From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Summary: Just how *does* Jonathon justify lying to the group?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:04:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.235301.20990@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:

>>>>Jonathon: Say the full title of the book. Say its ISBN number. Say the
>>>>name of the publisher. And say the 10 pages that you want me to read. Be
>>>>precise and exact. Clue: I want real page numbers. For extra credit, tell
>>>>me whether or not this edition is listed in _Books in Print_.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, I have not yet seen the new edition.  So all I can tell you
>>>until I do is that the title is What is Scientology? and it is published
>>>by Bridge Publications.
>>>
>>>>If you want to play, those are the rules.
>>>
>>>Your rules keep getting stricter.  I get the feeling that you really don't
>>>want to look up the information.
>>
>>Bullshit. Jonathon: here's *exactly* what my first request was:
>>
>>(from <1992Nov13.205236.29744@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>):
>>$Tell you what.  Why don't you tell me the page that will give me the official
>>$Scientology policy about other religions. I will go to my local B.  Daltons
>>$and read *that*. I am willing to read up to 10 pages of material.
>
>Wouldn't you consider the new request for publisher and ISBN number a change
>in the rules?  Compare your two statements and see who is reading what.

Jonathon: here's another clue: you are once again attempting to deflect the
question. I'll leave it to the other readers of this group to judge whether
or not asking for an ISBN number qualifies for claiming that "[my] rules keep
getting stricter." Perhaps *you* should explain why you think that's a
ever-stricter request.

Are you going to accept or decline the request?

>>Now, Jonathon, I don't intend for you to go catatonic like John Holifield
>>when we noticed that *he* was telling less than the truth in his postings,
>>but I do want you to realize something: you don't listen to what people say.
>>You make up stuff. You may have *thought* that my requests were some sort of
>>ever-constricting set of demands, but THEY WERE CLEARLY NOT. I judge your
>>claim that I'm changing the rules as yet another attempt to deflect the
>>question.
>
>ISBN?  Come on.  That's a newer, more constricting rule.

Say why. Tell us why this makes life 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. 

>
>>Here we go, one more time: from a religion that claims to have the inside
>>track on what it means "to know," you're doing a damn poor job explaining
>>what is that you do know. And you're not granting yourself or Scientology any
>>credibility when you lie to this newsgroup.
>
>Lie?  Please clarify, Phil.  (And it better be good.)

Different question: why are you once again attempting to deflect the request?

If you lie to the newsgroup, it'd be better if you just Came Clean. Look
what happened to John Holifield...

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology