Cirt's Scientology edits - January 2011 Options

[Milton Roe]

The article had three AfDs: 1, 2, 3, the most recent one having been initiated by FloNight last October. I guess it's no surprise that Smeelgova/Cirt voted "Keep" at each of them.

Plus a keep vote in the last AfD from admin Panyd, whose Facebook page currently lists "Protesting Scientology" as one of her interests.

Well, she might come by that honestly, as Scientology is hell on mental illness, since it's against drug treatment of any mental illness, no matter what. You can imagine how that works if the problem is bad and the person happens to find a drug that is good for them. Yeah there are some mentally ill people who no medication of any kind helps very much. But it takes experimentation to discover that, for any given person. You can't just take it as an article of faith for everybody. Scientologists do. Which is just one reason that Scientology is batshit insane. In the same loving way as Christian Science, no doubt, but crazy nevertheless.

[HRIP7]

Well, she might come by that honestly, as Scientology is hell on mental illness, since it's against drug treatment of any mental illness, no matter what. You can imagine how that works if the problem is bad and the person happens to find a drug that is good for them. Yeah there are some mentally ill people who no medication of any kind helps very much. But it takes experimentation to discover that, for any given person. You can't just take it as an article of faith for everybody. Scientologists do. Which is just one reason that Scientology is batshit insane. In the same loving way as Christian Science, no doubt, but crazy nevertheless.

Indeed. Tory Christman had the same problem; apparently, she was stuck at OT7 forever because she was expected to overcome her epilepsy just by dint of spiritual development. Unfortunately, wishful thinking can only take you so far.

[Detective]

Scientology is batshit insane. In the same loving way as Christian Science, no doubt, but crazy nevertheless.

I don't think that's right.

In my experience, Christian Scientists are nice, friendly lunatics who never harm anyone. I mean, who's ever heard of a Christian Scientist having to be de-culted? Who's ever even been asked to take a Christian Scientist personality test?

[HRIP7]

In my experience, Christian Scientists are nice, friendly lunatics who never harm anyone. I mean, who's ever heard of a Christian Scientist having to be de-culted? Who's ever even been asked to take a Christian Scientist personality test?

That's partly because the Christian Scientists have been around for nigh on 150 years and everyone is used to them by now -- old news. In their time, they were quite as controversial. Even today cult exit counsellors still feature them on their websites, so they probably get a few customers.

[Milton Roe]

Scientology is batshit insane. In the same loving way as Christian Science, no doubt, but crazy nevertheless.

I don't think that's right.

In my experience, Christian Scientists are nice, friendly lunatics who never harm anyone. I mean, who's ever heard of a Christian Scientist having to be de-culted? Who's ever even been asked to take a Christian Scientist personality test?

I was comparing the medical attitudes. No, Christian Scientists don't have E-meters. But they will pray over a member while an obvious face tumor gets larger and larger and larger and finally inoperable and then intolerable, all keeping the patient from doing to the hospital. Finally, when the face tumor is so large that it dips into the coffee when the victims drinks, and the victim finally gives up, the hospital they finally go to, is helpless to do much (an upper face amputation with some brain included? No).

But, when the victim finally seeks medical help, the Christian Scientists abandon their member for having lack of faith, so now the poor bastard has an untreatable disease and suddenly no social support EITHER. Yeah, they're sweeties, those Christian Scientists. Don't get me started.

[Avirosa]

Yeah, they're sweeties, those Christian Scientists. Don't get me started.

The mind screw of someone brought up in Scientology is not a lot of fun, whether or not it's a cult in classic terms, emotionally crippling and afflicted with body phobias would appear to be the inheritance of CS children.

A.virosa

[Avirosa]

That said, nothing published by the ICSA is in anyway, shape or form a credible source when it comes to criticizing well respected academics.

"Well Respected Academic" = source that supports my POV

The ICSA and its journal are as valid a forum for the presentation of academic difference, controvery and debate, as any other special interest humanities grouping. If one is going to play the Wikipedia game on the basis of its rules that 'academic controverisies and differences' should be given appropriate weighting, then reference to fora where those controverisies and differences' are rehearsed is necessary. I can't see why that wouldn't include the ICSA.

Of course Wikipedia rules mean nothing but if the absurdity of the notion of "Well Respected Academic" were allowed to operate unchecked - then Wikipedia humanities articles would be based entirely on single paradigm populism. Cirt may be playing against some of the rules, but she/he appears to be a symptom of Wikipedia's crass inability to accommodate multiple perspectives and critical approaches. My guess is that whatever Cirt's motivation, Wikipedia is slightly more truthful because of her/his participation, though whether the split infinitive of 'truth' represents anythying worthwhile is another question.

A.virosa

This post has been edited by Avirosa: Wed 2nd February 2011, 12:13pm

[HRIP7]

That said, nothing published by the ICSA is in anyway, shape or form a credible source when it comes to criticizing well respected academics.

"Well Respected Academic" = source that supports my POV

The ICSA and its journal are as valid a forum for the presentation of academic difference, controvery and debate, as any other special interest humanities grouping. If one is going to play the Wikipedia game on the basis of its rules that 'academic controverisies and differences' should be given appropriate weighting, then reference to fora where those controverisies and differences' are rehearsed is necessary. I can't see why that wouldn't include the ICSA.

Of course Wikipedia rules mean nothing but if the absurdity of the notion of "Well Respected Academic" were allowed to operate unchecked - then Wikipedia humanities articles would be based entirely on single paradigm populism. Cirt may be playing against some of the rules, but she/he appears to be a symptom of Wikipedia's crass inability to accommodate multiple perspectives and critical approaches. My guess is that whatever Cirt's motivation, Wikipedia is slightly more truthful because of her/his participation, though whether the split infinitive of 'truth' represents anythying worthwhile is another question.

A.virosa

As Jagärdu pointed out earlier, the ICSA has become more mainstream in recent years; there was a rapprochement with mainstream scholarship a while ago, mostly due to the efforts of Eileen Barker (London School of Economics, INFORM), whom the AFF used to describe as a "cult apologist". In recent years, mainstream scholars from across the spectrum have attended ICSA conferences. It's reached the point where someone like Rick Ross actually rails against Giambalvo for having deserted her roots.

Cirt may well be a net positive; s/he's undoubtedly done some good work along with all the tendentious bullshit. But things are really out of hand when an editor argues that someone like Melton is not a reliable source and expects to get away with that. If someone is quoted as an expert by top media outlets, from Associated Press and New York Times to USA Today, has written seminal books that are standard required reading in university courses, held in thousands of libraries, and writes the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the group in question, saying that they mustn't be cited as a reliable source in Wikipedia is just nonsense. It speaks volumes about that person's degree of opinionatedness, and their readiness to corrupt the Wikipedia process in the service of that opinion. It's not the first time either.

It's just like saying Wikipedia's articles on climate change should be based on the Real Climate blog, or its denialist counterpart, and that university press publications are unreliable because someone in one of these blogs said so.