Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: MORE LIES YOUR DENNIS Message-ID: <9510212146.0ULDY01@support.com> References: <467r2d$4ot0@tigger.cc.uic.edu> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sat, 21 Oct 95 21:46:40 -0700 Lines: 98 vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik) >However, here is the first -possible- -very minor- blow against >the credibility of his answers that I've seen in my >very short time here that I'm actually willing to believe might >be true. > >Now, both sides agree that being a hooker is "out ethics". I personally have no beef with hookers. >Its possible that Dennis just got carried away and made a cheap shot >about there being a hooker on the staff. No. I didn't say any hookers were on staff. >Everyone can make a mistake. >Of course, I may receive a hundred posts stating >that I'm the one who made the mistake - how could >I credit anything a Co$ person says about anything, >Dennis _always_ tells the truth. Close enough for Usenet. >However if it was a mistake, it would _enhance_ Dennis's >credibility if he were to admit that it was a mistake. A mistake to say there were a number of topless dancers and a couple of hookers taking services at LA Org in the 60s and early 70s? >I do feel that this post about >hookers was questionable from the outset, and I'm >simply responding honestly to the rebuttal. Whatever. >This is my honest opinion. I'm sorry, is there something I've said to give you the misimpression that I know who you are and care what you think about me? If so, let me disabuse you of that idea right now. >And if critics can't be honest with one another here, >what's the point? I haven't got a clue who you are, so I don't give much weight to your "what's the point" question. Haven't you been here trying to drag the newgroup off into TM or Moonieland? >Sincerely, >Arun Malik +--------------------------------+ This part of the previous post actually *could* have been misinterpreted. Sorry. Allow me to clarify: Keith: > Tell that being a hooker is some sort of out-ethics condition in > Scientology? Nowadays, yes. The whole sexual hangup of the scienos started in the 70s. If I had the Bulletin SEX AND PAIN, I'd post it. But the scienos took it during their unconstitutional raid and won't give it back. a.j. danzig: > Yes it is, in fact you would probably be expelled. If you confessed it in session or let people know. Keith: > Let me guess: As long as you're doing it to pay for auditing... Me: > You goddit. If a hooker came in for service (and revealed her occupation), the scienos would take her money (especially if it was a thursday and gross income stats were down) and put the person through ethics, conditions, and sec checking at her expense. I didn't say the people involved made public announcements about their profession. And no I will not name names. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"