Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: ANDY GREENBERG 1/2 Message-ID: <9509190907.0CTOY00@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 09:07:44 -0700 Lines: 178 trebor@animeigo.com (Robert J. Woodhead (AnimEigo)) Me: > I see his insults to me as personal attacks. On top of what > I've had to endure at the hands of the scienos I say to him > and you "that's as much bullshit as I will eat." (to > paraphrase cummings) >Please re-read his messages. He never insulted you personally. Nor did I. I'll be the judge of my own feelings, thank you. >He merely disagreed with some of your positions and tactics. You interpreted >this as a personal insult. That's like if I say something rude to you and you get offended, it's because you "pulled it in"? (ie programmed yourself to recieve and twist it) >You flamed both of us because we did not hew to the party line that "everything >Dennis and to a.r.s protestors do is RIGHT and SHOULD BE LEGAL. These are the same insults you keep paying me and denying. My response is "Drop dead jerk." There is no party line. Every man for himself. That you characterize it thus show your cluelessness (or motives). >Andy had the >temerity to suggest ways to blunt the CO$'s biggest weapon that would require >some self-restraint on your part. Jerk. I have been under restraint for 8 months. Sweet Jesus! Someone please send this guy a clue. >>Andy is a great tactical lawyer. He knows the process. > So you say. So far he's been quite helpful in presenting > arguments to limit my freedom of speech about a subject he > clearly knows next to nothing. How to deal with and expose > the cult to public ridicule. > >Andy has been very aware of the cult on a local (Tampa/St. Pete) level for >some time. Furthermore, he never presumed facts he didn't know; he merely >explained why certain actions a.r.s protestors have done or want to do >made them easy targets, as a MATTER OF LAW. That's what we're trying to fix, dummy. >Alas, he told you things you didn't want to hear. And I told him (and you) "f*ck you". It has nothing to do with "want to hear". It has to do with "willing to tolerate" giving up the rights Andy says I need to. >>He's trying to >>explain to you how the a.r.s protesters can more efficiently use the legal >>system to their advantage -- to counter the effect of the church using the >>system to their ends. > Yes, but he's wrong, because his tactics apply only to one > arena and set of rules. >It is not enough to say "I Dennis am right, and you are wrong." That is the >position of the CO$. You must explain, in reasoned discourse, WHY. Not >just for Andy's benefit, not just for the benefit of other readers, but for >your >benefit, both internally (refining your thoughts) and externally (as a matter >of record that may be useful later). Your newby status is showing. If you want a sample of my thoughts, they are all over. Trying doing your homework. Or you could ask me some pertinent questions. I've been known to answer directly at times. >>Stop calling him a fuckhead because you don't like his message. > Can I call you a f*ckhead instead, because you are > characterizing my criticism as shoot the messenger, instead > of what I am actually doing (pointing out that Andy knows > sh*t about the cult). >How much Andy knows about the cult is irrelevant. Ah. You make my point for me. >It is what he knows about >the law and what the cult can do with it that is relevant. No. It's what we can do with it that is improtant. Anyone who knows anything about the cult already knows what they do with the law to silence critics. And that's what this is about ... or had you not noticed? >>Shooting the messenger is a dumb stunt. > F*ckhead. >Please try to be more eloquent, Dennis. I'm trying. Since I left the cult I've had a kinda Digital Turrett's Syndrome. If I'm talking to a rude, clueless, jerk like you who keeps spouting pontifications from what he considers a highground, my fingers develop a repeated twitch and type out things like "f*ck you, jerkoff" and "you're full of sh*t". I just can't help it. My doctor said it was inculable in an advanced case like mine. >You will note that neither Andrew >or I has called you a name, nor have we called your motives into question; >we have merely politely disagreed with your strategy and tactics. You only *think* your being polite. >His attempt to help out on a.r.s was indicative of this orientation on his >part, IMHO. I caught his orientation. "Don't quote. It'll get you in trouble. It'll get you raided. There's no point. Don't do what the ars "party line" says. Don't engage in lawlessness and dead-agenting like Dennis and the rest of the critics who've made attacking the church their profession. >>The legal system has inertia. Much easier to take what is already there >>and use it to your advantage than try and push it where you'd like it to >>be. > When people can come into your home and rape your privacy, > it's time to push back. > >In this I am in agreement; my only disagreement is with the methods you and >others are using. Which methods, pray tell. I've pushed this flap far enough into the mainstream that even like you feel they're part of the action now. Don't talk to me about methods until you have any of your own and show us that they work. (And if you call me Machievellian (sp) I'll tell you to FOAD) My methods are tried and true. In the tradition of all non-violent reformers. My words. If you don't like my methods, do like millions of other Dennisitis sufferers worldwide have done: ignore me. >I understand some of your frustration and anger; I >merely point out that allowing those emotions to goad you into unwise >manuevers is bad tactics. I'm virtually sitting on my keyboard to prevent me from violating Whyte's TRO depriving me of my free speech rights. And I have been for the last ... EIGHT F*CKING MONTHS! >If you want to move a boulder at the top of the hill, removing those little >rocks in front of it that hold it in place will do the trick, but while the >boulder gets to the bottom of the hill, you get squashed. Much better to >think, get a lever, and do it from the other side. You and Ken Long ought to chat. Form an alt.dumb.metaphore newsgroup. >>If you don't believe him or me in this regard, I suggest you ask him for a >>compilation of his postings (if you don't have them handy) and show them to >>MOFO and ask them what THEY think of it. > I think I'll trust MoFo to look after my interests. I have > been consulted on every major decision MoFo has made. They > have shared with me every strategy they're using. > > Strange that none of the pessimistic, give up your rights to > quote, positions have even been considered for me to approve > or overrule. >MoFo is in the main dealing with the narrow facts of your case, and how to >get you out of your legal situation. This is different from what Andy is >doing. I repeat my challenge, which you have clevery avoided: Pass on >Andy's posts to MoFo and get their opinion and post it. And I repeat my challange. FOAD. I am represented by people I trust. >My judgement is that you will not, because you don't want to hear things [ Continued In Next Message... ]