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..."
>