[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
+
:1. You are quite right, my arguement was about the photo's caption. And that has been made more realistic.
+
:2. Scientology is the title of the article. Because editors here have been quoting from Wikipedia, I'll place Wikipedia's first line of their Scientology article here: Wikipedia states: "Scientology is a body of teachings and related techniques developed by L. Ron Hubbard." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology first line]No mention of "church" you see? So what does a scientology website say: "Scientology is an applied religious philosophy developed by L. Ron Hubbard." [http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp50/pg1024.html almost first line]. Please note, it is a '''philosophy''' which means a body of knowledge. Its area of knowledge is religion. A religous philosophy does not make a church but is a body of knowledge. Here are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientology/Archive_10#Scientology_is_a_philosophy my words] about this issue at Wikipedia. (because everyone is poking me about my wikipedia edits). So what does the Church of Scientology do? It was entrusted by Hubbard to keep his philosophy intact and to disseminate its use. But these are actually separate things. The philosophy itself would exist with or without the Church. As the Holy Bible would exist with or without any Church.
+
:3. About the trademark. Sorry, I can not find the arguements at Wikipedia that resulted in that photo, and like photos that feature trademarks as large parts of the photo. It is beyond my area of knowledge. I was working with what I recalled. Perhaps [[User:Tmtoulouse]] can make the situation more clear but I can not. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)