From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:32:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.084624.3732@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>I do not have access to an ISBN number.  I did have access to title and
>publisher.  I do not have access to page numbers.  When I do gain access
>to these things I will be able to help you.  But that is still in the
>future.

Well, is it going to be a great inconvenience for you to provide the ISBN
number when you get the page numbers? Will this be some sort of outstanding
inconvenience for you? Will it take you extra hours of research to provide
that data?

In other words, does this alleged "stricter request" actually provide you
with hardship in fulfilling the request?

>However, to your question: admit it, Phil.  Your newer requirements do
>contain two additional requirements.  The proof is above.  Can you admit
>this without calling me a liar?

Two? Oh, you're also going to have trouble providing access to the publisher?
A few more hours of research, no?

Jonathon: you're free to accept or decline the request. What I won't tolerate
is a whole bunch of nonsense claiming that I'm giving ever-stricter requests
and questioning whether or not I'm really committed to reading the pages once
you tell me what they are. I *will* read the material, once you provide it.

>>Are you going to accept or decline the request?
>
>Postpone until I get access to the book.

By when will you do that?

You've already got one outstanding request that you said you would
fulfill: provide a chart of all the organizations related to Scientology.
You said you would do that over a month ago, and we haven't heard anything
yet.

My point is that I don't want you to file this away and never get back
to us. Tell us specifically by when you'll provide the org data and
the book quote. And follow-through on what you say.

>>>ISBN?  Come on.  That's a newer, more constricting rule.
>>
>>Say why. Tell us why this makes life more difficult for you.
>
>Now I need to see the book's front pages.  Previously I could have simply
>directed you to the book by title.

Look what you said above: you have to find the page numbers anyhow! I
repeat: *why* does this make it more difficult for you!

>>What an ISBN number is is a clear, unambiguous means of referring to a
>>particular edition of a particular book. It's a means of speaking clearly;
>>a means of preventing misunderstandings before they happen ("oh, that must
>>have been the *wrong edition* I told you. That's why the page numbers didn't
>>match.").
>>
>>In short, it's a means of bringing rigor to the discussion.
>
>That's fine.  Next time you want to clarify, don't start by calling the
>person a liar.  As for ISBN, when I find it, I'll give it to you.

Well, you are lying. You have not demonstrated why providing the ISBN number
will make the request any more difficult for you at all. In short, you
have made an assertion but provided no data to back it up.

This is a pattern you have in most of your interactions in this group...

>>If you lie to the newsgroup, it'd be better if you just Came Clean. Look
>>what happened to John Holifield...
>
>I haven't knowingly lied to anyone on this newsgroup.  Plus, there is no
>evidence that this is true of John.  Your accusations are being taken by
>me in a very negative way.

It's clear that you don't like what I'm saying. I have no problem with that.

John claimed to have read _GEB: an EGB_. He asked questions that made it
abundantly clear that he either had never read the book or that the central
theme of the book was not "cognited" at all by him. When confronted on the
issue, he dropped out of the Newsgroup. When repeatedly asked the question
after re-joining the group, he has ignored the question. (John: are you
listening now?).

This is what it means to provide data to back up your assertions. Until you
back up your assertion that providing ISBN number (and publisher) is some
sort of added hardship, you have not demonstrated that I'm providing 
some sort of ever-stricter request. And I say that you are lying: making
a mountain out of a molehill.

--phil