Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Digg this if you are sick of $cientologists burying articles
dictionary.reference.com — Because we hate when people abuse Digg for censorship. Here's the definition of "cult" -- courtesy of Dictionary.com
DiggityDugged- 23351 diggs
- digg it
- DiggityDugged, on 02/02/2008, -335/+86Digg this too:
http://digg.com/world_news/Anonymous_Victory_Katie ...
Scientology spreads rumors about people they dislike, so we might as well give them the same respect.- fkr3, on 02/02/2008, -84/+100Buried too.
It's not scientologists burying you kidiots' and your crappy stories, it's the rest of digg. You're not fighting a war you're spamming digg. You're not even fighting a war when you 'fight' against scientology by attacking their server, all you're doing is racking up an excess bandwidth bill they can easily afford and maybe bringing their site offline temporarily. Oh noes!!
Also I'm pretty sure Katie Holmes was aware Tom Cruise was a scientologist before they "got married".- sarixe, on 02/02/2008, -7/+6even afterwards O.o
- br0ck, on 02/02/2008, -7/+44Actually, Scarlett Johansson showed up for the mission impossible gig and said no after a few hours of hard core proselyting at the Scientology center. A few weeks later Katie Holmes went to interview, went missing for a month and came out engaged and a Scientologist. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8133757/
Not to mention that the latest Cruise biography says that before she started dating Cruise, Katie Holmes signed an agreement to follow Scientology and never give any psychological treatment to herself or her future kids. http://www.idontlikeyouinthatway.com/2008/01/scien ...
The “Lost in Translation” star was expected to co-star with Cruise in “Mission: Impossible III” but was dropped because of “scheduling conflicts.” But it seems that there may have been other conflicts as well. Cruise invited Johansson to a Scientology center where he showed her literature about joining his controversial church, according to a report. “After two hours of proselytizing,” according to RadarMagazine.com, “Cruise opened a door to reveal a second room full of upper-level Scientologists who had been waiting to dine with the pair, at which point the cool-headed ingénue politely excused herself.”
The Scoop called Johansson’s mother/manager for comment and she declined, referring us to Johansson’s publicist, who didn’t return calls or emails. Cruise’s rep didn’t respond to requests for comment, but Rick Ross of CultNews.com told the Scoop: “Is this Tom Cruise’s version of a first date? It’s becoming increasingly difficult to make distinctions between his personal, professional and religious life. Tom Cruise and Scientology seem intent on recruiting a hot young star. Apparently, Scarlett Johansson flunked her test, but Katie Holmes passed.”- dunk71, on 02/03/2008, -1/+26I'm replying here because I wanna jump the line. Sorry. I know it's bad form, but there's a load of comments here from Digg users saying they bury the Scientology stories because they're fed up with the number of stories, or because they think the whole "war on Scientology" is doomed to failure... The thing is that by burying Scientology stories you're pushing an important issue aside. You're potentially causing harm to a valid protest. Being fed up with "Digg abuse" is not an issue right now. This ***** is important. People have died. A lot more people have run themselves into so much debt that they'll never recover from it. Others have been forced to turn their backs on friends and family. If Scientology continues to go unchecked then this will happen to more and more people and those of you who are burying the Scientology stories because you're bored of them are, quite frankly, acting irresponsibly.
Don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute expect the fight against Scientology to be won through Digg, but it's a high profile, and therefore very important, source of information on the web and the spread of information is the most powerful weapon anyone has against the civil and human rights injustices that the CoS is committing, day in day out.
Please, just deal with the upset for the time being. Ignore the Scientology stories if you really don't care. But let everyone else fight for something they believe in. OK?
Sorry for hi-jacking the comment thread.- round427, on 02/03/2008, -0/+13I completely agree. A lot of people have said they're burying all Scientology stories not knowing that any and all bad press diminishes the credibility of the COS that much more. I normally despise spam, but this is different (how the hell is the submitter of this story profiting when the link goes to dictionary.com?)
Fight the good fight, gentlemen. If you have a problem with the Scientology stories, kindly shut the ***** up and don't click them.
- round427, on 02/03/2008, -0/+13I completely agree. A lot of people have said they're burying all Scientology stories not knowing that any and all bad press diminishes the credibility of the COS that much more. I normally despise spam, but this is different (how the hell is the submitter of this story profiting when the link goes to dictionary.com?)
- dunk71, on 02/03/2008, -1/+26I'm replying here because I wanna jump the line. Sorry. I know it's bad form, but there's a load of comments here from Digg users saying they bury the Scientology stories because they're fed up with the number of stories, or because they think the whole "war on Scientology" is doomed to failure... The thing is that by burying Scientology stories you're pushing an important issue aside. You're potentially causing harm to a valid protest. Being fed up with "Digg abuse" is not an issue right now. This ***** is important. People have died. A lot more people have run themselves into so much debt that they'll never recover from it. Others have been forced to turn their backs on friends and family. If Scientology continues to go unchecked then this will happen to more and more people and those of you who are burying the Scientology stories because you're bored of them are, quite frankly, acting irresponsibly.
- unicronband, on 02/02/2008, -6/+49While this may be a case of Anon "gaming" Digg (I think spamming is the wrong term), nearly everything else on the front page could fall into that category as well (Cracked lists, gaming blogs, presidential candidates). I think the lolcatz submissions are moronic, but I don't bury them, I just ignore them and let the people who like them digg away.
I think Diggers have gotten carried away with burying anything they disagree with. Burying a story should be reserved for the most dire offenses (blatant inaccuracies, balls-out spam, horribly offensive material...). By burying stories, you are preventing other people who may be interested in them from checking them out.
Now this isn't going to stop those with an agenda from forming Bury Brigades to censor the news, and until Digg adds a layer of transparency to the bury system (we can see who dugg a story but not who buried it WTF?), stories are going to disappear. For people who care about the quality of Digg, please don't be so quick to bury something just because you don't find it newsworthy. Some day you may find the stories that are relevant to your interests disappearing from Digg.
That is all.
/end rant- fkr3, on 02/02/2008, -13/+3A layer of transparency is not going to help. When a small group wants to dominate digg eventually the larger population will tire of it and start burying their stuff. Knowing who buries it is not going to change it from being buried, or stop people from burying them, all it'll do is breed more conspiracy theory ***** that not having a willing audience = censorship.
- unicronband, on 02/02/2008, -1/+11While I agree with you that it may not prevent stories from getting buried, you will at least be able to see the serial offenders and call them out on it. I can't tell you how often I check someone's digg/comment history to get an idea of where they stand and what their motives are. If we were able to check their history and see that they've buried every Ron Paul/Apple/Scientology story on Digg, you'd have a much better case at damaging their credibility and possibly getting them banned if they are indeed trying to censor Digg. On another note, over 5,500 people have dugg this story, so I wouldn't consider this war on scientology to be a small group dominating Digg.
- deadowl, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3People that get sick of this click "Lame," not "Inaccurate." For that reason alone, it's easy to derive that something is up.
However, the more people that game a system, the more obvious and easily patched the holes become. Of course it's hard without a bit of context, but it can be done.
- puddpunk, on 02/02/2008, -9/+4Funny how the Digg users despise censorship by anonymous peers through mechanisims built in to this site, but have no problem having a hand in totally disabling scientology websites by attacking them because they don't like what they say?
I'm no fan of Scientology - but an interesting comparison anyway :)- unicronband, on 02/02/2008, -2/+10Scientology is not being targeted for their beliefs, but for their actions. If Kevin and Jay were leeching off Digg users, bankrupting them, harassing, physically threatening and suing Digg critics and ex-members and demanding that Digg users cut off relationships with non-Diggers, Anon would declare a war on Digg.
- terminal157, on 02/02/2008, -3/+4I only bury a few stories a week at most (only when they're very stupid or offensive to me), but I disagree. It's inaccurate to think of a bury as censorship in the context of Digg. The point is for each user to have a (little) say in what is popular, and burying is just a part of that.
- PURPLEDRINK, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2if u keep burying constantly, it no longer counts.
- bagboyrebel, on 02/02/2008, -3/+2there's a difference between burying something because you don't like it and burying something for becoming spam. I didn't mind when the scientology stuff started here, but it got to the point where 9 of the top 10 stories were all about scientology. That is why I started burying those stories, because we don't need 20 stories about 2 or 3 pieces of news to all hit the front page.
- NorthKorea, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2you don't like lolcatz!?!?
- wellyuk, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1No
- fkr3, on 02/02/2008, -13/+3A layer of transparency is not going to help. When a small group wants to dominate digg eventually the larger population will tire of it and start burying their stuff. Knowing who buries it is not going to change it from being buried, or stop people from burying them, all it'll do is breed more conspiracy theory ***** that not having a willing audience = censorship.
- Teh_Shiz, on 02/02/2008, -6/+12fkr3's a scientologist.
- fkr3, on 02/03/2008, -6/+5lol. Apparently I also work for the RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft.
I'm a busy man. - b0gus2008, on 02/03/2008, -4/+6Nah, flkr3 is just a troll. I kinda of like her - it's fun to digg her down.
- samperfidelis, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1who the ***** is fkr3?
- cliffski, on 02/03/2008, -3/+2ever occured to you that people just might disagree? maybe when you digg kids grow up you will realise that sometimes people do not ***** agree with your childish whining.
- fkr3, on 02/03/2008, -6/+5lol. Apparently I also work for the RIAA, MPAA and Microsoft.
- mikesbaker, on 02/02/2008, -62/+9comment abuse
Grow up you fing idiots. Feb 10th protest will do nothing. Mark my words it will have a laughable turn out that will last a few hours and then go away. Scientology will still make money scamming people. Just like how Scientology.org is still up. This is nothing more than the new childish digg spam.- dunk71, on 02/02/2008, -4/+16If you don't have the motivation to get involved, that's fine... But don't go ***** in someone else's pool. You don't have to read these posts. Troll
- Skooma714, on 02/02/2008, -6/+3I thought the pool was closed....
- mikev, on 02/02/2008, -12/+71comment abuse...
***** SCIENTOLOGY - kokodhem, on 02/02/2008, -13/+7I declare Fair Game on ScienTOMogy!
- danarama, on 02/02/2008, -20/+6***** scientology and ***** annonomous. this whole thing is *****...if you want to fight a war fight something that matters not a bogus celebrity cult looking for any and all media attention.
- mickcn, on 02/03/2008, -3/+4Actually, when our government(u.s.) falls, the cult of scientology is in a grand position to start annexing territories. They've got the money. Power is next.
- Abudiwa, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1that's an interesting take. hadn't thought about that. except i'm thinking there are far more evangelical christians or even mormons to take over before scientology.
i think scientology is 3rd at best.- mickcn, on 02/13/2008, -1/+1People are playing too much on the money issue. Money is only a tool to gain power. In this day, they play their game better than most, I think. That is exactly why, people need to avoid putting to much faith in Anonymous. At least at this point.
- Abudiwa, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1that's an interesting take. hadn't thought about that. except i'm thinking there are far more evangelical christians or even mormons to take over before scientology.
- mickcn, on 02/03/2008, -3/+4Actually, when our government(u.s.) falls, the cult of scientology is in a grand position to start annexing territories. They've got the money. Power is next.
- BBoombastic, on 02/03/2008, -0/+6Let's Digg this story to the front page to stand up against censorship. But make sure to bury the first comment below the threshold so no one will hear what that guy has to say!
- fkr3, on 02/02/2008, -84/+100Buried too.
- SRSco, on 02/02/2008, -1097/+171I've been burying most Anonymous v. Scientology stories. Not because I'm a Scientologist, but because I'm sick of them. Besides, most of them are dupes.
Go back to 4chan and elsewhere. I'm sick of this crap. I don't care about Scientology.
BTW, I also buried this story too.- DiggityDugged, on 02/02/2008, -36/+127Agreed, I don't like when Digg is abused to promote things frequently either, but Digg abuse for means of censorship is never acceptable. Ever.
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -33/+6"Digg abuse for means of censorship is never acceptable."
But has it ever happened? (i.e. evidence)- ClockworksNine, on 02/02/2008, -8/+85You weren't here during the HD-DVD key war, were you?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 02/02/2008, -6/+116We lost a lot of men in that war....
We'll always remember...09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
- TheTaoOfBill, on 02/02/2008, -6/+116We lost a lot of men in that war....
- flintmecha, on 02/02/2008, -2/+15It's happening right now to Anti-Scientology articles.
Has nothing to do with Anonymous' war. It's strictly an effort to silence the voices of those who opose CoS.
- ClockworksNine, on 02/02/2008, -8/+85You weren't here during the HD-DVD key war, were you?
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -13/+44"I don't like when Digg is abused to promote things frequently"
You spammed the link to this in how many other unrelated topics to get attention to this: http://digg.com/users/DiggityDugged/history/commen ...
And you don't like when Digg is abused? May your mother be raped with a rusty chain saw.- chronichyjinx, on 02/02/2008, -14/+6That's just ***** rude.
- lostboy, on 02/02/2008, -8/+4nah, it would be rude when his mother has little baby hacksaws. that would be sweeeeet.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 02/02/2008, -21/+18Wait, what? A person burying what he doesn't like is censorship?
- oneoverzero, on 02/02/2008, -6/+12Burying something because you wan to keep it quiet is, especially if you enlist bots to do it for you. (Though, to my knowledge, that hasn't been confirmed)
- smacksaw, on 02/02/2008, -8/+7Yeah dude, I have to say you're a psycho hypocrite.
When I don't like something and don't JUST IGNORE IT, I make my ***** comment, get Dugg down and that's it. Dissent and go away. Don't censor. That's no longer needed here (if it ever was). Learn the line between using your Digg vote to disagree and to censor.
GFY and GTFOff of my Digg lawn.- Oomsoup, on 02/02/2008, -4/+10It's not censorship, it's an opinion. Why else would "Buried as lame" be an option?!
- smacksaw, on 02/02/2008, -5/+7Did you even look at his profile?
He's not just "burying as lame"...he's going in and posting tons of comments in a thread he claims to oppose. He's not disagreeing with the content, he is disagreeing with the fact it's there at all. And you know for each contrary comment he's made he's done a Digg down on every comment he sees.
If he gets enough comments buried they don't show up for many people. That's censorship. Get it now? - Oomsoup, on 02/02/2008, -3/+6I can't reply to Smack, you're too deep:
No.
He is allowed to digg down anything for any stupid reason he wants. It's still not censorship. It's his opinion. The comments or stories don't vanish because he doesn't like them. He does not have control of this website. The site is set up to allow people to digg things up or down. Why would you want to deny him his ability to use the site?
If what he does is censorship, then every time you digg him down you are censoring him. It's a silly premise.
- smacksaw, on 02/02/2008, -5/+7Did you even look at his profile?
- Oomsoup, on 02/02/2008, -4/+10It's not censorship, it's an opinion. Why else would "Buried as lame" be an option?!
- GeekXian, on 02/02/2008, -6/+5I bury every single one of these as lame - not to censor, but BECAUSE IT IS LAME!
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -33/+6"Digg abuse for means of censorship is never acceptable."
- toxicityj, on 02/02/2008, -42/+267You're not going to believe this, but I buried you! I know, I know. You can't believe it either. But trust me, I did.
- quraid, on 02/02/2008, -3/+35we did too.
- toliseju, on 02/02/2008, -2/+7As did I.
- Bilabrin, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6Me too but only because you have 1/4 of the RIAA logo as your pic. I mean C'mon! 1/4? you couldn't do better than that?
- grumpyrain, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3No, I am Spartacus!
- TheFiestyFaun, on 02/02/2008, -28/+71BTW, I buried you too.
- markvand, on 02/02/2008, -104/+27I've been burying this stuff too. I really can't be bothered about it. This is the internet's equivalent of the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy crap you get on tv.
- LupeFiasco, on 02/02/2008, -9/+44No it is not you *****.
- thebellmaster1x, on 02/02/2008, -7/+34Jamie Lynn Spears never ripped people from their families.
- jake6730, on 02/02/2008, -2/+15They are actually still investigating that one.
- culbeda, on 02/02/2008, -1/+16Or bilked thousands and thousands of people out of their life savings and put many of them into the servitude of the church to pay for their "treatment". Or smeared her opponents with claims of pedophelia, etc. Or killed anyone. ....
- fluffythekitten, on 02/02/2008, -3/+12well, one is about freedom of thought and the other one is bs, choose yourself, ignorasshole
- JedicodeWarrior, on 02/02/2008, -37/+13Dugg. Go away and hide your head in the sand. Your burried!
- raid517, on 02/02/2008, -23/+47Seems more people are sick of you than they are of this story.
If you don't like it, move on.- aceakm, on 02/03/2008, -9/+1Hey raid517, Shut the ***** up.
- mikesbaker, on 02/02/2008, -36/+15I too have been burying and was going to post a comment as such but you beat me to it.
- zerobackup, on 02/02/2008, -20/+40It's ok, I buried all of the PAUL RON articles I saw about a month ago. Spamming 20 articles a day about how the "San Francisco Sandwich Review Board Endorses Ron Paul!" just makes me ill.
- TrevorBelmont, on 02/02/2008, -1/+12I want to get a job with the SFSRB.
- ZeroIce, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2The pay sucks. Trust me - They endorsed Ron Paul, they obviously want a better economy and know the right choice for president.
- Goodanswer, on 02/02/2008, -7/+7your ignorance is making America ill.
- TrevorBelmont, on 02/02/2008, -1/+12I want to get a job with the SFSRB.
- saphyrre, on 02/02/2008, -14/+8Buried you for your comments being more lame the all anon stuff.
- weside, on 02/02/2008, -27/+17Amen! I came to this thread just to basically say the same thing! I'm tired of the scientology spam on Digg lately, so much that I even added the HideTopic "Scientology" to my Digg Washer greasemonkey script. Sadly, the title of this got past my censors.
Oh yeah, and I buried this story, too. - takeo1775, on 02/02/2008, -8/+18youve been dug down pretty bad but I completely agree with you, all i want to see is the Anon progress without all the scientology articles following.
I would like to think our diggers can find something more CREATIVE - mediaploy, on 02/02/2008, -23/+10Digg has turned itself into a cult.
- mediaploy, on 02/02/2008, -8/+4reddit FTW. Digg FTL. wahwah.
- takeo1775, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3an anti-Scientology, anti-creationist, anti-bush cult, and although I agree with most of the principles I dont want to see every article dedicated to this - its boring and spam.
- jimjoebobbillyb, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4mediaploy:
oh, any commonalities are automatically a "cult"? You're probably a Scientologist, attempting to do to the same thing to the concept of "cults" and the damage they do to society, as Pigboy Limbaugh has done to the term "nazi"
Limbaugh calls anyone who disagrees with HIM, or anyone he doesn't like at the moment- a "nazi": "feminazis", "grammar nazis", "eco-nazis".
All these are terms that soften the concept and stigma surrounding the ACTUAL GERMAN NAZIS, who slaughtered 11 million people like cattle, and attempted to take over the entire world in a nightmare of blood and ruin.
Likewise, to call any trend or simply an interactive website in which people often agree, and say so-a CULT, is to soften the stigma of ACTUAL CULTS, like Scientology, or Temple of Set, or Xianity, and the attendant social destruction they bring.
Xenu's gonna get you.......
- 22magnum, on 02/02/2008, -17/+13and i buried you. bitch
- PxCxG, on 02/02/2008, -11/+13I wish I could digg your comment more than once.
- thailand1972, on 02/02/2008, -16/+18***** me, I'm confused. I don't know who's burying who. Anyway, I'm sick of all this anti-Scientology crap on Digg like it makes a difference. It doesn't. Get a clue. If you want to make a differnce, don't click your mouse on a link, actually visit a Scientology centre and protest outside it and make a nuisance.
- dunk71, on 02/02/2008, -3/+11It's kind of the point, isn't it? Stories here, Reddit, Slashdot, etc raise awareness of the IRL protests and, hopefully, gain support and boost turnout on Feb 10th. Propaganda.
- dontaskagain, on 02/02/2008, -1/+25Although i bury your comments i defend your right to say them.
- themastersb, on 02/02/2008, -16/+21If you arent an Anonymous you must be a $cientologist or a faggot. They're the only other options.
- madeingermany, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2not everything in black and white makes sense
- nicholai, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1So true.
- Poochyfud, on 02/02/2008, -12/+15I completely agree. This is just one of those stupid digg fads. Ron Paul, Atheism, anything Apple, and Scientology.
- jimjoebobbillyb, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2you forgot Christofascist trolls trying to soften the implosion of newly irrelevant belief systems....
- HunterSeeker42, on 02/03/2008, -1/+0Good start. Now we need Steve Jobs, some random Paul troll and Tom Cruise in here and we have a party.
- jimjoebobbillyb, on 02/03/2008, -2/+2you forgot Christofascist trolls trying to soften the implosion of newly irrelevant belief systems....
- Drax0n, on 02/02/2008, -12/+11Go back to kissing Tom Cruise asshole troll
- bdbr, on 02/02/2008, -12/+10Agreed. Its just a ***** cult that gets media exposure because a few has-been movie stars are members. Does any Digger even KNOW a scientologist? I sure don't. The whole notion that you must believe in something to be sick of it doesn't even make sense.
I wish I could bury this article twice, for using an intentional misspelling to get past filters.- round427, on 02/03/2008, -1/+10Yes, I have known Scientologists. Their lives were ruined. What's your excuse?
- eatasandwich, on 02/02/2008, -14/+6I'm sick of it because, for some reason, Scientology has been targeted when it's hardly the most damaging "religion" out there. I think we should be taking on something that actually effects our every day lives instead of a bunch of wackos. Scientology is an easy and irrelevant target not worthy of the kind of attention that it's getting, by media or internet forum. There are far more worthy religious targets to take down.
- jgzman, on 02/02/2008, -2/+8Actually, I believe Scientology is, in fact, the most damaging religion out there. The others can be bad as well, but it is quite rare for the Catholic Church to attempt to ruin a mans life for speaking against it, or for the Baptists to break into government offices to steal documents, or for Lutherans to die of religion.
- christianw, on 02/03/2008, -2/+4christians in the past would have the tongues of those that spoke against the church cut out in public. also, the church has had at one point complete control of the governments of england, france, and spain at different points in history.
its not rare for christians to be evil, not like im makin ***** up, its all their in our world history books dude. pick any one you like.- jgzman, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3This is true, for the past. Let me amend my comment to say that Scientology is the worst right this minute. The older religions have mostly chilled out, and settle for making political statements that far too many weak minded people obey.
- christianw, on 02/03/2008, -2/+4christians in the past would have the tongues of those that spoke against the church cut out in public. also, the church has had at one point complete control of the governments of england, france, and spain at different points in history.
- christianw, on 02/03/2008, -5/+1ok first lets look at the linked definition...
"a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies. "
ok that definition seems just like another version of this definition from the same site.
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
theres no difference. im completely open to the idea that a religion might have answers for me that something else does not, but im wondering how scientology is any different than christianity or islam for that matter.
historically, christian's (namely white anglo christians) are responsible directly for more murder, hate, slavery, rape, and torture than any other religion in mans recorded history. its documents are constantly clouded in secrecy as the vatican has in the past admitted that there are chapters of the bible that are not appropriate for public consumption.
on the other hand, many a muslim has murdered and killed in the name of its religion. i think after going into a trillion dollars in debt trying to stop islamic terrorists i think its safe to say at this point, that its not just a "lunatic fringe" of islam. they believe martyrdom is absolutely 100% acceptable if done in the name of their religion. their women are treated as inferior, and are constantly abused and that abuse is subsidised and praised by the local mosque.
so how is scientology, or the moonies, or the wiccans, or any other religion for that matter any worse than what i posted above?
can we please focus our attentions on things that matter at this point. this country and our world is in deep trouble right now. all of the rights that are important to us have been taken away in the name of "national security". we are sending people to die DAILY in the name of "god, freedom, and liberty". do something about that and ill actually believe anonymous is really serious about bringing about good for all mankind as they claim.
btw, the second definition i showed above, is the definition of religion...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
- jgzman, on 02/02/2008, -2/+8Actually, I believe Scientology is, in fact, the most damaging religion out there. The others can be bad as well, but it is quite rare for the Catholic Church to attempt to ruin a mans life for speaking against it, or for the Baptists to break into government offices to steal documents, or for Lutherans to die of religion.
- danarama, on 02/02/2008, -15/+6I totally agree this whole thing is stupid and useless. fIGHT A REAL WAR LOSERS.
- culbeda, on 02/02/2008, -2/+14I don't think you could have been buried any more if you had come out in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church's "God Hates Fags" campaign or announced you were a proud member of NAMBLA.
- danger127, on 02/02/2008, -5/+19-415 diggs attracts just as much attention as +415. you guys accomplish nothing when you do that to comments.
- MasterChief4134, on 02/02/2008, -4/+12This man speaks the truth, I always click on severely buried comments.
- jgzman, on 02/02/2008, -0/+14I don't digg down to hide his comments from other people. I digg down to express my disapproval of what he is saying.
- MrSaeba, on 02/02/2008, -18/+18The whole 4chan Anonymous thing is inane.
You guys aren't a legion or some worldwide fight club. You aren't doing anything of any importance nor do I think that Scientology really cares about you guys. DDoSing sites or stealing "secret" documents (the most important of which had already been known) is the revolutionary equivalent of some drunk guys in the back booth of a bar moaning on about how they're going to overthrow XYZ.
Also, I'm pretty positive that the vast majority of you have no idea why you hate Scientology. Now before you get all riled up at me, I do not support Scientology. I strongly dislike the organization and I find their beliefs and methods absurd. But the only response anyone can seem to give for why they hate Scientology is because "they're a big, evil cult and we've got to take them down for the good of mankind!". FFS, read a little and form your own opinion before leaping onto a bandwagon. The world has much bigger issues than one silly niche religion.
I'm gonna get dugg down.- la7crosse11, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2I've seen legion referenced before...what is that?
- boxosox, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Click on the link to dictionary.com above. Then search for "legion".
- theragu40, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3The most legitimate reason for hating them and taking them down for most people (at least in the US) is the fact that Scientology is inexplicably given tax-exempt status by the government. They are clearly a for-profit organization, and they pay no taxes despite raking in millions of dollars per year. In essence, they are not contributing to society, despite taking much from it. That's a pretty legit reason to protest them, if you ask me.
- la7crosse11, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2I've seen legion referenced before...what is that?
- MajikalMan, on 02/02/2008, -4/+5I have to agree. Just because people bury something, doesn't mean they disagree with the article. I'm an Apple fan but I get really annoyed at the biased Apple articles that tend to dominate the front page. Same goes for scientology, Obama, etc.
- paperclipsNsoup, on 02/02/2008, -2/+10I don't believe I've ever seen anyone dug down as far as you have been 509 and counting. Congratulations for offending so many people
- greeniemeani, on 02/02/2008, -8/+2I don't think I have ever seen such a negative number of Diggs. But yeah, I could care less about the Scientology crap that is constantly spammed here.
And no, I am not a Scientologist either, which is the only thing people on here can come back with after someone says they are tired of these stupid articles. - jetsetter883, on 02/03/2008, -2/+4you are a wise man, and i agree with you fully.
- insomniacal, on 02/03/2008, -6/+5Dude, you're on the black list now. As soon as Anonymous is done with Scientology, they'll be coming after you.
The only thing worse than supporting Scientology is, of course ... opposing Anonymous. - alkaline213, on 02/03/2008, -7/+5You're telling me this many people (699 have burried him now) care about scientology? That is just ***** retarded. Guess how many minutes of my day are spent thinking about scientology.... Zero.
"Oh, but it's about the better of digg, and fighting censorship!"
Well, plenty of articles are being buried, and going after scientologists just seems like a waste of time. There can't be that many of them out there. and who givers a ***** about articles pertaining to scientology.
Guess what, I bury stupid ass scientology ***** no matter which way it is coming from. this article is no different. I may even call it inaccurate just to put the :who giives a *****: icing on the cake.
Props for speaking the truth, buried one... - sixsidepentagon, on 02/03/2008, -1/+9Wow, -807 diggs and counting. Pretty epic for a comment. Good job.
- HarleyQuinn, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4If you don't like something, bury it as "lame" ~if you must. Don't bury something as "inaccurate" unless it is truly inaccurate.
- DiggityDugged, on 02/02/2008, -36/+127Agreed, I don't like when Digg is abused to promote things frequently either, but Digg abuse for means of censorship is never acceptable. Ever.
- DiggityDugged, on 02/02/2008, -39/+2034I would LOVE to see a front page post linking to Dictionary.com being marked as inaccurate.
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -35/+113Inaccurate can mean that the title used by the submitter is not an accurate description of the contents of the link.
- STKD, on 02/02/2008, -5/+51Then there is no problem here. Unless the dictionary is wrong...
- Bakagamer, on 02/03/2008, -3/+3It's a misleading title. There's no proof Scienos are burying articles. I buried it as inaccurate. If it had been "Definition of a cult" I'd digg it but it's just stupid rhetoric from an anon that's making fellow anons look bad.
- misterhat, on 02/02/2008, -4/+59But have you ever seen what the inaccurate tag actually says? It says something to the effect of "Information contained in this article is inaccurate". It does not say a thing about the title.
- bitbytebit, on 02/02/2008, -0/+13exactly - stupid grammar nazi cousins constantly misuse the inaccurate button
- Locke2053, on 02/02/2008, -28/+10Inaccurate is the submitter's supposition that the people who bury Scientology articles are scientologists.
The first few were interesting. When half the articles on the front page are about Scientology, I don't give a crap anymore and I bury them. This is digg. It should be diverse. It should NOT be 50% Ron Paul and 50% Scientology articles. You guys are ruining this web site!- Juntistik, on 02/02/2008, -2/+22I'm not too fond of Apple but you don't see me burying and bitching about it every time I see an Apple article come up. Live with it.
- Locke2053, on 02/02/2008, -13/+2I haven't seen a time when literally half of the front page stories were Apple. I have seen that for Scientology--quite recently. On that day, I started burying every Scientology article. Digg used to be fun. I want that back.
- senatorpjt, on 02/02/2008, -0/+16You apparently weren't here when the iPhone came out.
- PoliceAtaque, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6Or the Macbook Air.
- nontitle, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1Half and half. I do want scientology articles, but I also want a mix of other articles. Like you said, it should be diverse, but that doesn't mean we get rid of scientology articles completely.
- Juntistik, on 02/02/2008, -2/+22I'm not too fond of Apple but you don't see me burying and bitching about it every time I see an Apple article come up. Live with it.
- xptoast, on 02/02/2008, -7/+21Remember remember the 10th of February
Scientology, treasons and plot.
I see no reason why Scientology, treason
Should ever be forgot...- defectDS, on 02/03/2008, -0/+11Remember remember the 10th of Febrember?
- nontitle, on 02/03/2008, -4/+1Guess you forgot you wrote the word remember already.
- techmaster, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3Hmm...I guess #8 is hard evidence that Scientology is a cult. (ignoring all the other ones in the list that also describe scientology)
- STKD, on 02/02/2008, -5/+51Then there is no problem here. Unless the dictionary is wrong...
- Ploosheeta, on 02/02/2008, -42/+12I buried it as inaccurate just to make you happy.
- nullx42, on 02/02/2008, -16/+11I buried you as an asshole to make me happy :]
- ispeakasian, on 02/02/2008, -2/+11I buried you because i can to make me happy.
- lostboy, on 02/02/2008, -1/+18I buried treasure, 'cause I didn't have the common sense to spend it.
- ORMEs, on 02/02/2008, -0/+18I buried myself on another account just to make me happy.
- Jeffler, on 02/02/2008, -3/+11C-C-COMBO BREAKER!
- MasterGrief, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Oh lord, Jeffler, that was great. Dugg.
I laughed pretty hard.
- ruce, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1think for yourself
- nullx42, on 02/02/2008, -16/+11I buried you as an asshole to make me happy :]
- portis, on 02/02/2008, -12/+65What the *****? There are thetan buggers here on digg? Why can't these ***** leave us alone?
- Darkkshadow449, on 02/02/2008, -3/+40It's a cult thing...
- cosinezero, on 02/02/2008, -3/+35I don't see the problem... I think it's pretty great actually. We need to make MORE scientology posts and LET THEM do what they want - for two reasons.
1. This wastes their time and money, hunting through digg to find all the articles they need to bury.
2. This potentially exposes key scientology minions to the truth.
This is EXACTLY what Anonymous wants.
Let them come! Let them bury. If Anonymous is really going to win this, they need to keep THEIR promise - for each fallen, ten more rise up to take their place.
In christian mythology, there is the parable of the Sower;
"Behold, a sower went forth to sow: And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the wayside, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among the thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold."
Think of every buried article a potential seed, sown into the minds of the scientologists. A sown seed of fact falling on the introspective mind spawns questions, doubt... bringing forth fruit for Anonymous. - Calcularius, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4Tom Cruise has about 300 digg accounts. You didn't know that?
- Raian, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4300 Digg accounts... he controls with his mind.... think about that.
- riveraoor, on 02/03/2008, -0/+0that was just a couple months ago ... i hear he is increasing productivity by breeding ...
- Bakagamer, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1You learn how to manipulate MEST to post on Digg with your mind in like OT4, man. :P
- computergod, on 02/02/2008, -25/+7Well the submission is inaccurate: It's not scientologists digging it down, it is regular users like myself who are ***** about seeing digg abused like this.
Nice one using a "$" instead of a "S" to get past my digg washer filter. If only there were a filter that let me digg down stories automatically if they contain a certain word/phrase...- round427, on 02/03/2008, -0/+5The $ has been used for a long time to mock the "religion" because they're money hungry. It isn't to get past any filter.
- marm0lade, on 02/03/2008, -0/+6WAAAHHHHHHH!!
- marksven, on 02/02/2008, -3/+21Digg this up. Rules for the protest:
http://digg.com/world_news/Anonymous_Code_of_Condu ... - thickdrummer, on 02/02/2008, -1/+50Be careful what you wish for. It just happened this very second!
- revenantprime, on 02/02/2008, -5/+51YET SOMEHOW it is now "warning, this may be inaccurate"
THE IRONY! - mewoot10, on 02/03/2008, -0/+21lol.... And then it happens.... However not ironic. Typical scientology.
- verusdies, on 02/03/2008, -0/+10your wish is granted....buzzah!
- yohnstoppable, on 02/03/2008, -14/+5I actually buried it as inaccurate just as a joke. It isn't as if my bury mattered when it had 10k+ diggs on the front page, so I saw no harm in it :D
- yohnstoppable, on 02/03/2008, -2/+9Not to mention no one pays attention to the inaccurate tag in the first place.
- zplot, on 02/03/2008, -0/+23So sad that it actually got marked as inaccurate. You Digg down something if you disagree with it, but marking something as inaccurate just because you don't like it tarnishes the community's reputation.
Regarding the point of this Digg article, I have heard allegations that Digg may be preventing some anti-Scientology articles from making the front page in order to prevent the front page from being filled with one topic. This might be understandable. However, seeing people bury articles when first posted merely due to having an opposing opinion is upsetting. When disagreeing, save it for the comments, or Digg it down after a fair discussion is started. Don't try to prevent free speech.- billbert, on 02/03/2008, -11/+1stfu...
- nepawoods, on 02/03/2008, -3/+3The title does not describe the content linked to, despite instructions on step 2 of the submission process which state to accurately describe the linked content in the title. Hence, inaccurate.
And tarnishing the communities reputation? If this community has any reputation other than as an amorphous swarm of child-geeks, this relentless ***** contest between the two cults (scientology and anonymous) is surely destroying it.
- SuperWinner, on 02/03/2008, -2/+17If Digg admins had any balls at all, they would remove the inaccurate tag
- codelogic, on 02/03/2008, -1/+4Like digg has ever been about the "truth". Digg is about the community.
- nitheea, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3Oh, it happened. Just like you predicted. XD
Don't these people have brains? - jcorbett66, on 02/17/2008, -2/+0smart assessment good stuff...http://www.websitesuccessuniversity.com
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -35/+113Inaccurate can mean that the title used by the submitter is not an accurate description of the contents of the link.
- harriman714, on 02/02/2008, -219/+35isn't every religion considered a cult until about 1,000 years after its formed because no one really believes a prophet can live in the same time period as them.
- DiggityDugged, on 02/02/2008, -22/+24Gimme a break. Majority of the widely accepted religions don't charge you for their sermons. I get why Hubbard hated psychology, if he woulda just not called it a religion and ... you know... been a huge ass... i would have been ok with scientology.
- harriman714, on 02/02/2008, -6/+9i wasnt defending it i was just saying it took 1,000s of years for most the of the major religions to become widely accepted at religions
- known, on 02/02/2008, -2/+7every religion now is a form of socio-economic collusion...
- TheTaoOfBill, on 02/02/2008, -2/+8Christianity took about 300 years to become the main religion of Rome. Which is pretty impressive.
- Pake, on 02/02/2008, -3/+6Christianity was charging you for salvation not even 400 years ago.
- EditorResponse, on 02/03/2008, -3/+2Less than 50 years ago people in the Italian mafia in the USA (and probably Italy) were paying the Catholic church to get into heaven...forgive their sins of killing other mobsters and have the ability to have a mass in church upon their death.
- annonimality, on 02/02/2008, -4/+2"Majority of the widely accepted religions don't charge you for their sermons." - You've never heard of a collection basket?
- DanaLynn86, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2Because we all know a collection basket and asking for money to support your church is identical to charging people thousands of dollars to "go up the bridge". It's exactly the same, right?
- EditorResponse, on 02/03/2008, -3/+4"go up the bridge" = "go to heaven" ***** all this drivel pumped up ***** *****! There is no heaven and no bridge worth crossing! It is all *****!
- spacecoyote1966, on 02/02/2008, -3/+1Televangelists don't officially "charge" for watching their sermons, but they do brainwash a lot of people into giving them a lot of money. Faith healers are even worse. Ever hear of Benny Hinn? That guy is the epitome of charlatanism. I hate the Co$ and the things they do to people, but other religions also have individuals and organizations within them that are just as bad as Co$.
- EditorResponse, on 02/03/2008, -6/+1"Majority of the widely accepted religions don't charge you for their sermons." Never been in a Catholic church I take it? They pass the palte to get cash every time...EVERY ***** TIME.
- harriman714, on 02/02/2008, -6/+9i wasnt defending it i was just saying it took 1,000s of years for most the of the major religions to become widely accepted at religions
- dunk71, on 02/02/2008, -23/+323Scientology's not a religion.
- heystoopid, on 02/02/2008, -5/+10Never has been and never will will be a religion for it is merely a small group of paranoid pariahs and an evil bunch of money sucking vampires pretending to be something they are not in order to hide what they are really doing from all but a very few beneficiaries within the elite upper management of the top five !
If Lavrentiy or Iosif were alive today they would have known what to do with this batch of money sucking vampires ! :) - PURPLEDRINK, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6That's honestly something that people really need to get out of their head. I remember as a kid, I avoided getting imunization shots by claiming that I was part of a religon (that I made up) which said that it conflicted with my beliefs. Scientology is using its religon status to claim exemption from taxes... they also sued the IRS. Their law suits are asinine as well, and just wrong. Their business contributes nothing to society, they are no nothing different than scam artsists.
- heystoopid, on 02/02/2008, -5/+10Never has been and never will will be a religion for it is merely a small group of paranoid pariahs and an evil bunch of money sucking vampires pretending to be something they are not in order to hide what they are really doing from all but a very few beneficiaries within the elite upper management of the top five !
- JoeVet, on 02/02/2008, -6/+19This is not about religion. Its about splitting up families and friends for money.
- chronusmcgee, on 02/02/2008, -3/+23$cientology is an infectious psychological disorder, brought about by a hefty mixture of greed and stupidity, with a large dose of peer pressure and gullibility thrown in. Somebody legalize marijuana so these turkeys can get real!
- snide1, on 02/02/2008, -8/+3Yawn!
- letitbleed62, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1I say yawn because when i actually yawn you don't get it
- MasterLevi, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Here's the thing with that. Not only have I known people who were Scientologists, but I have known those same people when they were getting out of the whole thing and the scientology organization have them so much trouble that they were afraid to answer their phone and door because it could be some out there who would try to hurt them.
It is defined by greed and sinister tactics to both get ahold of new people. They will take advantage of someone's problems to get them to be members. They will promise that they will help for a price. Then they will continue, but only for a price.
- snide1, on 02/02/2008, -8/+3Yawn!
- thebellmaster1x, on 02/02/2008, -2/+10Sociologically, the word "cult" has none of the negative connotations it does in the English vernacular; it basically means, yes, an early, not-widespread religion. cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church-sect_typology
However, Scientology is DEFINITELY a non-technical-English cult—with all of the crazy fixin's.- burbj, on 02/02/2008, -8/+0dugg down for citing a wiki
- vervalsing, on 02/02/2008, -0/+9Ever since the 60s/70s, "cult" has not meant what it did before Charles Manson, Hare Krishna, and Heavens Gate. Technically, yes, when a new religion forms or splits off from a larger group it is a "cult", but that's not how the word is used today. When one says "Scientology is a cult", the meaning is not "Scientology is a group of people who believe in and follow fringe religious beliefs different than the religious beliefs of the mainstream". They mean "Scientology is an organization that exploits its members, ruthlessly tries to silence critics, engages in bizarre sometimes harmful practices, and breaks laws trying to advance their ridiculous agenda."
- slightlygifted, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2its funny how most jewish temples require you to buy a membership to attend but judaism isnt getting hated on.
- Andero, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Each religion IS a cult, regardless of whether it is generally accepted or otherwise
- DiggityDugged, on 02/02/2008, -22/+24Gimme a break. Majority of the widely accepted religions don't charge you for their sermons. I get why Hubbard hated psychology, if he woulda just not called it a religion and ... you know... been a huge ass... i would have been ok with scientology.
- Haplo7, on 02/02/2008, -18/+399I guess part of the problem with digg is that you can't really tell who buries an article or can at least see how many people bury something. There is also no way to reverse the effect of an article 'being marked as inaccurate' which can at times be annoying.
Some people might be a bit upset that the digg front page was flooded with anti-scientology stories last week. But it is still odd to see some interesting articles/videos getting buried before ever reaching the front page.
It happened to these two digg articles and I assume a few more:
http://digg.com/world_news/Someone_responds_to_Ano ...
http://digg.com/world_news/The_Economist_reports_o ...- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -22/+28I think it's just a matter of people being sick of hearing about it. There are a lot of problems, issues, stories in the world. We're being bombarded by this war of the cults crap, as if it ranks high in importance. As the video from the first link you posted says: "so often the pretext of raising awareness is used to justify self-indulgent and ineffective protesting". There is little or no raising of awareness going on, and a lot of self-indulgent "Anon PWND $cientology!!!!11!one"
- Smuikas, on 02/02/2008, -7/+32It seems like there is a large group of people here - on digg - even in america - that are incapable of following ongoing happenings in interbutts culture / affairs / world politics / local politics. They just "dig" stuff that sounds cool or newsworthy, put for their piddling and meandering comments as a burnt offering from the unwashed masses - and then complain when something comes along that sticks around for a few weeks.
It's happened with Ron Paul, Obama, and the Anon vs Scientology stuff. There are some folks who care about these issues and want to hear up to date happenings with them. There are some folks who obsessively care. And then there are people who are just looking for their next fix between daytime soaps - or whatever else they use to sop up their time with.
If you're sick of hearing about something on dig, petition for a temporary digg category for it. Otherwise, I dunno, ignore the stories with that subject in them entirely...
(I think the big issue here is that people treat digg like an infotainment teat - and think that articles which may not be about what interests them are taking up space that could be used by things that they want to pay attention to. Which, from what I can tell, doesn't seem to be the case if you bother thinking about the nature of the interbutts)- marm0lade, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1First of all, we "digg" stuff. And I am quite capable of following the "interbutts" (next time use real words, please) of world / local affairs and politics. I just choose not to get that information from digg due to the extremely liberal bias of this community. I prefer my news balanced. You know, kinda like what so many diggers bitch and moan about Fox News for? And now they have become what they loathe. Its quite humorous, actually.
So I will continue to digg up the "cool" and "newsworthy" articles, since that is what I come to digg for - seeing cool and interesting *****, pardon my French. And if I might add, the cool and interesting ***** was much more often until all you twits started using digg as a means to spam your political agendas.
When I want my REAL news on world affairs, DIGG is not high on my list of sources. And that's the way I like it,
- marm0lade, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1First of all, we "digg" stuff. And I am quite capable of following the "interbutts" (next time use real words, please) of world / local affairs and politics. I just choose not to get that information from digg due to the extremely liberal bias of this community. I prefer my news balanced. You know, kinda like what so many diggers bitch and moan about Fox News for? And now they have become what they loathe. Its quite humorous, actually.
- Smuikas, on 02/02/2008, -7/+32It seems like there is a large group of people here - on digg - even in america - that are incapable of following ongoing happenings in interbutts culture / affairs / world politics / local politics. They just "dig" stuff that sounds cool or newsworthy, put for their piddling and meandering comments as a burnt offering from the unwashed masses - and then complain when something comes along that sticks around for a few weeks.
- Sanooj, on 02/02/2008, -13/+13I have an idea, what if whenever someone tries to bury an anti-scientology story a little pop-up with the story of xenu appears. Anyone that hasn't reached a certain level (OC3?) is supposed to leave the CoS because their physical bodies die. That could help with the buries and such
- HenkPoley, on 02/02/2008, -1/+14Somehow I don't think Scientology measures their levels in high bandwidth cables.. ;-)
- Zuggy, on 02/02/2008, -10/+21It may not have been scientologists burying the stories, I know I burried multiple copy articles and I'm not a scientologist. I was off digg for 3 days because there were times when quite literally every other story was about scientology. I hadn't seen so much spam on digg since the HD DVD key debacle.
- Zera, on 02/02/2008, -0/+8But would you have buried that economist article? Maybe certain sites of proven quality deserve to be not bury-able.... like the Economist. I can't really think of anything ever from the economist that deserves to be kept off the front page because it has received 1000+ buries. I mean that article has 1100 diggs and STILL didn't make the front page? WTF is that??? Clearly that article is worthy of being on the front page.
- Telamon, on 02/02/2008, -1/+4I concur, I cannot understand how that article did not make it onto the front page.
- salomejones, on 02/02/2008, -4/+4Bleh, if the powers that be at Digg were really interested in not allowing buries from scientologists, they are more the welcome to educate themselves via any number of websites that list DMZs for scientology networks all over the world. Lazy is as lazy does.
- MrESaulved, on 02/02/2008, -2/+5"I guess part of the problem with digg is that you can't really tell who buries an article or can at least see how many people bury something."
While the grease monkey script 'digged' is great for showing you how many diggs or buries a comment has, no such tool exists for seeing that data for submissions. A very glaring omission and a buzzkill for digg as preventable as a coal pile in a ballroom. - sgtpppr, on 02/02/2008, -3/+5It should be pretty easy for Digg to compare who dugg or buried certain articles then compare them to other articles on the same topic. I'm sure they'd see a single large block of accounts all digging up and down the same stories. It'd be a great way to bust people who game the system for profit or PR. It's similar situation to how Google looks for people link farming. In this case it's really digg farming (for either diggs or buries). It should not be hard to detect hundreds of accounts 'moving as one' through the site.
- FutureGuy, on 02/03/2008, -2/+3Digg should cross check an article before it gets marked with
"Warning: The Content in this Article May be InaccurateReaders have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate."
ironically I just copied this line from top of this page!!!
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -22/+28I think it's just a matter of people being sick of hearing about it. There are a lot of problems, issues, stories in the world. We're being bombarded by this war of the cults crap, as if it ranks high in importance. As the video from the first link you posted says: "so often the pretext of raising awareness is used to justify self-indulgent and ineffective protesting". There is little or no raising of awareness going on, and a lot of self-indulgent "Anon PWND $cientology!!!!11!one"
- Error601, on 02/02/2008, -145/+31No one with a life gives a ***** about all the bashing crap. That's why it gets dugg down. Not a conspiracy.
- dunk71, on 02/02/2008, -10/+24What a wonderful way to stick your head in the sand. Bet you wouldn't feel that way if someone you cared about got involved with Scientology. Or maybe you would... Maybe you're so self-interested that you don't care enough about anyone else to get off your butt and help when it's needed?
- fhornplayer, on 02/02/2008, -5/+16Then why is it always buried as inaccurate?
- TheTaoOfBill, on 02/02/2008, -2/+14The real question is why haven't we seen any people on digg saying "I'm a Scientologist and I'm offended"
I've definitely seen plenty of "I'm sick of this scientology crap all over digg" but I haven't seen any "I'm a Scientologist"
I would think if they were burying a topic they'd be commenting too.- dunk71, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3From what I've read,I think Digg isn't the kind of place that Scientologist hang out. It's unlikely, though not impossible, that many Scientologists would visit here other than to try and bury bad publicity about their beliefs. And if that's their purpose, then why bother commenting? It's not as if Digg users show a great deal of compassion towards any particular belief system, so why waste your time trying to convince them that all these heavily dugg articles are misrepresenting the CoS when it's obviously going to have no effect other than to invite a slew of comments criticizing your point of view.
- chronusmcgee, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5Probably because they would get slammed for being the stupid, silly putty, pudding headed prats that most people already see them as.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 02/02/2008, -2/+14The real question is why haven't we seen any people on digg saying "I'm a Scientologist and I'm offended"
- jm4847, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7"with a life" what a meaningless expression...
- duckyinc, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2of course it's not, they are openly doing it
- SRSco, on 02/02/2008, -137/+280Congrats, you're well on your way to getting FP'd. You only had to spam the link on every ***** submission on Digg.
http://digg.com/users/DiggityDugged/history/commen ...
You're the reason people like to bury this crap. You don't belong on Digg. Go back to 4chan.- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -33/+22Thanks for pointing that out. Buried as spam.
- jcm267, on 02/02/2008, -3/+6That was exactly what I was going to say.
- DiggityDugged, on 02/02/2008, -56/+9Only been to 4chan twice in my life. Didn't like the site navigation so i gave up. i just find Anonymous hilarious -- if you look at my Digg front page stats, i've been around for years, and i was ranked top 100 users of digg til last month. so there!
- SRSco, on 02/02/2008, -11/+30By using spam as a tool....
...tool.- aedes, on 02/02/2008, -10/+8you're a dumbass. that's how digg works. how do you think most things get frontpaged on digg, or any social media site for that matter? Digg is especially bad at this, which is partially why I'm rarely around here anymore.
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -3/+11no, that's not how digg works. it's easy enough to check. go to a front page article, check the submitters comment history, and see if they've spammed a link to the digg article in dozens of other articles. most times, not.
digg should filter this crap - it wouldn't be hard to do
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -3/+11no, that's not how digg works. it's easy enough to check. go to a front page article, check the submitters comment history, and see if they've spammed a link to the digg article in dozens of other articles. most times, not.
- aedes, on 02/02/2008, -10/+8you're a dumbass. that's how digg works. how do you think most things get frontpaged on digg, or any social media site for that matter? Digg is especially bad at this, which is partially why I'm rarely around here anymore.
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -7/+81"if you look at my Digg front page stats, i've been around for years, and i was ranked top 100 users of digg til last month. so there!"
Your next milestone: puberty.- aedes, on 02/02/2008, -24/+4it's not safe to insult people on digg about what level of sexual development they're in... cuz if they're on digg, chances are they're
- KSUdesigner, on 02/02/2008, -2/+4"DiggityDugged: A male who joined Digg on August 15th, 2006"
One year and five months does not classify as "years."
- SRSco, on 02/02/2008, -11/+30By using spam as a tool....
- jeffsback2223, on 02/02/2008, -8/+86You'll notice that since a fairly large mass of people here on Digg like the story, it gets front paged. whether you like it or not, Many people including 4-chaners are diggers. Their story has every the same right to be up hear as "Ron Paul" stories or "bush made another mess of our constitution" stories.
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -12/+18Story? What story? There's no story here. It's a dictionary definition.
And if everyone spammed links to their submissions in every other discussion, digg would be screwed.- oxdeltaxo, on 02/02/2008, -7/+17There's still a message, get it through your skull.
- legendxx, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2message is lets get our agenda promoted to digg so we can use it's popularity as a tool.
- oxdeltaxo, on 02/02/2008, -7/+17There's still a message, get it through your skull.
- Richggs, on 02/02/2008, -2/+10Actually he was referring to the fact that the submitter has comment spammed this article and as such doent deserve it, could have done without the 4chan insult tho.
- bagboyrebel, on 02/02/2008, -0/+3right, when enough people like the story it reaches the front page and when people get sick of hearing about it then it gets burried, no scientologists required.
- legendxx, on 02/03/2008, -0/+5exactly.. everyone who reads/submits those dumbass stories needs to gtfo my digg.. This site used to be about technology and other cool *****.. now look what it's become.
- jeffsback2223, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1Are you afraid of change?
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -12/+18Story? What story? There's no story here. It's a dictionary definition.
- jm4847, on 02/02/2008, -15/+61It's not for you to decide who belongs here and who doesn't.
- bingobongony, on 02/18/2008, -2/+2Then it is not up to you to decide what users wan to get BURIED either.
However, what the submitter did IS against Digg's TOS in more ways than one.
- bingobongony, on 02/18/2008, -2/+2Then it is not up to you to decide what users wan to get BURIED either.
- ghgh1313, on 02/02/2008, -7/+6nice snipe
- salomejones, on 02/02/2008, -6/+26It may be very handy to note that burying is not the only tactic that scientologists employ on public messageboards, including usenet. Their favorite game is to infiltrate a thread as a "voice of reason" and redirect commentary in a negative sense. This ploy is as old as Helena Kobrin's career, and will not stop any time soon---because it WORKS.
Watch carefully folks, please.- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -14/+14Oh, this is brilliant. The Anonymous cult and their followers will now cast doubt on any "voice of reason", as it may be scientologist infiltrators. That made my day - thanks!
- salomejones, on 02/02/2008, -0/+10I am not in that group, nor am I a follower. My beef with scientology is 20 years old, I have had personal scuffles directly with their legal department to the tune of no less than Helena Kobrin, and mirrored the Fishman documents for a year after funet went down. I know *exactly* what I'm talking about.
- Carret, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1I think Nepawoods just got owned.
- yabber, on 02/02/2008, -0/+12nepawoods is one of them!!!!!!
- snide1, on 02/02/2008, -6/+2uh-oh. does this actually mean I'm a scientologist and didn't know it till an anti-scientologist told me so??
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -14/+14Oh, this is brilliant. The Anonymous cult and their followers will now cast doubt on any "voice of reason", as it may be scientologist infiltrators. That made my day - thanks!
- mcduckov, on 02/02/2008, -3/+26Spamming your favored digg story in other threads will get the banhammer dropped pretty fast.
- smrekar, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6looks like it has worked for him in the past, read his comment history
- jonathanryan, on 02/02/2008, -4/+14Buried because I was sick of seeing his spam.
- themastersb, on 02/02/2008, -11/+2SRSco. You're a newfag to Digg way more so than him. You should leave.
- MrSprout, on 02/02/2008, -1/+10I love how afterwards he has been commenting like crazy to knock the original spam onto the second page of his comments. Thanks for the heads up, SRSco. Buried.
- mowe, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3LOL, I was just about to comment on that, too.
- ansecos, on 02/03/2008, -0/+4Gah, I already digged this before I read your comment.
My bad.
edit: Jesus, pages 2-3 is practically just link spam.
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -33/+22Thanks for pointing that out. Buried as spam.
- swrostmore, on 02/02/2008, -86/+41"$cientologists" aren't burying 4chan submissions, Digg users who are sick of seeing the same article over and over are burying 4chan submissions.
Go back to 4chan.- salomejones, on 02/02/2008, -0/+12"Go back to 4chan" is a pretty big clue. Tread carefully.
- oneoverzero, on 02/02/2008, -3/+4I'm not accusing you, but if I were a Scientologist on digg, I'd be saying something like that, rather than something along the lines of "I'm offended". More people can agree with frustration, and if they could be united....
- dkern, on 02/02/2008, -3/+8People are united, that's the good news. The bad news is Scientology has definitely infiltrated digg as you can plainly see. When it comes to technology- Scientology is for *****. They are waaaaay beyond their element so they come into content sites like this to gather recon and plant propaganda. The "church" is failing big time as exposure becomes more apparent. I have friends in Clearwater, Florida who have told me the city is making huge changes in policy which will effect the Scientology stronghold quite significantly. Hollywood used to turn a blind eye toward Scientology, but now some key players are about to knock those insane cultists off their pedestal. Its going to be a banner year.
- LordFuxxles, on 02/02/2008, -0/+4I wait with much anticipation to see how this pans out.
- legendxx, on 02/03/2008, -3/+1there are very few, if any, scientologists on digg
- dkern, on 02/02/2008, -3/+8People are united, that's the good news. The bad news is Scientology has definitely infiltrated digg as you can plainly see. When it comes to technology- Scientology is for *****. They are waaaaay beyond their element so they come into content sites like this to gather recon and plant propaganda. The "church" is failing big time as exposure becomes more apparent. I have friends in Clearwater, Florida who have told me the city is making huge changes in policy which will effect the Scientology stronghold quite significantly. Hollywood used to turn a blind eye toward Scientology, but now some key players are about to knock those insane cultists off their pedestal. Its going to be a banner year.
- PURPLEDRINK, on 02/02/2008, -3/+1go back to gai faggot
- SomeoneDigg, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0Go back to Co$ church faggots
- rudy1123, on 02/02/2008, -58/+28I'd just rather not have to see another article on scientology (either pro or con) at all (or Ron Paul for that matter).
- musleypope, on 02/02/2008, -3/+5Thanks rudy, how enlightening.
- PURPLEDRINK, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1Guiliani!
- musleypope, on 02/02/2008, -3/+5Thanks rudy, how enlightening.
- MiltonWaddams, on 02/02/2008, -52/+129The problem is that anything with Scientology in the title makes it to the upcoming section. Most of it is extremely dumb. Two 15 year olds who make a video of themselves passing out flyers in front of a COS center in "V for Vendetta" masks isn't FP material. So rather than reading through all of the stories, some which may be noteworthy, many Diggers just bury them all. It's the same thing that happened with Ron Paul. The RP Diggers submitted EVERY article they found and group Dugg them. People got sick of it and decided to wholesale bury. Blaming burried COS stories on Scientologists is laughable.
- Tilon, on 02/02/2008, -19/+11Maybe you immature assholes just need to understand the nature of news on sites like these.
When something is REALLY popular, it tends to flood for a while. I suppose the natural reaction, then, is for the community to just kneejerk censor it then? - Drax0n, on 02/02/2008, -14/+8How does tom cruise's ass taste?
- yohnstoppable, on 02/02/2008, -4/+13Milton has a point. People like to believe there is some kind of conspiracy and 'bury brigade" to whatever cause they are supporting. The fact is a long video of microsoft sam with a bunch of "did it for teh lulz" comments gets annoying. People bury this crap, because it isn't news. We already ***** know about it. Stop spamming this ***** all over the place
But no, it is a super secret conspiracy of scientologists who have billions of digg accounts... right... I'm not a scientologist, and i've buried tons of these stories. I only digg the ones I find interesting - Juice7, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6I agree because I think the real problem is that every anti-Republican, anti-Hillary, and anti-Scientology article ends up being reported as inaccurate. There's nothing wrong with burying articles you don't like, but it's unfair to bury articles you don't like as inaccurate just to hurt their credibility.
- yohnstoppable, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3I can agree with that. They definitely need to fix how they tag articles as inaccurate. I remember when I first discovered digg a while back, and before they removed the inaccurate tag for a while, it seemed EVERY article was flagged as inaccurate. You almost have to just ignore it altogether
- booboolean, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3Well, digg IS a circlejerk, so you tend to see the same handful of idiots digging up the same ***** over and over again. Sometimes cool stuff sneaks into the top 10, but most of the popular stuff is usually in line with whatever stupid ***** the well-connected submitters happen to be obsessed with at the moment.
- jbsnyder, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1Agreed. This is the way people's brains work however. We all kind-of have infantile tendencies. We all also have opinions about practically everything. I think most people who visit digg, or most people in general either have no knowledge of Scientology or think at least slightly negatively of it. So, when there's an excuse to bash it, and lots of other people are joining in, all the people that have at least a slightly negative view join in. Since this is all anonymous (not the group, just everyone visiting here is anonymous), the numbers are rather gigantic. Think if you all had to do this face to face with another human who bought into this stuff, would you behave the same way? Sure, some would, but most wouldn't. You might think they were nuts, but you'd just walk by. I think it's more a result of the social dynamic that digg creates than that people are stupid. People are suggestible, this is both how we learn and how people buy into religions in the first place. When everyone else does it, why not throw in?
In conclusion, yeah, Scientologists are nuts, but not that much more nuts than any other religion (haha, other standard digg meme of being an atheist :-P). Whether you believe or not, they all have incredible aspects that one has to swallow. Most of them get you pay in to some degree (through guilt or otherwise). They all decry things that can be helpful or healthy (christianity: sex, pleasure... scientology: psychiatry), and they also promote things that debatable or zero benefit in this day and age (dietary things, circumcision, etc..)
To bring up another digg meme, I think Bill Maher has put it well: "If you believe in judgment day I have to seriously question your judgment. If you believe you’re in a long-term relationship with an all-powerful space daddy, who will after you die party with your ghost forever, you can’t have my vote even for miss hawaiian tropic."
- Tilon, on 02/02/2008, -19/+11Maybe you immature assholes just need to understand the nature of news on sites like these.
- wizzpig1337, on 02/02/2008, -119/+16I am a Scientologist, and i am burying this.
ALL HAIL XENU!!- ConfusedONE, on 02/02/2008, -3/+88If you were a Scientologist, you would know that Xenu is the enemy.
- terminal157, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Ah, but it might be interesting to start a Xenu cult. A bit like LaVey's Satanism doesn't really believe that Satan exists, but is rather a reaction to Christian values.
WHO'S WITH ME? I CALL DIBS ON BEING GRAND XENU PROPHET GUY!- thesmack, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Dude, I'm in! Can I be like Grand Pooh-bah of the Xenu legion or something like that?
It would be amusing to see the reaction by scientologists to the existence of a "Xenu" cult. - yayster, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Would we get the tax benefits too?
- thesmack, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Dude, I'm in! Can I be like Grand Pooh-bah of the Xenu legion or something like that?
- terminal157, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2Ah, but it might be interesting to start a Xenu cult. A bit like LaVey's Satanism doesn't really believe that Satan exists, but is rather a reaction to Christian values.
- Guitarhero10, on 02/02/2008, -1/+27Really now. Even if you watched South Park you would know that Xenu was the enemy. Come on.
- mochouinard, on 02/02/2008, -1/+3Yea, it because of Xenu that were stuck with those very few 'REAL' scientologist here... Why did he had to choice our planet !!!
- PURPLEDRINK, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1SMD
- ConfusedONE, on 02/02/2008, -3/+88If you were a Scientologist, you would know that Xenu is the enemy.
- allywilson, on 02/02/2008, -19/+124I dugg every comment - because I like to be different.
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -3/+14so did I.
- jm4847, on 02/02/2008, -3/+7I just did so to annoy the whiny ones.
- fluffythekitten, on 02/02/2008, -2/+8i did not - i like to differ from the ones liking to differ...
- PURPLEDRINK, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3hey thar efg
- nunu4u, on 02/02/2008, -42/+122Ha, ha the Scientologists are freaking out, trying to bury the truth again. They will not be successful against Anonymous. The people are *****.
- rholloway, on 02/02/2008, -14/+12who are the "people"? I could give a ***** how someone worships or lives their life. It's all about having a strong desire to belong--a few looks at Digg clearly illustrate that this isn't exclusive to Scientologists.
- nunu4u, on 02/02/2008, -1/+16check out the news on Feb 10 to see your answer to "who are the people." Or look at the hundreds of thousands responding to youtube postings on this issue. I am someone whose friend was sucked dry by Scientology and then pursued. He had to send them a death warrant to get them off his back. This is not abstract to some of us.
- NiftySwifty, on 02/02/2008, -10/+2He sent them a "death warrant", huh? I just hope y'all wear your sunblock on the 10th--it may be winter, but I imagine most of you haven't been out of your parents basement in quite some time...
- kylere, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5$cientology is not WORSHIP, it is not a religion, and the parts of the world not currently being ran by "compassionate conservative" and "bleeding heart liberals" recognize this.
- nunu4u, on 02/02/2008, -1/+16check out the news on Feb 10 to see your answer to "who are the people." Or look at the hundreds of thousands responding to youtube postings on this issue. I am someone whose friend was sucked dry by Scientology and then pursued. He had to send them a death warrant to get them off his back. This is not abstract to some of us.
- rorykinnear, on 02/02/2008, -4/+8How many scientologists do you actually think there are??
- Windsurfer619, on 02/02/2008, -1/+690,000
- jwkpiano1, on 02/03/2008, -1/+6Try 40,000, out of 6 billion.
- bagelmaster, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1Thought it was around 6.5 billion now?
- Windsurfer619, on 02/02/2008, -1/+690,000
- Pake, on 02/02/2008, -8/+9I, like most of Digg, are not Scientologist, but we are burying this because we are tired of the spam. It's fine to maybe see an article pop up occasionally, but if you Anonymous idiots have to keep grouping up and spamming the site with rehashed crap we've already read before, we aren't going to digg you up. The people are pretty ***** at having to read Scientology spam and just like all the Ron Paul spam, we're burying it.
- snarkleclackers, on 02/03/2008, -1/+5I are not Scientologist?
- wybiral, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2It doesn't look like you guys are doing a very good job. I are not impressed :)
- hobonetweaver, on 02/12/2008, -0/+1I are.
- BlackJackJester, on 02/02/2008, -9/+3I'm pretty convinced "Anonymous" is three or four 12 year olds who discovered simpletext in their computer lab.
- RAEP, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2You're pretty wrong in your assumptions.
- rholloway, on 02/02/2008, -14/+12who are the "people"? I could give a ***** how someone worships or lives their life. It's all about having a strong desire to belong--a few looks at Digg clearly illustrate that this isn't exclusive to Scientologists.
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -98/+33Anyone think the anti-scientology folks are coming off as somewhat cult-like themselves?
- etx313, on 02/02/2008, -1/+23Fight fire with fire.
- ghgh1313, on 02/02/2008, -3/+8shhhh. yes, but you gotta be careful where you say that. digg hears everything, digg will bury you down...
- bagboyrebel, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2It's too late! digg has heard and digg is mad! run for your life!
- fluffythekitten, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6nope - we don't brainwash each other to believe some ***** sf-stories. we like to THINK FOR OURSELVES...sometimes
- dukeeeey, on 02/02/2008, -64/+30wtf is scientology and why should i care
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -2/+11You mean with all the front page articles about it, that hasn't been explained yet?
- etx313, on 02/02/2008, -12/+6Scientology is the organization that will be running the government in 10 years if we don't do something now. At least the Catholics that run it now have some morals...
- Dunnix, on 02/02/2008, -3/+6Everyone has morals its called the human ***** condition... Scientology is hated because they have been extreme and a bit creepy, however to say they don't have morals is dumb. I believe 90% of the people in Scientology believe they are helping people, who is to say they're not.
All religion is to trump on the basic morals that are encoded into everyone. All religion is equally stupid. - mdinire, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6Catholics run the American government now? You learn something new everyday.
- Dunnix, on 02/02/2008, -3/+6Everyone has morals its called the human ***** condition... Scientology is hated because they have been extreme and a bit creepy, however to say they don't have morals is dumb. I believe 90% of the people in Scientology believe they are helping people, who is to say they're not.
- ROBINEW, on 02/02/2008, -0/+15Because they are able to BLAKMAIL an entire government agency in order to get tax exemption status. See scientology vs IRS is one reason you should care. They corrupt politicians. They corrupt entire towns. ie Clearwater. They have written policies to "destroy" their critics by any means possible. This is a WRITTEN POLICY of CoS that has recently been exposed, not to mention the numerous human rights violations they have committed while hiding behind the Constitution. Google "fair game" in association with scientology. There are many, many, many other examples of this. This is not a religious issue. Anyone concerned about human and civil rights, not to mention their right to free speech should be concerned bringing the church of scientology to justice, if you are not you are part of the problem because the more power the "church" gets the more rights they will take away from you.
- RAEP, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Thank god someone with an idea of what the ***** is going on. I was getting ready to denounce anon for all of the stupid little kiddies saying "we du eet 4 teh lulz kekekeke".
- somekid413, on 02/14/2008, -0/+0ohh.. you forgot about people actually loosing their lives mysteriously or being generally harassed if they speak out against the cult
google Fort Harrison Hotel in Clearwater
- SillySilent, on 02/02/2008, -2/+12What is scientology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Why should you care? They censor, they threaten, they're a very frightening cult, they're the money-gaining invention of a sci-fi author gone bad. - jmg703, on 02/02/2008, -0/+7Been to the internet much?
- GreenAlien, on 02/02/2008, -0/+6For a fun introduction check out the South Park episode on Scientology. It wont be replayed on TV because CoS sued them (surprise surprise) but it's surprisingly accurate and factual. You'll find it on bittorrent.
- StarlessKnight, on 02/02/2008, -0/+41,600+ comments and you're professing not to know what Scientology is after last week's news bombardment? "/s," absence from DIGG, or very selective reading?
- kylere, on 02/02/2008, -0/+51. If you do not care, why comment?
2. If you do not know, why not educate yourself
3. If you are incapable of doing the second, then perhaps you should work on that first - mentat, on 02/03/2008, -1/+2Please google "Operation Clambake"
- DeepFriedFetus, on 02/03/2008, -0/+3If that was a joke...you are a genius my friend.
If not, there are rescue planes on the way to the desert island.
- DiggityDugged, on 02/02/2008, -53/+5211 and not front page? is the algorithm that flawed now?
- HappyScrappy, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7It's at the top of the first page for me.
Why whine? - etx313, on 02/02/2008, -1/+13Relax dude.
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -0/+7Flawed? Works for me.
- Myonosken, on 02/02/2008, -1/+9Perhaps it doesn't like whiny spammers?
- KLowD9x, on 02/02/2008, -1/+2The algorithm is perfect, you are flawed.
- cr4wl3r, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2its never going to be exactly 200=FP
- HappyScrappy, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7It's at the top of the first page for me.
- xTRUMANx, on 02/02/2008, -51/+19Stop blaming scientologist for your story not reaching frontpage. I personally don't bury stories unless they're really lame or inaccurate. I haven't touched your dear scientologist stories but I'm sure it ain't scientologists burying your *****. Anon don't even like all the exposure on digg. They have a name for you Anon-wannabes on digg: its newfag. I think if you guys just kept 4chan and Anon out of your articles and left it to bashing CoS without mentioning Anon you would be probably getting more frontpage stories.
- iceeblue, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2I though Anon wanted to protest Cos. Why would they shun exposure on Digg? If I had not seen it on Digg I would not be going out to protest on the 10th. My understanding is that the more people that get exposed to the lies CoS the better.
- snide1, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1basic backlash against the backlash. anyone with at least half a brain would see it coming... kinda like why no one watches cable news anymore (at least without a HUGE grain of salt)
- iceeblue, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2I though Anon wanted to protest Cos. Why would they shun exposure on Digg? If I had not seen it on Digg I would not be going out to protest on the 10th. My understanding is that the more people that get exposed to the lies CoS the better.
- HappyScrappy, on 02/02/2008, -24/+44It seems like half the articles on the top of Digg are anti-Scientology. Which is enough for me, maybe I should be glad they're keeping it down to half with their burying.
- nsummy, on 02/02/2008, -29/+151How can anyone say Scientology stories are being buried? This site has been nothing but anti-Scientology articles lately!
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -2/+10Front page ain't big enough for as many as they'd like to see there.
- mikesbaker, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7at one point 8 of the top ten were scientology related. they want all scientology all the time
- bagboyrebel, on 02/02/2008, -0/+2it got to 9 one night.
- mikesbaker, on 02/02/2008, -1/+7at one point 8 of the top ten were scientology related. they want all scientology all the time
- agimat, on 02/02/2008, -1/+10[ This site has been nothing but anti-Scientology articles lately! ]
And that's with Scientology stories getting buried. - megapeg, on 02/02/2008, -0/+14I think it has more to do with the Scientology articles being marked as "Inaccurate" - seems like it happens to every one of them, even when they're from legitimate news sources. They're not necessarily being buried, but when something is marked as inaccurate, it disappears pretty quickly.
- thailand1972, on 02/02/2008, -5/+2Exactly - what a piece of *****. And ironically it's on the top spot on Digg which shows how much ***** it is - if anti-Scientology posts were being buried on Digg, this post wouldn't make it as the most popular post.
- fluffythekitten, on 02/02/2008, -0/+5yep, but thats not the point - its more like that the superfluous and ill motivated anti-sc. articles stay, but the ones with the hard facts and hurting thruths are being buried as inacc!
- bonk2k, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5They still make it to the front page, just with an inaccuracy warning.
- transform100, on 02/02/2008, -2/+4***** Scientology!!!!!!
- nepawoods, on 02/02/2008, -2/+10Front page ain't big enough for as many as they'd like to see there.
- TwoLOUD, on 02/02/2008, -54/+112Religion is a joke period..just more of a joke when its charged for services...
- idsignus, on 02/02/2008, -21/+2There is a special place in Hell for people who have no religion. So Long!
Have you ever heard of hedging your bet. Duh?- chronusmcgee, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6It's not exactly hedging ones bet when you follow a porcine moron with a god complex into slave labor, social destruction, and salad oil binges. Seriously.
- pcore, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1-
- fluffythekitten, on 02/02/2008, -2/+4there's a special place in soil for people who have a religion, you know?
- pcore, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3There is also a place for hell for people who judge.
- bagboyrebel, on 02/02/2008, -1/+5if you don't send this message to 5 people then you will be lonely for the rest of your life and you will die earily.
scared yet?- TheBrain21, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2I had to think about that one for about 30 seconds before it came to me.
ORRR maybe i'm just being too smart for my own good and you really are a spammer...
- TheBrain21, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2I had to think about that one for about 30 seconds before it came to me.
- chronusmcgee, on 02/02/2008, -1/+6It's not exactly hedging ones bet when you follow a porcine moron with a god complex into slave labor, social destruction, and salad oil binges. Seriously.
- TheMachine1, on 02/02/2008, -9/+4Yeah we need more articals on atheism and less on why one religion is dumber than the others.
- ndavisAA, on 02/02/2008, -5/+9RAmen, I am an atheist and usually enjoy when a religion gets its time in the barrel, but this makes no sense.... When I look at scientology, i see the same thing that i see when i look at any other religion. Lots of money being given in the name of some deity, and an ever increasing body count.
- GreenAlien, on 02/02/2008, -2/+7"There is a special place in Hell for people who have no religion. So Long!"
Always amuses me when religious people try to invoke fear like this. Suggesting that we will be sent to a place that doesnt exist is hardly going to bother us.
If I said that you must believe in self-aware tea pots orbiting our planet otherwise you'll be sent to the mother teapot and brewed in boiling water for all eternity, would it bother you? - tgc1, on 02/02/2008, -2/+3A special place in hell? What if you already know Satan personally? Yeah, he calls me... we chat. Not such a bad guy once you get to know him. He's cool. You'd see that if you and captain gold gates up there would stop being so judgmental. Leave the Devil alone!
- Zbrah, on 02/02/2008, -5/+2Um,you think the planets were formed when some gases and particles- which gravity(somehow...) acted upon-all simultaneously interacted in just the right way and woosh bam our solar system. Or something equally inconcievable....Not only that, but after we all got here somehow we all fancied to continuously evolve...That sounds like a joke to me. Just remember, you insulted me first.
- moleyoly, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1It wasn't really woosh bam. it took millions of years.
- bagelmaster, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Try billions
- Zbrah, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1eeh? Think about it. A chemical reaction is instantaneous, gases and particles(and by the way..how did the gases and particles get there?) are moving freely,randomly throughout the universe, and suddenly they're all together in the right place and "woosh bam" this handy little reaction creates earth. It's impossibe that something like this would take billions of years...it wouldn't be an incremental development but just a .000001 chance in a 1,000,000,000,000 that it would form anything at all...let alone something as complicated as earth!
- wybiral, on 02/03/2008, -1/+1"Um,you think the planets were formed when some gases and particles- which gravity(somehow...) acted upon-all simultaneously interacted in just the right way and woosh bam our solar system."
I don't think ANYONE is arguing that entire solar systems were created in a "woosh bam". Do some reading before you post junk like this, it will make you look smarter.- Zbrah, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1lol, that's exactly what people are arguing...do you have a better explanation...??
- TheBrain21, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Uhh...gravity drew all the gas and particles together. The pressure increased and the substances became denser. some of it underwent nuclear fission (or fusion, i can't remember precisely which the sun does) and the rest became much like whats in the asteroid belts. Eventually that clumped up into planets. This took a really bloody long time. Most people don't realise what a million years is, let alone a billion.
- Zbrah, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1The most we know about where gravity comes from, is that anything with mass creates a gravitational field. Something big, like earth has a large gravitational force. Something "small" barely has any mass...how do you explain the existence of this gravity that drew the gas and particles together?And what about space itself? What about the gases and particles...where did they come from?
- moleyoly, on 02/02/2008, -1/+1It wasn't really woosh bam. it took millions of years.
- typo900, on 02/03/2008, -0/+0whats a "joke period"?
Is it a period where "joking" or "jokes" occur? - Linua, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Well, I for one, have alot more respect for Christanity now, that is for sure. I plan on attending church soon, just to see what it is like. Umm, I'll prolly still remain agnostic, but I'm willing to give them credit where it's due.
- idsignus, on 02/02/2008, -21/+2There is a special place in Hell for people who have no religion. So Long!
- helikopter, on 02/02/2008, -45/+14buried cause i'm sick of you assholes congesting the front page with this *****. i'm not a scientologist, but YOU look like the shmucks, not them.
- TheDHC, on 02/02/2008, -19/+85scientologists: die in a flash flood
- RAEP, on 02/03/2008, -0/+2Comments like that are what will get negative attention drawn to the cause.
- AussieJames, on 02/02/2008, -10/+214fools!
Dic