Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: dennis.l.erlich@support.com
Subject: BASIC RIGHTS (WAS: SH
Message-ID: <9510302155.0USKU05@support.com>
References: <eeeDH8r6J.An9@netcom.com>
Organization: L.A. Valley College Public BBS (818)985-7150
X-Mailer: TBBS/PIMP v3.35
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 21:55:12 -0800
Lines: 79


O. Really

>(to Pope Charlie):
>>All I see is scineo-like nay-saying.
>
>   This is the second time you have made unflattering comparisons
>   between the tactics of scienos and their critics.   If you
>   really gave a shit about the people you're insulting in this
>   way, you would discuss it with them in private, and not use
>   this kind of ugly rhetoric to refute the statements of people
>   you then claim to be your friends.

O:
>Dennis,
>
>Temper, temper.  Sometimes the best thing a friend can do for another is to
>point out when he is going astray.

   That's why I'm pointing it out.

>True, it hurts, and out in public it is
>ugly.  My apologies, but my chosen form of "anonymity" only leaves a me a
>public forum.  But I meant no harm, and it certainly was not meant as an
>insult.

   But now you see how it is?

>I only wanted a solid, legitimate argument, so much the better to
>withstand the twisting that Scientology inevitably attempts to give
>everything.

   Then say that without resorting to the rhetorical insulting
   comparisons.

>And the "Pope" did elucidate much better than before in his
>response.  I like what Barwell has to say - he is one of the few I go out of
>my way to read here (RAgent, Modemac, Diane, Jacobsen and Lippard being the
>primary others).  Sorry if I struck a nerve with you, but sometimes things
>need to be said.

   No nerve struck.  I get tired of people playing it fast and
   loose with criticism of those of us who've put in our time
   standing up in public against the cult.

>And I'm not so arrogant to think that I am incapable of
>can be wrong as well.

   You're wrong to compare Pope to the scienos.  It was low and
   uncalled for.

>I sometimes need correction (loud and clear) Example:
>I was wrong about Andy Greenburg - "decent arguments" from his point of view
>which I thought merited further examination, but he apparently had no
>cojones to stay around for the real fight and defend them.

   Whatever.

>I'll fight the Scienos my own way, on my chosen turf - and push like hell to
>have Hubbard's scrawlings publicly proven to be the shit that it is.  And I
>will help expose Scientology as the tapestry of lies and deceptions that it
>is - which will make it a public object of deserved derision and subsequent
>destruction.

   Hey, knock yourself out.

>(In the tradition of henri, whom I have sent $20)... And if that ain't good
>enough for you, then you  can ride your high-horse into the sunset and FUCK
>OFF.

   I'll let you know what's not good enough for me.  Count on it.

   And I won't be going any place.

            +--------------------------------------+
           Rev. Dennis L Erlich  * * the inFormer * *
      dennis.l.erlich@support.com  +  inForm@primenet.com
                           "tar baby"