There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Welcome to RationalWiki, Arachne1988!
If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.
Okay thanks for the info-I think the few edits I have made thus far are within the wiki's intention thus far-read it enough before feeling compelled to edit the annotation on Rev 10:10Arachne1988 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations on your recent demotion
You seem sane enough to warrant a
demotion promotion to janitor sysop. You will be granted aditional user privileges. Please read the sysop guide.[[User:Samstr|Samstr] (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks-I guess. I will be sure to clean up article vandalism if I encounter any. Arachne1988 (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Using a rather dubious source of what otherwise seems to be reasonable criticism of Scientology
I don't doubt that your recent edit in milk before meat is pretty accurate in portraying the bait & switch of Scientology. However, I'm a bit disconcerted by the source used: A seemingly rather fundamentalist Christian who writes things such as "As a Christian, you look to the bible for the word of God. It's in there you find God's revelation to mankind. You don't look else where for it." and claims that Scientology is equivalent to Satanism because "While Crowley and Hubbard did not overtly worship Satan, they certainly forwarded Satan's agenda of leading people away from God." In other words, can't we find someone a bit less nutty who says the same? I mean someone who clearly thinks that Satan is a real being is not someone I'd like to cite to support pretty much anything, no matter how reasonable the opinion might be. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out-I will try to find an alternate source. I used it because it was linked on the Secrets of Scientology page. I couldn't find the article I remember seeing on Operation Clambake discussing it, but will try harder to find it-might have to settle for the audio collection.