Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be
considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The
Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes
the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the
questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to
those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!holsoft.demon.co.uk!clara Wed Jul 19 09:29:23 1995
Path: news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!holsoft.demon.co.uk!clara
From: clara@holsoft.demon.co.uk (Sister Clara)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal,misc.legal.computing,misc.taxes,comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: The Noose is Tightening on CoS (was Big Suprise - 79K) (LONG)
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 07:02:55 +0100
Organization: None
Lines: 78
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <19950719.070255.75@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
References: <19950718.001310.70@holsoft.demon.co.uk> <3uf5mk$3nj@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <visnet-1807951028520001@dal35.onramp.net> <3uhke9$gri@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: clara@holsoft.demon.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: holsoft.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: holsoft.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Archimedes TTFN Version 0.36
Xref: news.interserv.net alt.religion.scientology:76913 misc.legal:62552 misc.legal.computing:10330 misc.taxes:19000 comp.org.eff.talk:57261
In article <3uhke9$gri@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
esi_inc@ix.netcom.com (Tim Johnson) wrote:
> In <visnet-1807951028520001@dal35.onramp.net> visnet@onramp.net (Sri
> Changiana Saar) writes:
> >
> >In article <3uf5mk$3nj@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, esi_inc@ix.netcom.com
> (Tim
> >Johnson) wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Sister Clara
> >
> >Pardon me for jumping in even though I'm not, technically, Sis Clara...
>
> So, as quick as someone might speak out and say, “Hey, I’m a
> Scientologist and this is my point of view,” he would get vehemently and
> viciously attacked religiously and personally from many sides; issue
> taken with each paragraph - and all of the above based on...
"Viciously attacked"???????? Since when was simple questioning of your
assertions designated as vicious? Look back through the thread. I see
criticism, sure, but your response to the criticism betrays the Scientology
mindset completely. Any criticism or questioning is labelled "persecution"
and is met with cries of anguish about the viciousness of Co$ critics. You
use emotive language to try and assert harassment. But people here can see
what form this "harassment" takes for themselves. First hand evidence you
see.
> second and third hand information as I said; allegations, claims,
> reports of apparently incriminating court records (much of such
> inflammatory information is the result of Mr. Erlich’s activities, who
> was thrown out of the Church for theft and Squirelling - that is,
> altering the technology).
You know this at first hand, do you? That is interesting, considering that
there has never been a suggestion that Dennis was thrown out for anything
other than seeking to change some of the practices in the organisation in
which he had been a senior member for around 15 years. Where does this
"theft" charge come from?
Actually, the vast majority of the reports on ars do not emanate from
Dennis. They are in the public record. Dennis is simply being harassed in an
attempt to silence all the other critics. Won't work, I'm afraid. But keep
dreaming if you want to.
> Of course, someone will dutifully take exception to all these
> statements, again. The rancor with which this occurs is my evidence.
> So blast away.
Another emotive word - "rancor". You have clearly never participated in a
Usenet debate before. You think things are tough here? Try some other
newsgroups.
> The responses would have me in an endless debate on every minor point,
> yet they all avoided the major premise completely. So I'll be more
> succinct:
>
> What do you know to be fact, personally, yourself, with firsthand
> knowledge - what do you *actually* know about the CoS? Answer that.
Having never been attacked by the Mafia, or subject to ethnic cleansing by
Bosnian Serbs, I am not in a position to criticise their actions? Give me a
break! Much of the information we receive is bound to be second-hand. I have
seen the affidavits from ex-members, I have read the newspaper reports, I
have read the books, I have seen the television documentaries, I have seen
the actions of the Co$ in respect to the net, I have seen their public
behaviour towards critics. What would you have me do next?
Of course, you would like me to submit myself to the brainwashing techniques
employed at my nearest org! Get a life and stop being so silly.
--
Sister Clara - SP2.5
************************************************************************
* Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy *
************************************************************************