back to article Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology

In an unprecedented effort to crack down on self-serving edits, the Wikipedia supreme court has banned contributions from all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates. Closing out the longest-running court case in Wikiland history, the site’s Arbitration Committee voted 10 to 0 (with one …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    "Whatever that is"

    This article is very much in line with the unethical practices of brainwashing US "free" Press.

    > "neutral point of view", whatever that is

    I find it nearly impossible that the reporter does not know what this phrase means.

    It is clearly defined with scrutiny in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

    > "wikipowersthatbe"

    This is also in accord with the same hypocrisy. Those people are defined and bepowered

    by wikirules obviously. I also think that the reporter would object vehemently someone calling

    Obama a "powerthatbe", or the CEO of "The Register" for that matter.

    This article could be rated nearly 50 percent reporting and 50 percent imposing their

    "free press values" (whatever they may be :P)

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In other news...

    Scientologist discover TOR and anonymous proxies.

  3. Mithvetr

    A few points missed?

    Cade Metz, you clearly have an unhealthy obsession with Wikipedia. Your obvious bias undermines the credibility of your articles on the subject. For example, your repeated statement that the term 'ArbCom' is 'Orwellian' apparently ignores the common use of syllabic abbreviations anywhere else. Or is it only Orwellian if it's Wikipedia doing it? Is FedEx working for Big Brother too?

    Face it: Wikipedia is at its heart a good idea. It offers a huge amount of information which is perfectly adequate if it's treated as what it is: a summary of or an introduction to a subject. As others have pointed out, if you're doing more than a casual browse then you absolutely never ever rely on a single source for information anyway, and if Wikipedia is nothing else, its referencing system serves as a useful catalogue of suggested reading.

    Wikipedia's worst aspect is that it's freely editable by a large community of ignorant people and vandals. Its best aspect is that it's freely editable by a large community of well-informed people and experts.

    As for the issue of censorship: Wikipedia is not a public platform for free speech. It was never intended to be; it's never been advertised as such. It's a privately owned, publicly editable encyclopaedia. That's it. There's nothing in its structure or its stated aims that promises it will be free from censorship. Cade misses the point: Wikipedia is not a public resource being maliciously taken over by a shadowy cabal. That shadowy cabal has every right to exert whatever control over Wikipedia that it sees fit. If the Wikimedia Foundation decided to shut the project down tomorrow they would be entirely within their rights to do so. And if they, or anyone acting on their behalf or with their approval, makes a decision to block or remove content then that's fine too - although doing so would necessarily harm the reputation for balance that Wikipedia seeks to build (I'm not making any judgements about whether it's achieved that reputation or not).

    In this case what is being banned isn't content but IPs and accounts from which a disproportionate number of disruptive edits were being made, both in favour of and in opposition to Scientology. Wikipedia has few options open to it to protect itself from vandalism or biased edits, since it can't take real-world legal action. Any other site would, I suspect, have taken similar action in similar circumstances. Scientologists and anti-Scientologists have made this action necessary not because they wished to make edits to the articles, but because they did so in a persistently disruptive and self-serving manner.

    Finally, to anyone offering any variant on Nic's comment at 08:14 about religion:

    "Antiquated mythological activity practised by persons of limited intelligence. Derived from an early human fear of death and a lack of understanding of basic astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology."

    You asked for a flame, Nic, so here it is: this is ignorant, lazy, party-line Dawkinsite crap. Despite the best efforts of the oh-so-superior religion-bashing crowd for the best part of two hundred years, no evidence has ever been forthcoming to establish a link between religious belief and intelligence. I imagine intelligence may play a part in determining the preferred *type* of religious model, but even that's speculation. As for the sciences you mentioned, plenty of religious people have at least some understanding of these subjects; and annoying as it might be for blinkered anti-religionists, there are many religious people amongst the scientists working in these areas. Similarly, there are many non-religious people who have little or no clue about such things, and care even less, as long as they get their regular fix of reality TV.

    As for fear of death, this is once again a standard assertion offered without any evidence beyond the force with which the claim is made. Not everyone religion postulates an afterlife, or promises continued existence to all. It's worth bearing in mind, in fact, that not all religion is fundamentalist Abramic monotheism; yet all too many people, in setting out to condemn and mock it, seem unwilling or unable to view it as anything else.

    If anti-religionists really want to achieve anything beyond mutual back-slapping and self-congratulation, then their arguments need to grow up. They need to find an objection to religion that is non-trivial ("I think it's silly" is irrelevant), has some grounding in reality (statistical or experimental evidence), and that cannot similarly be used against the non-religious (so "causes all the wars" and "is used to justify genocide" won't wash). Until then, fanatics on both sides will continue to squeal at each other based on nothing more than blind, fundamentalist faith in the righteousness of their own position.

  4. Camilla Smythe

    Sigh... Religion versus Cult

    Your Religion becomes a Cult when you Game It.

  5. Tory Christman
    Thumb Up

    re Censorship and Scientology

    "You are censoring us" is always Scientology/OSA's come back. If you knew and saw the hours they spend,

    covertly censoring *every single topic* that is some fact they don't want known, you would get

    why people finally say, "enough". They'll NEVER answer *your* questions, and only distract off

    of any "hot" topic, or degrade the person posting. Who's censoring there?

    Way to go, Wikipedia! Sunshine disinfects :) Tory/Magoo

  6. Tory Christman
    Heart

    Great job, Wikipedia and The Reg for posting this!

    I just wanted to say "Congratulations" to Wikipedia for taking the time to learn about this insidious organization and how they DO edited/censor covertly *anything* written about L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology that they do not want known. Great article, The Register, and other media, too.

    Having watched this machine in action, this is a great day for me and many others, too.

    Thank you ALL who have helped expose their abuses, over and over.

    My love, Tory Christman

    Burbank, CA

  7. Pierre

    @ Mithvetr

    Wow. You actually made a point. Not necessarily the one(s) you were trying to make, though.

  8. jake Silver badge

    @Mithvetr

    "They need to find an objection to religion that is non-trivial"

    Ok, I'll bite. Prove to me that ANY religion isn't hokum. Pick one. Or three. Or nine.

    Likewise, demonstrate that anyone on the planet's faith is unfakeable.

    It's that simple. Put up or shut up, Mithvetr.

  9. Andus McCoatover

    @P. Lee

    <<I'm not sure about other religions, but Christianity is *not* about rules for living>>

    I love the biblical double-standards!** My Plymouth Brethren minister wouldn't accept that, 'cos my G/F and I loved each other and had a shag, that we then regarded each other as married. But, biblically, we were. Didn't need a bloody (Victorian-created) vicar to proclaim victorian-invented words over us. But, that's what Jesus said. "If you sleep with a woman, then you are married to her". Saved a bleeding fortune! Just "Give her one" and the job's done.

    FFS, who married Adam* and Eve? The snake? (well, possibly involved. But they hadn't invented Trouser Snake's then... ;-)

    * Beats me why when Adam was created, he had 'wedding tackle' before Eve was thought of - one assumes. God said "It is not good that man should be alone" - then He created Eve. Kinda blows (sorry, Moderatrix) the whole deck of cards to the ground.

    ** How many loaves and fishes? 3 fish or 5? If these fuckwitts can't count, how reliable is their account of Jesus' life? Were they working for the Daily Mail??

  10. Mithvetr

    @ Pierre and jake

    Pierre: that doesn't help me at all. Do you want to correct me on something?

    jake:

    "Prove to me that ANY religion isn't hokum. Pick one. Or three. Or nine."

    By definition, if you believe in a religion then to you it isn't hokum. Equally, if you don't, then it is. But this objection falls into the "I think it's silly" bracket that I mentioned: it's an objection based on nothing more than an individual dislike for something seen as irrational. It's based on the flawed presumption that religion is something that must be subject to scientific, experimental evidence. It isn't, any more than ethics or philosophy are. And, like ethics and philosophy, the term 'religion' covers an enormous range of diverse belief systems, which are nevertheless bundled together under a single, easy-to-deride bracket by people who simply can't tolerate the notion that someone else sees the world in a different way from themselves.

    It's all about perception. It's impossible to prove that you see any single part of the world in precisely the same way that anyone else does. For example, when you and I look at the Reg's header banner, do we both see the same colour? Sure, we both see the colour that we've been taught is red - but does it actually look the same to each of us? Can you define 'red', so that I can measure your perceptions against mine, without pointing to something that's red?

    There is a similar perceptual barrier between people in relation to religion. If you aren't a religious person, then I cannot, under any circumstances, offer you any information or reasoning that would cause you to accept the concept of gods, much less my particular view of them. And even if you were religious, it would be almost as difficult to offer you any reason to alter your existing belief system: if you were a monotheist I would have a hard time persuading you to a polytheistic viewpoint through reason and 'evidence'. Quite obviously, if you are actively hostile to the very concept of religion then your conviction that I'm primitive, superstitious and stupid for believing in anything is going to make it absolutely impossible for you to understand my position at all - but on the up side (for you at least), it's also going to mean that you have absolutely no desire to.

    Incidentally, the above all assumes that I would actually *want* you to believe as I do and would therefore wish to try to offer you 'proof'. This in itself is an assumption often made in attacks on religion: that religious people invariably want to convert everyone. Speaking for myself, it's absolutely no concern of mine what, if anything, anyone else believes in terms of religion. For precisely these reasons, I have no interest in converting anyone because I know that my perception of the world may not be the same as theirs - so why would my religious beliefs be relevant to them?

    "Likewise, demonstrate that anyone on the planet's faith is unfakeable."

    I'm not sure I understand what you're demanding here. 'Faith is unfakeable'? Do you mean that I should prove that some miracle couldn't be replicated? That, for example, I couldn't seek to attract a following or start a new religion by doing something that Jesus was alleged to have done? If that's what you meant, then of course I can't - but I'm not sure what relevance that has. 'Faith' - by which I assume you mean religious faith - isn't invariably based on belief in some unlikely event like turning water into wine or rising from the dead. Sometimes it's simply a belief that things are a certain way; that the universe - even the one partially revealed to us through scientific investigation - has a particular character. It isn't necessarily something that can or needs to be tested empirically.

    Or maybe you meant that a person can fake a faith in a certain religion? In which case, I'm sure anyone could if they wanted to. But again, that doesn't have much bearing on anything we've said here.

    Perhaps you meant 'unshakeable'? If so, I can't and wouldn't try to do that either: people do change their religious beliefs from time to time because our perceptions change as we get older. It's vital that people should be allowed to do so, because religious belief can be a significant part of our self-expression. Similarly, people must be free to reject religion if they wish. I condemn many of the things done *in the name of religion* - but that's not the same as the *concept* of religion. So I'd simply prefer people to think a little before embracing and parroting simplistic rhetorical dogma as Nic did above.

    (I'll not post again as I have a habit of putting far too many words on the Reg's comments pages. It's just because I'm interested in the subject.)

  11. Full Tilt Boogie
    Go

    Neither fish nor fowl nor good read meat...

    Two excellent posts here which actually hit the nail on the head wonderfully.

    1) Freudian slip

    By Dan Davis Posted Friday 29th May 2009 01:33 GMT

    "The site sees itself as an encyclopaedia with a 'neutral point of view' - whatever that is."

    Right, "neutral" is hardly in the vocabulary of this wiki-obsessed web rag.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2) Firstly, a few facts:

    By Moss Icely Spaceport Posted Friday 29th May 2009 02:53 GMT

    1. wikipedia (aka: Wikiwhacky) is NOT a trustworthy 'encyclopaedia'.

    2. The Co$ is NOT a religion, it is a cult (aka: C.U.L.T, aka: Utter Bullshite).

    I couldn't give a Xenu's uncle what tripe is posted on wikipedia. It's so far from a reliable source is useless to me.

    If I had my way, I'd round up all the Thetanistas and shoot them agin' a wall. However that's probably a bit harsh. Some of them might be salvageable as regular people, with professional treatment*.

    * Not Co$ pseudo science

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In early January 2006, even Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder, told Business Week that he didn't think anyone should cite Wikipedia as a source - so why would anyone consider it reliable if the man responsible for it gives it such a, ahem, 'ringing endorsement'?

    Now, add to that the fact that Wiki can be edited, on-the-fly, whilst you're reading it, meaning things ("facts") can be changed (by un-named and unvetted persons), and it becomes no better than Twitter or other random blog. The information in Encyclopaedias is submitted, edited and rendered by already published specialists in their respective fields - not by stopping the man in the street and asking his opinion on any given topic - which is, effectively, the method Wiki uses for garnering its articles.

    Indeed, whilst perusing Wiki about 18 months ago, I was amazed to read (and it must be 'fact', right, coz it's in Wiki, innit!) that the gentleman then running Australia's domestic security service (their equivalent of MI5) had, prior to joining the intelligence world, been a ballet dancer and specialist in Macramé. Utter nonsense, of course, as the man had no such background, but hey, it was in Wiki, so joking aside, you cannot take it seriously as an encyclopaedia.

    As a an exercise, or as an example of a collaborative project, it's a runaway success; but as anything resembling a reliable source of information, it's a joke; which is kind of an apposite place to finish, as so is the cult of $cientology.

  12. Camilla Smythe

    One thing that [does not] surprise me...

    Is the Place of Fark has run up to 532(?) posts with the majority arguing about semantics, looking for gain or just generalised preening .

    There appears to be some 'leakage' here.

    Just in case 'new' members of the 'Cult of Reg' have not noticed.... Your posts are moderated so that might be a reason why attempts at voluminous diatribes of shit are not appearing here in voluminous amounts.

    Statement [1]

    Given two 1Kg weights placed at opposite ends of a symmetrically pivoted see-saw the result will be a system in balance.

    Statement [2]

    Your Religion becomes a Cult when you Game It.

    You may notice that Statement [1] is subtle and subject to discussion whilst Statement [2] is an invitation to slip in voluminous amounts of meaningless wordyshit.

    Or maybe it is just so succinct that wordyshit does not work so we shall just ignore it.

    Off course there is the possibility that the Moderators have cancelled your posts trying to argue against Statement [2] but I'd take a basic guess that 'those concerned' are ignoring it in favour of slapping keyboards for wordyshit.

  13. jake Silver badge

    @Mithvetr

    "By definition, if you believe in a religion then to you it isn't hokum."

    Circular reasoning.

    "Can you define 'red'"

    It is a specific frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum, which strikes the retina of the eye, causing one of three varietys of cone cells to send an electrical signal to the visual cortex of the brain. And yes, according to recent fMRI research, we do in fact all perceive red as red.

    I won't bother analyzing the rest of your waffling, because it would be pointless.

    However, I'll summarize: "Hi, my name is Mithvetr. I was brainwashed as a child, and I'll go way out of my way trying to justify myself to total strangers on an obscure Internet message board because I actually have doubts about my faith". How'd I do?

  14. Mithvetr

    All right - just one more...

    ... since I've been asked a direct question. But first:

    "Circular reasoning."

    Easy get-out. Avoids the questions entirely and enables you to dodge the fact that religion is not a matter of scientific empiricism.

    "It is a specific frequency of [blah blah]"

    All very clever, right enough. It sure put the superstitious nutjob straight, eh?

    Yes, I know *what* red is. My challenge to you wasn't to describe how red works. I don't care about wavelengths or photon energies here. I want you to describe - without simply pointing or referring to something red - what red *looks like*.

    "I won't bother analyzing the rest of your waffling, because it would be pointless."

    I said as much myself. It's impossible to explain any religious viewpoint to someone who maintains an attitude of indiscriminate hostility towards religion as a concept. So in that sense, yes, our exchange is pointless.

    ""I was brainwashed as a child, and I'll go way out of my way trying to justify myself to total strangers on an obscure Internet message board because I actually have doubts about my faith". How'd I do?"

    Predictably.

    My religion isn't shared by those who brought me up; and if I sought to justify my beliefs to you, I'd probably have told you what they were. I don't need your approval or affirmation.

    There are a lot of simple-minded 'benchmark' assumptions behind the standard set of anti-religious arguments. 'Childhood brainwashing' is one. 'Religion always indicates low intelligence' is another. 'Science leads inevitably to atheism' is a third. And, of course, the idea that religion is a matter of scientific empiricism.

    As long as people like you can't grasp the fact that religion, like philosophy and ethics as mentioned, is a matter outside the remit of science, you won't understand why, despite all your best efforts, people like me continue to annoy you by believing things you don't approve of.

    That's it for me on this one. Carry on posting your opinions to total strangers on an obscure Internet message board.

  15. Camilla Smythe

    Is a matter outside the remit of science

    CanIhasCheezburger?

    Not yet. Try to 'believe' in Gravity and it will succumb to your plate.

    CanIhasCheezburger Now?

    Is it on your plate?

    Uhm. No, Can I has it now?

    It's called gravity!

    K. So pick me up and....

    Nom Nom Nom Nom

    See, that was not so hard then... Purrrrrrrrrr

  16. jake Silver badge

    @Mithvetr

    "Easy get-out. Avoids the questions entirely and enables you to dodge the fact that religion is not a matter of scientific empiricism."

    I never claimed religion was scientific fact. You claimed your faith was fact because you believe in your faith. Regardless of how you look at it, claiming faith is fact because you have faith in it is circular reasoning.

    "My challenge to you wasn't to describe how red works."

    Red's red. All our brains perceive it the same way, or so fMRI seems to suggest. Just like cold is cold, hot is hot, light and dark are light and dark, and habaneros are quite tasty if you can get past the heat factor. Religion isn't testable because it's not real. It's a figment of your imagination.

    "I said as much myself. It's impossible to explain any religious viewpoint to someone who maintains an attitude of indiscriminate hostility towards religion as a concept. So in that sense, yes, our exchange is pointless."

    I'm not hostile. I'm just pointing out the futility of you (or anyone else) attempting to demonstrate "faith" here, or anywhere else for that matter. Dragging your supposed faith into the conversation is flat out pointless for the simple reason that anyone can claim "faith", and give good lip-service to that faith, while not believing a word they are saying (typing). So why bother? What's the point? Does it make you feel superior? Surely that feeling is an anathema to whatever faith you claim to follow?

    "I don't need your approval or affirmation."

    Then why bring it up in this particular forum? The only people who truly care about whatever faith you claim to follow are yourself, the shaman-varietal you pay your dues to, and the other sheeple who similarly keep a roof overhead and feed said shaman-varietal.

    "As long as people like you can't grasp the fact that religion, like philosophy and ethics as mentioned, is a matter outside the remit of science, you won't understand why, despite all your best efforts, people like me continue to annoy you by believing things you don't approve of."

    Philosophy & ethics are closer to science than religion, in that they pretty much cross all lines of humanity (there are exceptions). However, each religion is unto it's own, and inviolate within it's own construct. Approval isn't an issue; as far as I am concerned adults can do or think whatever they like, however silly, as long as they don't harm anyone else. I'm also not annoyed ... rather, I'm dumfounded. The mind boggles that anyone, in this day and age, could possibly claim "faith" is important.

    "That's it for me on this one. Carry on posting your opinions to total strangers on an obscure Internet message board."

    Can't come up with anything of your own? I've noticed that with religious types ... Nearly all of 'em are followers, the few leaders are in it for the money.

  17. Jeffrey Nonken
    Stop

    @censorship

    Anybody who claims this is censorship might want to find out what the word really means.

    The Church of Scientology is not being repressed by the government in this case. Their right to free speech has not been abridged. A private organization has merely decided that it is not in their best interests to allow the users of a certain group of IPs publish on their web site. This is the equivalent of a newspaper editor declining to print your letter. There's nothing stopping you from finding another venue for your expression. For that matter, nobody is keeping you from starting your own newspaper.

    The CoS can certainly afford to find other ways to push their agenda, and they do.

    This is not censorship, no matter how loudly you shout otherwise. Sorry.

  18. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    @Mithvetr

    LOL

    Keep drinking the kool-aide son, keep drinking deep.

    Religion (and other cults) are invented by man to explain the deep dark cold night skies and their unfathomable space..... (or the Sun, Moon, Animals, Wind, Rain, Hedgehogs or Baboons arses or a myriad of other objects, colours and abstracts, whether real or imagined).

    It's how our brains have evolved, we're just trying to move on and up the scale.

    We don't need no steenkings Gods!

  19. IanPotter

    @Jake

    "Red's red. All our brains perceive it the same way, or so fMRI seems to suggest."

    Actually this is not quite as clear as you are painting, the Ancient Greeks seem to have perceived colours in a markedly different way: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/61

    "I'm also not annoyed ... rather, I'm dumfounded. The mind boggles that anyone, in this day and age, could possibly claim "faith" is important."

    Again this could well be due to a difference in perception, to someone else their faith may be their single most important aspect. Who are you to say it isn't?

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    You know who I feel sorry for...

    ..the 1,000s of Gods who have passed into history.

    They were once all powerful and were worshiped, now have just become forgotten like,... like they never even existed!

    Sad.

  21. G Fan

    Is a matter outside the remit of reality

    >>"My challenge to you wasn't to describe how red works."

    >Red's red. All our brains perceive it the same way, or so fMRI seems to suggest.

    We might all be running on essentially the same meatware, and it might be doing all the same processing in all the same meaty brainy chunks, but there's no way to prove that my colour map isn't perfect and yours isn't completely fucked up.

    If you can accept the philosophical assertion that humans are not experiencing reality but living in a simulacrum of reality produced by our brains operating on input from the senses and its chemical environment, then the assertion that the mapping of physical input to mental reality is unique and imperfect becomes plausible.

    If your rendering of reality allows for the existence of fairies at the end of the garden, then they are perfectly real and natural to you, even if they fail the plausibility test in my reality.

    I do love a little bullshit on a Monday...

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    CAN harvests information, helps cut off worried family members

    "I hope Wikipedia doesn't wind up like the Cult Awareness Network, which was sued by Scientology and is now run by them. Guess which cult isn't covered? Go ahead, guess. It's ok. I'm not here to judge you."

    Worse, apparently if someone rings up the C.A.N. because a relative or friend has joined Scientology and they're worried about them, the person answering the phone tries to get names... and then uses this information to pressure the Scientologist in question into cutting off all communication with the caller. (They may also hand info over to other cults.) At least, this is what they used to do... they've probably given up now everyone knows they've been taken over.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    RE: Religions = bad

    Are you including Atheism in that?

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    @RE: Religions = bad

    If you really think that Atheism is a religion, then you are much deluded.

    Otherwise [wave] Mr Troll...

  25. jake Silver badge

    @IanPotter &@G Fan

    Ian scrive: "Actually this is not quite as clear as you are painting, the Ancient Greeks seem to have perceived colours in a markedly different way"

    That is clearly simple translation error (I read Koine Greek, Classic Latin & Aramaic like a native ... I can't speak any of them well enough to to save my life, but I can read & write 'em).

    "Again this could well be due to a difference in perception, to someone else their faith may be their single most important aspect. Who are you to say it isn't?"

    I never said it wasn't. What I said was that bringing up faith in a forum like this is pointless.

    G Fan contributes: "We might all be running on essentially the same meatware, and it might be doing all the same processing in all the same meaty brainy chunks, but there's no way to prove that my colour map isn't perfect and yours isn't completely fucked up."

    Then why is it that classic & modern paintings & photographs are pretty much universally agreed upon across humanity when it comes to "good" vs. "bad"? We may not all agree upon fine art, but we can all agree that it IS art, as opposed to crap.

    "If your rendering of reality allows for the existence of fairies at the end of the garden, then they are perfectly real and natural to you, even if they fail the plausibility test in my reality."

    Or perhaps ThePowersThatBe[tm] would contemplate putting me into the loony bin in your version of reality. Thankfully, I know there are no fairies at the end of my garden. (There ARE a couple of gay guys living on the property adjacent to the rose garden I built for my wife, and they were joking about being "the fairies at the end of your rose garden" a couple nights ago when we had a neighborhood barbecue ... but that's a different kettle of fish entirely).

    "I do love a little bullshit on a Monday..."

    So do my wife's roses.

  26. G Fan

    @jake

    >>I read Koine Greek, Classic Latin & Aramaic like a native ... <<

    >>Then why is it that classic & modern paintings & photographs are pretty much universally agreed upon across humanity when it comes to "good" vs. "bad"? We may not all agree upon fine art, but we can all agree that it IS art, as opposed to crap.<<

    An appeal to authority and a strawman in the same post! That was clumsy...

    The subject at hand was colour perception, not art. Art of any type, as any fule do no, is as much about subject and composition as about colour. (Otherwise how could black and white photos, or uniformly-grey stone sculptures be considered "art"? Whoopsie, that I suppose would be my own "art straw" man...)

    >>Or perhaps ThePowersThatBe[tm] would contemplate putting me into the loony bin in your version of reality.<<

    Doubt that, since when not poking holes in the careless parts of your arguments, I agree with you. Unfortunately Mithvetr has a point that the standard of discourse among infidels has dropped somewhat in recent years... something for which I think Dawkins is largely responsible. (He's another one getting careless in his old age).

    I have high hopes for your roses this year... should be well fertilised now.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Gates Halo

    If God doesn't exist

    then how do you explain the little "water to wine" trick? Or the multiplication of bread and fishes? Or the various proven miracles occurring almost on a daily basis around the globe?

    Again, how do you explain that Man has such a great body -not to mention self-conscience and intelligence. Don't tell me it evolved from bacterias, that's just ridiculous.

    How come scientists have to resort to some "big bang" theory that they can't even begin to explain?

    How come the supposedly nonexistent God is talking to me?

    How come Windows is so good?

  28. jake Silver badge

    @G Fan

    "An appeal to authority and a strawman in the same post! That was clumsy..."

    Nah. Not an appeal to authority. Just half awake. I thought you were the one that brought up the web page, but it was IanPotter. I've read the ancients; the student web page pointed at by Potter isn't exactly what most folks who have studied the ancient writings would consider accurate (read a few of the comments to the page; I'm not going to spend time refuting it here). But mea culpa. Or in the modern vernacular, my bad. I should have been paying closer attention.

    Not a strawman, either. If we perceive "colo(u)r" differently, surely art across the ages would often have colo(u)r combinations that would be jarring to the individual? With the exception of hacks like Warhol (who did it on purpose, for effect, which I don't consider "fine art", but rather "performance art"), do we see this? No. We do not. Even things like Picasso's Blue Period aren't considered "strange" by anyone that I know.

    As far as I'm concerned, we all perceive color the same way.

    "I have high hopes for your roses this year... should be well fertilised now."

    Actually, they are my wife's ... and they are blooming their silly heads off! :-)

  29. Mark Meyers

    Unconstitutional

    The Church of Scientology is absolutely going to take Wikipedia to court, and CoS will probably win. The American Constitution secures freedom of speech. Wikipedia is arguably a public forum and therefore must allow everyone to express themselves. In addition there is a discrimination suit, as a public forum Wikipedia barring one class of people. That is legal discrimination.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.