From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Scientology: It's just "a joke".
Summary: How about some answers, Chip?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:39:20 GMT

In article <1hb7ccINNak4@mirror.digex.com> chipg@access.digex.com (Chip Gallo) writes:
>You and Annette, among others, don't seem to me to care about studying
>Scientology. I have told you why I post here. It truly makes little
>difference to me whether you and others who fear Scientology and the imagined
>dangers of the subject answer the question. I personally do consider
>Annette's comments to be a form of baiting or harassment but a public forum
>is hardly the place to attempt to get her (or you for that matter) to give an
>honest reply.

Could you comment on the "I know what your crimes are ..." e-mail
messages that non-Scientologist posters to this newsgroup seem to get?
Those seem to be the most blatant form of harassment and baiting that
I have seen in this discussion.

Speaking of harassment...
>As a side note, the perported FAQ is loaded with false, negative and
>biased material. It would be interesting if the copyright and
>trademark holders of terms such as "Scientology," "Dianetics" etc.
>took legal action.

Legal action? What for?

Are you claiming that someone can't use the word "Scientology" in a
posting without getting legal permission from the CoS to say it? Could
you cite some legal precedent here? Or is this something you are just
making up?

>There are clear, concise answers available from the Church with
>documentation;

GREAT! DO IT! POST THEM ANSWERS! Tell us:

1. Is Scientology a Science, or is it not a Science? If it is, what
   demonstration of its Scienceness exists?

2. Why can't the alleged ESP skills of Scientologists be objectively
   demonstrated?

3. Why does an e-meter cost $3000 when a VHS VCR costing $169.99 is probably
   performing a far more sophisticated signal-processing function?

>a continued distribution of demonstrably false and damaging material
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>could be construed as intentionally malicious.

Marvelous! Demonstrate to us that what's in the FAQ is false! Show us
those EVIL LIES!

The real piece of nonsense in what you're saying is the implication that
someone is *delibeately misrepresenting* the group in the FAQ.  NONSENSE! The
reason that the Scientologists are not represented is that THEY HAVEN'T SAID
ANYTHING ABOUT THE FAQ AND THE QUESTIONS IN IT. The FAQ arises out of a series
of questions that are asked, repeatedly, in this group, but are NEVER EVER
ANSWERED.

Chip, rather than whining about the pack-o-lies that's in the FAQ, why don't
you address the issues/questions that are asked there? Somehow, this novel
idea has escaped all other Scientologists who have been participating in the
discussion for the past 3 months.

A side note: this is where Conspiracy Theory always breaks down.  Postings
like Chip's will claim that The Authority is performing false and malicious
things to them. But when it comes down to objectively demonstrating their
claims, they fall flat on their faces.

I'll even predict the future: If Chip follows the pattern, he will drop the
discussion at this point. Even though he claims that "there are clear, concise
answers available to our questions," he won't post them to the group. He
probably won't discuss this thread further, because it would demonstrate that
his claims of clear, concise answers are untrue.

Perhaps the FAQ should discuss this phenomena in further detail....

>Just my 'umble opinion.

No. There's nothing at all humble about your opinion. You imply that the
existence of the FAQ could be the grounds for legal action. You imply that the
use of the words Scientology and Dianetics is some violation of
copyright/trademark law.  This is a baseless, groundless threat.  The fact
that you would make such faintly veiled threats is arrogance personified.

><Chip>

Could you elevate your postings to something above threats? Rather than
whining, is it possible for you to actually improve the quality of the FAQ by
providing answers to the questions asked there?

"Just the facts, ma'am."

--phil


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology