I have never salivated over anybody here. In the majority of my critical posts, I have referenced LRH policy, court cases, personal experience and opinion, or factual, provable occurances.
If you disagree, and want to paint me as dishonest, or a hysterical over-reacting stereotypical ocmb critic who is somehow a detriment to the exposure of the crimes of scientology, please prove it. Find one single post where I have "salivated" over Paul Horner or any other critic. I have not. I also don't "attack, attack attack" critics like you do. I have proved that:
Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:41 am Post subject:
OK Chad, enough is enough. I took a look through your 75 posts since you showed up here May 21st, 2005 and here is what I found:
0 posts exposing scientology
6 posts supporting scientologists or freezoners
All the rest containing sniping jabs at critics, your target du jour changes, but you have some favourites:
#1 with 27 slams - Tom Padgett
#2 " 23 " - Paul/Fred
#3 " 20 - Ladybird
#4 " 13 - Arnie Lerma
#5 " 6 - Lt. RichA
#6...You are just getting started on: J. Swift
You haven't been very nice to other critics either, like Lucy. In fact the general tone of all your posts is sneering, know-best and backstabbing.
I think being on your shit list is an honor! Thanks for the Birthday present!
If you think I am wrong, please defend your self. Oh, that's against your religion, isn't it? "Always attack, never defend." LRH
Here is an example of Chads "contributions" to this board:
On Sept 1, 2005
Arnie said: Dear 'chad', thank you for the opportunity to further teach ocmb's readers.
Okay, you're drunk.. or something similar.
Ad hominem as logical fallacy
"A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something objectionable about A,
3. therefore claim B is false."
this is what religious freedom watch uses, Logical Fallacy.. Ad Hominem. This is also what chad used. chad should study Logical Fallacy.. It is a subject I find very usedful deprogramming Scientologists. Thus is worth repeating, until enough people realize the importance of Logical Fallacy TECH.. which is where Hubbard stole the "DATA SERIES" in hugely abbreviated form.. and after all Hubbard did say, always goto source...
"An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or they are wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. "
Poisoning the well
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Poisoning the well is a pre-emptive logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting everything he is about to say.
This sort of reasoning involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:
1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. 2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.
The origin of the phrase comes from the belief in medieval times that outbreaks of bubonic plague were caused by Jews poisoning the water supply. Suggesting that someone was not to be trusted after accusing them of the unrelated crime of poisoning the water was effective rhetoric, but bad logic.
Before you listen to my opponent,
may I remind you that he has been in jail.
Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer.
Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem."
This is also what the Scientology Dead Agent pages use.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Guilt by association)
An association fallacy is a type of logical fallacy which asserts that qualities of one are inherently qualities of another, merely by association. The two types are sometimes referred to as "guilt by association" and "honor by association." Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and are often based in an appeal to emotion.
Guilt by association, also known as the "bad company fallacy" or the "company that you keep fallacy," is the logical fallacy of claiming that something must be false because of the people or organizations who support it. Some examples are:
* Atheism must be wrong â€” Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists, and just look at them.
* Osama bin Laden is a Muslim, so Islam is an evil religion.
* A few Catholic priests have molested children, so Catholicism is evil.
* Anti-war activists has made statements critical of Israel. Neo-nazis have made similar statements. Therefore, opposing the war is equivalent to supporting Nazism
The logical inverse of "guilt by association" is honor by association, where one claims that someone or something must be reputable because of the people or organisations who are related to it, or otherwise support it. For example:
* Alice is a lawyer, and Alice thinks highly of Bob. Therefore, Bob must know the law.
* Aaron will make a good race car driver, because his father was a good race car driver.
For that reason above, i felt it necessary to share the truth with Andreas, as a contrast to Scientology's lies. "
If my replies appear to you to be self aggrandizement, then perhaps the source of that fault lies elsewhere than with the person upon whome you projected the accusation..
is a different thing from ocmb.xenu.net.
This is making a distinction without a difference
is Andreas's primary creation and which he has control over, whereas ocmb.xenu.net is what he has created and left open to be abused, and IMHO, is abused by such as you and Arnie. And even by me !.
Now isnt it interesting that when I defend my views, after being attacked, made less of is the scientological programming term, by stating how things appear to me, then I am engaged in "self aggrandizement"
Out of respect for Andreas, I withdraw from any further discussion with you, until you demonstrate a level of logical thought that is appropriate for the high purpose of this board..
oh cool he's done...or at least says he is done...
wait, no he isnt, was he lying above? is has this entire posting as much credibility as the RFW pages that were sent to Andreas employer?
I'll leave it at this : Andreas is who Arnie wants to be but cant, so he leaches on OCMB by cutting and pasting copious amounts of oft-published texts and worse, irrelevant band-width grabbing graphics. I think it would be far better for OCMB if he didn't..
leaches, cutting and pasting, copious.. irrelevant..bandidth grabbing..
Nice array of words there, did you write this yourself or did you take it off the the latest dispatches from osa int? and 'wants to be' implies that I am somewhow uncomfortable inside my own identity.. I **really** think you should read more about me on Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
Of course Andreas would never agree, he's far too nice a guy for that.
I do believe the american slang term for this is called brown-nosing, he must want something that he feels he does not deserve..
Although I seem to recall him kicking Arnie of OCMB for exactly this reason ...mmmm ?.
The other thing Id like to point out, is that $cientology always accuses it's enemies of their own despicable acts..
Thank you for the opportunity to give a lesson by your example of Fallacious Argument...
6045 N 26th Rd
Arlington VA 22207
703 241 1498
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON
Judge Brinkema 29 Nov 1995
"the Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC [$cientology] in suing Lerma, DGS and The Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics."