Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: LA ORG WOMEN Message-ID: <9511111110.0FPHJ01@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Sat, 11 Nov 95 11:10:53 -0800 Lines: 105 rogue@ccs.neu.edu (R Agent) >wolftrip wrote: >dennis.l.erlich@support.com wrote: >> wolftrip wrote: > >First we need to straighten out who said what. > >Wolf said: > >> >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" This was me: >> I never called him, "f*ckwad". I don't even know what that >> is. Does it smell bad? > >Wolf again: > >> >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? This was me: >> 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?] Rogue: >This was my reply: > >> >"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? > >Back to Wolf: > >> >I'm not purposely trying to be sarcastic, >> >> No, he's surveying the "gullibility quotient" of the >> newsgroup. > >Still Wolf: > >> >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. > >And my reply: > >> >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. > >This entire post is in error. In it Erlich attributes statement made >by RA to me. He assumes I was indicating he called me fuckwad and then >accuses me, yet again of lying because of it. Nowhere did I attribute >the calling of "fuckwad" to him. BTW, what is a fuckwad? > >It was a reasonable assumption to make that you were talking about Dennis, >although you never explicitly said so. I certainly assumed it. So, was >this just a hypothetical question with no basis in reality and no >particular reason you asked it, or did you have somebody in mind when >framing the post? You must've had -some- objective, something that >brought the question on. S'wat I bean thinkin'. >I believe Scientologists call this sort of thing "covert hostility". >Where were you headed with this, Wolf? To Plonksville? > RA +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby"