Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: THE NON-SCANDAL OF AN
Message-ID: <9509171908.0QVXN01@support.com>
References: <43h96k$6op@panix2.panix.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 19:08:20 -0700
Lines: 73


werdna@gate.net (Andrew C. Greenberg)

>Don't overstate my assumptions.  The judge will hear the evidence and
>weigh it in the end, as will a jury.  
 
    Andrew, this statement shows how vacuous your assumptions 
    actually are.  And how little you know about the subject of 
    this newsgroup: the cult of scientology.
    
    Newsflash for the clueless newby:  The cult will NEVER LET 
    THESE CASES GO TO A JURY.  If you knew anything about the 
    cult, you would know that.

>Derision is a very weak legal argument.
                              
    You only speak of style.  It's not relevant.

>Don't fall in love with your arguments henry.  They are still 
>losers in the long run.
                    
    Your arguments are being proven wrong with every succeeding 
    decision, Andrew.

> that he seems to support existing copyright law,
> which tolerates such intolerable burdens as
> the short-circuiting of fourth amendment procedures
> through _ex parte_ procedures and the recent
> use of trade secret law to exert prior restraint
> is not encouraging.
>It is one thing to explain what is the law, and another to support it.  I
>actually never spoke about whether it was right or wrong to do so.  And I
>never agreed that the CoS could do the things that they did in these cases
>beyond the scope of the seizure order.
                     
    You have indeed made no statement condemning the scienos.  
    All you can criticize is the whistleblowers and our style and
    methods.  I'm seriously sick of it.

>Indeed, your misrepresentation of my remarks and history in this posting
>proves my point well -- you adopt the tactics of the propagandists you
>claim to despise, and then wonder why you may be losing credibility.
                                       
    F*ck you, Andrew.  I withdraw my acceptance of your bogus 
    apology.

>Enough of this nonsense.  *I* am not the issue.  I never have been.  

    You have made yourself an issue for me.

>But
>your mypoic desire to be right is blinding you from even considering
>whether you are in fact doing the right thing or the best thing.  Or
>whether things already done were the best for your cause.

    You are a backseat driver and a monday morning quarterback.
    You have taken no personal stand in this matter except to
    denegrate and criticize us.  It's very weak stuff.

>Well-considered and rigorous discussion of the merits of your views is
>always the best way to understand how to guide your conduct.  This
>beat-up-on-andy-because-we-don't-like-what-he's-saying horseshit is
>childish, at best, but worse yet, another way to shoot yourself in the
>foot.
                                                      
    More critique of style.  Make a substantive statement.  Or 
    FOAD, Andy. 
    
            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"