In article <6n6q99$ju...@news.net-quest.com>,
J.M. Ivler  <iv...@net-quest.com> wrote:

There ARE?

Hardly.  As the most obvious examples, Cory Brennan and Andrew Milne were
two a.r.s posters who had connections to OSA.  In Cory's case, I am fairly
sure it was entirely on her own initiative, and only incidental to her
work in CCHR.  Andrew, I presume, probably did it as a part of his job,
though I have no direct knowledge of that.

I get the impression people who haven't a clue see OSA as some sort of
secret agency.  But from the standpoint of your average Scientologist,
they are pretty much open and accessible.

My impression is, there's lots of that on all sides.  Anonymity can be
either an act of prudence, or a tool of irresponsibility.

Myself, I prefer to keep personal details generally out of view, in part
because there are clueless gits out there who may decide to engage in
real-world harassment.  But I am known (however slightly) personally to
some who have posted to this newsgroup.

While I am by reason of personal circumstance pretty much immune to
harassment, this may not be the case for others.  Imagine the damage that
could sometimes be done if someone were to embark upon a campaign of
anti-Scn PR at some Scientologist's place of work.  This is the sort of
thing that happens daily now in Germany, and a startling number of a.r.s
denizens are unconcerned.  Some applaud it.

Some of the "critics," notably Tilman, will subject individuals to
unwanted scrutiny or exposure on the newsgroup and/or on his website for
absolutely no reason but the fact of being Scientologists.

On at least one occasion, an anonymous critic was rudely "outed" by a
pro-Scn poster known as "Vera," herself anonymous.  While I place *very*
little credence in most of the hysterical claims of harassment, "blood
attacks" and pet killings by some of the anti-Scn folks; still they have
as much right to privacy as anyone else.

While some people seem emboldened by the shield of anonymity to act
truly outrageously, it is still not often a good argument against anyone's
position in a debate.

I've seen very little of that without some basis.  More often, the profit
motive of people like Wollersheim and his associates has been pointed out,
the whining money-solicitations of folks like Erlich and Lerma (who
created their own legal headaches) and the pretty-much indisputable fact
that some "critics" are receiving financial support from Minton.

Hey, *there's* a new one.

I recall though he did say, "The overt doth speak loudly in accusation."

Can Henson state unequivocally (and truthfully) that he hasn't received
financial support from Minton?  Can Grady?

Lerma rarely posts here without soliciting funds.  He has admitted he uses
the money for whatever he pleases.

While it can be argued that the Church itself has a financial interest in
good PR, it's ridiculous to assert that individual members or even staff
at any level have any such motive for participation here.  Staff pay is
rarely more than a stipend, particularly for Sea Org members.  Individuals
would obviously be far better off doing whatever earns their living.

Now, while I realize I am responding to a clueless person here, the
accusations are perennial, so I've taken the trouble to offer my
perspective.

- Whippersnapper

"How come I'M not allowed to do that?!"  -- Calvin