Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: AB Review..for Tom K. Message-ID: <9508111137.0GC5501@support.com> References: Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 11:37:46 -0700 Lines: 174 rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) : : >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. Me: : >: 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. : >You might as well go around accusing everybody. >: >: I "might as well", but I'm not, am I? Save your twisted >: rhetoric for those who'd think it's more than just that. >: : >The Pope, John Elway, : >Kevin Costner, John Major, whoever. Isn't this the type of innuendo you : >were protesting not so long ago? >: >: I don't know what you're talking about, and neither do you. >: Go find the quote and put it up. Otherwise I will have no >: idea how to respond. Or is that the idea? > >Either you deleted the paragraph I was responding to, or I was tired that >night. I'm not gonna research it. Here it is ... pristine and unaltered. [ Begin external quotes... ] * Quote from NEWS to ALL dated 08-08-95. From: rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: AB Review..for Tom K. Date: 8 Aug 1995 11:33:15 GMT Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider dennis.l.erlich@support.com wrote: : rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) : >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. You might as well go around accusing everybody. The Pope, John Elway, Kevin Costner, John Major, whoever. Isn't this the type of innuendo you were protesting not so long ago? Show some evidence, come clean to a.r.s, it's what you advised OT to do. : >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. You have some evidence that she sent OSA people to visit your parents, I assume? Otherwise, this is more unsubstantiated rumor-mongering. : >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. Yes, poor legal reasoning. Her comments were made public to a.r.s without her consent, they were intended for a small audience of people she thought were friends. I'd like to know what right you think Tom has to force somebody to endanger themselves? Legal right, as in "morally and _legally_", above. -- Rod Keller / rkeller@netaxs.com Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club United Free Zone Alliance / Elron's Inspector / Merchant of Chaos Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go / OSA Patsy / SP Level 3 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=[End Quote]=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [ ...End external quotes ] Clearly your words, Rod. : >Show some evidence, come clean to a.r.s, : >it's what you advised OT to do. >: >: Evidence that I suspect Tumor of helping OSA. She has >: provided the fuel for my suspicions with her inside knowledge >: of the events and threat against Tom. > >Evidence that there's an investigation going on. This time you definitely >deleted what I was responding to, and turned my statement on its side. Your quote is above. You owe me an apology. It is *you* who is disinforming ars readers, Rod. And it is becoming serious how routinely you do it. >If >you claim she's impeding an active investigation, post the names and >phone numbers of the investigators. > : >You have some evidence that she sent OSA people to visit your parents, I : >assume? Otherwise, this is more unsubstantiated rumor-mongering. >: >: OSA has sent representitives to intimidate and harass my >: elderly parents. If she is working for/with them, she is >: party to a criminal conspiracy to deprive me of my rights and >: harass me and my family into silence. > >But you have no evidence that she is responsible in any way. You are >rumor-mongering. You are lying as above. : >Yes, poor legal reasoning. Her comments were made public to a.r.s without : >her consent, they were intended for a small audience of people she : >thought were friends. >: >: Lie. >: >: She is the one who posted the threat against Tom and the >: empassioned plea for me to get him "in line". > >Truth, before she posted that plea, Jon posted the info she had given >him, which she asked him to keep private. Thankfully, everybody now >promises to keep conf information conf. How cozy. : >I'd like to know what right you think Tom has to force somebody to : >endanger themselves? Legal right, as in "morally and _legally_", above. >: >: He has the right to have his lawyers track her down and >: make her testify about what she knows. I'm just suggesting >: that she avoid the application of force (in the form of a >: subpoena) and come forward with what she knows. > >Testify in what case? Either in the San Jose case or any other that might be filed. >A criminal case? Against whom? Who are the >prosecutors? Who are the defendants? Come clean. F*ck you with your "come clean" bullsh*t, Rod. My proof of your lies is quoted above. You don't even have to come clean. I did it for you. >Rod Keller / rkeller@netaxs.com +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"