User talk:Damien Storey: Difference between revisions
imported>Michael MacNeil (Fixed Link) |
imported>Damien Storey |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Hello. I noted your comment about how deletion of the article would constitute a relief, and really do have to agree with you. I also agree about a huge criticism section, in my heart of hearts. But, as someone who has been victimized by Scientology, I do have to note that maybe the best way to put a thorn in the lion's foot is, indeed, to write a truthful and neutral article. I spend a lot of time on schooling and similar right now, so frankly, if you're so disposed, maybe you could lend a hand with it since you seemed to express interest? IF not, I fully understand. In the meantime, I'm devising a replacement article, one that mentions Xenu and other core aspects of the doctrine, including the invisible alien ghosts. Thanks for your time. [[User:Michael MacNeil|Michael MacNeil]] 13:00, 25 May 2007 (CDT) | Hello. I noted your comment about how deletion of the article would constitute a relief, and really do have to agree with you. I also agree about a huge criticism section, in my heart of hearts. But, as someone who has been victimized by Scientology, I do have to note that maybe the best way to put a thorn in the lion's foot is, indeed, to write a truthful and neutral article. I spend a lot of time on schooling and similar right now, so frankly, if you're so disposed, maybe you could lend a hand with it since you seemed to express interest? IF not, I fully understand. In the meantime, I'm devising a replacement article, one that mentions Xenu and other core aspects of the doctrine, including the invisible alien ghosts. Thanks for your time. [[User:Michael MacNeil|Michael MacNeil]] 13:00, 25 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
:I certainly agree that an accurate, neutral article is needed and, indeed, will - by the very fact of being accurate - reflect badly on it. Unfortunately, Scientology is one of the few subjects that 'd prefer not to know about and looking at its doctrines is likely to anger me - so I think I'd get too little pleasure and be too biased to be of any help getting it up to scratch. Good luck with it! [[User:Damien Storey|Damien Storey]] 13:17, 25 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 13:17, 25 May 2007
I've restored Elenchus, let me know if anything is still missingGareth Leng 06:06, 21 February 2007 (CST)
Re: Scientology (doctrine)
Hello. I noted your comment about how deletion of the article would constitute a relief, and really do have to agree with you. I also agree about a huge criticism section, in my heart of hearts. But, as someone who has been victimized by Scientology, I do have to note that maybe the best way to put a thorn in the lion's foot is, indeed, to write a truthful and neutral article. I spend a lot of time on schooling and similar right now, so frankly, if you're so disposed, maybe you could lend a hand with it since you seemed to express interest? IF not, I fully understand. In the meantime, I'm devising a replacement article, one that mentions Xenu and other core aspects of the doctrine, including the invisible alien ghosts. Thanks for your time. Michael MacNeil 13:00, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
- I certainly agree that an accurate, neutral article is needed and, indeed, will - by the very fact of being accurate - reflect badly on it. Unfortunately, Scientology is one of the few subjects that 'd prefer not to know about and looking at its doctrines is likely to anger me - so I think I'd get too little pleasure and be too biased to be of any help getting it up to scratch. Good luck with it! Damien Storey 13:17, 25 May 2007 (CDT)