Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: WHAT'S GOIN' ON HERE GUYS Message-ID: <9509191502.0L4XU02@support.com> References: Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Tue, 19 Sep 95 15:02:46 -0700 Lines: 49 hm@custard.bnsc.rl.ac.uk (Huw Morris) >Subject: What's goin' on here guys? It's called a Usenet Newsgroup, Huw. >What's going on here, people? I remember when critics arguing with Scienos. >Now I find it's critics arguing with critics. We're not allowed to disagree with each other? >It seems to me that Andy Greenberg has come in here with a lawyer's >perspective of events that was badly needed. You can spout off all you >want about court decisions etc, but if you are not a lawyer, your opinions >aren't worth shit. Actually the only people whose opinions *are* worth shit (as you put it) are the Federal Judges in front of whom these cases have been placed. >All you do is clog up a.r.s. even more. So please, let's >have less of the posts starting: > IANAL, but... > >Some of Andy's opinions have not been to the liking of certain people here. >That's too bad. Here we are, critisizing culties for being close-minded, >and some critics are just as bad! When Dennis' (and Arnie's and >FACTNet's) cases come to court, the judges and juries are going to have >to be convinced. Simply saying, 'These are the documents, they speak for >themselves' is not going to be enough. > >So listen to Andy Greenberg. He seems to know what he's talking about, >even if he could have made a better impression when he first arrived. >But above all, BE OPEN MINDED! Be prepared to admit you might be wrong >occasionally. Listen to arguments, and make a rational decision based >only on the facts. > >Please? Okey dokey. >Huw +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"