Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: AB REVIEW..FOR TOM K.
Message-ID: <9508090842.0C82C00@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 95 08:42:05 -0700
Lines: 100


rogue@ccs.neu.edu (R Agent)

>>Suggesting that anon.penet.fi and caltech were
>>irrelevant from an information gathering viewpoint (ie they already
>>knew what they were ostensibly looking for), is byzantine.

Me:
>    I've assumed that the Penet raid was after *all* the
>    identities using the site.  That's what the scienos asked
>    for, wasn't it?  The whole thing was probably a ruse to get
>    the user list from the anonymous site.

Rogue:
>This is a possibility.  If this is true then -AB- was acting under orders
>and with management's blessing, and the Caltech hunt was window
>dressing.  Yes?

    Well, it also served the purpose of putting another provider
    on notice that if there was any hanky-panky with scieno
    droppings on internet from their site, the scienos would be
    all over them like flies on sh*t.  That could have been more
    than a collateral benifit.

>>Someone was suggesting that the whole caltech incident was staged just
>>to add credibility to OT.  I'm glad you aren't following in that
>>delusion.
>
>    This doesn't connect.
>
>It's what someone suggested.  It also follows from the idea that the
>penet raid was planned and staged, not reactive.

    Of course it was not reactive.  It had to be all lined up to
    come off.  I'm sure a lot of planning and calling in favors 
    went into it.

>If penet was staged to
>get the whole database and it wasn't just an afterthought ("hey, while
>we're there let's see if we can get the whole thing!") then they knew who
>-AB- was and the hunt for him at Caltech was a farce.

    Or -ab- messed up by posting the Wollard thing's statement 
    prematurely and refused to "come in" for correction.  
    
    Or perhaps he went "rogue".

>>I'm not starting from -any- premise.  It seems to be others who are
>>stsrting with the premise that she's guilty (of something).  I'm being
>>skeptical of that.
>
>    No.  The premise is that she's deeply involved and perhaps
>    even an agent of the scieno conspiracy that attempted to
>    silence my access to internet, frame Tom, compromise Penet
>    and generally trample all over everyone's free speech rights
>    on internet.
>
>I think my word "guilty" is shorthand for what you write above.

    "Suspect" is the correct word.  She is suspect.

>I'm not
>starting from that premise, and I haven't seen enough clear evidence that
>forces me to accept it.

    You're not starting from the premise that Tumor has clearly 
    done and said things which place her within a small circle of 
    "those in the know" about the Blood Attack?

>    Rogue, I find it curious that you didn't correct me when I
>    falsely assumed that you were the one Tumor "deputized" to
>    investigate.  You've never been shy to correct me before, and
>    I count on my friends for reality-checking and course
>    correction.
>
>I still say nobody "deputized" me.  I started this on my own.  Various
>people have entrusted me with various pieces of information.  Am I
>deputized by all of them?
>
>    What gives?  Why didn't you tell me I was wrong about it?
>    I'm perplexed at your silence about my obvious error.  Please
>    explain.
>
>Who says she only gave it to one person?
    
    She.

>It was given in strict confidence.  I don't break confidences easily,
>The end does not justify the means.
>
>        RA

    You and "the boys" are having a bit of a laugh at the 
    expense of our humble and long-suffering Narrator?

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