Today I found online an online journal that publishes an article critical of Arkeon . I mention it not because I find it particularly relevant, for good or evil, but because it seems an excellent example of the journalism heard that rages in the network. I quote here the exchange spoke with a journalist.
For those interested, I report on the same magazine, another intervention - I say delusional - which witnesses Jehovah's , in which I invite you to read the exchange with other readers. You will notice that the subject of the journalist to respond to criticism is always the same: "Do not faccamo comparisons that show the inconsistencies of what I say."
------
KLEE. Hi
In her article she gives a lengthy introduction on the concept of psycho "to get to say that in my opinion Arkeon is a psycho-sect, and certainly controversial with something unclear, gave himself that has been and is being of investigation.
It seems, however, that his definition of psycho is quite confusing. The concepts that you claim to be two elements of the standard psycho (indoctrination isolation) are in fact defined so vaguely that potrebberso fit (for example) the conversion of the saints and the cloistered life:
1) indoctrination: "total detachment from the old values \u200b\u200b(St. Francis who denies the richness and career of arms); submission methods and readings difficult to understand (he never read the Apocalypse of St. John?) encouraging respect for hierarchy and obedience, loyalty, adeguento the rules of the congregation (ca va sans say!).
2) isolation, "uprooting the family background of the subject (think of the nuns), remove their privacy and" confide " with other followers (think of the nuns), some psycho-sect then there is also a financial dependency (think of the nuns).
Also, when you also share his definition of a psycho, it seems thought the Scientology case, and seems to adapt very little to chance Arkeon that you take for example. It 'difficult to understand in fact what could be the insulation in a path based not on a community, but on a two-day seminars are held 3 or 4 times a year (as I have already expressed indoctrination).
This leads me to believe that what she calls his "opinion" on the case Arkeon is not based on knowledge diretta di Arkeon, ma più probabilmente su fonti indirette: probabilmente ciò che viene riportato da articoli di altri giornalisti o pareri di alcuni “studiosi” (per altro parte in causa nella vicenda Arkeon). Cioè la sua opinione sarebbe in effetti la loro opinione.
Forse ha letto anche gli atti giudiziari del rinvio a giudizio degli indagati di Arkeon e magari alcune testimonianze delle presunte vittime. Anche se questi vengono di solito chiamati fatti, in effetti non lo sono: un rinvio dice solo che l’accusa crede ci sia un reato e le testimonianze dicono solo che il testimone afferma delle cose…purtroppo la cronaca giudiziaria è piena di PM che prendono cantonate e di testimoni confusi o che dicono il falso. You can talk about facts when it comes to the end of a process. And even then only talking about legal truth.
Many journalists, in the three years since the beginning of this story, have lined up to explain to those who came before and what are the psycho Arkeon what they knew. Journalists and leading journalists on Sunday. If he wanted to make a different contribution and not just tag along, you may also try searching for evidence by the opposing party. Because the point is not whether there are seven or psiscosette: if the abstract idea is that there are facts has anything to do with individual companies that happen to us before our eyes, and that seems to look even. In If the court to read the site http://ilcasoarkeon.wordpress.com/
JOURNALIST
Hi, my articles
them sign and also my face. She criticizes my views remain anonymous. Legitimate choice is clear, however, if the object of criticism is what I write, you should make, at least for a form of courtesy ... Honestly
his speech and rhetoric for its own sake, do not see why you should make a comparison between Arkeon , Scientology and the Church. There are three different things and I find it inappropriate comparison. As it is decidedly at odds with Scientology, I never made any comparison with other groups, congregations or religious communities. In this
article speaks of Arkeon. If it operates on the subject there are no problems if he continues to make inappropriate comparisons, his comments will not be published.
What can I say? You are free to remain anonymous and to criticize my articles. But if he wants a response by the undersigned with respect to his claims, must be presented.
Sincerely.
KLEE
Mine is not a rhetorical intervention. I ask if - when he claims to have done a review in which he writes and publishes a magazine that his opinion - to clarify on what basis has made this view. Because from what transpires says that she probably has no direct knowledge but only indirectly to what he writes. And then I would understand if his sources are indirect printing (I say that he says they say ...) or have consulted some documents.
I would say instead of its article was rhetorical. Makes statements such as that already given, so vague as to be suits the most diverse situations. And when the third are some examples that just should not hit anything but well within its definition in order to highlight the generic, she says that is not relevant. If you do not agree on the merits, I will respond in the matter.
http://klee2009.blogspot.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment