From: jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera)
Subject: Re: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:47:36 GMT

In article <By6oyp.5v1@csn.org> pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.084624.3732@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>
>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.

I've been checking around periodically for the book.  Until it is made
available, I will not be able to give you the information.

>>>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.

Now you are lying.  I have asserted and the data has been provided by you!

I said you were making the rules stricter (two new requirements since the
previous request).  You call me a liar.  *You* provided in a recent article
both the first and second requests.  Without question, there are two
additional requirements.

Just face it, Phil, you made a mistake.  Don't try to protect yourself
by calling me a liar.

>>>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 not proof that John is lying.  Maybe he didn't understand the book.
Or maybe he chose not to accept the content of the book.  Just because
you accept its content doesn't mean it's true for John.

>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.

You know very well that your second request included two additional
requirements.

My point by stating that you were making your rules stricter was to
direct your attention the addition and to stop you from making future
additions simply to keep yourself from having to read the text.

At this time, *you* are lying by insisting that I have lied about this.

Jonathon
Barbera