Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
To rephrase my earlier point, who exactly are they trying to fool here, except people who are already fooled and want to stay that way? Do they really think that the mass of people who read Don Rutledge's account, John Ingalls account, Steve Isitt's account, to name three, and then read the half-dozen "facts" (assertions really) on their essay will then say, "There, that's settled. LSM surely produced the last word on this!"
|
We have no way of knowing how many people have read these various writings, but just here on this forum, the
Speaking the Truth in Love book post shows 28,000 views. Even if half those views were bots, where is the other 14,000 coming from? It might be reasonable to assume that many in the LC have read these writings.
Interestingly enough, it doesn't mean they became 'negative' immediately upon reading it. Quite to the contrary, everyone makes their own decisions. Some read these things and don't assign any particular meaning to them. Others read it and feel that it's not an important enough issue to worry about. Then there are all those who have left who felt the issues were too important to ignore.
In other words, people still in the LC who have already read these writings have already made their own decisions about it (at least for now). The DCP comes in after the fact, telling people not to read what they've already read or trying to explain away issues that people have perhaps already dismissed. I guess the LC wouldn't be the LC without being the echo chamber that it is, but my point is that LC members really should see the way that leadership reacts to these things as suspect.