Revision as of 18:47, 9 March 2007 editSmee (talk | contribs)28,728 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:50, 9 March 2007 edit undoJustanother (talk | contribs)9,266 edits →Good article: questionNext edit → | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
**(EC)''I would simply say that they go for you as well.'' They do. You know, as much as you claim that I miscast your motives, I wonder if you have been doing me the same disservice. I have stated time and again that I do not care what critical material appears here; I just want the critics to play by the rules. The "older" Scientology critics here have heard me say that before and, I think, they know I mean it. Maybe not knowing that is part of the problem. --] 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | **(EC)''I would simply say that they go for you as well.'' They do. You know, as much as you claim that I miscast your motives, I wonder if you have been doing me the same disservice. I have stated time and again that I do not care what critical material appears here; I just want the critics to play by the rules. The "older" Scientology critics here have heard me say that before and, I think, they know I mean it. Maybe not knowing that is part of the problem. --] 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
***Indeed. Perhaps. ] 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC). | ***Indeed. Perhaps. ] 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC). | ||
****Smee, I have a talk-type thing to say to you. Where do I put it? --] 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:50, 9 March 2007
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scieno Sitter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Internet culture B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
Anette Refstrup
From Politiken (Denmark), 19.2.1999: "Members have their own choice if they want it or not, but we give it to them to protect them, not for controlling them", says Anette Refstrup. "We want to protect them against manipulated thoughts when they are at such a spiritual level that they can't deal with critisism". --Tilman 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Good article
Smee, this is a good article and you are certainly a competent researcher and writer. Please do not let your POV cause you to fight with me over minor POV flaws that I may see in it. I am sensitive to subtle shading and nuancing that you might not see. Just as you might see such in my edits that I do not perceive. That is OK. If I address something that you do not agree with please practice 1RR and bring it here rather than edit war. For my part I will move toward compromise if you will do the same and I think that we have just seen that occur. The one thing that is not open to compromise is including non-RS highly POV material. You do not "compromise" by "balancing" it or only including half of it. While the article proper does not contain such, there is the improper use of "convenience links" that I will be addressing. But not in this post. This is a conciliatory friendly post and I do not want to argue here. --Justanother 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Smee, this is a good article and you are certainly a competent researcher and writer. Thank you for saying that. Coming from you, that is certainly... interesting .. to hear. And most appreciated. Your suggestions make sense, I would simply say that they go for you as well... Smee 17:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
- For my part I will move toward compromise if you will do the same and I think that we have just seen that occur. - Hopefully, hopefully... Smee 17:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
- (EC)I would simply say that they go for you as well. They do. You know, as much as you claim that I miscast your motives, I wonder if you have been doing me the same disservice. I have stated time and again that I do not care what critical material appears here; I just want the critics to play by the rules. The "older" Scientology critics here have heard me say that before and, I think, they know I mean it. Maybe not knowing that is part of the problem. --Justanother 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Perhaps. Smee 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
- Smee, I have a talk-type thing to say to you. Where do I put it? --Justanother 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Perhaps. Smee 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC).