On 3 Sep 2006 at 8:31, William T Goodall wrote: > > Perhaps if you read the origional again? I gave plenty of evidence, > > which starts with the fact that they operate as whatever sort of > > organisation better suits the area. They not a religion, they are a > > form of organised crime (especially in America). > > You are assuming that being a form of organised crime precludes it > being a religion?
Right, so now you introduce another form of relationship which you can use to bash religion into your email and to try and distract from the real point. You are assuming that scientology is a religion, still. > But many religions are organised and dupe people > into giving them money by telling outrageous lies. What's that if it > isn't organised crime? The people at the heads of a religion, BELIEVE. The heads of scientology use it as a tool to milk cash from the lower echelons. "Let´s sell these people a piece of blue sky." - L. Ron Hubbard to an associate in 1950, soon after the opening of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. (Jon Atack, A PIECE OF BLUE SKY: SCIENTOLOGY, DIANETICS AND L. RON HUBBARD EXPOSED, Lyle Stuart/Carol Publishing Group. 1990) "MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 9 March 1972, MS OEC 384 > Hint: the links between the Catholic Church > and the Mafia aren't an accident. The vast majority of upper echelons of the Catholic Church are believers. Also, there are far stronger Mafia links in every Italian government. Where is your rant against them? Oh, right, you're a selective biggot. > And the Catholic Church is the > largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and > they've been covering that up for centuries. The stats really don't support that. It's more propaganda. > As for 'what suits the area' - Christian evangelists have a long > history of representing themselves as language teachers or family > planning advisors in countries where evangelism isn't welcome so I > suppose that means Christianity isn't a religion by your broken > definition. Try going back and reading what I typed again. For reference, no, that's YOUR broken definition which you are applying to something entire other than what I actually typed. You're reading more into what I type than what is there. I don't mean a single thing more. This is deliberate - it avoids assumptions (it is designed, and was taught to me, for dealing with people from other cultures). You write in a way which is nothing but a structure of assumptions leaping off the others words. AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
