Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: ATTACK OF THE 50 FOOT Message-ID: <9510200700.09UGV00@support.com> References: <465t9h$dbt@utopia.hacktic.nl> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 07:00:32 -0700 Lines: 110 * nothing to do with scientology * below this line +---------------------------------+ laszlozw@ix.netcom.com (Laszlo Weress ) >Newsgroups: >alt.religion.unification,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.christian,alt.support. >ex-cult,alt.religion.scientology,alt.slack >In <464olo$jhk@allnews.infi.net> dynasor@news.infi.net (Dennis >McClain-Furmanski) writes: > >On Wed. Oct 18, 1995, laszlozw@ix.netcom.com told All: > > lnc> In <45vijv$6ag@allnews.infi.net> dynasor@news.infi.net (Dennis > > McClain-Furmanski ) writes: > >>On Mon. Oct 16, 1995, laszlozw@ix.netcom.com told All: >> >>>Yes, no, no and I've no idea as I don't pry into others personal lives >and >>>wouldn't discuss such details in public on internet even if I knew them. >> >> lnc> Like one's religious affiliation is not one of the most personal >> > business? Aren't we selective of determining what IS one's personal >> > business based on wheather it suits the agenda being pushed, i.e. >> >>Oh, absolutely. You're so right. Ranks right up there with whether or not >>they're fucking someone other than their spouse, and whether they'd want >>that fact spread to a few million people via computer network. Silly >fucking >>me. > >>So, how often do you masturbate? Come on, there's no more reason to hide >>this than there is to hide your religious affiliation. You're not ashamed >of >>either one, are you? Wouldn't you just as soon have them both be topics of >>conversation? Hell, you got the benefit of being here to see it. That's >much >>better than people going on about it behind your back isn't it? > >>How often do you engage in sexual practices that others might find >>distasteful? Or that a significant other might get upset about if they >>learned of it? Let's go, you've made it clear what your alignment is, lets >>hear about your sex life. You've decided they earn equal weighting and you >>spilled one, so spill the rest. > >>And then keep in mind, this is YOU you have control over talking > lnc> about. I >>was refusing to talk about someone else's sex life, which they DON'T > > share >>with me, as opposed to their religious life which they share with > > anyone >>interested. > >>My apologies to the person that brought this up; I've edited the > lnc> message to >>remove that involvement, and am speaking to a different issue. > >>-- >>dynasor@infi.net The Doctor is > lnc> on. > > lnc> Well I think it is high time that you go and see the Doctor.... He > > will give you nice white jacket with long sleeves. > >That's it, dig yourself in deep. > > lnc> On the other hand; poor attempt at bait, switch, duck and run. > >I'm following precisely the flow of the conversation I was involved in. >The topic was whether or not discussing someone's sexual practices was >equivalent to talking about their religious affiliation. > > lnc> .. and you asked me weather I want to discuss issues? > >No, I didn't. Not once. Never even hinted at it. >While telling someone else that I didn't feel at liberty to discuss >someone else's sex life, you decided you needed to equate the two in terms >of suitability for discussion by others. Portions of all of this is above. >Nowhere do I even begin to have the merest intention to consider >thinking >about discussing "issues." > >Several more lines of gratuitous and too easily won admonition have >been >deleted. Maybe you'd better go back and reread the thread. > > * 2qwk! 1.26b3 * Disclaimer: All opinions are not really opinions. > > >-- >dynasor@infi.net The Doctor is >on. > > > >It had nothing to do with discussing someone else's sex-life. The >question was raised weather the couple remained in a monogamous, >faithfull marriage relationship. >I don't know how the post may have been altered, or who said what, but >my discourse and yours are on different frequencies. >Sorry if any of this casued a sense of insult to anyone, that was not >my intention. >__________________________ >Laszlo Z. Weress >"Religion is for people who don't want to go to hell, >spirituality is for those who have been there..." >