Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: LA ORG WOMEN
Message-ID: <9511090952.0DV1M01@support.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 95 09:52:03 -0800
Lines: 63


wolftrip  <wolftrip@micron.net> wrote:

>I have no problem there RA. I'm basically a pretty responsible guy, if
>somewhat sloppy with small details like paperwork, archiving, etc. But
>since the subject of being responsible for what's written here comes up
>frequently, how would one take responsibility for calling another poster:
>
>"a lying scumbag"
>"a lying piece of shit"
>"a fucking liar"
>"fuckwad"

    I never called him, "f*ckwad".  I don't even know what that
    is.  Does it smell bad?

>Just curious. On the surface it appears that if you get in legal
>trouble or DA'd, you don't have to edit before you post. The detail
>police around here, to my knowledge, haven't demanded that anyone
>prove, for a fact, that I am a fuckwad. Am I to assume that ARS has
>granted Kha-Khan status to selected posters? Or that input is
>beyond reproach if it comes from a defendant?

    Here he goes again with the "f*ckwad" thing.  The one thing
    he said I called him that isn't true.  [Reader: you think by
    accident?]

>"Fuckwad" expresses an opinion, namely a dislike for the person.  You can
>argue for or against them, but you can't prove opinions.  "A fucking liar"
>on the other hand, makes a claim that can be challenged and proved or
>disproved.  If someone calls you a liar and I don't believe you lied, I'll
>call them on it.  I'll even sometimes attempt to sway someone's opinion of
>someone else.  I do this already.  Is there a specific opinion you'd like
>me to argue about, or a specific claim you need refuted?

    See, is he a f*cking liar, or not?

>I'm not purposely trying to be sarcastic,

    No, he's surveying the "gullibility quotient" of the
    newsgroup.

>but it is odd. BTW, I've
>never been offended by foul language, it's my view that people who
>resort to it, do so to keep the shock value high and the attention
>focused on them.

    Naw.  I can't pay my debts with attention.

>People are entitled to their opinions, and unless I think there is a
>gross error in their judgement I won't argue about them.  I pretty much
>discount vulgarity too.

    Then why bring it up?

    Woof, your mask is falling off.  It was toadly transparent, 
    anyway.
    
            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"