02Jun01a Re Dallam article (Mark, Frans)

Will this [The Dallam article] be posted to Ipce?
Note the typo in the last paragraph: "strident" for "stringent".
— Mark

Frans replies and adds:

The typo is in the original text as it is on line. It is downloaded here, not scanned from a paper version. Let's not change her article and let is be what it is. It seems to be a Freudian typo :-)

Let's put it on the public Ipce web at the next update, just as we have put critics like Laura, NARTH and David Spiegel on it. The reader can judge himself how weak this article is. Dallam repeats only what some critics have said and does even not mention the replies of the RBT Team to them.
The reasoning is very weak. The 'evidence' is: (1) Ped-propagandists say ...A..B..Z.. (2) The Rind team says A... B... Y.. (3) The Rind team is a ped-propagandist.
The underlying but not explicit belief is: "Pedophilia is wrong, writing positively about P is propaganda, thus propaganda for P is wrong."

We also can add comment and correct the incorrect information about Ipce and the incorrect links.

If I may say: there was no real attack on Ipce in the article (we had suspected this). Ipce is only mentioned, be it partly incorrect and outdated, as part of a movement in which she places also Paidika, NAMBLA, Reverend Hans Visser and the RBT team. This is an opinion, not an attack. The links to the chat or discussion sites are not mentioned in the article.

Frans