Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: Red herrings from exCofS'
Message-ID: <9510280932.0DE7R00@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 95 09:32:05 -0700
Lines: 63


wolftrip <wolftrip@micron.net>

>Diane suggests that Manson
>might have had "muddled" thinking when he stated he was a theta clear
>(probably just a lucky guess on her part). 
 
   Not hardly, scumbag.  Diane know quite a bit about how the 
   scam works.

>Whatever the case. he was wrong.
>And if erlich suggested or supported, in any way, the notion that Manson may
>well have been recognized by the CofS as a Clear of any sort in the late
>60's, then Erlich's entire story is bogus. 
      
   Hey, *sshole!  F*ck you with a straight razor.
   
   You've called me a liar several times in the couple of days 
   you came back.  Either prove it or shut the f*ck up.

   I never said that Manson was a clear.  Or even that he thought
   he was.  Find a posting where I did and quote it, scumbag.  
   Otherwise shut your bleedin' hole.  
   
   I said he was on LA Org lines.  You confirmed that statement by
   admitting he'd done the comm course and got a cert.

>That it does. My reply to Diane covers what knowledge I had (heresay and idle
>chatter amongst GO members at weekly poker games).
                                                
   And you confirmed the point I have been making.  (which the 
   scienos continue to deny)  
   
   MANSON READ SCIENTOLOGY BOOKS AND TOOK THE COMM COURSES BEFORE
   HE COMMITTED THE MURDERS.  
   
   Coincidence?
               
Rogue:
>We might just flush someone who was there and can verify Dennis's claim
>out of the woodwork.  We're working on a jigsaw puzzle, everybody tosses
>in the piece they have and we see what it makes.

Woof:
>You might. I have stated here in the past though that the Manson/Scientology
>bit is a red herring. It serves no purpose other than to keep the "vetted the
>org" story alive. At what point do you decide that Erlich's claim is both
>irrevelant and bogus?

   I didn't bring up Manson.  Someone else thought it was
   important to make the connection and I gave my little
   contribution.  I witnessed the ordered vetting of LA Org files
   of any mention that Manson had indeed been a scientologist.

>Wolf
 
   You don't like it?  Tough sh*t.
   
            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"