[And here the latest one! Tilman]

Dear Mike:

Well, some degree of courtesy seeped in but I can't tell if it is by accident or design. I've also got a new policy with regard to accepting calls which I'll go into shortly. Meanwhile, here's the rundown:

"Maureen" - She was a fascinating combo, saying she was calling from Connecticut. (At 11:30 pm CT time? Oh, that's right. Courses were over. And someone was there next to her on the phone that she would remark to. Let her figure out how I knew that one.) "Maureen" tried to be very sweet, but it just kept coming out as a horrible 1.1. You know that mocking kind that is actually sarcasm, so it's not a true 1.1? She said that she saw I was commenting on the rude calls and she wasn't going to be rude (the voice had that reassurance of the nurse who tells you the shot won't hurt just before she hits you with that horse needle) but she had been asked to call me. (Gee, wonder which Dept asked her to do it? Does the number 20 ring a bell?) In that now-now voice, she reassured me she wasn't afraid of me (huh?) and that I shouldn't be afraid of her (here comes that needle!) but I should just calm down (would Vistaril help? oh sorry, that's only an antihistamine) She ended up telling me I sounded PTS III. Huh? Is she ordering me a protein shake and cal-mag?

"-------------" An anonymous message from someone who talks through their nose with a twinge of New England accent, telling me something about committing overts. (Why does he want to commit overts?) All I could think of while listening was, "Would I want this guy as my auditor? What would this sound like while doing a GF40 or a CS53? Gawd, how long before I'd laugh?" (And boy, we know what happens if you have a funny thought while on the cans!)

"Susan" - She called but I was not available and said she'd call back. I gotta list her here for Thursday. We'll see how she fares.

And I got an email from "Alan_Weber@rocketmail.com" who complained about my characterization of his call. As he posted also to ARS, I replied there so you can read it there and that was when I realized I need to institute a new policy.

Here it is.

I'm available. I've even posted my phone number. I can be found. Yet the drones who call are all in hiding, which is -8.0 on the tone scale. I can't get a true phone number, a verifiable street address or any confirmation on their identity. So, I wondered, why is that? If they are so certain, so brave, so vested with the impregnable tech, why are they in hiding and I am not? (Hell, Mike, at least I know where YOU work! Why not the drones?) _I'm_ certainly not going to hide so why not ask for something more uptone from them. What's the matter with at least being honest as to who you _are_? Otherwise, why talk to someone who - as soon as they open their mouth - they are lying?

So here's what I'm instituting: I want to know who I'm talking to. They say they are Scientologists but I won't talk to anyone who won't allow me to confirm their identity. And no, the number of the pay phone where I can reach them is _not_ acceptable. I mean through directory assistance or one of the many Net search engines where I can pull up addresses and phone numbers or even via reverse searches, pull up addresses. (That's what I told "Alan" in my reply to him at his free rocketmail.com address. Gee, wonder why he uses that one? Duh!)

I don't expect they will. I tried it before and all they did was regurgitate the patter they were told to do, and I've told you how effective _that_ is. But the least I can do is point up the massive discrepancy and ask the question: why do they hide and lie? If you can help peel away that layer, I will be the first to acknowledge it. You know me, Mike. We've fought side-by-side and toe-to-toe but I'm also straight with you. And you know why.

Last point: You can be delighted all you want that I even pick up the phone with these dweebs etc. But it won't get you what you think it will get you. You're playing by an old estimation. And old game plan. There is a new one. A new trade-off. Or haven't you noticed a change in an operating basis? Hmmmm.....??? Time for a new analysis? (laugh) (It's a bitch when the opposition can move and change faster than you can. That was what the US encountered in Viet Nam, wasn't it?)

And remember, the first one to talk, stays out of jail. Get those documents stashed and take them to the feds who will get Kathy and the kids out safely. They deserve that much.

Best wishes,
Robert Vaughn Young
writer@eskimo.com

P.S. The brews are on ice.