>WHIPPERSNAPPER <Whips...@cris.com> wrote:There ARE?
>> I was asked not to post. Gently, twice, over the course of several
>> conversations with an OSA director I know personally. I was never "told"
>> to do or not do anything, FWIW, nor was a.r.s necessarily the subject of
>The why are ther Scientologists PAID to post here?
>> You might find it remarkable, and given your paranoia, unbelievable, but IHardly. As the most obvious examples, Cory Brennan and Andrew Milne were
>> have also never at any time discussed with anyone any form of strategy or
>> tactic WRT a.r.s. Even despite the fact I have also corresponded
>> occasionally with OSA persons who have posted to this group.
>And there you have it folks. An open admission that OSA folk post here.
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
>Now, let's see. Almost all the critics post under their own names, Ward,My impression is, there's lots of that on all sides. Anonymity can be
>Lerma, Dennis, Scarff, Deana, Ray, etc. The OSA/ They use fake names and
>e-mail addresses from "free providers" like hotmail.
either an act of prudence, or a tool of irresponsibility.
Myself, I prefer to keep personal details generally out of view, in part
While I am by reason of personal circumstance pretty much immune to
Some of the "critics," notably Tilman, will subject individuals to
On at least one occasion, an anonymous critic was rudely "outed" by a
While some people seem emboldened by the shield of anonymity to act
>They also are big on the accusation thing. They accuse the critics ofI've seen very little of that without some basis. More often, the profit
>being paid to post here.
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.
>But we all know what Hubbard said... accuseHey, *there's* a new one.
>people of what you are doing.
I recall though he did say, "The overt doth speak loudly in accusation."
>They do that very well. They are paid toCan Henson state unequivocally (and truthfully) that he hasn't received
>post, the critics aren't.
financial support from Minton? Can Grady?
Lerma rarely posts here without soliciting funds. He has admitted he uses
While it can be argued that the Church itself has a financial interest in
Now, while I realize I am responding to a clueless person here, the
"How come I'M not allowed to do that?!" -- Calvin
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.