4 ms·
Though plenty has been said elsewhere about the content of Scientology's beliefs and books, the post you're replying to said nothing about it. If you're going
by marshray 14y ago
Though plenty has been said elsewhere about the content of Scientology's beliefs and books, the post you're replying to said nothing about it.
If you're going to have a knee-jerk reaction or post some other canned response, you could at least try to make it a little bit relevant.
EDIT: Wait a minute...it seems that was a top-level comment. Were you even replying at all?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- dinkumthinkum 14y agoI think there is probably something wrong with the mere fact that Scientology exists. :)
- marshray 14y agoIf Scientology did not exist, Scientologists would be forced to invent it.
- marshray 14y agoI fail to see what is wrong with that. Sponsored "news" articles or paid-for comment moderation? It depends on what your definition of 'wrong' is I suppose. The idea of a news publication for most readers is that it should be unbiased. Of course, that's probably impossible in an absolute sense, but presenting paid content with "news" brings disrepute upon the publication. Of course they marked it as paid content, but some people noticed that disclaimer and some folks did not. So we could discuss the degree to which the notice was prominent enough, or whether The Atlantic is simply offering its masthead (along with any remaining credibility) up for sale. Of course, the reason we're talking about this specific case of The Atlantic selling sponored content or Scientology buying ad placement is because it seems to be such an odd juxtaposition to most of us. Edit: Wow, I like to say "Of course" a lot. I must think I'm pretty hot stuff!