User talk:Pitdog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reply

It looks like your edit was removed without any explaination, so feel free to readd it in. If it continures to be removed, you might want to ask why on the talk page of the article and puruse WP:3RR ST47Talk 11:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello Pitdog! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Portal:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with us.

Appleseed (Talk) 19:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind invitation, I sure will explore those sections of Wiki. Regards. --Pitdog 19:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

Please stop adding "cult" or I will have to ask an administrator to intervene. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

JustaHulk - I see you like Scientology (your profile). It is not a matter of opinion only (Scientology being a cult), it is a hard fact, just as earth being round. I see you guys are manipulating this entry in Wikipedia very consequently. But whatever, this silly cult is being exposed more and more online. Do not threaten me with administrators, you do not want to step into that area. --Pitdog (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
you do not want to step into that area cough laff cough. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Pitdog, calling a specific organization a cult is a matter of opinion. It may be the prevailing opinion right now, but making it a statement of fact is not encyclopedic. The fact that this opinion exists is already well-covered in the intro:

"Journalists, courts and the governing bodies of several countries have stated that the Church of Scientology is a cult and an unscrupulous commercial enterprise that harasses its critics and abuses the trust of its members."

There's no need to add redundant and POV-pushing text to the article. --GoodDamon 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


I get your point, but - If there is no need to add "redundant" information, as you called it, regarding the word "cult", then why is there a need to add very redundant information regarding words "church" and "religion"? Tohse word are repeated numerous times in the article, even though they do not even apply. The proportions should be quite the opposite to reflect the reality of the matter. This situation, with repeated words "church", "religion" looks like a purposeful manipulation. Kind Regards. --Pitdog (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Man, I strongly strongly dislike Scientology, but as there is no generally accepted definition of a cult (a word that is loaded with controversy) and it carries widespread negative connotations I think it should be classified as a weasel word and therefore not used. One of the best things about Wikipedia is its objectivity and although it seems ridiculous to people like us, we have to realise that that is just our opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.136.36 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And ye shall refer to it as source

Hey what's up Pitdog. If you ever get a chance to break out a handy dandy edition of World Book, check out the article on "Scientology", here:

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please spare us the effort - what does it say? --JustaHulk (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thou shalt pick cherries and offer them to others to partake of but thou shalt not consume cherries thine self for thou art wary of the pit. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Why are you talking here about the "world book encyclopaedia"? I have many other encyclopaedias, why this particular one , this particular edition should interest me? If reading is concerned,, since we are far apart in the world, i'd recommend some stuff online, like: www.xenu.net, http://www.scientology-lies.com/, http://www.howcultswork.com/ and plenty plenty more resources. I do not think I have to explain why the pages maintained by the cult itself are not reliable... --Pitdog (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this is the entire entry for the article "Scientology" from the above cited version of the encyclopedia (not my viewpoints, but those of the encyclopedia editor/staff, etc., but still, amusing, nonetheless):

Scientology. See Cult.

[Bolding emphasis in original text.] Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obscene Dog

Hey Pitdog - feel like enabling your email in your "preferences" ? Cheerio, Cirt (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, if you do, drop me a note on my talk page at some point. TTFN, Cirt (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Why should I enable my mail? And why "obscene"? regards --Pitdog (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Because if you enable your email, then I can send you an email, but if you don't, I cannot. For more on the above heading, google it.  :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
My email is rexkora@yahoo.com . --Pitdog (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If you "enable" email via your preferences, you will see in the subject "email from Cirt via Wikipedia" or something like that, and you'll be able to verify that it was from me. But if I email you at that email now, it could be anyone claiming to be anyone. :) Cirt (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's OK, we can gamble, easy to check out anyways :) --Pitdog (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Nah. Cirt (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)