the information is in the book?

Question answered by honorarykid in Scientology

remiel asked this question on 8/18/2000:

freedom of religion denied me the right to response by closing his question. This is the answer I gave to his question about people 'dissing' scientology, plus his response to me.

'People should know the truth about everything.

However, what you are implying is that the critics have some form of 'dark past'. THey do not. This is a standard technique of the church called 'black PR', attacking the source, not the information. It is fairly disgusting, if you ask me.'

His answer was: 'The information is in the book Dianetics. That is what you are denying people.'

freedom of religion appears to be responding to something I haven't said. Can anyone tell me where I was 'denying people' the information in Dianetics? I've never opposed its sale, I just personally think it is hogwash. I also think Roger Scruton's works on political theory are hogwash. I have no problem with people buying, reading, or believing works by L Ron Hubbard or Roger Scruton. I do however have a problem with organisations or individuals hurting people and breaking the law. Therefore, I oppose a lot of Roger Scruton's 'new right' associates and their incitements to racial hatred. Therefore I oppose the exploitation that takes place within the Church of Scientology.

Anyway, my question: Is it fair to deny someone the right to respond to a question you yourself have asked?

honorarykid gave this response on 8/18/2000:

No, it's not fair. But then, you know and I know that the question was not asked in order to solicit serious responses or generate an honest discussion. We know that like so many other Scientologists, this particular questioner merely wanted a one-way communication session, merely wanted to preach at people without listening to them, merely wanted to spread implications and innuendo to sully the names of and/or positions taken by critics of Scientology with no opportunity for rebuttals.

That's a funny thing, I really don't think the questioner understood at all that their are many ways to answer leading questions. When he/she saw that people were answering in ways that defeated his/her purposes, the question was abruptly ended.

Is this yet another example of Scientology's definition of being better able to communicate? ;-)

And obviously, you've defeated that technique. You can post follow ups and "questions" in this new thread till the cows come home! ;-)

By the way, my answers also started to receive the boringly familiar and non-sequitur rebuke that all of lifes's answers are found in the book "Dianetics" and I ought to read it.

To the questioner who so generously seeks to inform me about the wonders of Dianetics, let me assure you that I HAVE read it! I know what it says. Dianetics is complete hogwash. And it's sexist, belittling, misogynistic hogwash at that. I urge you to please pull your head out... of that particular book, and read a different book. For example, you might read Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark."

G'day!

remiel rated this answer:

I too have read Dianetics. I have almost certainly read more Scientology texts than the individual in question. For example, the OT levels and the NOTs

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.