Path: bogie.dyn.ml.org!xs4all!xs4all!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!diablo.theplanet.net!news-b.ais.net!ais.net!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Kady lied Date: 06 Oct 1998 12:55:54 PDT Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families." Lines: 61 Message-ID: <361f7660.15824387@news.concentric.net> References: <6ug4cg$1ai@enews3.newsguy.com> <361090e2.20298377@enews.newsguy.com> <6ui60l$gb1@enews1.newsguy.com> <6umd0f$ar7$1@nnrp03.primenet.com> <0tZG2MdlgIPI092yn@islandnet.com> Reply-To: informer@informer.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts028d37.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: bogie.dyn.ml.org alt.religion.scientology:122827 martinh@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt): >As Rob has said, there was never >a "rule", hardly even a "convention"; some people thought log posting >was a good idea, some thought it was a bad idea. That's my recall on it. It was only attempts to enforce the convention that solidified it into a rule, which I believe it is now. But I could be completely wrong; nebulosity tends to confused me. It actually could all have been crystal clear. >As far as I can >recall, and without looking at what was said at the time, I simply >changed my mind when the log-posting-is-OK camp posted some very >persuasive arguments to ars. I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. Of course one cannot be assured of privacy on a public channel. Into those discussions I often tossed my "privacy is over-rated" quip, as those present will recall. Then I realized the channel was actually being owned by default, and needed to be given back to the participants. It seemed it then was. >I don't see how any of this can be >construed as a "lie", and the suggestion I "faked" being angry and >surprised at being banned is ridiculous; I was both, as those who >were there at the time may recall. NB. Martin doesn't fake being emotional. >No suggestion of banning had ever >occurred before they did it to me, so-called "rules" notwithstanding. At that moment, the group in control of the channel turned their tight consensus into a rule. >No punishment for violation of said "rules" or "conventions" was >ever mentioned, that I can recall. Again, this was a long time ago. When you live on the edge, Martin, you have to expect a crowd to gather to see if you'll jump. >According to Rob, there were never any such rules as she's suggesting >on #scientology; I certainly would not have "signed up" under those conditions. But I have gradually accepted them in order to make use of the medium, which I sorta get a kick out of. >Pity more of us couldn't post >in such a manner, but some of us are just too hot-headed for our >own good. :-) Scienotology can help you with them pesky emotions, Martin. Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *