Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:21:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Sayonawa for now
From: Rebecca Hartong <firstname.lastname@example.org>
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Trace: 25 Oct 2003 17:20:43 -0400, 184.108.40.206
X-Original-Trace: 25 Oct 2003 17:20:43 -0400, 220.127.116.11
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1651901
On 10/25/03 2:36 PM, in article email@example.com,
"Gerry Armstrong" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It is lying, black propaganda, unmerited attacks and the refusal to
> deal with these honestly and straight across that merits inclusion on
> the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page, not disagreement, not criticism. Lies
> cannot be criticism.
Whether an "attack" is merited is entirely a matter of opinion, so
that aside right away. There's no point in discussing it when opinions are
already pretty well set.
Further, whether a person is "dealing with these ["lies" and
attacks"] is ALSO entirely a matter of opinion.
As for "black propaganda"... What is that? I think in your mind,
criticism alone qualifies.
So, if there are no specific LIES in a particular post (keeping in mind that
a lie is not simply a difference of opinion but is, rather, a willful
misrepresentation of an established fact), what it all really comes down to
is that you include posts on your web page if you disagree with the opinions
expressed in them.
---Incidentally, Gerry, in reference to this post, I don't believe I ever
saw your post providing evidence of your claim that "virtually all
Scientologists are criminals"--
And last, but by no means least, a post that (in my opinion!) only a KOOK
could consider anything other than a critical opinion...
"One unerring mark of the love of truth is not entertaining
any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is
built upon will warrant." --John Locke