Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: AB Review..for Tom K.
Message-ID: <9508040811.0BIAT00@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 95 08:11:31 -0700
Lines: 72


rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller)

: >I agree with everything you said. Every single point. But do you think OT
: >withholding the phone number has been a crime?

Me:
>:     Nobody said it was.  But there is more than a chance that
>:     she (Old Tumor) was involved in or acting in concert with
>:     the criminal conspiracy which attempted  to shut off my
>:     access to the Internet by framing Tom with Miss Blood.

Rod:
>Tom claims it is a crime. And I don't think there is any chance she was
>involved in the effort to frame him. Not a chance.

    In as much as the frame was not intended toward you, nor was
    it intended to cut *your* internet access, you have the
    luxury of detachment and lack of real interest.  If someone 
    commits a crime against me or someone I care about (one was 
    committed), and someone has information about it (as in Old 
    Timer), I'm gonna want to know about it.  Even if her friends 
    tell me there's "not a chance" she was involved.

>:     She has a right to be whatever kinda dreck she wants to be.
>:     That ain't the point.
>
>"Dreck"? This doesn't tend to get her to help out. Name calling doesn't work.

    She has already been evasive and underhanded.  I expect her
    to continue to be.  I'm not gonna sweet-talk the old bag for
    information she would certainly share if she wasn't a lying
    sack 'o shit.

>:     Ars is a "step-up-to-the-plate" kinda endeavor.  She mouthed
>:     off about what she knew and then wouldn't give the details,
>:     but expected us to believe her.  Now, after asserting her own
>:     self-importance she wants to slink away unchallanged with us
>:     saying, "Oh ... okay, Old Timer has it all under control."
>:
>:     I don't think so.
>
>I tend to take what's offered. She has offered some information, let's
>hope she trusts us enough to contribute in the future.

    How sweet.  Yes, and let's hope she doesn't have her OSA 
    friends visit our parents again too, while we're practicing 
    wishful thinking.

>:     If she hadn't stepped up to the plate herself, she'd have a
>:     perfect reason to claim detachment.  But she attached
>:     *herself* to the investigation.
>
>This is poor legal reasoning. If you make a few comments to friends, you
>suddenly have to tell Tom everything you know, regardless of the
>consequences.

    Poor *legal* reasoning?  Comments to friends?  You're trying
    to shoe-horn the argument into a place it don't fit.

    She told ars that Tom wouldn't like the information she had
    on the Bloodybutt affair and that he ought to drop his inquiry
    into it.  She tried to get me to call Tom off.  Tom has a perfect
    right, both morally and legally to know what she knows about
    the Bloodybutt Affair.  Me, I'm just curious.  The whole 
    thing just reaks of OSA undecover.

            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"