User talk:JustaHulk

/notbad

JustaHulk not bad

Cereal

JustaHulk crunchberry boos! Stay crunchy even in milk. Lsi john 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john need licensing agreement to make JustaHulk cereal. Talk to JustaHulk lawyer. No, wait, Bishzilla squish JustaHulk lawyer. Was accident, Bishzilla squish ambulance, get lawyer too. JustaHulk need new lawyer. --JustaHulk 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

proof

Here is proof that wikipedia is not worth the effort:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements/Durova/Questions_for_the_candidate

no further comment is even necessary. The fact that it could even come up as a serious possibility is proof that nobody here really cares about the project.

But it is a great HOBBY, just ask the sleuth.. i mean candidate. Peace.Lsi john 01:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, JustaHulk laugh then. HAHAHA. Oh, please tell Justanother stop using JustaHulk account to edit! --JustaHulk 01:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a hint that the average IQ here is too low. So, welcome back, man! Misou 03:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

Oh, good. So this wasn't a personal attack then. You've put my mind at rest. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Turnabout is fair play then? I perhaps have a higher threshold of what I consider WP:PA than Bishonen or perhaps I am not aware of the history. You know, you can remove the PA yourself, it does not take an admin. Nor does it take an admin to warn another user. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Justahulk crazy! Go green?

Gilted? Hulk kidding? Page now in use, please note. Giano editing. bishzilla _ROARR!! 18:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

And this is the thanks I get for my nice edits???? Bad /zilla. Sit in corner! --JustaHulk (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, my bad on that tiny detail. I was thinking "gilded" as that is the term I would use as I use gilt as a noun as in "I felt such gilt at my horrendous fo paw." --JustaHulk (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Word is guilt. Example: "'Zilla guilt little JustaHulk into grooming her green scales today." Or is it quilt... ? /me confused now, experience much stress! Bad little JustaHulk for stressing out kindly 'Zilla! (See how easy is "guilting out" JustaHulk?) [Bishzilla goes contentedly sit in corner. Likes corners! ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, I am a sucker for guilt. I think I have the wrong religion. --JustaHulk (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

good faith

I am sorry that I reverted your edits. both of them had already been the source of many actual vandels, and the use of them discussed at lenght on discussion pages (some of which are now archived, so obviously you where unaware). The xenu page is a hot one, and the undo feture is burning on a daily basis. I am sorry I was quick to undo when an explination was actually in order.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, apology most definitely accepted. I am happy to work with any well-mannered editor no matter their stand on Scientology. If you have any questions about my edits please bring them up on the talk page and we can hash them out. Happy Holiday! --JustaHulk (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I posed the question on the discussion page. I may not agree with your edits, but you arn't posing an irational opinion. I don't think I misrepresented your position, however you may want to post in order to explain exactly your intent. lets see what the editiors think about this one.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

seen them 4 times, and own all their albums (except the ABC's). I am glad we are both up for discussion, I also edit the Alcoholics Anonymous page, and somtimes discussion is just futile...imagine beeing stuck in a foxhole by yourself...WWI...France...and it is just too quiet... that is what editing that page is like.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean that you edit from a pro-AA POV and feel lonely? How do you suppose I feel, as the (usually) sole Scientologist? --JustaHulk (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I do understand feeling like you are the only one. I am actually not pro-AA...or Anti-AA...just...well I feel shot at alot...I had a stance at one time, but that got blured sometime aroung the "See Sharp Press" debate that came from the "Throwing spagetti on the wall" section that led to the "Wikilawyering" feasco (that turned around on the person who posted that one, his posts havn't been the same since) then the "Bill W" page crossover debate...2 RfO's and that was just since the 25th of november. and all I was trying to do was push a non pov stance. honastly the Scientology pages are tame, try recovery to get your blood boiling, I edit Xenu et al. to relax from a hard day of debating.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Good luck with your new secret identity. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that Barbara's article is gone. That is so cool. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is cool but don't thank me, thank Bishonen. --JustaHulk (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will. Have a great Christmas. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Same to you. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[1] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Neutral reportage

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. --neonwhite user page talk 19:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I always do. And all I suggested for you was that, before you be so anxious to add Schwarz to the article, that you do your due diligence. --JustaHulk (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE

RE the case you filed, remedy as written is vague, suggest not using each other's talk pages or interacting on other talk pages. Next time sterner measures will be taken. Both are warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

alaska mental health

My undo was because you modified a cited reference with information not contained within that reference. I like your other additions, what is the citation for the block quote you gave?Coffeepusher (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I will cite it, it is the WikiMedia thing. Gotta be careful about OR based on primary materials. I can go either way on the bit in the lead but that thing under "controversy" is OR - we don't know when Hubbard first became aware or when Scientologists first became active - all we have is the telegram. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise video

I wanted to take this part of the discussion off the talk page, because it's off-topic there, but I'm genuinely curious about the logic you're using. To me -- a non-Scientologist -- your take on what Cruise is saying really does creep me out. It seems invasive and dishonest, while what it purports to accomplish could be achieved by someone with a level head and empathetic disposition, without any religion involved whatsoever. Imagine if Cruise were a Moonie and said the exact same thing, only he's using the techniques of the Unification Church to "help" people in times of crisis instead. Wouldn't that creep you out? --GoodDamon 19:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Damon. I must say that this - "what it purports to accomplish could be achieved by someone with a level head and empathetic disposition" - appears to be little more than supposition on your part. There are techniques in Scientology that can, for ex., quickly restore a hysterical person to calmness and cognizance and, frankly, they go waaay beyond a hug and kind word in effectiveness. You are doing what many here on Wikipedia do, discounting that there is anything at all to Scientology beyond controversy. Scientology is a subject practiced by very many extremely intelligent people, many in the healing arts, and there is real substance to it. What "techniques" does the Unification Church have that they would apply to an individual in spiritual (you might say "emotional" or "mental") crisis? I don't see the analogy. But let's assume they have "the magic hand of Jesus" technique and they lay their hand on you and you are calm and restored. OK, would I have a problem with that? Hell no, if I need it, bring it on! You almost sound as if you are speaking out of fear and superstition. Did you read the article I linked to? --JustaHulk (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article about Scientology laying on of hands? Yes, I read it. There's still no scientific evidence that it has anything beyond a comforting effect for people who believe in it. I'd like to know what techniques in Scientology can "quickly restore a hysterical person to calmness and cognizance," and -- here's the kicker -- what makes them unique to Scientology. The ability to talk and comfort someone down from a high degree of distress is in some people a natural skill and in some people something they learn, but there are all sorts of disciplines that teach them to one degree or another. Certainly, certain Scientology courses may teach some version of it, too. (See? I'm quite capable of looking beyond controversy). But it's by no means the only one; hostage negotiators, for instance, have to be able to talk people down from being literally murderously upset. Heck, I talked a friend down from a serious upset after a car accident, and I was in the car with her. And it's the intermingling of the religious aspects that gets under my skin.

I'm also quite surprised you don't see the analogy. The "techniques" Sun Myung Moon's church would use would be prayer, of course, and they believe their techniques work just as strongly as any Scientologist would believe his or hers do. Their "magic hand of Jesus" (heh) might even be effective in some instances, if for no other reason than distracting the hysterical person from their raison d'hystérie. But without scientific backing, it would basically be a medical claim with no justification. --GoodDamon 21:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You continue to discount that there is anything to the subject of Scientology. It is like I am trying to explain agronomy to you and talking about, IDK, crop rotation and you are coming back with "Sheesh, everybody knows how to grow stuff - you just stick a seed in the ground and water it. I once grew a tomato plant in my back yard so that proves there is nothing new in agronomy." I have two fat books of Scientology assists that can be used to help just about anyone in any spiritual circumstance. But the real issue, I think, seems to be some abhorrence on your part of the concept of "religion". First off, the technique is the technique. If I administer a touch assist to an injured person, there is no "religion" involved - I am helping the spiritual being reconnect with the injured part of their body and, among other things, that speeds healing. Do I have the peer-reviewed study? No. Does it work? Well, that is for you to judge on your own either as the recipient or the giver. But the only "religion" is the underlying concept regarding the spiritual being's relation to his body. And you can take that or leave it - go ahead and think it releases endorphins or serotonin or something, if that is your preferred superstition. I like mine better. But I would kinda guess that if I thought I was stimulating serotonin production when I did it and not dealing with a spiritual being then you would have less trouble with the concept. I think it comes down to something in your space related to "religion". --JustaHulk (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's funny, we have entirely opposite reactions to how this conversation is going. To further your analogy of agronomy and crop rotation, I feel like I'm asking how the nitrogen cycle works and applies to food crops, and you're saying "it works because it works," instead of providing any underlying mechanisms like ammonification.

I don't have anything against religion, and I certainly don't hate it. I'm not sure where you're getting that. I do have a deeply held conviction that temporal matters and spiritual matters should not be intertwined -- too many travesties and tragedies have resulted from that. Maybe that's where you're seeing the "abhorrence," my discomfort at the idea of anyone of any religious persuasion applying their personal religious beliefs to me in a time of physical distress. It's not like I think I'll get some kind of icky soul-residue from it or anything like that, it just seems unsavory and dishonest to me. And whether you think it's religious when you "help... the spiritual being reconnect with the injured part of their body..." or not, there is definitely underlying religious intent. To use the most blatant example, if the person you're touch-assisting is an atheist, then that person doesn't even believe in the spirit or soul. --GoodDamon 22:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not my intent to deliver a course in Scientology here - read the Dianetics book for just a bit of it. You are saying "there is nothing to it, it is just stuff we already know". That demeans the subject and the practicioners and, frankly, I do not think that you speak from a position to make that statement and I am kinda surprised that you even defend that ill-informed idea. We should, all of us, at least have some idea of what we know and what we don't know. In actual fact, I know precious little about agronomy and I suspect you know precious little about Scientology. That is not meant to insult you but to get you to take a hard look at where you are coming from here. Let's at least assume that Scientologists believe they have an technology based on some underlying premises that makes sense to them, a technology that seems to have empirical truth to it, and contains techniques not found elsewhere. Give us a little credit, would you? And as to your concept that we would separate the physical from the spiritual . . . well, man is not an automobile. The physical is intimately tied to the spiritual and you really should not treat one without considering the other. I mean, think about it, even for a car. What if your pride and joy auto was damaged by some hit-and-run driver. And you had no insurance. And you had worked and saved and planned, etc., etc. for that car. Don't you think there would be spiritual impact even there. The body is all that and more. There are always spiritual effects of physical injury or illness. You don't have to believe in Scientology but if we posit the existence of a spirit then we would expect that there would be ways to affect that spirit for better or worse. That is all that Hubbard did and lots of people think he did pretty damn good job. --JustaHulk (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on a few things, here. Fortunately, we're both grownups and can do that. :) I see some intractability between us on two subjects:

• The empirical truth that spiritual Scientology techniques work

I see your experiences in Scientology as valid for you, much the same way I regard the beliefs of anyone in any religion as valid for them, but that doesn't make them empirically true. Empirical truth is "dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses." The truth of your experiences healing spirits is self-evident to you, but you can no more show me those spirits than you could induce a religious experience in me. I think you're too close to this; the way you talk, the existence of a spirit and the efficacy of your methods for healing it are a given. But to me, they're not. And this is an intractable issue because there is literally no way for you to prove them to me, or for me to disprove your experiences to you. All I can do is present how it looks to outsiders.

• Treating the spiritual with the physical

There's plenty of evidence that comfort and emotional care have beneficial effects on healing speeds. If you accept the existence of a spirit, whatever the form, I could even grant that spiritual care may have beneficial effects (although there's no way to prove that scientifically). But there's a vast chasm between telling someone you will pray for their wellbeing, and using some kind of technique on them directly that you believe helps "the spiritual being reconnect with the injured part of their body..." And that's not even taking into account the fact that with some religions, notably Islam, that kind of action could be interpreted as an assault on the soul, and practitioners would be extremely angry if they found out. Best to leave the religious components of spiritual aid out of the equation entirely. To be blunt, I don't want my soul treated when I see the doctor about my bunions, because it's very unlikely his religious beliefs match mine. Again, I don't think I'll get any icky soul-residue or anything like that -- personally, I'm agnostic, and open to the prayers and beliefs of everyone -- but there are definitely others who would be offended on a religious level by it. Again, I think this is an intractable subject for us, because we're obviously coming from polar opposites.

As a side question, is Dianetics available online anywhere? You've suggested I read it, and I'm happy to give it a go. --GoodDamon 17:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Though I still think that you misunderstand me a bit. When I speak about empirical, I pretty much mean that you could see it too, if you were there to see. Obviously when we talk of spiritual betterment we are talking a subjective experience but subjective change is readily visible to the observer. You could see it. If someone was upset and is now beaming - you could see it. That is the problem with the "peer-reviewed" thing - it disregards what can be easily seen in one spiritual being by another. That is the problem with all materialism.

As regards your bunions, it is a question of where do you draw the line on spiritual help. You are pretending that you want none but if the doctor gives you a smile and an encouraging word then he has touched your spirit. See the point? If the auto mechanic gives the car a smile and an encouraging word, we would think it odd at best. But if the doctor treating your bunions left out the "bedside manner", you might find another doctor. We expect some spiritual interaction. So if the doctor said "Would it be alright if I did a little something to improve your communication with the injured area and perhaps speed healing?" would you say "Hell no!"? Would he have to say "It is Scientology"? What difference does saying that make? OK, and if he does say that is that a deal-breaker for you? If he says "It is something a friend of mine came up with" would that be OK but if he says "It is Scientology" then that would not be OK. What does that say about you? One of my friends is a podiatrist and she might well ask you something like that. My guess is you would say, "Sure". Would you?

Re Dianetics, there might be some material at dianetics.org but you will need to buy the book - any bookstore has it. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what you're getting at with the "empirical" bit. You're talking about the results you perceive, not how you got those results. OK, I have no reason to disbelieve you've seen the results or that I could see them too, although I'm in the serotonin and endorphins camp for the underlying cause, as those are scientifically falsifiable.

As for the drawing the line on spiritual help, I just don't find anything directly spiritual about being nice, having a good bedside manner, and so on. On a personal level, I believe acting in that manner is good for people spiritually, both oneself and the people one might affect. But again, there's a chasm between that and directly using one's religious beliefs on people. The doctor who asks me if I want to "improve communication" with my foot may not get a "hell no," buy he is going to receive a lot of questions about the scientific validity of any such effort, because my foot already has a mechanism for communicating with me: Nerve endings. Unless the doctor is going to affect those nerve endings somehow, he's indulging in unscientific medical practices. If he is honest, and says that he learned something in Scientology that has sound scientific backing, I've got no problem with it (assuming he can present that scientific backing to me). But I'm paying him to work on my foot, and I don't want him to counsel it or me in spiritual matters or otherwise try to interact directly with my spirit, any more than I'd want a medical doctor to adjust my chi or chakras, or give me the Eucharist. And you haven't answered my concern over people who would be actively offended by it. I just find it creepy, but that's a comparatively mild reaction. --GoodDamon 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, my friend, you may think that you are an agnostic but you sound to me like quite the true believer - in scientism. As I said, you can pick your superstition and I will pick mine. I leave you with this:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Hamlet Act 1, scene 5

--JustaHulk (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. You may enjoy my old user page here. I even quote the Pope!! --JustaHulk (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh... Still dodged it, but I guess I'll have to live with that. For the record, I really am an agnostic. In the spiritual frame, I don't think I have a line on The Truth, and I'm skeptical of anyone who claims to. In the physical frame, I'm a Positivist.

And as for Hamlet... Isn't he the one who waffled endlessly, before killing just about everyone he ever knew? ;) --GoodDamon 21:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask me the question that you think I have dodged, without any examples or other gloss. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. I mentioned that some religions would regard unasked-for spiritual services such as these as a sort of spiritual assault, and used Islam as an example. In Islam, the soul belongs only to Allah, and Allah is the only path to keeping it healthy. That's the concern you haven't answered, unless I missed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDamon (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Yes, I did not really answer that. I don't have a great answer for you. I would first again wonder if "Allah is the only path to keeping it healthy" then I guess that comforting a grief-stricken person would be out of the question? You see my problem with your question. I alluded to it before. You are seeking to draw an artificial line and put hugs on one side and Scientology on the other. That is why I have trouble answering your question, I think that, quite unintentionally, it not an quite honest question. To clarify a bit, Scientology has no deities and no prayer. I would question if there were any blasphemy in using a Scientology process. Many religions have already stated that Scientology is not incompatible with their beliefs. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite... Some individuals of various faiths have made such statements, but by and large the leading figures of most religions do find it incompatible. In any event, I do draw that line, and don't think it's artificial at all. A hug is a hug; the satisfaction and pleasure one derives from it, on whatever physical and spiritual levels "hugger" and "huggee" experience it, needs no training, requires no religion, and doesn't come from Scientology. That's not to say a Scientologist can't give a heartfelt hug by any means... It just means that a good hug has nothing to do with Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, Shinto, or (for an example of deity-less religions) Buddhism.

And finally, it doesn't matter whether you "would question if there were any blasphemy in using a Scientology process" on a Muslim. They would. Where you or I would draw the line isn't applicable to my concern. --GoodDamon 21:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Going back a bit; Hamlet is a fictional character in a play; the words are by William Shakespeare, a fellow that many consider a pretty wise guy. You, as an author, understand that point better than most yet you pretend not to. It is this sort of "rhetorical dishonesty" that has peppered your arguments and which I find just a little frustrating. I doubt you really know what a Muslim would say in this circumstance for two reasons - you have little grasp of what a Scientology process is and, secondly, I doubt you are familiar enough with Islam to say what their feelings might be. Can you give me the verse in the Koran that says "Thalt shalt not accept the blessings of other faiths" or somesuch? Let me give you an another example; a Muslim mother's child lies deathly ill. Her Catholic friend says "I will light a candle for her." Do you really think the mother will say "Don't you dare!!" Do you really think that the Muslim faith prohibits such? Yet that clearly violates your earlier premise that "In Islam, the soul belongs only to Allah, and Allah is the only path to keeping it healthy." When you argue from made-up hypothetical positions, i.e. "Well, my spaceship has a special shield to absorb your fusion beam and turn it back at you!", it is neither fair to me nor really productive of anything. The answer to your question is that life has few hard and fast answers. A Scientologist would never deliver a process to another person over their objection. If the person is unconscious or in a coma or otherwise unable to intelligently give or withhold permission then sure, we can come up with some hypothetical situation where the person might later feel offended. I think it is a bit far-fetched but sure, why not. I would think some sort of spiritual Good Samaritan rule might apply in that case, no? --JustaHulk (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I make any other arguments whatsoever, let me explain where I see the difference between "lighting a candle" and "delivering a process." It's pretty obvious you don't see a difference, and I respect that. But I also disagree. Lighting a candle, or praying in other ways, is a more passive activity. It's not "I will fix you spiritually," it's "I hope God fixes you spiritually." This is what, in my view, marks the difference. If you don't see that difference, and don't see how anyone else could, then we really have reached the intractable part of this argument. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

On Hamlet... Do I really have to point out I was adding some levity to the discussion? I studied Shakespeare in college, and have seen numerous productions of Hamlet. I'm well aware that "he" is just a character in a play. It's not indicative of any rhetorical dishonesty, it's indicative of the fact that I apparently have a lousy sense of humor. And I challenge you to point out a real example of dishonesty on my part, or use of made-up hypothetical situations. The hypothetical situations I've presented have all been along the lines of the one Cruise used in the statement that started this discussion -- an injured person getting unasked-for spiritual services, possibly without being told.

On Islam... I don't think lighting a votive would bother your hypothetical mother, but that's a far cry from "can I come over and give her the Eucharist," which I think equates more accurately with performing a Scientology process on someone. That would bother the heck out of most people. It would bother them more if your hypothetical Catholic came over and placed the wafer on the Muslim daughter's tongue without telling anyone.

Sorry I was so late in writing this response, by the way. I've got a cold, and I've been sleeping it off all morning. --GoodDamon 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you are (were?) feeling ill. I will sacrifice a virgin or two to Tezcatlipoca on your behalf. That is passive as per your above definition in that I am only asking my god to heal you - no involvement needed on your part. So that would be OK, right? Of course not and that is just to show that you have once again made an artificial distinction. Let me tell you what the real determining factor is: 1) the actual dictates of the person's religion if they have one (and you have not given me anything firm on that for any religion) and 2) the individual's feelings and perception of what is occurring and you cannot speak for anyone but yourself (or your friends) there. It boils down to you trying to cast your bias to be more than simply your uninformed feelings. Uninformed because, as I have already said, you do not know what a Scientology assist is or what it looks like so you do not really even know how you would react. You create something in your own mind based on scant, if any, knowledge of what you are supposed to be imagining and then you say it "creeps you out". I already answered your question fully in my last post. There is a big difference between me performing a Scientology assist on the sick child and giving her the Eucharist but you don't know that. But you could look at the article I linked to about the work in south India and wonder how come the Scientologists seem so well thought of there if what they do is so offensive to people of other faiths. Because it is not. It is welcome and appreciated. So you and others like you can sit there with a know-nothing "creepy feeling" while Scientologists try to help others how and where they can. Sorry to be so hard on you but I like you and I think you needed it. You give Scientologists zero credit based on nothing more than your vague feelings based on little more than self-serving tabloid criticism of Scientology and that is just not fair. --JustaHulk (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Old articles

See User:JustaHulk/Sandbox1 (KRC), User:JustaHulk/Sandbox2 (ARC). They are the versions just before the afd tags were added. Be advised I'm doing this so you can build them into viable articles that show notability, not for you to just paste and recreate. Be sure you improve to notability standards first. Good luck. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks.--JustaHulk (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Script-kiddie link

The "hate site" link didn't even end up on the original site. It now redirects in a sad attempt by the lulzers to shift the blame to EBaumsWorld. AndroidCat (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I do not say "hate site" lightly. Read the site esp. the "Enemies" section, i.e. what they did do that silly little dominatrix, GoddessMine. Bunch of Anon losers playing hate games. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleh, no thanks. The non-redirected site was bad enough. I doubt the LULZers are really capable of more than random hates of the moment. AndroidCat (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Note about cyber-terrorism comment on Project Chanology AfD

I just wanted to let you know that I moved the comments you made, and all of the ensuing responses, to the AfD talk page. Comments of that nature aren't at all relevant to the AfD itself. In addition, I later found that the comment was also on the article talk page. Splitting up discussions in that manner is generally considered bad form.

As an entirely OR aside that I hope you will not find offensive, trying to disparage a group using a widely ridiculed news report is exactly the sort of thing that critics of Scientology like to bring up in discussions, and gives the church a bad reputation. It's especially odd in this case, as I think it would be far more effective for you to disparage Anonymous as the disorganized group of immature forum users it is widely considered to be. Calling them cyber-terrorists makes them sound important and sinister, when in fact one of their last major attacks consisted mainly of continual prank calls to a random talk show host.--Philosophus ^T 04:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I refactored my comment in the AfD itself to stick to the relevant issue. Why is that report "widely ridiculed". Can you point me at anything RS about that? The fact that they intersperse "raids" on habbo.com or somesuch with more destructive activity does not lessen the fact that they engage in very harmful attacks on their "enemies". I looked into them a bit when this started and I saw enough to lead me to believe that "internet hate machine" is an apt moniker. They are what they are, call them cyberstalkers or cyberterrorists, they are people that have decided to indulge their most base and hateful impulses for fun. They are no different from any hate group except they lack the cojones to go and paint swastikas on synagogues. --JustaHulk (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I expect you've seen the (not terribly RS) Wired article about the Fox report, which explains the mistakes the reporters made. There aren't very many reliable sources, of course, because the 'group' isn't terribly notable. Calling them cyberterrorists and bringing up things like the death and bomb threats some people make just seems to give them far more importance than they actually have, just like calling a random teenager who phones an absurd bomb threat into his school a terrorist, even if perhaps technically correct, makes the teenager far more important by connecting him with real attackers who actually do kill people and bomb things. To the best of my knowledge from my investigations of the matter over the last few days (I've been on their imageboards, in their closed forums, on their IRC channels, and so on), most *chan users interested in raids (this is essentially what Anonymous is) seem very flattered by the old Fox report. --Philosophus ^T 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Question

Hi! The block in question was done at the private behest of a checkuser - revealing their name or the name of the blocked editor would be quite problematic as the former is open about their identity and the latter has stalked Wikipedians in real life. If you've got any questions, please email arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. east.718 at 18:25, January 30, 2008

OK. Just so I am clear on the jargon, by "checkuser" you mean an admin with checkuser privs, right? Stupid question, I know but the only real stupid question is the one that you do not ask. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and all the checkusers are administrators. :-) You can find a list of them here. east.718 at 18:37, January 30, 2008

Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Music

Howdy! Thanks for the link...um right now I am in the computer lab so I can't listen to it right now (they disabled the flash drive capacity...or somthing like that so we can do reserch without beeing "tempted" by youtube...hence the wikipedia addiction) but as soon as I get home I will let you know. Coffeepusher (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow!

when I asked "What do I get" it didn't occur to me that I actually got somthing! Thanks for the award, I appriciate it (and you read my page, who knew people actually paid attention to that stuff). Anyway, good editing, and I am shure we will talk soon. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking...

I'm sure you've been asked this before. But why are you a Scientologist? And how?

For instance, there is E-Meter#Controversy. And so much other stuff.

I am a Buddhist. L. Ron Hubbard claimed to be a reincarnation of the Buddha. On these grounds, what are your views of Buddhism? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am happy to answer questions. All I ask is that you first do a bit of reading of my previously posted material (here). Regarding the e-meter, there is no controversy other than that invented by critics (who specialize in inventing controversy where none exists). The meter does nothing except aid the practitioner in finding what to address on a spiritual plane and indicating how that is going. Think of it as a spiritual dowsing rod. And like a dowsing rod, you can believe it works or not, the only "proof" is the subjective proof you gain by proficiency with it. Of course scientism and materialism will deny that either do anything. That's OK. They don't have to use them. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, I thought about your question as I took my morning coffee and have come up with a short answer that had not previously presented itself to me. It also explains a lot of the criticism and what is currently happening with Anonymous:

Signal-to-noise ratio

I find that Scientology has, by far, the highest signal-to-noise ratio of any organized philosophy that I have ever encountered. By organized, I mean that I can readily learn about and study. Perhaps there are wise men (and I am sure that there are) that have a better grasp of our condition than Hubbard. Perhaps Buddha was one. Perhaps Jesus. Perhaps any number of others, living and dead. But, for me and many others, Hubbard put it best and, beyond that, came up with workable means to improve one's spiritual state, awareness, and abilities. There is an incredible amount of "signal" in Scientology, and relatively little "noise". And that noise is usually discounted by Hubbard himself as his own opinion, take it or leave it. BUT, the critics take the noise, discount the signal, and present the noise as the essence of Scientology. Here is an example of noise, Space opera in Scientology doctrine#Alien civilizations. A critic will take a 50-minute taped lecture, discount 49.5 minutes of signal and fixate on 0.5 minutes of noise. And that lecture being one of hundreds. For signal, look at the two deleted articles currently in my user space and linked above (see "Old articles"). A critic of Scientology AfDed those. Why? Well, I think it is because critics want less signal and more noise here. Of course, my signal-to-noise evaluation is subjective and based on how the data of Scientology aligns with my experience in life and my "knowingness" (call it intuition, if you like). Like any theory, I have to make a judgment as to whether it explains known phenomena and predicts future phenomena. Certainly materialism and scientism can make no predictions about human behavior, and psychiatry and psychology fall far short. Other religions and belief systems contain far less signal and far more noise, IMO. Scientology works, that is why I am a Scientologist. --JustaHulk (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

All philosophies and religions are noise.

If Scientology is true, why do they keep their highest doctrines secret and why does it cost so much money? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And signals are themselves noise. And noises are themselves signals. Neither are distinct. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh. --JustaHulk (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

More noise! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes noise is what it takes. Especially when one is resolved to ignore the signal. --JustaHulk (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Curious about your thoughts on the recent Scientology flap

Hi, JaH. Though I haven't been much active on Wikipedia recently, I am aware of the recent flurry of picketing, internet dustups, etc. surrounding Scientology. It makes me think of you. Seems like more people are expressing alarm about the chuch and it's actions then anytime since the days of the Time magazine cover story, at least. If you're willing to share it, I'd be very interested to hear your perspective on this: to what do you attribute this movement?, why now?, what are scientologists saying among themselves?, any predictions?, etc. Thanks. -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi to you, too. Please activate your e-mail and we can chat. Best. --JustaHulk (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)