Just the facts, ma`am
WHIPPERSNAPPER
ST>In article <3j6d0m$i...@mars.earthlink.net>,
ST>Vera Wallace <ve...@earthlink.net> wrote:
ST>>Typical. The woman (Deirdre) steals over $40,000 and all
ST>>you can do is complain because I rib her about
ST>>being fat?
ST>>What about the money she stole?
ST>Vera, honeylamkinclamcake, it's like this.
ST>I believe that you "rib" her about being fat, probably because your
ST>relationship to food is problematic for you.
ST>I do not believe your unsupported (and possibly libelous) allegations
ST>about the allegedly stolen money. If you wish to change this
ST>non-belief, showing me where she was indicted for the alleged crime
ST>would do a lot. Why did the church not press charges?
I can answer this one. The Church almost never prosecutes in such a
case. Lawsuits are never filed on members -- only on people who have
been expelled and who will not avail themselves of the Church's own
justice procedures. Someone who hasn't run away and seems intent upon
reform will practically always be given another chance.
The Church's justice methods are rather tame. One may be required to
work very hard to make amends or restitution. But there is no
imprisonment and no force used. The worst-case scenario is expulsion
and a declaration that the person is a "Suppressive." This however then
lays them open to lawsuit or criminal charges by the Church. Even then,
if the person communicates rationally and seems to be trying to correct
matters, the Church is quite likely to leave harsh "justice" out of it
and give the offender a lot of slack.
If Vera is right (I suspect she may be, though I greatly dislike her
tactics), and if the Church has proof of Dierdre's thefts, it may very
well have had the option to file charges -- and never done so.
[...]
---
ş OLX 2.1 TD ş This tagline is umop apisdn
Lenny Gray
: ste...@netcom.com (STella) writes:
:
: ...
:
: ST>>What about the money she stole?
:
: ...
:
: I can answer this one. The Church almost never prosecutes in such a
: case.
This is more misleading than accurate, and he knows it. In the church,
various written exercizes are done as _just_ that -- exercizes. In
evaluating what might be written in such an "exercize", recall the saying
"If it's true for _you_ then it's _true_ (for you)". Also note that along
the path to _finding_ such truth is the rehabilitation of creativity (a
major function of a being's aliveness) -- and recall that "_Lying_ is the
lowest form of creativity." The words "make one up" would _not_ be at all
out of line from a facilitator in getting one through a blockage of the
ability to recall or mock-up.
ISN'T THIS TRUE, CHURCHIES, SEMI-CHURCHIES, AND EX-CHURCHIES ?!!!!!
Knowing-how-to-know does _not_ involve "obfuscation", whether it has to
do with your perceived enemies or your friends.
If these battles were being fought with _truth_ rather than the BS I'm
seeing here, I'd be more inclined to describe my _positive_ experiences.
However, Integrity demands that I take the side of _truth_ in commenting
here. And I have to say -- the skeptics are showing more integrity than
"the faithful" in this newsgroup arena.
- Lenny Gray - (Friend of Truth -- not especially against Scientology)
STella
WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whip...@voyager.cris.com> wrote:
>ste...@netcom.com (STella) writes:
>ST>In article <3j6d0m$i...@mars.earthlink.net>,
>ST>Vera Wallace <ve...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>ST>>Typical. The woman (Deirdre) steals over $40,000 and all
>ST>>you can do is complain because I rib her about
>ST>>being fat?
>ST>>What about the money she stole?
>ST>Vera, honeylamkinclamcake, it's like this.
>ST>I believe that you "rib" her about being fat, probably because your
>ST>relationship to food is problematic for you.
>ST>I do not believe your unsupported (and possibly libelous) allegations
>ST>about the allegedly stolen money. If you wish to change this
>ST>non-belief, showing me where she was indicted for the alleged crime
>ST>would do a lot. Why did the church not press charges?
>I can answer this one. The Church almost never prosecutes in such a
>case. Lawsuits are never filed on members -- only on people who have
>been expelled and who will not avail themselves of the Church's own
>justice procedures. Someone who hasn't run away and seems intent upon
>reform will practically always be given another chance.
And if, after the statute of limitations on whatever you've "got" on
hir expires, sie does scoot? Why keep bringing up Old News that it
wasn't expedient to pursue at that time? Or why continue being
obsessed with the one that got away, rather than continuing to focus
on clearing the planet? What makes Deeny that damn important?
Why is Vera still stuck to Deirdre's alleged action, instead of moving
on, getting on with her life? Is she here to remind folks who were
once inside that she has their folders, and can use them to punish
their exercise of free speech? That seems, perhaps, paranoid, but
it's one of the more popular responses in my email, and if Co$ IS the
cult some have alleged, it becomes entirely believable.
I'm still trying to determine for myself whether she's stuck, or
sticking it to folks who post here about their time inside.
>The Church's justice methods are rather tame. One may be required to
I've read allegations to the contrary, of course, and I still haven't
decided what/who/how much I believe. Certainly, there are people
who've posted here who would disagree on the tameness, but I'm leaving
it "not proven".
>work very hard to make amends or restitution. But there is no
>imprisonment and no force used. The worst-case scenario is expulsion
I've read affadavits from several people, and I'm curious about how
the shared delusion that such IS used comes to be. No, five different
people telling me that there's an invisible elephant sitting on my car
wouldn't convince me there was, but I would wonder how they all got
the same nutzo idea.
>and a declaration that the person is a "Suppressive." This however then
>lays them open to lawsuit or criminal charges by the Church. Even then,
>if the person communicates rationally and seems to be trying to correct
>matters, the Church is quite likely to leave harsh "justice" out of it
>and give the offender a lot of slack.
This is pretty contrary to what I've heard from others, on and
off-line. I'm not saying it's wrong, thereby. I believe a good deal
less than half of what I read, or am told, about damnear anything.
Perhaps there's a contagious delusion among ex-churchers that leads
them to imagine that everything that goes wrong in their lives is
caused by the church. But when I see a fair number of scientologists
and their sympathizers harping on old news about their enemies's
antique sins, and behaving on a public newsgroup like people I
wouldn't want on my block, much less in my house (not EVEN if I could
put down newspapers beforehand), I find myself wondering....
I wonder why I don't read, here or elsewhere, about amicable partings
between the church and its cashcows.
I wonder why most of the folks I see defending the church strike me as
nasty, spiteful, and abusive, if this is NOT derived from what they
have in common.
I wonder how stupid some of the folks who post here think I am.
I'd LIKE to come to the conclusion that while some of the church's
alleged beliefs make me spray coffee out my nose laughing, it's in
general a force for good, but "by their fruits", I can't say that.
Yet.
Ever? One can hope.
But there's an old saying, "hope in one hand, and shit in the other,
and you'll see which one's fuller."
>If Vera is right (I suspect she may be, though I greatly dislike her
>tactics), and if the Church has proof of Dierdre's thefts, it may very
>well have had the option to file charges -- and never done so.
Why, then, if they missed their legal chance to do so, are they
spreading it all over the court of public opinion? Do they imagine
that this makes them look good to fairminded non-scientologists?
Why do they think we would see this as anything but ad hominem in the
absence of real debate? If they have a stronger case, I would love to
see it.
Or do they care what thoughts pass through our woggish little minds,
as long as the Deenys and Dennises keep their heads down?
I'd really like to feel that I could turn my back on this high-volume
newsgroup, and go read something less angry, and maybe a bit more
personally relevant to my beliefs. However, if there's a scorpion in
the room, I want to know where, and thus far, what I've seen is
frankly not something I feel comfortable having behind me.
ste...@netcom.com Steven James Tella
Jerking internet chain since before the Great Renaming
Tony Sidaway
Whip...@voyager.cris.com "WHIPPERSNAPPER" writes:
...
[Exposition on Cos treatment of offenders]
>
> If Vera is right (I suspect she may be, though I greatly dislike her
> tactics), and if the Church has proof of Dierdre's thefts, it may very
> well have had the option to file charges -- and never done so.
>
mud) but the problem for an impartial observer is that there is no
way of determining the guilt or otherwise of a person accused in this
way. If the church does not prosecute offenders when it can, thus
denying them due process, it has no right to accuse them when the
time limit for prosecution has lapsed.
Your charitable interpretation of the church's motives is only one
explanation, and is offered without evidence. It would not even be
acceptable in a court of law as mitigation of the offence of libel.
A less charitable person might surmise that, since the church was
under investigation by the IRS at the time, it did not dare risk
a criminal investigation in the course of which the true state of
its day-to-day running of the church might be revealed.
I make no claim one way or the other, but it should be clear to
an honest observer that the behaviour of the Scientologists who
have posted these allegations is very seriously wrong. It is a
serious misreading of the net environment to think that this kind
of smearing tactic can work to destroy Deirdre's credibility.
--
Tony Sidaway
to...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
"The most horrible thing they have done is to put out hundreds of messages
all over the net that say "free phone sex", with the scientologists'
toll-free phone number on it: 1-800-367-8788" --an21...@anon.penet.fi
"Poor little clams - snap! snap! snap!" --SubGenius Pope Charles of Houston
Keith A. Schauer
>ste...@netcom.com (STella) writes:
>
>ST>In article <3j6d0m$i...@mars.earthlink.net>,
>ST>Vera Wallace <ve...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>ST>>Typical. The woman (Deirdre) steals over $40,000 and all
>ST>>you can do is complain because I rib her about
>ST>>being fat?
>
>ST>>What about the money she stole?
>
>ST>Vera, honeylamkinclamcake, it's like this.
>
>ST>I believe that you "rib" her about being fat, probably because your
>ST>relationship to food is problematic for you.
>
>ST>I do not believe your unsupported (and possibly libelous) allegations
>ST>about the allegedly stolen money. If you wish to change this
>ST>non-belief, showing me where she was indicted for the alleged crime
>ST>would do a lot. Why did the church not press charges?
>
>I can answer this one. The Church almost never prosecutes in such a
>case. Lawsuits are never filed on members -- only on people who have
>been expelled and who will not avail themselves of the Church's own
>justice procedures. Someone who hasn't run away and seems intent upon
>reform will practically always be given another chance.
this is practical enuf that i would tend to believe keith
on this. has everyone filed charges when someone did something
illegal to them? if a friend ripped off something from you,
would you try to work it out between you? or would you immeadiately
press charges? whether or not charges were filed does not
mean the difference between fact or fiction.
>
>The Church's justice methods are rather tame. One may be required to
>work very hard to make amends or restitution. But there is no
>imprisonment and no force used. The worst-case scenario is expulsion
>and a declaration that the person is a "Suppressive." This however then
>lays them open to lawsuit or criminal charges by the Church. Even then,
>if the person communicates rationally and seems to be trying to correct
>matters, the Church is quite likely to leave harsh "justice" out of it
>and give the offender a lot of slack.
i don't agree to this. the church makes members sign agreements
that forbid using outside courts to resolve greievances, discussing
problems with outside people, petitioning the church in groups
of more than one. i think the churches 'justice' system is a
sham.
>
>If Vera is right (I suspect she may be, though I greatly dislike her
>tactics), and if the Church has proof of Dierdre's thefts, it may very
>well have had the option to file charges -- and never done so.
>
keith, i think its great you also dislike vera's tactics. i
wonder how people can expect to be respected and believed when
they rant and rave like a child. incredible. vera follows
sally in lack of class on ars. tho, at least vera hasn't resorted
to profanity like good ol sally would.
i've seen is a purported confession, a denial, and lots
of name calling. based on the immaturity of vera alone, i
think she has lost her case among the minds of most ars readers.
>
--
keith schauer plain o, texas
CB900C K100LT my company disavows any knowledge of my actions
DoD AMA TMRA DoF 2.5 %er
WHIPPERSNAPPER
KE>In article <3jafq1$h...@voyager.cris.com> Whip...@voyager.cris.com (WHIPPERS
KE>ER) writes:
KE>>ste...@netcom.com (STella) writes:
KE>>
KE>>ST>In article <3j6d0m$i...@mars.earthlink.net>,
KE>>ST>Vera Wallace <ve...@earthlink.net> wrote:
KE>>ST>>Typical. The woman (Deirdre) steals over $40,000 and all
KE>>ST>>you can do is complain because I rib her about
KE>>ST>>being fat?
KE>>
KE>>ST>I do not believe your unsupported (and possibly libelous) allegations
KE>>ST>about the allegedly stolen money. If you wish to change this
KE>>ST>non-belief, showing me where she was indicted for the alleged crime
KE>>ST>would do a lot. Why did the church not press charges?
KE>>
KE>>I can answer this one. The Church almost never prosecutes in such a
KE>>case. Lawsuits are never filed on members -- only on people who have
KE>>been expelled and who will not avail themselves of the Church's own
KE>>justice procedures. Someone who hasn't run away and seems intent upon
KE>>reform will practically always be given another chance.
KE> this is practical enuf that i would tend to believe keith
KE> on this. has everyone filed charges when someone did something
KE> illegal to them? if a friend ripped off something from you,
KE> would you try to work it out between you? or would you immeadiately
KE> press charges? whether or not charges were filed does not
KE> mean the difference between fact or fiction.
Exactly. Thanks for making sense.
KE>>The Church's justice methods are rather tame. One may be required to
KE>>work very hard to make amends or restitution. But there is no
KE>>imprisonment and no force used. The worst-case scenario is expulsion
KE>>and a declaration that the person is a "Suppressive." This however then
KE>>lays them open to lawsuit or criminal charges by the Church. Even then,
KE>>if the person communicates rationally and seems to be trying to correct
KE>>matters, the Church is quite likely to leave harsh "justice" out of it
KE>>and give the offender a lot of slack.
KE> i don't agree to this. the church makes members sign agreements
KE> that forbid using outside courts to resolve greievances, discussing
KE> problems with outside people, petitioning the church in groups
KE> of more than one. i think the churches 'justice' system is a
KE> sham.
I know of no such agreements. I've neither seen nor signed any such
thing in almost 19 years of continued affiliation with the Church.
With only isolated exceptions, I've seen the Church's justice system to
work quite well. Its worst flaw is that unsubstantiated reports are
sometimes accepted as valid evidence. Even this failing isn't inbuilt,
being a phenomenon of what I regard as Church "culture." I compare the
Church's approximation of "justice" quite favorably with that achieved
by the standard American courts.
KE>>If Vera is right (I suspect she may be, though I greatly dislike her
KE>>tactics), and if the Church has proof of Dierdre's thefts, it may very
KE>>well have had the option to file charges -- and never done so.
KE> keith, i think its great you also dislike vera's tactics. i
KE> wonder how people can expect to be respected and believed when
KE> they rant and rave like a child. incredible. vera follows
KE> sally in lack of class on ars. tho, at least vera hasn't resorted
KE> to profanity like good ol sally would.
KE> i've seen is a purported confession, a denial, and lots
KE> of name calling. based on the immaturity of vera alone, i
KE> think she has lost her case among the minds of most ars readers.
Perhaps Vera has lost *her* case. As I see it her case and that of the
Church (and of real Scientologists everywhere) are two different
matters.
---
ş OLX 2.1 TD ş It's only a hobby ... only a hobby ... only a
Tony Sidaway
Whip...@voyager.cris.com "WHIPPERSNAPPER" writes:
> ke...@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:
>
> KE>In article <3jafq1$h...@voyager.cris.com> Whip...@voyager.cris.com (WHIPPERS
> KE>ER) writes:
>
...
> KE>>The Church's justice methods are rather tame. One may be required to
> KE>>work very hard to make amends or restitution. But there is no
> KE>>imprisonment and no force used. The worst-case scenario is expulsion
> KE>>and a declaration that the person is a "Suppressive." This however then
> KE>>lays them open to lawsuit or criminal charges by the Church. Even then,
> KE>>if the person communicates rationally and seems to be trying to correct
> KE>>matters, the Church is quite likely to leave harsh "justice" out of it
> KE>>and give the offender a lot of slack.
>
> KE> i don't agree to this. the church makes members sign agreements
> KE> that forbid using outside courts to resolve greievances, discussing
> KE> problems with outside people, petitioning the church in groups
> KE> of more than one. i think the churches 'justice' system is a
> KE> sham.
>
> I know of no such agreements. I've neither seen nor signed any such
> thing in almost 19 years of continued affiliation with the Church.
>
> With only isolated exceptions, I've seen the Church's justice system to
> work quite well. Its worst flaw is that unsubstantiated reports are
> sometimes accepted as valid evidence. Even this failing isn't inbuilt,
> being a phenomenon of what I regard as Church "culture." I compare the
> Church's approximation of "justice" quite favorably with that achieved
> by the standard American courts.
An interesting attitude. It seems to me that accepting unsubstantiated
reports as valid evidence is a fatal flaw in any justice system. There
must always be a disposition to skepticism.
In the light of that, I find your favourable evaluation of church
justice difficult to credit. Let me add that I am not familiar
with US justice, but from what I see of the OJ trial it seems to
give the accused in that case every opportunity to defend himself
>
> KE>>If Vera is right (I suspect she may be, though I greatly dislike her
> KE>>tactics), and if the Church has proof of Dierdre's thefts, it may very
> KE>>well have had the option to file charges -- and never done so.
>
> KE> keith, i think its great you also dislike vera's tactics. i
> KE> wonder how people can expect to be respected and believed when
> KE> they rant and rave like a child. incredible. vera follows
> KE> sally in lack of class on ars. tho, at least vera hasn't resorted
> KE> to profanity like good ol sally would.
>
> KE> i've seen is a purported confession, a denial, and lots
> KE> of name calling. based on the immaturity of vera alone, i
> KE> think she has lost her case among the minds of most ars readers.
>
> Perhaps Vera has lost *her* case. As I see it her case and that of the
> Church (and of real Scientologists everywhere) are two different
> matters.
>
> ---
> OLX 2.1 TD It's only a hobby ... only a hobby ... only a
Tony Sidaway
Whip...@voyager.cris.com "WHIPPERSNAPPER" writes:
> to...@sidaway.demon.co.uk (Tony Sidaway) writes:
>
>
> TO>In article <3jafq1$h...@voyager.cris.com>
> TO> Whip...@voyager.cris.com "WHIPPERSNAPPER" writes:
> TO>...
> TO>[Exposition on Cos treatment of offenders]
> TO>>
> TO>> If Vera is right (I suspect she may be, though I greatly dislike her
> TO>> tactics), and if the Church has proof of Dierdre's thefts, it may very
> TO>> well have had the option to file charges -- and never done so.
>
> TO>I don't doubt your sincerity (your posts stand out from the rest of the
> TO>mud) but the problem for an impartial observer is that there is no
> TO>way of determining the guilt or otherwise of a person accused in this
> TO>way. If the church does not prosecute offenders when it can, thus
> TO>denying them due process, it has no right to accuse them when the
> TO>time limit for prosecution has lapsed.
>
> This "denial of due process" is likely to have actually been "denial of
> jail time," Tony. If (and I do mean IF) Vera's statements about Dierdre
> are true (and Dierdre's responses strongly suggest to me they may be),
> it would have been a simple matter to put her behind bars.
There you go again making an assumption about the outcome of due process.
Didn't they teach you civics? Deirdre is innocent unless and until
proven guilty--which is never, since the statute of limitations has run
out.
>
> My point was that the Church often omits to prosecute cooperative
> people who seem to be taking responsibility. Your twist of this to a
> "denial of due process" is disingenuous at best.
---------------------
I'm serious. If the church thought (not knew) she was guilty they
should have taken her to court. They did not, and now it's too late.
Therefore, it is impossible for her to disprove such an allegation.
This presumption of guilt without trial is the definition of denial of
due process. Which part of this do you think is disingenuous?
*** This is civics 101. I should not have to say these things. ***
>
> You further equate Vera's acts with the Church's intent. You may
> believe so, but I firmly do not. Given that neither of us can presently
----------------
> be wholly certain, I consider it improper of you to take the idea for
> granted.
I have underlined where I think you have shifted since your conversation
with STella in which you said you "thought it possible" that she was a loose
cannon.
I certainly do not think it improper to assume that a poster based on
earthlink (Sysop: Wenger) and using confidential court documents (Dennis's
letter) is acting for the church. Explain your reasoning.
>
> TO>Your charitable interpretation of the church's motives is only one
> TO>explanation, and is offered without evidence. It would not even be
> TO>acceptable in a court of law as mitigation of the offence of libel.
>
> Tnoy, you offer volumes of accusations without evidence, daily, in this
> newsgroup. You are yourself *constantly* committing libel against
> my Church. Hypocrisy! Plain and simple.
Completely untrue in every particular. This is transparent mud-slinging.
Your agenda is showing.
>
> Further: The "evidence" Vera quotes cannot be presented here in any way
> which makes it "proof" of anything, by nature of this very fluid medium.
> But if she quotes an actual document (which by Dierdre's admission of
> having written a "confession," under whatever circumstances, I surmise
> may well be the case), she could conceivably present that document in
> her defense if accused of libel. And she says she has Dierdre's
> signature on a stolen check.
If my understanding of the law of libel in the State of California is
incorrect, somebody please correct me. Not having access to US law books
or attorneys, I get my legal opinions from the net.
My understanding is that accusing someone of a crime which they have
not been found guilty of is automatically libel in California. When I
mentioned that I thought a libel case would be settled on the balance of
probabilities (as in England) someone was quick to correct me.
>
> Also, STILL you assume Vera represents the Church. Yet the Church
> openly posts many things here which are similar indictments of CAN
> people and others who profess to represent the "truth" about the Church.
Yes, I have outlined my reasons for doing so above. Please let me
know why they are unacceptable to you. The church may use any means it
sees fit to deliver a message. It is not bound to use your preferred
delivery method.
> I can see absolutely no reason why, if the Church DID wish to attack
> Dierdre with this information, it would not do so openly.
It could be because they think it is the right way to treat an enemy.
Fair game policy? I found Vera more irritating than those dull
declarations, before I put her in my killfile.
>
> TO>A less charitable person might surmise that, since the church was
> TO>under investigation by the IRS at the time, it did not dare risk
> TO>a criminal investigation in the course of which the true state of
> TO>its day-to-day running of the church might be revealed.
>
> This is specious. The IRS had access to incredible quantities of
> information. The Church's books were wide open. Everything,
> *including* thefts and missing monies, was on record. Dierdre's
alleged <-------- YOU FORGOT THIS LITTLE WORD!
-------
> thefts
> would have been either unaccounted-for monies or on record as stolen and
> by whom.
I did say "a less charitable person..."
I will have to take your word for it that the IRS would have spotted
the discrepancy, but that in turn raises questions about how the money
came to be stolen "over a matter of years." If financial controls were
so tight, under the eagle eyes of the IRS, how come it took so long to
trace the alleged culprit?
>
> TO>I make no claim one way or the other, but it should be clear to
> TO>an honest observer that the behaviour of the Scientologists who
> TO>have posted these allegations is very seriously wrong. It is a
> TO>serious misreading of the net environment to think that this kind
> TO>of smearing tactic can work to destroy Deirdre's credibility.
>
> With this last I agree. If Vera is indeed a real individual and a
> Scientologist, she's acting wrongly. BUT: Exposing Dierdre, >provided
> it is true<, isn't her error. It is the obvious hatred and prejudice
> with which it is done that is Vera's undoing.
>
> It is, however, hardly to your credit that you criticize in others the
> kind of tactics you yourself use, Tony.
Are you implying that I am imitating Vera? You're welcome to try to prove
it. I have not received a single encomium on this group (from a real
human being rather than the ronbots, that is).
> You selectively and consistently refer to sources which are certainly
> no better and no more "provable" than anything you conversely (and
> equally selectively) attack.
My sources are better. I have the courage to reveal them.
Your description above leads me to wonder when was the last time you
participated in a public debate. My main line of attack has been at
the _lack_ of verifiable data. The quality of my own data is eminently
verifiable. On numerous occasions I have had to ask for the source of
assertions made by a scientologist. I have not had any response.
Conversely, no Scientologist has lacked a source for any assertion
or quotation of mine. That is because I debate to win. The quality
of my data is shown by the relative infrequency with which it is
successfully challenged.
These facts are not lost on those who witness this debate.
> Which is literally almost *everything* in this newsgroup which
> is presented in defense of the Church or which seeks to represent its
> actions and motives in a positive light.
I attack everything I disagree with. For instance, I totally abhor
the practice of putting out uncheckable "Scientology Gains" and have
pointed out why, with examples, on numerous occasions. If they cannot
be checked, they are worthless. I attack Houyneman's useless attempt to
use Cynthia Kisser's alleged SP characteristics as an excuse for posting
about CAN, because he never quotes his sources.
On the other hand, I have posted follow-ups _against_ posts by antis
urging reciprocal actions against Scientologists on the net.
When Milne puts out a piece in which I see a logical flaw (as in his
comfortable assumption that Russell claimed Hubbard sank no Japanese
sub) I point it out. I quote chapter and verse. When's the last time
you saw a Scientologist post that was less than cavalier with the
evidence?
That's the kind of person I am.
I do this for a hobby. I enjoy sharpening my critical faculties on the
tidbits Milne throws me. I occasionally throw him a tidbit. Lord, you
don't think I take this stuff _seriously_, do you?
When I quote sources, it is so that my opponent can check the truth or
otherwise of the source--as you will see in the Russell/Prouty ding-dong
Milne and I have been having, this is quite productive in arriving at the
truth. It's also good, clean fun, with absolutely no animosity involved
(I still laugh when I reread Pope Charles' glorious ripost on the subject
of Hubbard's war record). I do not deal in innuendo as Vera Wallace does.
I do not make unsubstantiated claims, either.
I am surprised that you do not see the difference between my "attacking"
Milne's stuff and my disgust at Vera's stuff. I _like_ Milne's on-topic
posts--in another way I also enjoy the other guys, but then more because
they're so lame. I especially enjoy my duels with Hueynyaman, who never
gives up, and never _ever_ backs up any statement he makes.
>
> You seek to invalidate every factual claim the Church has made about CAN
> and its members -- all the while professing ignorance of the whole
> subject.
It is true that my ignorance of the subject is vast. I can spot a
lie at twenty paces, though. Call it a knack. Where an obvious
error is present, I comment on it. Usually I simply express exasperation
at the CAN posts.
> You post propaganda from so-called "fact"net, obviously
> without personally verifying a word of it,
This is substantively false. Of my many posts, only two have used FACTNET
material at all.
Actually, the vast mjority of my and Pope's material comes from a published
biography of L Ron Hubbard which has shown itself to be the most
reliable source available. It was written by an independent British
journalist of whom even Milne can only say that he got _some_ bad
reviews for _some_ of his earlier books (so what's new?) In two weeks
of very hard trying, Milne has not successfully dented the scholarship
of that work. I am now more confident than ever in the professionalism
of Russell Miller's Bare-Faced Messiah.
The only FACTNet material I have used directly is two excerpts from
control.txt. This is simply a book written by an ex-Scientologist
about mind control. What was there to verify? I assume he knows
what he's talking about, and it matches pretty well with information
about Scientology from other sources and my own experience of political
sects. I also put out the Fishman Affidavit, which was a court record
and can be verified against the master. If it were a forgery, my posting
it on the net would have resulting in its being unveiled in no time
--something you Scientologists seem to have difficulty understanding.
You see, I'm just this guy and I have to type in ninety percent of the
stuff off the page. Milne has a multi-million organisation at his
disposal to help him to shoot my stuff down. He ain't winning.
This is what free exchange of ideas is about. Destructive testing.
All that nasty entheta you're afraid of is what happens when we learn.
Our minds cannot grow without conflict.
> nor making any slightest effort to place it in perspective.
The perspective I am concerned about is a religious group trying to
impose its will on the net by force. I'm up to my neck in perspective.
> I find myself wondering which you might work for...
Oh yes, like I'm Cynthia Kisser's limey boyfriend....
Get real. I'm just this guy. I live in England. I have never even
visited the USA.
Actually, I'm very like Pope. Temporarily unemployed, going back to
work on Monday.
I've seen you do this a number of times to anti-Scientologists with
whom you had a difference of opinion. All sweetness and light, until
you come to make a concluding statement. Then you display your agenda.
You're surrounded by the politically motivated, hate-filled outpourings
of your own church, but anybody who objects to it must be doing so at
the behest of some third party (oh yes, I remembered, there can't be
a dispute without a third party. Hogwash.)
Look man, there are millions of us on the net. We don't like being
kicked around. We kick back. Just a disinclination to be used as a
rug by a bunch of clamheads, I guess.
>
> Meanwhile, you contribute exactly nothing of your own,
--------------------
Please! My email proves you badly wrong. I get email from many
people, all of it very polite, most of it very appreciative. My
words are hitting home in many hearts.
> evidently desirous of keeping your own hands clean
I cannot imagine where you got that idea. I am if anything over-eager
to get my hands dirty over this matter. I am not on the Scientologists'
side, I hope you realise that by now.
> Except of course such gentle comments as:
>
> "They're making our net an ugly place to be. I want to see them
> squashed like bugs, and fast."
Too right. Let's wipe out the spammers and reclaim the net.
I am seeing people accused of being child molesters and
thieves for no other reason than intimidation. Do you still
insist that your church has nothing to do with this?
>
> and,
>
> "I'd expect a Scientologist to have problems with the truth, of course."
A person who believes that it is okay to "lie to, betray, and destroy"
a suppressive person,as L Ron Hubbard recommended, will always be able to
find suppressive characteristics in those wogs he chooses to lie to. This
much is obvious to every non-scientologist.
[1] Fair game policy: L Ron Hubbard.
As a Scientologist, it's your problem, not mine. I didn't write that
filthy credo, nor do I think any decent human being on this planet
would subscribe to it.
>
> Why, pray tell, do I find these quotes so *telling* when applied to
> their source?
This sentence has no meaning unless you mean that you want me
squashed like a bug (thanks!) or you think I have been untruthful or
dishonest in my posts. Well, I think the public can judge that for
itself.
The more likely explanation is that you yourself haven't the foggiest
idea what you meant by this. You just felt it was enough to try to
direct my comments back at me. Doesn't work that way. You have to
make a case.
Tony
Deirdre
ve...@earthlink.net writes:
>She signed a confession. No prosecution, she was left to live her
>life as she saw fit. She had a falling out with her husband who
>had a sex-change operation, started binging on junk food, but that
>was OK.
I've never been married.
>Then, she turned and under an assumed name started to snip - so, she
>was left alone for as long as she got on with her life and left the
>Church alone.
>But Tubby couldn't do it. she had to poke twigs at the sleeping
>bear.
Moral of the story: if you *ever* talk about the CofS, you will be eaten
by the bear.
>If you can't spot a lie at twenty paces Sideways, I guess you're
>a long way from the feeding frenzy in Vermont with el Tubbo.
You got a problem with Scientology-free states?
_Deirdre