FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement

Peter McDermott

More options Aug 20 1997, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

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

Date: 1997/08/20

Subject: Re: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement

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

In article <35a703c7.341863...@snews.zippo.com>,

b...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>Seems like you don't gain much by trying to speak sense to those
>who obviously can't make any. Somehow, they will always try to
>turn it against you at the end of the day. A good lesson,
>methink. Better ignore them.

>>Yup. Even those who claim to have plonked her don't seem able
>>to ignore her. She's one of L. Ron Newman's 'obnoxious three' so
>>she's 'fair game'.

>I am surprised Ron has chosen to heat up a flamefest, he who
>usually try to cool things up. I wonder why.

I must say that it surprised me as well.

>>I doubt it. When I stopped reading ARS around two years ago, it
>>was for precisely this reason. I was the first person to
>>express my doubts about Arnie Lerma's toothbrush, and I found
>>the responses to my posts to be extremely disturbing.

>Yes. I think that this is the point when you start to realize
>that some "critics" aren't better than what they criticize,
>sometimes they are even much worse. But I think that we just
>have to live with that. They populate the newsgroup and they
>probably have the right to make a fool of themselves just as
>well. The best is probably to ignore them most of the time. They
>do serve a purpose also, as a negative illustration.

I hate to agree with you on this. A few years ago, ARS was a
credible source of information on Scientology that an
objective reader could turn to for discussion. I just don't
see that it could fulfil that function anymore, and that
has to be a very sad loss to the world indeed.

>Luckily, there are enough other posters as well, or it wouldn't
>be worth staying at all.

>>The consensus seemed to be 'Shut up and say nothing. You don't
>>criticize the critics' but I resent being fed bullshit and
>>expected to swallow it with a smile *whoever* might be holding
>>the spoon.

>I think Damon Cheston share your opinion on that point, as do I.

It's true. I'd forgotten just how staunch Damon was on the issue.
There were a couple of others as well, but I believe that the
dominant response was that it was enough for it to be consistent
with allegations of past Scientology behaviour for people to
accept that it happened.

What puzzles me is how so few people seem to realize that their
apparent gullibility on these issues destroys any credibility as
objective over the issue.

Reply to author Forward