Knowledge? - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion Knowledge?

Peter McDermott

More options Sep 5 1997, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Date: 1997/09/05

Subject: Re: Knowledge?

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

In article <3411e982.185129...@news.concentric.net>,

dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>argue and debate. If Diane's arguments are weak, there's no
>>shortage of people here to jump all over her and point that
>>out. In fact, even when they aren't weak, there are enough people
>>here who lack the insight into the difference between a 'good'
>>(ie, logical and coherent) argument and a poor one to take a
>>shot at it anyway. It hardly seems reasonable to whine about
>>'semantic pummelling' because she tends to decisively defeat
>>such people in argument.

>Whine? Would you care to clarify that little statement, Peter? I

You're right. I erroneously assumed that your 'semantic
pummelling' reference referred to Diane, largely because I've
seen her arguments dismissed as 'semantic trickery' before.

Have an apology for my error,

>have yet to concede defeat to Diane, Bernie, or anyone else. As a

You don't need to concede it. It's there for anyone to see
on the threads on mind control.

>matter of fact, I don't see my presence here as a competition with
>anyone. I'm not out to "defeat" anyone, or be "defeated" by anyone.

That's funny, because you really don't strike me as someone
who is interested synthesizing the useful stuff in opposing
viewpoints and moving forward.

In light of that, why else would you argue with an
opponent?

> I'm not even sure why I'm responding to this. But if you insist on
>taking this to a personal, third-grade level and throwing out an
>accusation of "whining", rather than discussing the issues involved
>in a rational fashion, I'd have to invite you to FOAD. Politely, of
>course.

Um, Pot-Kettle-Black

><snip>

>>Anyway, my point is that what BC calls 'semantic pummelling' is
>>really the best tool that we have. ie the ability to ask questions,
>>to challenge basic assumptions, to point up the flaws in each
>>other's logic. If we don't subject *all* claims to the same
>>rigorous testing, then we have to accept $cientology's argument
>>that critics are biased, bigoted and operate a double standard.

>If you read the entire newsgroup,

Maybe if I didn't have a life, I'd have the time. But actually,
I don't have the inclination any more. Not enough of interest
here anymore, I'm afraid.

To be quite honest, I only popped in because I saw a brief
reference to Ginger Breggin's wife being a Scientologist in
"Week in Review". I hadn't really intended to stick around,
but I found myself intrigued by Diane's transformation from
ARSCC Kha Khan to OSA plant. I know that the regulars here
profess to be bored with it (despite continuing to perpetuate
the threads on the topic) but it's still relatively new and
interesting to me, whereas most of the other stuff being
discussed here hasn't changed at all in the last two or
three years.

Perhaps I'll go back to reading Week-in-Review once a week.

Reply to author Forward