wiki bans scientology from site

[_Mercury]

This would be quite an ironic turn of events. Could it be a case of Wiki going MAD?

No.

I do not think Encyclopedias should take out adverts, therefore organizations should not promote themselves actively. As the CO$ has perpetrated on Wikipedia a systematic and well funded astroturfing campaign one can not let stand this impropriety. Its a community, kind of like PBS. Self organizing groups need regulation otherwise propriety of the record comes into question.

[_Mercury]

I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.

Good point. We all know that some truths are not helpful. Perhaps some untruths could add sparkle.

Sparkle? Leave that for the david bowie knockoff vampires in Twilight.

I know you were being funny...but come on. Moksha, I'm starting to worry about you. First it was Jason with the sarcastic quips and now you. Hurry and report to your bishop before the truth police come and get you.

On a side note, do you think twilight vampires sparkle because Stephenie Meyer saw Labyrinth one few many times? She is Mormon afterall and don't'cha know, at least in my experience, labyrinth was a "Mormon movie collection mainstay" kind of like Princess Bride is as well.

[_bcspace]

I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.

?! Is this a typo?

No.

Doubtless there are plenty of people out there who really do think lying for the Lord - so to speak - is permissible, if not obligated in certain circumstances.

I don't believe in lying for the Lord. i believe in fighting fire with fire.

Yet it is rare for someone to come out and speak in favor it it. That kinda gives the jig up and defeats the purpose of such lying in the first place.

Which therefore absolves me of any accusation that I agree with "lying for the Lord".

Thanks!

[_Dr. Shades]

I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.

OH. MY. GOD.

Assuming you're not just pulling our legs here, let me say that your religious leaders feel the exact same way; that's why you continue on in your religiously deceived state.

[_Pokatator]

I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.

OH. MY. GOD.

Assuming you're not just pulling our legs here, let me say that your religious leaders feel the exact same way; that's why you continue on in your religiously deceived state.

So true, so shamelessly true.

I don't think bc pulls legs, he's defining doctrine.

[_Mercury]

BC, this is puzzling. I mean, I know I heard the same thing on my mission but boldly and on the "public" record you just come out and say it, that lying for the lord is justified?

So lets take this at the behavioral angle. All the emotions removed from the matter, how do you think your comments appear to an observer? Do you honestly believe that telling an untruth for your deity is moral?

A simple yes or no will do.

[_bcspace]

BC, this is puzzling. I mean, I know I heard the same thing on my mission but boldly and on the "public" record you just come out and say it, that lying for the lord is justified?

I do not believe this is lying for the Lord and I don't believe IN lying for the Lord either. This is more political to me. There is obvious hypocrisy and someone is not allowing a positive message to be paired with the negative so yes, I do not see anything wrong with doing what it takes to worm one's way in and ensure someone is there to speak up for the Church.

Methodology? For example, if someone asked if I was "Mormon", it is technically not a lie to say no because no such church exists or if it did, it's not mine.

On the other hand, I would never lie about the Church's doctrine or history, for example.

All the emotions removed from the matter, how do you think your comments appear to an observer?

To the antiMomon observer, it the cat's meow, the Holy Grail of evidence for an erroneous belief on their part. But I don't worry about what's going on in such minds.

[_Mercury]

BC, this is puzzling. I mean, I know I heard the same thing on my mission but boldly and on the "public" record you just come out and say it, that lying for the lord is justified?

I do not believe this is lying for the Lord and I don't believe IN lying for the Lord either. This is more political to me. There is obvious hypocrisy and someone is not allowing a positive message to be paired with the negative so yes, I do not see anything wrong with doing what it takes to worm one's way in and ensure someone is there to speak up for the Church.

Methodology? For example, if someone asked if I was "Mormon", it is technically not a lie to say no because no such church exists or if it did, it's not mine.

On the other hand, I would never lie about the Church's doctrine or history, for example.

This latest barrage of stupid from BC is as puzzling as it is sad.

[_bcspace]

This latest barrage of stupid from BC is as puzzling as it is sad.

Handwringing seems to substitute for intelligent conversation in your world.

[_Mercury]

To the antiMomon observer, it the cat's meow, the Holy Grail of evidence for an erroneous belief on their part. But I don't worry about what's going on in such minds.

So you see how others percieve it yet you still keep up the defense that it is not questionable. You are bifurcating reality.