Iamsemisweet
Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011 From: The Great Northwest, USA Status: offline
|
Your concern about the correction hardly proves your argument. It is possible to make a mistake. He did the right thing by correcting it, but because he did, now you don't consider him credible? As for the other writer's delay, who knows? It takes a lot of courage to speak out against someone who the church's publicity machine packaged as a living saint. quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote:
ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet You were given two sources. That wasn't acceptable to you, because they were both atheists. My question is, why do you think they both have the same agenda? When I go to post something, I get more than one source... and look for any possibilities of conflicting information. I do realize not everyone does so. Why is it an issue now that I ask when I have asked on more than one thread, and often times, not on one related to religion? You will have to show me where I said they had the same agenda. However, take the reverse. If publications had come out stating Hitchens was a fruitcake, and the only sources were religious.... come on Now, why havent you addressed both the correction that you noted had to be made by Hitchens, whom you claim "researched the hell" out of this? So, we have one writer who "researched the hell" out of her, and couldnt post without needing a correction on a point that he should have known about if your statement were true. And we have another who, despite having worked with the woman, as he claimed, required a 10 years to write his own book, published after her death. Now, maybe, when you stop seeing red and calm down, you might actually.. Oh, I dunno... ask my OPINION on the woman instead of assuming I am saying things I have not said?
_____________________________
Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people. The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad. Alice: How do you know I'm mad? The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.
|