Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: AB REVIEW..FOR TOM K.
Message-ID: <9508111610.0MQA202@support.com>
References: <40g4so$h9i@pppmail.nyser.net>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 95 16:10:47 -0700
Lines: 126


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.
: >:     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.
: >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?
>
>No, demanding answers from somebody who you have no right to interrogate.
>That is the analogy to sec-checking.

    Demanding?  I simply posed questions and made allegations
    based on Tumors own threats against Tom.  In a sec check
    answers are demanded, in that one cannot leave or fail to
    answer.  Here, Tumor (or anyone, really) can just ignore the
    question or challange.

    Much as I'd like to at times, I cannot reach through the
    internet and, while wringing your little neck, *demand* that
    you make sense.

: : >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>
>
>Your paragraph quoted above was intended (IMO) to belittle the opinion of
>anybody who hasn't been attacked legally or bodily. Your analogy to Woody
>is absurd.

    Of course it is.  As absurd as you implying that I think Tom
    and I are the only ones who can express an opinion.  But less
    insulting.

>At this point, I'm not interested in what you think of my defense. I'm
>doing what's right, regardless of what you think of it, regardless of
>your chuckles. And don't try to tell me again about the seriousness of
>this matter.

    Well alright then.

: >"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.
>
>You've missed the point, perhaps intentionally.

    <chuckle>  The point you're failing to make is a pointless 
     dodge.

: >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.
>
>I'm pretty sure that info is included in her public posts to a.r.s. If
>not, then I withdraw the statement. I haven't written to or heard from her
>in a few weeks. We're not buds. We don't think alike. That's what's at
>the base of all of this. Can the farmers and the cowboys be friends?

    Yes.  Out here in the open.

: >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.
>
>Don't play dumb, Dennis. Your questions lack a point.

    So I need to ask them again *with* a point this time?  OK.  
    [sharpening his admittedly blunt wit]

    *    What exactly does Tumor know about Tom that she earlier 
         threatened to expose?

    *    How, when and from whom did she find out what she
         threatened Tom with?

    Let's start with those two.  Pointed enough?

>I don't care about her intentions. Even if she were really OSA, I would
>still defend her rights. It's the right thing to do.

    Her right to publicly discredit Tom with inuendos and threats
    of revealing evidence damaging to Tom, and not be challanged 
    about it?  
    
    Perhaps I'm beginning to understand why you defend that "right", 
    Rod.

>Rod Keller / rkeller@netaxs.com

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