Comments:Scientology website hacked

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

GO ANON GO!!!

I for one applaud this. Inferno, Lord of Penguins (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And this is what happens when they form a website after playing with their beakers and chemistry sets.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.169.161.75 (talk • contribs)

Wikinews promoting illegal activities

This. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wultzcheck (talk • contribs)

oh excuse me, i didn't see that part —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.101.18.2 (talk • contribs)

When is Wikinews going to give up its obsession with the Scientology/Anonymous debacle? To think this story is sharing a page with Karzai and six murders. --78.146.12.11 (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

When the Chicago Tribune and TIME Magazine stop writing articles based on twitter and 4chan. Less sarcastically: I am glad this article is here; the article isn't promoting anything, and it clearly interested enough people to collaborate and update the article, and many more people are probably finding it interesting to read. --67.174.131.145 (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So does Wikinews promote murder by reporting those murders? Maybe you get an uncontrollable urge to hack Scientology from reading this news, but I don't. That would be your problem. --ReneJohnsen (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? --89.243.41.164 (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

89.243, go back to the top of this page and start reading again. Read the section titles this time. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 07:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please direct your attention to the tab at the top which states "Opinions". --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't an opinion. It was sheer incomprehension. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, looking at this again, I honestly can't remember what I was talking about when I said that. Maybe I confused the IP's or something? Or more likely a brain fart. Anyway, yeah, no clue --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)