From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A few definitions
Message-ID: <1991Nov10.204802.168392@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 91 20:48:02 GMT
References: <1991Nov9.114625.4752@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> <12f_AY-@engin.umich.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Lines: 21
Nntp-Posting-Host: gandalf.cs.cmu.edu

In article <12f_AY-@engin.umich.edu> davidb@caen.engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell) writes: >It is very interesting that you so strongly state below that I should give >evidence for my claims when you have none for yours! Find someone else to >slam for fun. >As soon as you prove your claims I will be more than happy to demonstrate mine.

It's quite the logical leap, from noting that Crunchy Frog gave no evidence, to concluding that he has none.

While you are demonstrating *your* evidence, could you throw in the name of *one* important scientist or chess player who credits Scientology for their intellectual successes? Just one would do, and no, I am not demanding anything extreme, such as a Nobel winner or world champion. I've asked others before, but still no answer.

I believe that Transcendental Meditation can come up with such names. If Scientology can't, and if Scientology's big defence is that "it works!", then shouldn't you consider switching to TM? -- Don D.C.Lindsay Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank