|
If this were just an isolated incident, I wouldn't bother
commenting
upon it. You have engaged in the same sort of chicanery (perhaps
self-delusion) a number of times here on other matters. You insist
that "mind control" is a fact, but when pressed you are unable
to
provide any substantial evidence to support this alleged fact.
Rather than admitting there is no hard evidence to support the
assertion that "mind control" exists, you repeatedly engaged in
the
same defense:
You argue from authority, pointing out Margaret Singer and Steve
Hassan's books. When that argument is countered,
You demand that others prove a negative, that is, that "mind
control" does not exist. When that argument is countered,
You mention -- in quite vague terms -- ongoing research that will
soon be published that will resoundingly prove the existence of "mind
control," all the while claiming that such research is impossible
because of ethical problems in research design. (I'm still waiting to
learn about that last "soon to be published" research coming
from
someone in Lousiana, was it?) When the irrationality of your argument
is countered,
You descend to attacking those who disagree with your opinion by
attaching any number of loaded-language labels to them -- "ivory
tower
academics," "cult apologists," "paid cult dupes,"
etc.
You've followed this pattern enough times in the past that I have no
difficulty predicting what your responses will be before you post
them, Monica, although I must admit I'm surprised at times over the
virulence of your animosity towards those who disagree with your
opinion (which you're convinced is "fact"). Diane Richardson
referen@bway.net |
