I have deleted both sides of this endless back and forth because I am tired of reading the comments so I just trash tme instead. They are absolutely pointless. Everyone has had their say.

Geeze, Mike. I didn’t think you would allow others to post comparable – or more extreme – comments to mine – but then delete mine.

– I don’t honestly know what I’m talking about here, but, I’m willing to bet a fat dollar all of Hollywood is so pissed off to find out and see what has been happening right in their own back yard that NO WAY would they be willing to glorify or give any sort or recognition in favor of anything film-wise to the likes of Tom Cruise. Too bad for the good people who work on that particular set…
Ask the Academy:
Scientology and Hollywood do not mix.

Sure , dear. 🙂

Yes, I did look over her “paper”. It was a laugh riot. It reminded me of a junior high term paper that deserved a D- at best. The modern version would be constructing a “scholarly document” using Wikipedia as your only source.

Facts are not to be interpreted. They are facts. You are grasping at straws here. All of the official documentation cries bullshit on Hubbard’s military claims. Lake did not construct an argument which convinced you. She gave you a construct, and a shoddy one at that, which appealed to your own biases. In other words, you wanted what she wrote to be true, so you applied “If it’s true for you, it’s true” to it and made it your own.

The confusing sentence should read “Every single speculation she put out…” This is what you get for trying to touch-type on a tablet in the middle of a crowded airport (LAX, with no sign of Jenny Linson). As for citing specific examples, you aren’t doing so, so why should I?

Espiando: “…this isn’t a compare-and-contrast of subjective opinion like a comparison of reviews is. This is a disputation of facts.”

Yes, it’s a disputation of facts, but that gets into INTERPRETATION of the facts, and this is where opinions vary. Did you even look over Margaret’s paper? I doubt that you or anyone else here actually read it. Too bad, because it’s pretty interesting.

“Every single speculation she out out can be disproven using source documentation.”

Not sure what your saying in the above sentence. Can you explain, and cite a specific example?

Marildi, this isn’t a compare-and-contrast of subjective opinion like a comparison of reviews is. This is a disputation of facts. Lake used methids that would have embarrassed Nancy Drew. Every single speculation she out out can be disproven using source documentation. Oh, how ironic, Source taken down by source.

Quite a remarkable argument, Peter. I’ve copied it for my files.

Okay, TC. Thanks for the apology.