On Wed, 29 Oct 1997 19:39:38 +0000, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

Not according to Feynman, see bottom of page 70 in the recently
released Six Not-So-Easy-Pieces.  The chapter is called The
Special Theory of Relativity which I believe can also be found
in the last of the three volume Lectures on Physics.  Can't
verify that at the moment since those are buried somewhere in
50 boxes of books I have stacked against the wall.

Zane

One of the Mike Smiths wrote about something Paul wrote:

 Mike, I am at a loss to understand why you seem to think Paul's statements
 conflict with each other.  Do you really think they do?  Or are you simply
 implying they do, because at first glance, they kind of look like they might?

It is quite obvious to me that these two statements do not conflict.  You are
 implying a hypocrisy that does not exist, and hoping that no one will notice.
 Shame.  Shame.  Or is it Sham. Sham.?

Wonderfuller responded to my earlier post in a striking generic manner
for a Scientologist. I had asked:

Note that Wonderfuller does not respond to the paragraphs above.
Instead, he responds to the last two paragraphs thusly:

And so forth, etc.

Now it could be that I had insulted him, when the point of my post was
to make Wonderfuller think for himself. I wasn't looking for an
answer, not even an ``ack" (if I have the Scieno lingo down right),
just trying to plant the idea in his head that MAYBE he's in a state
of denial, that he's been handed a plate of BS, & no matter how hard
he tries it's not gonna turn into gold.

What is interesting is that David Alexander dealt with those first few
paragraphs in a post in another thread, & provided a careful, reasoned
response. As a result, I printed it off & took the time to understand
what David said. Now I may not agree with him - I doubt I agree with
everything any other poster writes here - but at least David had the
honesty & integrity to confront the point I tried to make, & explain
some things I did not understand. I can be sure that David, at least
read & thought about my post.

I guess Wonderfuller doesn't want to understand what I said. From what
I've seen, people who belong to the CoS aren't interested in anything
outside of their own, limited world.

If Wonderfuller feels he was insulted by original post, I apologize.
If he doesn't want to confront the point I made in that post, well, I
don't worry about making other people my slaves, & what he does with
what I say is his own business.

But you are trying to keep a latern under a basket, Wonderfuller. And
eventually this action is goining to get you burnt. And I promise that
if I'm around, I won't say ``I tell you so."

Geoff
Olympic-Class Bore

Return address altered to foil spambots. Change ``cyberpromo"
to``agora", & your email will reach me.

[snip]

        Youre entirely right here, Paul. Someone once said something about
how, by the second reply (or followup) any given thread has deteriorated
into "you're an asshole," and "well, you're one too!" In other words, it is
extr- emely unlikely -- if the point hasn't been made in the first post --
it will be made in an extended exchange. I've been involved myself in quite
a few BBS network (FIDO) and local debates, as well as debates here on
a.r.s. and this seems generally true. Esp here on a.r.s., where scient-
ologists seem to never really confront a fact when it is presented.  

        Right on, again. Trouble is, most scientologists seem to have a
somewhat different definition of the word 'debate' than that used by the
rest of the world; apparantly they think it means 'giving unconfirmed
assertions and apocryphal big win stories in support of their bizarre
claims.'

        Ok. How about a debate on the topic: Resolved: Scientology is an
inherently ethical organisation? I'll let you start.

--
ji...@sonic.net
Eclectic Garbanzo BBS, (707) 539-1279

On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 06:07:31 GMT, t...@ibexbsc.com.xenu.antispam

But Ted, Hubby said that you could measure the loss of mental mass by
weighing people on scales!  Wonderfool must simply believe that.

Of course if Hubby wasn't a fraud, and actually knew something about
physics (nuclear (newclear?) or otherwise) then he would have known
how absurd and stupid his claims are.

Zane

This is a pretty good example of you talking about something you don't know
 anything about.

You have NO idea about the success I am talking about.  None.

The *education* I have received in Scientology has enabled me to SOAR to the
 top of my profession.  By *any* standard anyone in my industry would EVER have
 - I am at the top.  Period.

The conditions technology ~alone~ enables to keep my business expanding and be
 able to debug others if they are having a problem.  I have LOTS of friends
 (who are NOT Scientologists) who routinely call upon me if they get in a jam.

But thanks for your meaningful input.

You tell me - HOW would you define success in business or life?  Write here:

I just love the way you are willing to talk like this when you are safely out
 of reach.  I can't imagine you being that rude to me in person.

But this ~ is~  the level of the "conversation" here.

On 29 Oct 1997 17:21:00 -0700, bpe...@primenet.com (BP) wrote:

Russell,

BP continues to live up to his reputation as the Leon
Spinks of the rejoinder.  He keeps tripping on his trunks.

Mike

On 30 Oct 1997 07:46:50 GMT, wonderf...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:

Conversation?  What do you know about conversation Mister ARS Bigot's
Page?

When you learn how to discuss important criticisms of Hubbard's lies
and "theories" then I'll believe you have some interest in
conversation.  Until then it sounds pretty damned hollow coming from
you.

Zane

On 30 Oct 1997 07:58:54 GMT, wonderf...@aol.com (WONDERFULR) wrote:

Why not?

You've been asked the question, you profess to know the answer, so
take it up.

Zane

Do you actually KNOW this - or did it just sound good for a reply?

How much do you really know about large commercial real estate purchases?  Did
 you know, for instance, that ALL buyers have the RIGHT to *assign* their
 rights in a contract to another buyer?

That corporation "A" may buy it and sell it to corporation "B".  Happens EVERY
 day.

This is a somewhat silly statement.  The identity of the buyer is of NO
 relevance.  In residential real estate this is so true that it is against
 federal law in the U.S. to discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, family
 status, etc.   It is called "Fair Housing Laws"