NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/religion/scientol/2751

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 4.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgi!wdl1!master!jerry
From: [e-mail] (J Barbera)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Just how *does* Scientology view other religions?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Nov 92 08:46:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Loral Defense Systems Arizona
Lines: 101

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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 <[e-mail]>):
>>>$Tell you what.  Why don't you tell me the page that will give me the official
>>>$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.

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.

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?

>
>Are you going to accept or decline the request?

Postpone until I get access to the book.

>
>>>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.

Now I need to see the book's front pages.  Previously I could have simply
directed you to the book by title.

>
>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.

>
>>
>>>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?

You just deflected *THE* question.  I am still not clear on what the "lie"
was.  Was it the thing with stricter rules?  That was true as stated clearly
above.  How'd I lie?

>
>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.

Jonathon
Barbera