On Jun 9, 8:56 am, Dennis Erlich <infor...@informer.org> wrote:

Then why participate in the discussion in the first place if you're
not interested? Come on, now. There are many off topic postings in
this NG that you say nothing about, but you focus exclusively on mine,
neglecting to take to task the people who originated the threads in
the first place. Clearly, it is not being off topic that is the
problem for you. If that were the case, the problem would easily be
solved by kill filing my name as others have done who don't want to
see it. But you know good and well it's not about that. It's about
your agenda to continuously attack me in any way you can rather than
discuss the topic at hand. Thanks for that admission. I feel sad for
you, Dennis, that your life is such that coming on here and attacking
an activist who is already the target of a massive internet smear
campaign, is what amuses and entertains you. What does that say about
you as a human being? I'll leave that to each person reading this to
decide.

We've been through that a zillion times. There is no "correct
newsgroup" because little occurs on most newsgroups except spam and
flame wars. Again, you are way behind the times and act as if this is
still the 1990s when decent discussions did occur on usenet. Those
days are gone, Dennis. Most people have moved away from usenet to
various list servs and discussion boards. ARS is somewhat of an
exception to this because sometimes there are some decent discussions,
but that is getting more and more rare, even here.

It was not an attack. It was a disagreement that he inappropriately
took personally when it was not a personal attack. It was a
disagreement with his statement. Instead of discussing it with me, he
refused to participate in the discussion and brought you in instead.
That is what I consider to be highly disrespectful behavior on his
part and I called him out on it. This is no different from what one
would encounter in a cult when the cult leader is challenged. In
contrast, the attacks on me have been very personal and not responsive
to the issues I raised.

No, that was not personal. I asked you about your credentials. At
first you failed to respond, but then when Jim Martin pointed out that
my questions were valid, you finally answered them that your only
ministerial credentials come from Scientology and by your own
admission, you are still on file with the state of California "that
way". I was not "wrong" about Steve Hassan's statement. His statement
was inaccurate and I stand by that and I think when people make
statements like that to the media, they lose credibility because they
are so easy to refute by providing counter examples. This is why
people like Dr. Drew when they get the opportunity to interview ex-
cultists, warn them not to exaggerate. There are plenty of very real
things to expose about Scientology. No need to exaggerate and make
generalizations that are not valid.

Fine with me. You are ignorant on the topic at hand and are in no
position to judge anyway whether or not I have. My peer review system
has accepted a number of my writings for publication and so according
to them, I have.