Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: EFFECTIVE FREE SPEECH
Message-ID: <9509231121.0FY7B01@support.com>
References: <440mqa$a5q@three.kiwi.gen.nz>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 95 11:21:13 -0700
Lines: 52


sgoehrin@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (scott goehring)

Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@netcom.com> wrote:
>What about if you simply give a citation to it?  Assuming you give
>him enough information to actually find it for himself, the ball's
>now in his court.  If he claims that he's not allowed to see it,
>that's his problem, not yours.  He can always claim "well I looked at
>it and it doesn't say what you said it does," but if it comes to that
>you won't be able solve that problem by quoting the literal text,
>because he'll just claim that you made it up or that it's a forgery.
>
>also remember that it is futile to argue with a Church member with the
>intent of convincing them that you are correct and they are wrong.

    This is not some sort of proven rule.  It is, in my
    experience working with more than a few borderline escapees,
    not true at all.  The points one brings up in argument, if 
    they are sensible, often eventually cause the cultist's mind to 
    kick over again.  
    
    It is, however, not theraputic to be *adversarial* with
    members unless they are doing the DA Drill or working for OSA
    <which most of the one's who are allowed to post to ars are>.

>when you argue with a Church member, you are seeking to prove _to the
>disinterested observer_ that you are right.

    I am?  Huh.  You know more about what I'm doing than I do 
    now?

>keep this in mind when arguing with Churchies.

    Whatever you say, Scott.

>if you give a citation and brief quote from a published work the
>disinterested observer can, in principle, validate the quotation
>himself.  posting the entire work is actually not productive because
>there is no presumption that you're being truthful.

    There *never* is.

>what proof do we have that _anything_ that has been posted to a.r.s is
>actually what it claims to be, anyway?

    Precisely.

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