Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com Subject: I BELIEVE ARNIE (RE: Message-ID: <9601091143.0GGOC01@support.com> Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150 X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35 Distribution: world Date: Tue, 09 Jan 96 11:43:08 -0800 Lines: 183 peter@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) My Primenet account is not functioning properly this morning. I'm not entirely pleased with Free Agent/Agent99 Software, either. Excuse the breaking of thread (if it's occurring) or not. I'm quite happy with my little Dos QWK reader/editor. Peter: >>>>I asked a whole load of questions of Arnie when he posted his claim, >>>>such as what did he do about it? Why, given his knowledge of the clams >>>>and clam tactics, didn't he make some attempt to secure good evidence >>>>of the incident? Did he have any forensic evidence to back up his >>>>claim? Why had he chosen that particular moment to reveal something >>>>that he claims happened six months ago? YHN: > Perhaps Arnie just made a mistake to bring it up at all. >That'd be my take on it. Now he don't wanna compound it. >Maybe he's too wound up to say it right, so he's just being >silent. Peter: >Could be. I really didn't wanna keep banging on about this. >However, while people keep insisting that we have no right to >express doubts about something someone posted here, and giving >reasons _why_ we have to accept something uncritically, and Pope >insisted I spell out the reasons for my disagreement by his >claim that any disagreement or reticence to accept thse claims >was unjustifiable. I believe that's called questioning your reasoning. I'll check the manual and see if it's allowed. >Personally, I'd just have soon left it, but if someone's gonna >tell me what I can and what I can't post -- they are gonna get >a fight about it. Which is why I'm here in the first place. I'd be pissed about that, too ... hell, that's exactly what happened to ME! Someone got a restraining order against you too, Pete? Now I'm *really* getting pissed. Down with the govrnment! Down with the Pope! Let's throw off the shackles of opression! > Be as pointed as you like, Peter. That's what we love >about you. But at the same time, remember there's another >person on the end of it ... Arnie. And perhaps his feelings >have been bruised enough by all this. > >No. I accept this. I think I owe Arnie an apology for this >particular post. I was mad and I went _way_ over the top. Didn't see it. Can't say. >>I shouldn't need to e-mail him, for fuck's sake. > > It would be the courteous thing to do. I don't believe >that Arnie done anything so distasteful as to deserve that >level of discourtesy. > >I don't see it myself. You post a statement on Usenet, you're >expected to respond to it here. You want a private discussion >you send e-mail. But as you say, the original might well have >been a mistake on Arnie's part. No question. > If I doubted his word, I would have asked Arnie, "Would >you mind answering a few questions about that? And if not, >why not?" I would have sent it to him in e-mail or posted >and e-mailed it. > >Well, I did that. I asked the questions and got no reply. I knew >he'd seen them, because he posted stuff on the thread telling >people to paddle in the one direction. So my take was, he didn't >want to answer -- for whatever reason. Hmm. I'd wonder about that too. But I'd still give him the benifit of the doubt, being he's fighting so hard for my rights. And yours. You wanna know what it's like to face down a loaded gun? Sometimes it causes lapses in concentration in other areas of ones life. But, I'm sure you'll take my word for it, eh? > Walk away, fellas. What we know is that Arnie sez it >happened. It is certain to me that it could have happened. >Not that it did. > > It certainly fits the pattern of the scienos. > >Sure. I agree totally. > >>>Milne is a proven liar. He has a track record of deviousness and >>>heavy handed propaganda. Arnie stands accused essentially of; >> >>This is bullshit. Arnie has been posting propaganda for the critics. > > The rhetoric does get thick at times, but hey, you wanna >walk in his shoes and tell us how comfortable it is, Peter? >Step right up. You too can be fairgamed. > >I'm not saying that this is bad, or wrong, or anything of that nature. >Shit, I do it myself. However, I am saying that when you take up any >side in a particular battle, if you are going to make claims about >your opponents, you need to provide as much detail as possible in >order to establish the credibility of those claims. The newsgroup is an amorphous mega-organism. Fortunately one person's weakness can be covered by another's strength. Even mistakes are useful, if we learn from them. >That's only common sense, surely? Next time we we go to defend society from a dangerous criminal cult, we'll all do much better. I promise. Still, there've been no Wacos or Jonestowns in our confrontations, (which is certainly within the realm of possibility with the scienos) so we must be doing something right, eh? >>He's obviously got a position that he is trying to push. > > That he has a right to speak and so do we. > >Well, apparently not, according to some posters here. We can >only speak provided we hold a certain view. Has anybody marched into your house with guns to tell you what you can post? Get a perspective. Disagreement is what *you're* arguing is not allowed. Stop and think, Peter. The very fact that you're saying that negates your premise. >>How do you know if you don't check what he says? And as soon as >>anyone does check, a clam like mob starts screaming about persecution. > > Bad manners, undeserved. That'd be my complaint, Pete. > >Whereas accusing people of lying and deliberately trying to malign >Arnie, when all they are really doing is standing up for people's >right to differ and ask for more information is _good_ manners? Differing is what we're doing. It's healthy. >I don't see how it's bad manners to ask someone who posts to >Usenet for more information about their claims. However, I do >accept that this post was way over the top. I was kind of aware >when I posted it, but I was so mad I let it go anyway. :) >>You'll be calling it a hate crime on the internet next, Pope. > > You dis'd Arnie. > >Hey, Arnie's a big boy. Big enough to fight the cult, he's big >enough to take some shit from me, surely? I don't hear Arnie whining about your post. >But you're right. I owe him an apology for the tone of this post. Maybe so, maybe no. We all make mistakes. >I've sent him one in e-mail to be sure that he sees it, but I thought >I ought to post a public one as well. Like Henry quotes Lenny Bruce: "When you can't say f*ck, you can't say 'F*ck the government!'". >peter@petermc.demon.co.uk Fool as cuck! Hope I'm not outta line. Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *