Ron's Underpants: a visit to Saint Hill [part 3]
Chris Owen
(in the previous 2 parts I described my tour around Saint Hill Castle.
This concluding part covers my visit to the Manor.)
Saint Hill Manor is quite a bit older than the castle. It's a large-ish
Georgian house, built in the mid-18th century. Hubbard had bought it for
about GBP 80,000 in 1959. (The modern price would be nearer the
million-pound mark, allowing for inflation - though of course it's not
likely to be sold!) Until the castle was built in the mid-1960s, the
building was the nerve centre of the worldwide operations of the Hubbard
Association of Scientologists (the emphasis was more on the secular in
those days).
The building is nowadays preserved as something of a shrine to Hubbard,
who lived and worked there with his family and a few hundred loyal staff
between 1959-67. It is occasionally used for conferences, but otherwise
the serious stuff takes place in the Castle.
I arrived at the Manor just in time to catch a tour around the place -
three Italians (a girl Scientologist who'd brought her boyfriend and his
friend along with her) were being shown the Monkey Room by one of the "L.
Ron Hubbard Public Relations Officers". (I hope I got her post title
right; it took me long enough to digest it...) The Monkey Room was
created in the 1940s by John Spencer Churchill, artist and nephew of the
wartime PM. It's a fascinating frieze, painted on cloth which lines the
four walls and the doors. It shows a variety of monkey and apes (over 20
species, apparently) wearing what looked like Renaissance clothing and
doing various leisure activities (painting, playing games etc.) One of
the monkeys is clearly Winston Churchill, who's portrayed, in monkey
guise, painting, wearing a stetson and with the characteristic cloud of
cigar smoke hanging around him. During Hubbard's tenancy, the room was
used as a playroom for his children.
I have to say that the Church of Scientology has done an excellent job
of preserving it (and indeed the whole house) - the painting was restored
a few years ago and a lot of money has clearly been spent on the building's
upkeep.
We were shown the other rooms on the ground floor. There's a rather swish
conservatory with a fine mid-19th century French piano, a lounge with a
carpet deep enough to hide a tribe of pygmies and a rather immodest library -
it contains nothing but row upon row of hundreds of Hubbard books and course
materials. (Wouldn't he have got a bit bored reading his own stuff all the
time?) In a few places around the house were cabinets full of (non-Hubbard)
books - intriguingly, there were a lot on South Africa, the Boer War, etc.
Russell Miller claims in "Bare-Faced Messiah" that Hubbard thought he was
a reincarnation of Cecil Rhodes; be that as it may, he was clearly
fascinated by southern Africa.
The two highlights of the house were, of course, Hubbard's office and
bedroom. The office is a spacious though somewhat cluttered room with
a rather incongruous Islamic fireplace facing the desk (a legacy of the
previous owner, the Maharajah of Jaipur). LRH's mighty organs - all three
of them - are clustered in one corner, where apparently he would relax by
playing them simultaneously, one hand for each. Music books are still
piled on top of them, just as he left them. (They even have the original
prices written in l.s.d. on their covers.)
At the other end of the office is Hubbard's desk, with in and out trays
and a green-ink copy of an HCO Policy Letter on Suppression, dated 1963,
sitting in front of the leather-bound chair. Various other knickknacks
and a row of telephones adorn the desk and a cabinet on the left-hand
side. I took a "Ron's-eye-view" photo; when I get it developed, I'll scan
it in and upload it somewhere. A telex stands on a table against one
wall, which I took some interest in - it was the first one I'd ever
seen, and was the means by which Ron exercised his control over worldwide
Scientology.
The upper floor is occupied by the housekeeper, but I was able to visit
Ron's bedroom - another extraordinary place. The bed was one of the most
striking features of it: a large four-poster, with the deepest mattress
I've ever seen (the sheets were nearly four feet off the ground, which put
me in mind of those fairy stories about princesses and peas). A full-length
mirror in one corner had a pith helmet draped carelessly over it, whilst a
curious wooden object sat on top of a crate next to the wardrobe. "Can you
guess what it is?", my guide asked. I had to admit I couldn't - it looked
a bit like a coolie's hat but that was obviously the wrong answer. "It's
the bowl which LRH used to pan for gold on Puerto Rico!!!", she exclaimed
enthusiastically. And indeed, there on its base was a tape bearing the
words: "PROPERTY OF L. RON HUBBARD". I told her the story about Ron
appearing in a newspaper article looking at what was said to be a
gold-bearing boulder in his back garden. Somewhat surprisingly, she
hadn't heard that one - I'll have to dig up that article and send it to
Saint Hill.
The Italians had by now gone, and night was falling outside (it was about
4.30 in the afternoon). I stayed a while to have a chat with my guide and
an OSA staffer, Liz Nyegaard. I won't go into any details - a private
conversation is a private conversation - but we discussed a wide range of
things, such as the German situation, LRH, whether Scientology could ever
come to an accommodation with its critics, dissemination in libraries, and
others. Admittedly, they were the public face of the Church (both were PR
officers), but they gave a very good account of themselves: reasonable,
open (even frank), undogmatic. I am well aware that there's a dichotomy
between that and some of the Church's internal proclamations. All the
same, they came across very well, I thought.
One topic of conversation that I will touch on is Scientology's PR -
obviously something of great interest to my hosts. I gave my opinion of
the Church's efforts in this field, particularly with reference to the
recent spate of bad publicity when the Dianetics advertising campaign was
launched on satellite TV. I got the impression that the Church had been
surprised and somewhat dismayed by the deluge of criticism from the media.
The Press Association's headline was spot on - "Scientology backed by
critics but dogged by suspicion" - which, in the UK at least, is a
residual effect of the 1968-80 immigration ban and the 1984 Latey
judgement. (A thought occurred to me afterwards: as the media are clearly
guilty of suppressive acts under the terms of "Introduction to Scientology
Ethics", this means that the media are clearly suppressives. The readers
of newspapers (which means the bulk of the population) are therefore
Potential Trouble Sources, or PTS. Does this mean that the
Church of Scientology must "disconnect" from society?)
I made the point that Scientology-based PR simply won't work if people
don't understand the point that's been made. A case in point (which
I cited) was Heber Jentzsch's role in the live BBC Newsnight discussion
on 17th September. This quote comes directly from the transcript which
I found at http://www.avalon.demon.co.uk/nnite2.htm - Ian Hayworth is a
spokesman for the Cult Information Centre and Heber (here referred to as
HJ) is the President of the Church of Scientology International:
----------
Ian Hayworth: "What I'm involved in is handling the calls, picking up
the pieces associated with families that call us [HJ: "Who pays you?"]
because of the problems created by scientology [HJ: "Who pays you?"]
and other organisations [HJ: "Who pays you?"] and a disproportionate
number of the calls come from people like um.. that have been involved
in scientology."
----------
Now, Heber's comments are entirely comprehensible if one puts them in
a Hubbardian context - LRH clearly states that people attack Scientology
because they have "withholds" (sins, loosely) which they fear will be
found out by Scientologists. The Board of the now-defunct Cult Awareness
Network (CAN), for instance, are claimed to have been covering up
paedophile activities before these were found out by a Scientology
investigation. Whether or not you accept the idea that, as someone once
put it, "critics of Scientology always have dishonourable motives", the
concept is a precisely-defined one and Heber is following it to the letter.
What Heber is saying here is, "You're opposed to Scientology, so you must
have grubby motives - who's paying you to do it?".
I understand that (even if I don't agree with it) because I have a fairly
good working knowledge of Hubbard's ideas. If everyone who watched that
interview had a similar grasp of the underlying concept, they'd see the
reasoning behind it too. But what is the average Newsnight viewer going
to think of this application of "LRH technology"? He's going to see an
elderly American hurling abuse at an opponent and, as he doesn't have any
inkling of what's going on, he'll ascribe it to the general nastiness of
Scientology that's mentioned so much in the media. A point I made was
that Scientology has been so extensively criticised that people no longer
look for good in it, but the first bad thing they see is taken as proof
positive of all the criticism that has been made of it. Mud sticks on
rough edges!
In short, I basically said that Scientology PR at times seems to assume that
the general public is entirely conversant with the concepts underlying the
message. (It's an easy mistake to make in any profession - I made it
often enough in my days as a historian.) In Scientology terms, there's a
certain amount of Affinity, a lot of Communication but often not much
Reality. And as Ron said, you only get effective communication if you
have all three corners of the triangle in place. What the Church does
with my opinions, I don't know and probably won't ever know; but if
there's to be an honest debate on Scientology, the Church really does need
to overcome the general grubbiness of its image in the UK, and this (IMHO)
can only be done by its representatives coming over as wholly sympathetic.
As I left the Manor to get the train back to London, I was given a
complimentary copy of a beautifully-bound book, "Ron: A Lifetime in
Pictures", which has just come out. It made a very interesting read,
particular as it's a forerunner of the forthcoming official biography of
L. Ron Hubbard (to be released next year; I'll discuss this in another
post). My sincere thanks go to my hosts at the Manor and the staff at the
Castle, who made it a fascinating and very rewarding visit.
I would recommend that UK readers try to fit in a visit to Saint Hill -
you'll be treated well, you'll have an interesting time and see interesting
things and, if you make it clear that you don't want to sign up to
something here and now, you won't be overly pressurised into handing over
the readies. (Of course, this shouldn't be read as a discouragement from
signing up to Scientology courses, but - given the effectiveness of
Scientology salesmanship - be sure beforehand that you want to spend
money.) I enjoyed the afternoon I spent there, at any rate, and I think
others would have too.
Finally, what of my opinions of Scientology? Has a visit to the Manor
changed them? I'll discuss this at a future date, but suffice to say
that, although it has changed them to a minor extent, it has helped to
confirm my fundamental opinions - quite a few of which are a long distance
from the apparently prevailing opinion on this newsgroup (ooh,
controversy!). I don't have the time or energy to go further into this
for now (finger thetans acting up...), but I hope this three-part
"travelogue" has been of interest to the folks out there.
--
| Chris Owen | c...@nvg.unit.no |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| WORLD'S BIGGEST SPECTRUM ARCHIVE -- http://www.nvg.unit.no/sinclair |
Ron Newman
In article <56an70$q...@due.unit.no>,
c...@romeo-klive.nvg.unit.no (Chris Owen) says...
>LRH's mighty organs - all three
^^^^^
>of them - are clustered in one corner, where apparently he would relax by
>playing them simultaneously, one hand for each.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^
Wow! This is the first I've heard of such an unusual birth defect.
This could explain a LOT ....
--
Ron Newman rne...@cybercom.net
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Bernie
Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>In article <56an70$q...@due.unit.no>,
>c...@romeo-klive.nvg.unit.no (Chris Owen) says...
>
>>LRH's mighty organs - all three
> ^^^^^
>>of them - are clustered in one corner, where apparently he would relax by
>>playing them simultaneously, one hand for each.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^
>
>Wow! This is the first I've heard of such an unusual birth defect.
>This could explain a LOT ....
LOL!
---------
Bernie
Did she ever blink in Morse code the name or occupation of
anyone involved in any of the incidents? And don't try to weasel
out of this one!
(Tashback)
Chris Owen
In article <UJWiyQqB...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
Martin Hunt <uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote:
>c...@romeo-klive.nvg.unit.no (Chris Owen) wrote:
>}
>} Finally, what of my opinions of Scientology? Has a visit to the Manor
>}changed them? I'll discuss this at a future date, but suffice to say
>}that, although it has changed them to a minor extent, it has helped to
>}confirm my fundamental opinions - quite a few of which are a long distance
>}from the apparently prevailing opinion on this newsgroup (ooh,
>}controversy!). I don't have the time or energy to go further into this
>}for now (finger thetans acting up...), but I hope this three-part
>}"travelogue" has been of interest to the folks out there.
>
>
>I hope this recounting gives people insight into how effective
>scientology PR can be to those who are exposed to it, even if
>they believe they understand it very well, and are obviously
>well-educated and intelligent.
>
>These posts, carefully read and compared with your other recent
>posts, tell a very interesting story. Sadly, it is a story I am
>quite familiar with, but let no one pooh-pooh this point again
>with a too-easy dismissal which I have seen altogether far too
>much of on this newsgroup.
Don't hasten to judgement, Martin! I was well treated at Saint Hill,
didn't see anything too obviously out of the ordinary and saw some
interesting things. That's the sum total of what I've posted. You
seem to have ignored my statement that my opinions haven't changed in
a major way but have instead been confirmed. Why not wait till
(Friday, hopefully) to see what I say about that, before rushing to
judgement?
Martin Hunt
In article <56dcpa$n...@due.unit.no>,
c...@romeo-klive.nvg.unit.no (Chris Owen) wrote:
}In article <UJWiyQqB...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
}Martin Hunt <uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote:
}>c...@romeo-klive.nvg.unit.no (Chris Owen) wrote:
}>}
}>}changed them? I'll discuss this at a future date, but suffice to say
}>}that, although it has changed them to a minor extent, it has helped to
}>}confirm my fundamental opinions - quite a few of which are a long distance
}>}from the apparently prevailing opinion on this newsgroup (ooh,
}>}controversy!). I don't have the time or energy to go further into this
}>}for now (finger thetans acting up...), but I hope this three-part
}>}"travelogue" has been of interest to the folks out there.
}>
}>
}>I hope this recounting gives people insight into how effective
}>scientology PR can be to those who are exposed to it, even if
}>they believe they understand it very well, and are obviously
}>well-educated and intelligent.
}>
}>These posts, carefully read and compared with your other recent
}>posts, tell a very interesting story. Sadly, it is a story I am
}>quite familiar with, but let no one pooh-pooh this point again
}>with a too-easy dismissal which I have seen altogether far too
}>much of on this newsgroup.
}
} Don't hasten to judgement, Martin! I was well treated at Saint Hill,
}didn't see anything too obviously out of the ordinary and saw some
}interesting things. That's the sum total of what I've posted. You
}seem to have ignored my statement that my opinions haven't changed in
}a major way but have instead been confirmed. Why not wait till
}(Friday, hopefully) to see what I say about that, before rushing to
}judgement?
It wasn't so much a judgement as an observation, and one I've
been keeping an eye on for a while now. There were a couple things
in your post which triggered off alarm bells for me; the bit about
not turning people away from taking a course, for example, and
1-2 others plus this line:
"my fundamental opinions - quite a few of which are a long distance
from the apparently prevailing opinion on this newsgroup (ooh,
controversy!)."
Chris, re-read that part about the kid in the chain-locker in
Corydon; tell me how it makes you feel, please.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <56b092$l...@lana.zippo.com>,
Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>c...@romeo-klive.nvg.unit.no (Chris Owen) says...
>>LRH's mighty organs - all three
> ^^^^^
>>of them - are clustered in one corner, where apparently he would relax by
>>playing them simultaneously, one hand for each.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^
>
>Wow! This is the first I've heard of such an unusual birth defect.
>This could explain a LOT ....
Actually, my first thought was not shock that L. Ron played with his
organ, but that he was born with three of them...
--.Sig and PGP Block follow. Visit http://www.dimensional.com/~janda/
^L
"If you fixate on a "stable datum", building upon it, then you later find
something that destabilizes it, what do you do? If you're Hubbard, you
declare the source of the destabilizing data to be Suppressive and
continue building the sand castle." -- Perry Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBMo1HzUv07qSCIXbVAQFsggIAgdKN56IV1zMdO8+DapGi0y3PBrCqsHYn
2+8Wia8oll3csMnnWLD3HCB+zEGE1buoBUIZgnI41Ug4SxFbOf/8+w==
=qFML
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Chris Owen
>In article <UJWiyQqB...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>,
>Martin Hunt <uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote:
>It wasn't so much a judgement as an observation, and one I've
>been keeping an eye on for a while now. There were a couple things
>in your post which triggered off alarm bells for me; the bit about
>not turning people away from taking a course,
You're deliberately misinterpreting what I said, Martin. I said:
> (Of course, this shouldn't be read as a discouragement from
> signing up to Scientology courses, but - given the effectiveness of
> Scientology salesmanship - be sure beforehand that you want to spend
> money.)
It's not down to me to dictate to people how they spend their money. If
they want to spend on Scientology, or prostitutes, or drinks, or drugs,
or gambling, fine. It's their money. My interest is in ensuring that
people know the consequences of their decision, not in telling people what
to do. If someone has done their homework and reads what's on the net
about Scientology (both for and against, which is my recommendation) and
decides that they want to get into Scientology, then *that is their
decision*, right or wrong.
>for example, and 1-2 others plus this line:
>
>"my fundamental opinions - quite a few of which are a long distance
>from the apparently prevailing opinion on this newsgroup (ooh,
>controversy!)."
Jeez, now you're condemning me without even waiting to find out just
what those opinions are...
>Chris, re-read that part about the kid in the chain-locker in
>Corydon; tell me how it makes you feel, please.
It's pretty bad, *if* it's accurate. I've done enough research on
the subject in general to know that one cannot take uncorroborated
statements at face value. I prefer to comment on, and criticise
where necessary, those things that I can prove and corroborate in
writing.
I suspect that the story's probably true, as it fits the pattern of
physical abuse which undeniably happened aboard the Apollo. As such,
it's a shitty thing to have happened. But I'm not going to beat
Scientology about the head with it, because I can't prove that it
*definitely* happened. If you want to, go ahead, but I'm not going
to throw uncorroborated allegations around the place. Being able to
document and prove criticisms to a hypothetical jury is the best way -
the *only* way, I think - to preserve any sort of "authoritative"
reputation...
[posted & emailed]
Bernie
c...@romeo-klive.nvg.unit.no (Chris Owen) wrote:
> I suspect that the story's probably true, as it fits the pattern of
>physical abuse which undeniably happened aboard the Apollo. As such,
>it's a shitty thing to have happened. But I'm not going to beat
>Scientology about the head with it, because I can't prove that it
>*definitely* happened. If you want to, go ahead, but I'm not going
>to throw uncorroborated allegations around the place. Being able to
>document and prove criticisms to a hypothetical jury is the best way -
>the *only* way, I think - to preserve any sort of "authoritative"
>reputation...
Well said, Chris. This gives a definitive plus-value to what I read
from you so far, which was already highly enjoyable and effective
criticism.
If one wants to belong to a street gang, he has to pass some test.
This could be, for example, to beat up some bump in the street, an
homosexual, an old lady, whatever. This way he "proves" that he is a
genuine member of the gang.
If we give up to a gang mentality in this newsgroup, tell undiscerned
stories against the COS, irrespective of whether we feel it true or
not, just to "prove" that we belong here and to follow what is
supposed to be the groupthink of the place, then I think that that's
the end of the values we are fighting for. Yet, I see repetitive
request by some posters telling the others what they are supposed to
post and criticizing them for not being negative enough in their
criticism, as if they owned this newsgroup, and as if this tactic was
any effective in the long run.
Thanks heaven, reason still prevails sometimes.
---------
Bernie
When you chose to fight the cult, and do so with less then complete
integrity, you will get bit in the ass.
(Neil Woods)
Martin Hunt
c...@romeo-klive.nvg.unit.no (Chris Owen) wrote:
}
} You're deliberately misinterpreting what I said, Martin. I said:
Was I? I don't think so.
} > (Of course, this shouldn't be read as a discouragement from
} > signing up to Scientology courses, but - given the effectiveness of
} > Scientology salesmanship - be sure beforehand that you want to spend
} > money.)
}
} It's not down to me to dictate to people how they spend their money.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That about sums up what I thought you said. Sorry if I misunderstand,
but you seem to have a *very* mild opinion of scientology auditing, and
you don't want to discourage people from getting some. Everyone's
entitled to an opinion, but mine is, needless to say, radically
different than yours.
}they want to spend on Scientology, or prostitutes, or drinks, or drugs,
}or gambling, fine. It's their money. My interest is in ensuring that
}people know the consequences of their decision, not in telling people what
}to do. If someone has done their homework and reads what's on the net
}about Scientology (both for and against, which is my recommendation) and
}decides that they want to get into Scientology, then *that is their
}decision*, right or wrong.
I'm not a strong believer in right and wrong, but I don't think people
are as free willed as you think them.
There's laws against all those thing you listed in countries all
over the world, including mine and yours. Why is that? I don't
necessarily agree with those laws, in fact, I just voted for
someone who wants to legalize marijuana here, but they may have
some basis.
}>for example, and 1-2 others plus this line:
}>
}>"my fundamental opinions - quite a few of which are a long distance
}>from the apparently prevailing opinion on this newsgroup (ooh,
}>controversy!)."
}
} Jeez, now you're condemning me without even waiting to find out just
}what those opinions are...
I think "Of course, this shouldn't be read as a discouragement from
signing up to Scientology courses" is pretty clear; we both speak
English.
And don't take my free expression of *my* opinion, even if it is
in sharp disagreement with *yours*, to be "condemning"; that's
needless rhetoric, and you know it. I encourage you to express
your opinions, no matter what they are. I happen to like free
speech. :-)
}>Chris, re-read that part about the kid in the chain-locker in
}>Corydon; tell me how it makes you feel, please.
}
} It's pretty bad, *if* it's accurate. I've done enough research on
}the subject in general to know that one cannot take uncorroborated
}statements at face value. I prefer to comment on, and criticise
}where necessary, those things that I can prove and corroborate in
}writing.
Uh-huh. So, what's a fair cop? If Bent Corydon's book doesn't
qualify as "writing", what does?
} I suspect that the story's probably true, as it fits the pattern of
}physical abuse which undeniably happened aboard the Apollo. As such,
}it's a shitty thing to have happened. But I'm not going to beat
}Scientology about the head with it, because I can't prove that it
}*definitely* happened.
What can we definitely prove?
}If you want to, go ahead, but I'm not going
}to throw uncorroborated allegations around the place. Being able to
}document and prove criticisms to a hypothetical jury is the best way -
}the *only* way, I think - to preserve any sort of "authoritative"
}reputation...
1st person accounts and affidavits are taken as testimony in most
courts, I believe; have you read Corydon's sections on the chain
locker incident? As far as I know, no one's ever challenged the
statements, not even the cult. I freely admit that Corydon's
book is not the best on the subject (I'd give that honour to
Attack's and Miller's works), but it's still there, unchallenged,
and certaily in writing.
I don't want to get into this argument, though, if it is an argument;
I think I clearly understand your posts, and I do read them carefully.
Maybe we can simply agree to disagree, and prevent any kind of flammage,
which, I think you'll agree, is the last thing we need on this newsgroup.
(I'll reitterate this last paragraph, should you continue; Usenet is
slow, and the hand is fast.)
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Email: uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca
gemm...@aol.com
Chris Owen wrote::
Martin:
>>Chris, re-read that part about the kid in the chain-locker in
>>Corydon; tell me how it makes you feel, please.
>It's pretty bad, *if* it's accurate. I've done enough research on
>the subject in general to know that one cannot take uncorroborated
>statements at face value. I prefer to comment on, and criticise
>where necessary, those things that I can prove and corroborate in
>writing.
It's accurate, I can assure as one who witnessed this first hand. A
number of people who witnessed this first hand have come forward and
written affidavits about this. My affidavit and Tonja Burden's affidavit
on this topic are readily available on several home pages for you to read.
Numerous others who are ex-SO members such as Dennis Erlich, Hana
Whitfield and many others corroberate that this happened.
In the case of my affidavit, I got an e-mail from the boy (now a grown
man) who I had described in my affidavit who was locked up in the chain
locker. He had read my account while browsing on the internet and
realized that I had been writing about him. Do you have a problem with
believing witnesses, especially when it is not just one uncorroberated
statement but statements from numerous people who were there? If not,
what would you consider valid proof that these events did in fact occur?
************************************************
Monica Pignotti
"As you go through life you are going to have many opportunities
to keep your big mouth shut. Take advantage of all of them."
- -James Dent
gemm...@aol.com
I just want to add one more thing to what I just posted on this thread:
I am becoming very disturbed by this trend of people seeming to think that
just because something is in writing, that somehow makes it truer than if
it were not in writing and if it's not in writing its not true. This is
not unlike the CofS dictum: If it isn't written, it isn't true. I would
just like to remind people that it is just as easy to write a lie as to
speak a lie, court document or not. What it really comes down to is the
credibility of the people who are the witnesses and whether or not what
they say makes sense in terms of the other information that you know.