Talk:David S. Touretzky/Archive 1

POV

The following is a sub-genius' opinions. There is no evidence of advocating hostility and/or violence on the part of RFW.--AI 03:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Church of Scientology (or "independent" members of the Church, as it claims) has been engaging in a long-term effort to slander discredit Professor David Toruetzky. Why? Because Professor Touretzky has worked in support of free speech, and in the process has been considered one of the most important "enemies" of Scientology.

Proof of the bias of this article can be seen in the links posted to pages dedicated to smearing Professor Touretzky -- especially the one by the so-called "Religious Freedom Watch," a Scientology-based hate group.

Do a Web search for the name "David Touretzky" and you will come up with some very interesting results. Note especially his efforts (including court testimonies) opposing the RIAA and their attempts to ban DeCSS...and, again, his efforts against Scientology. Professor Toruetzky's exposure of the Narconon organization, for instance, are largely responsible for that organization being rejected by the California school system in early 2005. (See the Narconon article for details of that.)

But rather than bore you with the details, I would rather focus upon this article itself. Namely, the fact this article was written as a blatant attempt to smear and slander Professor Toruetzky. --Modemac 09:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Modemac, you call Religious Freedom Watch a hate-group. What reference are you basing your labeling of Religious Freedom Watch as a hate group on, or is it just your opinion? --AI 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're certainly an operation of the Church of Scientology --David Gerard 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but how does that make RFW a hate group? What is Modemac's source for labeling RFW as hate group? --AI 21:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't make that statement as fact in an article, he's entitled to state it as an opinion. As it happens I agree that all these revolting little groups that go around harrying individuals who oppose the activities of the scientology cult corporation are quite aptly described as hate groups. That's what they're up to, destroying individuals in the name of their money-making religion.

And that's my opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who cares what your opinion is? Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. WP:NOT :) --AI 22:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still waiting for Modemac to provide a reference of source, and not Wikipedia contributor opinions from those who share his POV. --AI 22:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own definition of a hate group says: "A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility or violence towards one or more groups of people or organizations upon spurious grounds, despite a wider consensus that these people are not necessarily better or worse than any others." Anyone with half a brain who looks at the "Religious Freedom Watch" pages will certainly see that their claims are spurious at best, that they advocate hostility and/or violence against their chosen targets, and that they are a ridiculous excuse for "freedom" advocates at best. And yes, that's my opinion. So there. Nyaahhhh. --Modemac 09:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is delusion a quality of a sub-genius?

sub-genius, tremble in the presence of a true genius.--AI 03:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is twice now in just one subtopic you have engaged in personal attacks, AI. --maru 29 June 2005 16:34 (UTC)

Cool, that's one worth saving! "sub-genius, tremble in the presence of a true genius." Got any more wise sayings like that? --Modemac 29 June 2005 22:09 (UTC)

Hey!! I made it up, make sure to give me credit.--AI 30 June 2005 03:51 (UTC)

Modemac is violating Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:No original research. --AI 20:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

RFW

I've done a Web search, a Usenet search, and a second Usenet search for the origins of this quote you claim that Professor Touretzky has given, and I can't find it. All that is listed are repeated uses of the quote by users making slanderous accusations, claiming that it is his quote. Therefore, I am asking you to provide the actual reference to the quote itself and prove that Touretzky actually said it. Thank you for your assistance. --Modemac 11:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• David Touretzky: "She is the former ambassador to Micronesia! and she's black. I should have known. What are all the really st00000pid congresswomen black?"[1]

That quote is based on Religious Freedom Watch's claim of usenet chat logs. --AI 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is a "usenet chat log"? I use Usenet fairly regularly, and it does not ring any bells. If it refers to IRC chat logs, unless recorded, vouched for, and provided by a reliable and known neutral third-party... well, let's just say IRC chat logs are easily forged. And given Scientology's previous activities, a minor forgery against an enemy is exceedingly plausible. --maru 22:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As such, it's from an utterly unreliable source. I suggest you need more discernment in your choice of reference quality --David Gerard 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't use this discussion to advocate your views. Please describe what you mean by "utterly unreliable source" and provide references. Also maybe you can provide a reference to Wikipedia policy to demonstrate how you decided "quality" and what is and is not a source. --AI 22:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is cite sources. All we seem to have here is a claim that there exists a "usenet chat log" (no such thing exists, incidentally) showing that Touretzky authored the quote in question. There is no independent way to check this, and it doesn't seem particularly plausible (a PhD who spells the word "stupid" with five zeroes?) The only source we have has a known vested interest in portraying Touretzky in the worst possible light and is affiliated with an infamously mendacious organisation of which Touretzky has long been a critic. Even if the organisation were Touretzky's best friend, however, this would be a single source making an unverifiable claim about the existence of primary source material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion. :)

The referenced IRC logs, can be verified through IRCOPS and the FBI.

Touretzky has not denied these statements. --AI 03:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The eff bee eye is now monitoring all IRC channels everywhere? You sure you're not confusing the FBI with the Co$? --Phloigd

Actually intelligence agencies from various countries have supercomputers which document every single bit that travels over the internet. But that is another article... --AI 20:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

AI, speaking as a Computer Science student, a supercomputer that documented every single piece of data across the Internet would be a near impossibility considering the huge volume of data transfer on the Internet compared with the finite amounts of available data storage.

"Religious Freedom Watch" fails to substantiate its claims with adequate referencing to the appropriate documentation or any other form of evidentiary support and is consequently of doubtful veracity. As such, Religious Freedom Watch cannot be considered to be an adequate reference source for claims made on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Cite sources for more information on this.

IRC logs are not acceptable as a quotable source and you have not provided third-party evidentiary support that the IRC conversation you describe took place; also, even if the IRC logs could be authenticated as being stated by Prof. Touretzky's username or originating from his computer system, it is trivial to masquerade as another user on IRC and even a verifiable log of such an exchange would prove nothing. Consequently, there is no doubt in my mind that your attribution of comments is spurious and are nothing but groundless attacks on Prof. Touretzky's name; please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks for the official Wikipedia policy on the matter.

Can I please ask you to try to maintain a neutral point of view in future when writing articles, and not to use spurious reference sources when writing articles about individuals? --NicholasTurnbull 19:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC) (I have also copied this to AI's talk page)

1. Addressing my personal activity is irrelevant to this article and with my recent education in Wikipedia policy, my understanding is that it is also a violation of policy.
2. Going into detail about the government super computers isn't really necessary, but I promise to write an article on them with roper attribution, maybe sometime this week.

--AI 01:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

RFW is a notable critic of David Touretzky. RFW's credibility is equivalent or greater than many critics who are attributed as sources for "critic claims" in other controversial articles. --AI 01:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Purported quote and legal actions

I'd like to see more information in the article's 'Scientology critic' section about this controversy with RFW. What is happenning between David Touretzky and RFW. Has he tried to have the quotes removed? Is there an ongoing case? --AI 20:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because someone doesn't bring legal action doesn't make an assertion true. --David Gerard 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Isn't David Touretzky an "activist"? --AI 21:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misspellings

The spelling is "Touretzky". Alternate spellings: Touretsky, Touretzsky, Toruetzky ... any others? I've set up redirects from "David -", "Dave -" and "David S. -" of all of these to this page. --David Gerard 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you catch all the lowercases as well? --maru 22:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Citizens Against Government Waste

David Gerard, you write that CAGW is backed by the Church of Scientology? What is the source of this? --AI 21:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV template

May I ask why a NPOV warning was posted on the article page? I looked carefully, and all allegations were attributed, with reasonably balanced coverage- the only possible POV infraction I could see might be the bits about 'dead agents' (whatever that is), and even that seem fairly fair. --maru 22:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because:
Someone was removing and reverting some of my content which was valid. However that dispute has been resolved. Only the quotes are still in dispute because the opposing POV's are uncertain of the credibility of the source. Basically their view of credibility is a reflection of discrimination.--AI 29 June 2005 03:37 (UTC)

Move to David S. Touretzky

He's almost universally referred to with the middle initial, so I've moved the article there. Now fixing redirects and links - David Gerard 14:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No he isn't. That is your opinion. David Touretzky signs without the S. in his usenet postings and in IRC. His usenet postings and irc sessions can be traced to his computer(s) at CMU. And in those messages he converses with others who know him well, so they are not forgeries.--AI 29 June 2005 03:40 (UTC)

Quotes

Here is the full list of quotes as compiled by religiousfreedomwatch.org

These are not quotes, these are sentences taken out of context from chats, I doubt they qualify as standalone quotes. I'm sure it serves the interest of RFW, but certainly not the interest of Wikipedia. "No wonder Scientology hates the internet" is indeed a quote since it's often part of the signature of Professor Touretzky on alt.religion.scientology. Povmec 03:51, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tough luck povmec. The FBI and IRCOPS would not agree with your dishonesty. --AI 03:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gee, this is what? the third time? that you've invoked the IRCOPS. As if they were an official organization. Which we could contact. And not a nebulous grouping of adept IRC users. And the FBI? Don't make me laugh. Point to an actual report or document from the FBI, don't wave your hands in a vague appeal to authority. And I forgot to mention, about the IRC chat logs: I took a look at "Religious Freedom Watch" 's "logs", and y'know what? They weren't logs! They were "quotes culled from hundreds of hours of Touretzky's chat room writings". Biased by admission. Not including any substaniating technical data. The quotes on Bash.org are more verifiable than that!! And their damning 'technical information' is simply a list of addresses, where we are told that 'dst' is obviously the actual David S. Touretzky himself, as if that were actual evidence, relevant in anyway, or as if a Comp Sci. professor wouldn't know even the basics of anonymizing IRC, or of using bouncers, or anything if he were going to say such things. And I really wonder how Touretzky could be such a hideous, monstrous, eviiil! persecutor of all that is good and right, if he is spending more than ~300 hours in less than a year spewing unimaginative badly spelled non-PC invective on IRC. These quotes are unreliable. They are bullshit. There are any number of places in the chain of causality here which by themselves, even if RFW were known for their probity and neutrality, would nonetheless strain credulity. Added together, it is impossible to believe, except for a true believer. But no doubt you will continue to believe these lies and go on acting like Touretzky actually said these things. --maru 04:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're comments are irrelevant given my arguements above. --AI 29 June 2005 03:48 (UTC)

What?! You have two arguments, that RFW's 'logs' can be trusted (which they can't; I and at least one other user have systematically debunked that little 'argument' of yours) and that the 'FBI and IRCOPS' stood behind them- which I just debunked above, and you have the gall to say that my arguments are 'irrelevant'? Prove they are, show me an official FBI or IRCOPS (see how generous I am? I ask for only one source, not both) document which substaniates RFW's quotes. Go ahead. I'll bet you can't, because you don't have a leg to stand on in your little fallacious appeal to authority. --maru 29 June 2005 16:43 (UTC)

If you take a look at AI ("Anonymous Informer")'s postings on alt.religion.scientology, you'll see that AI is trying to use this article to incite a reaction from the newsgroup here. It's a standard Scientology tactic: troll your opponents and goad them into doing or saying something that you can then use against them. He's trying to provoke a reaction from Dr. Touretzky, by getting him mad enough to do or say something in reaction to this page. Unfortunately for him, it seems as though Dr. Touretzky is enjoying this show immensely. --Modemac 12:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion Modemac. Don't put the spin on me. In ARS I only use facts to discredit those who lie about Scientology. My writings in usenet are not dictated by Wikipedia policies and I cannot be held responsible by Wikipedia for my actions in usenet. Here in Wikipedia I am only putting forword facts. If those facts work against Touretzky, that is his problem as he should have considered the consequences of his actions. If you are prejudice toward the source then that is your problem; Scrutiny of sources is welcome, but I notice this is rarely done except when a contributor is in dispute with an opposing POV. Anyway, David Touretzy is not the only article I work on. I suggest you look at my history before you make personal accusations and also you should reread the policy no personal attacks because personal attack seems to be part of the tactic of your "discrediting of AI's source."--AI 29 June 2005 03:48 (UTC)

BTW, POVMEC posted some text to usenet claiming it is L. Ron Hubbard's writings when it clearly is not L. Ron Hubbard's writing.