One of the Most Popular persons amongst Scientologists

[whichphilosophy]

WP, thanks for starting up a new scientology thread.

Scientology’s redacted view of the proper role of women is (surprise!) incredibly sexist

You didn't say anything specific so I could not comment on what you mean. I did read this some years ago (every part).

 

[whichphilosophy]

She did in 1992 November 06 to be precise and was interviewed by Gerry Armstrong.

I didn't know about that one, apparently you're more up to speed on that than me. I checked it out on youtube, but the sound quality is just too horrible to listen to it for long. At the same time, from what I could see and hear, it looks like she's the one interviewing Armstrong, not vice versa, so does that really count as her "giving an interview"? Whatever. As I said in my "review", anyway, I think Going Clear will be most useful as a primer for those with little or no knowledge of the Co$, rather than adding anything new to the arguments of those more versed in its ways.

I haven't seen anything earth moving or enlightening but I am sure these have some entertainment value.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I didn't know about that one, apparently you're more up to speed on that than me. I checked it out on youtube, but the sound quality is just too horrible to listen to it for long. At the same time, from what I could see and hear, it looks like she's the one interviewing Armstrong, not vice versa, so does that really count as her "giving an interview"? Whatever. As I said in my "review", anyway, I think Going Clear will be most useful as a primer for those with little or no knowledge of the Co$, rather than adding anything new to the arguments of those more versed in its ways.

I haven't seen anything earth moving or enlightening but I am sure these have some entertainment value.

Well, I found it entertaining. Looks like you did too, which is nice. Sadly, I don't think the Co$ was very entertained by it, judging by their reactions to it ...

 

[whichphilosophy]

I haven't seen anything earth moving or enlightening but I am sure these have some entertainment value.

Well, I found it entertaining. Looks like you did too, which is nice. Sadly, I don't think the Co$ was very entertained by it, judging by their reactions to it ...

It might be funny for some extremist writers within the Christian faith wrote articles in a extremist Christian magazine to equate atheism with Pol Pot which of course I stress there is zero connection and is complete nonsense. Now given this is repeated in further articles, then I am sure that for some Atheists it will not be entertaining.

However if a representative atheist writer were permitted to write a rebuttal in the same magazine then we would have a true freedom of speech.

Here is one reference:

The American Convention on Human Rights requires its state parties to introduce either a right of reply or a right of correction. Article 14 states:
http://www.article19.org/pages/en/right-of-reply.html

1. Anyone injured by inaccurate or offensive statements or ideas disseminated to the public in general by a legally regulated medium of communication has the right to reply or to make a correction using the same communications outlet, under such conditions as the law may establish.

2. The correction or reply shall not in any case remit other legal liabilities that may have been incurred.


- - - Updated - - -
Did you see the C of S reply in the same way the Atheist has a right of reply?

The Atheist's name was Thomas Szasz yet only one person got it in one of the first posts.

 

[bilby]

Well, I found it entertaining. Looks like you did too, which is nice. Sadly, I don't think the Co$ was very entertained by it, judging by their reactions to it ...

It might be funny for some extremist writers within the Christian faith wrote articles in a extremist Christian magazine to equate atheism with Pol Pot which of course I stress there is zero connection and is complete nonsense. Now given this is repeated in further articles, then I am sure that for some Atheists it will not be entertaining.

However if a representative atheist writer were permitted to write a rebuttal in the same magazine then we would have a true freedom of speech.

Here is one reference:

The American Convention on Human Rights requires its state parties to introduce either a right of reply or a right of correction. Article 14 states:
http://www.article19.org/pages/en/right-of-reply.html

1. Anyone injured by inaccurate or offensive statements or ideas disseminated to the public in general by a legally regulated medium of communication has the right to reply or to make a correction using the same communications outlet, under such conditions as the law may establish.

2. The correction or reply shall not in any case remit other legal liabilities that may have been incurred.


- - - Updated - - -
Did you see the C of S reply in the same way the Atheist has a right of reply?

The Atheist's name was Thomas Szasz yet only one person got it in one of the first posts.

Nope, you are wrong. I have never gone by that name.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It might be funny for some extremist writers within the Christian faith wrote articles in a extremist Christian magazine to equate atheism with Pol Pot which of course I stress there is zero connection and is complete nonsense. Now given this is repeated in further articles, then I am sure that for some Atheists it will not be entertaining.

However if a representative atheist writer were permitted to write a rebuttal in the same magazine then we would have a true freedom of speech.

Here is one reference:

The American Convention on Human Rights requires its state parties to introduce either a right of reply or a right of correction. Article 14 states:
http://www.article19.org/pages/en/right-of-reply.html

1. Anyone injured by inaccurate or offensive statements or ideas disseminated to the public in general by a legally regulated medium of communication has the right to reply or to make a correction using the same communications outlet, under such conditions as the law may establish.

2. The correction or reply shall not in any case remit other legal liabilities that may have been incurred.


- - - Updated - - -
Did you see the C of S reply in the same way the Atheist has a right of reply?

The Atheist's name was Thomas Szasz yet only one person got it in one of the first posts.

Nope, you are wrong. I have never gone by that name.

Shhh; don't let anyone know that.