User talk:Damien Storey

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)

I understand, believe me. It's not easy for me either! I've been through -eight- drafts, mostly written during class. The current article is point blank unacceptable as an encyclopedic introduction, I think most people could agree on that. I find much of what I learned about Scientology through research to be disturbing, and understand why you want to keep your distance. It's a dirty job, but SOMEONE has to do it. It might take me a few months, but I'll do it, and do it well. Later. Michael MacNeil 12:31, 26 May 2007 (CDT)