Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: AB REVIEW..FOR TOM K.
Message-ID: <9508150850.0CFCJ00@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 95 08:50:43 -0700
Lines: 143


rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller)

>dennis.l.erlich@support.com wrote:
>: rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller)
: >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.
>
>As you have said to me, very dramatic.

    <bows>  Thank you.

>It was the collective "you". You, Tom, Diane, Jon, Peter and henry. The
>people I've been responding to on this thread. You are all demanding
>answers, and Tom is threatening legal action if he doesn't get them. And
>if he can't find out who OT is in real life, I guess he'll have to hire
>PIs, or try to get her identity from friends and associates. Draw your own
>analogy.
>
: : >:     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.
>:
: >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.
>
>I still read that meaning from the paragraph quoted above.
                      
    I'm simply pointing out something used in every school in the
    world:  people who have experienced something give the best
    descriptions of that thing. 
    
    You'll just have to take my word for it, Rod.  Or not.  No
    nevermind to me either way.

>:     *    What exactly does Tumor know about Tom that she earlier
>:          threatened to expose?
>
>Dunno. I don't think she knows anything. I think she suspects, but I
>don't know the source. OT powers, perhaps?
                                                           
    I honestly didn't think *you* knew anything about these 
    questions.

>:     *    How, when and from whom did she find out what she
>:          threatened Tom with?
>
>See above. But I disagree with your classification as a "threat".
              
    Like I said, you had to be there.

>:     Let's start with those two.  Pointed enough?
>
>At this point (heh) I think she's been intimidated into silence by the
>pack I mentioned above. You'll have to be satisfied with speculations. I
>hope this is the result you had in mind, cause you worked pretty hard to
>achieve it.
                                     
    I only worked hard to ensure that people understood the
    implications of what she said and did.  How that is the exact
    way an OSA agent would act.  And that she may very well be
    something other than what she is representing herself to be.

: >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.
>
>It was made public by Jon, not OT. 
>I've made this statement before, and I
>haven't seen a post that contradicts it.

    That's because no one knows what you're talking about.  What
    was made public?  What does that have to do with her attempt
    to discredit Tom into silence and get me to make sure he
    shuts up and quits investigating the frame?


>But what's that last statement
>supposed to mean? Am I back on the OSA suspect list?

    I never thought you were OSA.  A long time ago you
    showed incredible insensitivity.  This occurred after
    Wanger revealed the bogus information from my pc folder
    (before any declarations were arranged to support them)
    about hitting my girlfriend and executing her daughters
    pet rats. (or whatever) Brian had dug some altered version 
    out of my folder and said "I'm sitting here looking at a 
    report from your ethics folder which says ..."

    You asked "Well, did you hit her?" and I commented that you