From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Attack, Never Defend
Message-ID: <14331@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 12 Aug 91 22:56:41 GMT
References: <CHRISTIR.91Aug10162240@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 28
Nntp-Posting-Host: gandalf.cs.cmu.edu

In article <CHRISTIR.91Aug10162240@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> 
	christir@mentor.cc.purdue.edu writes:
>the following are some descriptions of behaviour i have observed in
>one or more scientologists.  i'm wondering if someone could tell me if
>this is related to scientology...

>1)  not responding to someone who is arguing with you.
...
>10) a tendency to attack those who speak negatively about scientology

This sounds pretty much in line with the phrase we've heard right
here on this newsgroup, "attack, never defend".

On reflection, I think that it's a bad attitude. People who follow
this line are hard to put up with, much as Est graduates can be (as
witness the existence of the phrase "Esthole").

It's also condusive to uncritical thinking.  Sure, perhaps the
subject-at-hand *could* be defended...  but such people are just
asking for the situation where they *can't*, but haven't noticed. It
may be Scientology, but it's the opposite of science.

Critical thinking is in short enough supply already, without policies
designed to undercut it. 

-- 
Don		D.C.Lindsay 	Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute