auditing and clearing does not upon them). It also links to pro-Scientology pages to demonstrate that, at least, he hears to both sides of the debate. Even if they only rant without proof.

What? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario. I picked this topic from the latest recent changes. For the record, I don't think much of Scientology or its adherents. And I am not doing this to get you to change your mind about some other article. Consider the opening sentences

The Cult Church of $¢i€nto£og¥ Scientology™ is a dangerous cult entirely legitimate faith that foists bestows its dogma wisdom and electronic snake oil miraculous technology upon the surprisingly gullible wisely receptive sheep public. It oversees the practice of the for-profit for-truth scam religion creatcooked up by writer of crappy science fiction,

I would think an average reader would be put off enough to go elsewhere for information about Scientology. You know I dislike cross-outs as a matter of style. The real problem with this form is it is ambiguous. A cross-out is a stop sign. The reader must stop and think before continuing. For example, L Ron was a writer of crappy science fiction. I believe this is a general consensus. Why the cross-out if it is true? The introductory paragraph is a mess. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No, this strike-out is atrocious. It's one of the worst I've seen in the wiki. A rewrite is due. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is awful. This is one of the prime examples of where this technique, meant to convey snark, just makes the article look stupid. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Reading comprehension is so much easier. It's a world of a difference. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Silver

I support being gluttons for punishment. Bring on the Thetans! CorruptUser 20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Irrational Nonsense

Religious Bollocks ∩ Quackery Bollocks ∩ Pseudoscientific Bollocks ∩ Paranormal Bollocks = Scientology According to Crispian Jago's Venn Diagram of Irrational Nonsense anyway: http://www.crispian.net/VDOIN.html Mr Larrington (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)