Changes

Yes, I understand that perfectly.  I have viewed that and other sites and I understand that your edit is of information on the site you mention.  Those statements exist as part of a body of information we might call "criticism of scientology". Let me give you a parallel situation, okay?  Your friend, Ronny has just invented ice cream and conservapedia runs an article titled "Ice Cream", okay?  You've tried ice cream and know what it is.  But Joe (who lives in The Netherland) has never tried ice cream.  HOWEVER, Joe feels his statements about ice cream are valid and he posts them on his personal website.  Joe's statements include, "Ice cream causes warts".  Should that go in a conservapedia article?

Yes, I understand that perfectly.  I have viewed that and other sites and I understand that your edit is of information on the site you mention.  Those statements exist as part of a body of information we might call "criticism of scientology". Let me give you a parallel situation, okay?  Your friend, Ronny has just invented ice cream and conservapedia runs an article titled "Ice Cream", okay?  You've tried ice cream and know what it is.  But Joe (who lives in The Netherland) has never tried ice cream.  HOWEVER, Joe feels his statements about ice cream are valid and he posts them on his personal website.  Joe's statements include, "Ice cream causes warts".  Should that go in a conservapedia article?

: The situation is parallel because the source, the Church of Scientology, (Or your friend Ronny) does not say anything like that. But a number of person websites who have never understood what ice cream is, say "ice cream causes warts".  If you follow ?  [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: The situation is parallel because the source, the Church of Scientology, (Or your friend Ronny) does not say anything like that. But a number of person websites who have never understood what ice cream is, say "ice cream causes warts".  If you follow ?  [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 21:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)