Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

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!!!!!!!cmcl2!is2.NYU.EDU!spurgeon Mon Jul 10 17:02:20 1995 Path:!!!!!!!cmcl2!is2.NYU.EDU!spurgeon From: (Keith Spurgeon) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Chris Miller: Lay it to Rest Date: 8 Jul 1995 04:18:46 GMT Organization: New York University Lines: 70 Message-ID: <3tl0v6$5mc@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> References: <3rnr2r$> <3sknu0$> <3sq0v4$> <3t4jl7$iqd@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <3timai$> NNTP-Posting-Host: X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Chris Miller ( wrote: : Somebody wrote (misattributed in post I'm quoting) : >No, Chris did not answer them. Chris said it ain't nobody's bizness. : True, but I said more - several times. OK, Chrisses. It's time to put your heads together and answer the questions once and for all. Many people in this group have asked and reasked the questions regarding the post to soc.women. You have repeatedly claimed you have answered them. And, indeed, "no comment" is a sort of answer, as is "the material about MoFo is true" as is the comment that you disguised your identity in the post. However, "7" and "I don't know" are both answers to the question "What is 2+2?," but they don't raise anyone's opinion of the adult who produces them. I wouldn't want such a person as an auditor (CPA variety). Do you not see the problem here? You posted a message indicating you were a parent concerned for the welfare of a daughter who was hired by a law firm defending someone whom the Co$ is suing. You made allegations against that law firm as the basis for your concern. You provided no evidence for these allegations. You posted to a women's group that one would think would be sympathetic to concerns about the daughter and the alleged conduct. To me, a relative newcomer to ars, this post looked like an attempted sucker punch. Worse, when _your_ conduct regarding this post was brought to light, you first evaded any answers, then produced the answers I referred to above. Subsequent answers have been along the lines of "I already answered that," with occasional backtracking on certain points. These actions drastically changed my opinion of you, and therefore of the Co$. The excuse that you were disguising your identity rings false. If I were disguising my identity, I'd try an anon swerver (never have done it, myself) and would not use any information that could tie me to a specific situation (i.e. why did you say a daughter worked at Morrison & Foerster?). You have never produced any evidence of any sort, not even anecdote, that supports your allegations about MoFo. You repeatedly argue that while a few members of Co$ have been convicted of crimes in service to the Co$, the Co$ is still a good organization. THerefore, you must assess evidence about MoFo similarly. However, you haven't produced even a single element to support even one person in MoFo engaging in the sort of behavior you alleged. As I have said elsewhere in this group, I didn't care a bit about Co$ until they started cancelling messages, trying to remove a newsgroup, and harrassing system administrators. After I joined, I saw a lot of kooky stuff from Co$ official documents. Hey, most religions have their kooky material, though maybe not this transparent. If you wish to put this to rest, you should _answer_ the questions repeatedly asked of you regarding this post. You should post a message (not a follow-up) with all of these answers, an explanation of why you posted this, and possibly an apology or two. You may even want to put together a macro or a sig that will have the relevant info, so each post with these questions can be answered quickly and easily. Your credibility is almost nil with me due to these actions. I find it hard to take anything you say seriously. I consider the source of all posts in this group, and while many flame and many fly off the handle, few have been so clearly called out on a factual basis. While a full answer, with explanations, may not raise your credibility, it is your only chance to do so. keith


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank