Re: Google search Vs Scientology search
David Nebenzahl
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Google.com returns about 1.3 million results for Xenu
>
> Scientology.org returns ZERO search results for Xenu
>
>
> How about anoter one
>
> For "South Park" (with quotes) Scientology.org returns 8 old results
> mentioning that Isaac Hayes was a cast member. Why doesn't Scientology
> defend themselves ? Did they release an official statement about South Park
> ?
>
> Here's another
>
> Google.com returns 11,300 results for -- Brett Hanover Scientology --
>
> Scientology. org returns nothing for "Brett Hanover" with quotes
>
> Quotes make a search engine look for the exact words
I know the reason for this: The poor beleagured "church" can't afford
all the slick technology that Google has. They're planning bake sales to
try to improve their search engine.
--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.
- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)
antisectes
> p spake thus:
>
>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
>> Google.com returns about 1.3 million results for Xenu
>>
>> Scientology.org returns ZERO search results for Xenu
>>
>>
>> How about anoter one
>>
>> For "South Park" (with quotes) Scientology.org returns 8 old results
>> mentioning that Isaac Hayes was a cast member. Why doesn't
>> Scientology defend themselves ? Did they release an official
>> statement about South Park ?
>>
>> Here's another
>>
>> Google.com returns 11,300 results for -- Brett Hanover Scientology
>> --
>>
>> Scientology. org returns nothing for "Brett Hanover" with quotes
>>
>> Quotes make a search engine look for the exact words
>
> I know the reason for this: The poor beleagured "church" can't afford
> all the slick technology that Google has. They're planning bake sales
> to try to improve their search engine.
That does not stop them from using a new INSIDE net-nanny system.
Indeed, one of them hardsellers sent me an answer to a relatively
"neutral" list of questions without any forbidden names like XENU.
Guess what? The end of his reply showed clearly that before he had been
able to get my message, it had been passed through some sort of
scienositter new software; here is the end of the message that was
retruned withg the evidence of this:
QUOTE:
>
>
> Spam detection software, running on the system "bridge.pixelgate.net",
> has
> identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
> has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
> label
> similar future email. If you have any questions, see
> in...@bridgeinc.us for details.
>
> Spam: NO
>
> Content preview: Hey Andres, Did you receive my lengthy mail
> commenting
> your last answer yesterday? Roger [...]
> Content analysis details: (-2.6 points, 5.0 required)
>
> pts rule name description
> ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
> -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
> [score: 0.0000]
==
Unquote