Changes

:: Possibly you don't grasp the point I am trying to make.  Would you quote a whole book to substantiate a phrase?  The situation here is not that bad, but is bad enough.  Say you were having a friend read the article, he came to "mind control" and is interested.  How can he go about finding out who, where, what and how the Church is accused of mind control.  As it stands he has no choice at all.  He must read through all of the ''Time'' article.  Perhaps he is interested in mind control techniques and wants to find out what the Church has used, toward applying it because, say, he is a policeman.  It makes a very large read for him, we could serve our readers better by being more specific with our presentation.

:: Possibly you don't grasp the point I am trying to make.  Would you quote a whole book to substantiate a phrase?  The situation here is not that bad, but is bad enough.  Say you were having a friend read the article, he came to "mind control" and is interested.  How can he go about finding out who, where, what and how the Church is accused of mind control.  As it stands he has no choice at all.  He must read through all of the ''Time'' article.  Perhaps he is interested in mind control techniques and wants to find out what the Church has used, toward applying it because, say, he is a policeman.  It makes a very large read for him, we could serve our readers better by being more specific with our presentation.

* One other point, Tmtoulouse.  It has become obvious that you don't, of your own knowledge, understand the subject nor understand its foundation, Dianetics.  This is not an accusation.  It has become further obvious that your intention is to present the article in such a way as to make small of (at least) the philosophy and religion which is Scientology. The Time article happened years ago.  Criticisms you have presented into the article happend some years ago.  In recent years there have been far fewer court cases, far less of the controversial attitude that (at least on a-r-s) made Scientology a topic of conversation.  Let us write a good article for Conservapedia, let us create an article that can be read and written about and talked about and pointed to as good information.  Very few good sources of information exist by third parties, lots of third party information is a rehash of Xenu.net and KSplaink's view about the subject. Scientology is large, let us not treat it in as a target to throw tomatoes at. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 22:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

* One other point, Tmtoulouse.  It has become obvious that you don't, of your own knowledge, understand the subject nor understand its foundation, Dianetics.  This is not an accusation.  It has become further obvious that your intention is to present the article in such a way as to make small of (at least) the philosophy and religion which is Scientology. The Time article happened years ago.  Criticisms you have presented into the article happend some years ago.  In recent years there have been far fewer court cases, far less of the controversial attitude that (at least on a-r-s) made Scientology a topic of conversation.  Let us write a good article for Conservapedia, let us create an article that can be read and written about and talked about and pointed to as good information.  Very few good sources of information exist by third parties, lots of third party information is a rehash of Xenu.net and KSplaink's view about the subject. Scientology is large, let us not treat it in as a target to throw tomatoes at. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 22:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)