Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: AB REVIEW..FOR TOM K.
Message-ID: <9508081529.0LRQN02@support.com>
References: <432_9508070847@envision.co.uk>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 95 15:29:49 -0700
Lines: 94


rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller)

: >Not at the moment. I have been outraged in the past, though. Right now I'm
: >battling a version of sec-checking by the skeptics. That's what I
: >consider it: sec-checking.

Me:
>:     Showing your lack of direct knowledge.  In sec-checking you
>:     (or the victim) would not be allowed to leave the room.
>:     Period.  Your comparison is derived from a total lack of
>:     experience and is forwarded as a rhetorical deversion.
   
Rod:
>You're correct, it's not identical, but it is analogous.
    
    All human communication is therefore analogous to sec 
    checking, you say?  Or only when a question is asked?

: >OT must reveal all she knows, or the sec-check
: >never stops. Well, I protest.
>:
>:     Very dramatic.  But it lacks the substance of having some
>:     b*tch rub blood all over your house and then get you
>:     arrested.  Or having half a dozen of your enemies ransack
>:     your house and computer for seven hours.  If Tumor knows
>:     something about these events, she needs to spit it out or
>:     slink away like the cowardly, back-stabing, double-dealing,
>:     rumor-monger she is.
>
>So now you and Tom are the only people that can express an opinion on
>this issue.
                                                         
    Express away.  You sayin' I'm stopping you?  That's like 
    peckerwood complaining about suppressing his freedom of 
    speech because so many people killfiled him initially (real 
    event).  Try harder, Rod.  You don't like my opinion 
    regarding the worth of your glowing defense of the Tumor.  
    Just admit it. <chuckle>

: >Do you agree with Diane that the only thing that matters is the phone
: >number?
>:
>:     Of course not.  That's only one piece of information.
>:     (probably dis-information)
>:
: >If so, then it's all been resolved.
>:
>:     What's all been resolved?  How -AB- found Wollard?  How and
>:     why Tumor got the number and contacted Wollard?  How Ingram
>:     got the report into the Co$ computer?  Why Co$ went after (or
>:     pretended to go after) -AB-?  Where is -AB-?  Who was he
>:     reporting to?  Why Tumor doesn't want this all looked into?
>:
>:     Nothing's been resolved.
>
>"If so", I said. Diane said that all she cared about was the number. Your
>disagreement is with her on this sub-point, not me.
                            
    I reserve the right to disagree with you even if we're on the
    same side of an argument, Rod.  You brought up her opinion.  
    Not me.

>OT has said that AB gave her the number. 

    Oh, this is new!  Let's get some details about how, exactly, 
    this friendly exchange of quickly obtained intellegence data
    on Tom's Bloody Affair, took place.  G'head, Rod.  You ask 
    her.  You and she are buds, after all.

>That's the only point above that
>concerns her. So unless you have more questions about OT, let's leave her
>out of the rest of your investigation. 
 
    This ain't my private Usenet newsgroup, if you happened to 
    notice, Rod.  I'm just asking some pointed questions.  The 
    newsgroup does the rest.  I'm expressing my doubts about the 
    good intentions of your buddy.  S'all.

>She reads a.r.s, and she can
>contribute if she wants to.

    I'll have to check with Ars Central, but, in principle, there
    shouldn't be any problem with that.  I'll give you final word
    within 2 weeks.  Some of the members are on vacation and 
    cannot sign off on it.

>Rod Keller / rkeller@netaxs.com
 
            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"