Comments on: The Great Debate

By: David

David — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:33:02 +0000

Sounds just as expected. Hope the idiot gets a life one of these days, something high powered like flipping burgers for MacDonalds.

By: XENU TV

XENU TV — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:40:13 +0000

Oddly enough, being nothing more than an OSA op to distract people from looking ar critical sites, TruthSeeker refused to show his/her face in public or even respond rationally to a question on the internet.

In short, TruthSeeker is a lying coward. The perfect example of the end product of Scientology training.

By: David

David — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 06:25:49 +0000

What happenned to this debate?

By: raiko

raiko — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 15:04:15 +0000

I’ve been checking out some of the Xenu TV stuff in YouTube, and I must say it’s quite interesting. The way, for example, how mr. Bunker patiently and rationally handles totally inane accusations, is admirable! I highly advise these videoclips to better learn how to elegantly stand against this kind of attempts to vex. Xenu TV is also journalistically proffessional.

By: Artoo45

Artoo45 — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 00:47:53 +0000

Thanks for the fine clarification Nooj. I too admire Touretzky’s methodical and structured style. He definitely keeps his cool. I also admire Mark’s composure and humor under fire. I myself come from the “Let Hubbard’s own Insanity Speak For Itself” school . . . and am also clearly influenced by my years studying at the “Warner Bros. Acme™ Academy of Wisecracking and Smartassdom”. Hubbard and all his “works” are simply irresistible to me, since the more serious they get, the funnier they are (oh, except for all the dead people, ill-gotten gain, and the occasional small-child-in-the-chain-locker stories).

As for bias? Are you a large, relatively hairless primate? Then you’re biased. Any scientist worth their salt would tell you that bias is their constant companion. I say, just admit it and be vigilant
and honest about it. We wouldn’t all be so interested in this organization if we didn’t dislike the way it does business, eh?

By: Nooj

Nooj — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:49:40 +0000

Hey Artoo. I should clarify. Peer review should be testing each others’ points, not their credibility. I’ve read TS’ posts at a.r.s., and his methods of criticism are either suspiciously harsh, or honestly awkward. Now some critics are biased as well (like I find Lerma’s criticism mostly biased). I’d like to advocate David Touretzky’s style of criticism: academic, disciplined, and structured. He probably wouldn’t be right all the time, but he is doing this professionally. Mark’s letter of invitation for TS seems a little harsh, as if he’s lowering himself to also having a personal vendetta. All I’m to Tory and Mark is, tread carefully, because they both have a lot to lose and nothing to gain.

By: Krueger

Krueger — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:52:00 +0000

TruthSeeker will not show up. It’s much easier to debate when he’s hiding behind a computer.

Also, if Tory were to debate with him, TruthSeeker will just be shooting a stupid videocamera at her the whole time.

By: Artoo45

Artoo45 — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:01:04 +0000

Nooj, I believe that it’s because they are NOT, in reality, the “same side” that Mark has offered the venue for debate.

By: roro

roro — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:23:17 +0000

How about Tory vs. Mike Rinder? Or Tom Cruise, even? Hell, I’d pay to see that.

By: Nooj

Nooj — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:09:26 +0000

Hey Mark. I don’t really see any reason for two at the same side to go at each others’ throats. That’s not how peer review is supposed to work.