Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: ANDY GREENBERG
Message-ID: <9509191502.0L4XX02@support.com>
References: <trosine.8.0@student.uwsuper.edu>
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: 63


wendel@wendel.se (S. Wendel)

henri@netcom.com (henry) wrote:
:>the right to free speech is the right to speak effectively.
:>the reason arnie was raided is that his speech _was_ effective.

Walker:
>The right to free speach also includes the right to put forward ideas, and
>interpretations, that differ from those held by you, *without* being the
>subject of personal attacks.

    Personal attacks?  Ho, ho, ho.  No, personal attacks are when
    they dig up your ex-wives to say you molested your daughter.
    When they dig out your confessions and post them to internet.
    When they call you a drug dealer or child pornographer to the
    press.

    Speculating about someone's motives in trying to assume the
    role of de-facto moderator in a newsgroup where legitimate 
    criticism of a criminal conspiracy is occurring is not a 
    personal attack.

>Nowadays it seems like there is only one "truth", or only one interpretation of
>things, that is accepted by a group of people on the anti-Co$ side, and every
>attempt to discuss other interpretations, or other ideas than those accepted by
>that group is met with fierce attacks.

    Your statement is somewhat nonsensical.  We disagree on how
    to deal with certain things.  We criticize each other's various
    opinions.  How is this an indication of "one truth"?  It
    seems to prove the opposite.

>Andy Greenberg now is in the same position (or even more so) that I was in a
>while ago when I tried to discuss certain things out of Co$'s point of view, in
>order to make the way they act more understandable (understanding your enemy is
>necessary if you want to be able to predict their next move).

    Perhaps you'd like to try to make those points again?

>I don't think that this kind of debate, or non-debate, is doing us any good. If
>you insist on keeping on, please take it to e-mail.

    I have my finger in the breeze and I can tell if a majority
    of people (whose opinions I give a sh*t about) think I'm over
    the line.  My friends know they can tell me I'm full of it
    and I'll listen.

>I bet the OSA people are jumping for joy when they see the way their opponents
>are at each other's throats......

    They're running around in circles postulating that Whyte and
    the rest of the Federal Bench won't drop another load of
    trouble on them.

>/SW
>WebWalker

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