From: Gerry Armstrong <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: kids
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 11:54:17 +0100
References: <email@example.com> <bndb8q02bs1
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: 29 Oct 2003 05:54:33 -0500, 22.214.171.124
X-Original-Trace: 29 Oct 2003 05:54:33 -0500, 126.96.36.199
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1652885
On 26 Oct 2003 13:59:15 -0800, firstname.lastname@example.org (Martin
>Gerry Armstrong <email@example.com> wrote in message news:
>> >So these people mentioned on your page are indeed connected to
>> >Church of Scientology (if you want to use their posts in future
>> >litigation with the organization)?!
>> I have never said that. But aren't all of us here connected to the
>> Scientology cult? Aren't you?
>I was *connected* to the FSO until July 1992, later they SP-declared
>me. I assume this is where any connection to the Scientology ends.
Then, using your standard for "connection" that you now make
answer to your first assertion, I don't know. And I assume you don't
either. I have never claimed, nor implied that they have a
"connection" as you had a "connection" until July 1992.
So what's the point of your statement?
>> >Why else would you use their
>> Because I have litigation as a defendant in which they are valuable
>> for what they say. And they are valuable as they are displayed on
>> page. They are also valuable for the prosecution of an offensive
>How are these posts from people who are neither staff of the Office of
>Special Affairs or any other Scientology organization nor members of
>the IAS (except Cerridwen, I presume) valuable in any litigation
>against a Scientology entity?
For their content. They will be used in my defenses and in my
prosecutions. I assume you've read them all. I also assume you've read
all the legal documents on my web site.
Are these assumptions correct?
>> >I would say that your oSa/OsA-page is there principally to
>> >your own obsessive self-importance.
>> Then I would say that you're wrong.
>> Or if that's the reason they're there, would you agree that every lie
>> or unmerited attack included in the posts webbed there have been
>> written to satisfy the writer's own self-importance? Did you write
>> this post to satisfy your own self-importance?
>A certain degree of self-importance can be found in everybody. The
>degree makes the difference and how it is displayed.
Yes. For example, if someone observably unsupportive presumed to
question a litigant about his legal strategies and defenses, after
taking baseless swipes at the litigant, that would be a display of
self-importance, wouldn't you say?
>> > It is there to put people that say
>> >negative things about you in connection with OSA.
>> There is a message that is undeniable that is often heard here on
>> a.r.s., and that cannot logically be refuted, that people who profess
>> to be critics of the Scientology cult can serve the cult's malevolent
>> purposes with unmerited attacks on the cult's opponents. Do you
>> disagree with this?
>This is complete bullshit.
What is bullshit is that you call this bullshit. Let's go back to Bob
Minton, to a context where bringing up his name is actually relevant.
I believe I have heard from many people here, in fact many who appear
sQUaD FOLLIES page, that Bob served the cult's malevolent
purposes with attacks on the cult's opponents, and that those attacks
Bob has never, as far as I know and as far as anyone has stated, been
"connected" to the Scientology cult as you say you were "
until July 1992. But many people, most relevantly the people whose
posts appear on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page, claim that he
nevertheless has served the cult's malevolent purposes.
You appear to be asserting with your complete bullshit response that
people who profess to be critics of the Scientology cult cannot serve
the cult's malevolent purposes with unmerited attacks on the cult's
opponents. I find your assertion to be complete bullshit.
How on earth do you justify calling this inarguable statement
bullshit? It is this sort of pretended stupidity that serves the
cult's purposes. But perhaps you have some rational, logical way of
showing my statement to be untrue, which I haven't thought of.
I wouldn't bother, by the way, arguing that there is a massive,
unbridgable difference between Bob testifying in court and folks
posting to a.r.s. in terms of serving the cult's malevolent purposes.
Let's say, for example, that Kady O'Malley is subpoenaed by the cult
to testify at my trial. Do you think that she would testify that I am
exactly as she has attempted to portray me in her posts attacking me
on a.r.s.? Or would she, rather than help Scientology, tell the truth
about me? I would bet that she'd continue to lie and continue to serve
the cult's malevolent purposes toward its opponents.
If Kady was subpoenaed and put on the stand or ordered into a
deposition and questioned by Sandy Rosen would she state that Gerry
Armstrong's "logic" meets none of the minimal standards to so
Would Kady testify that there's an all too familiar pattern where
Gerry kooks out about something, some unwitting a.r.s. denizen
corrects him, he flies into a paranoid hissy fit, and posts 400 line
screeds of pseudo-intellectual claptrap that bears a remarkable
resemblance to the insights offered by burned out hippie barflies
throughout the ages and across the world? Would Kady testify that
anyone who supports Gerry is a willfully blind apologist, or a
slavishly devoted sycophant? Would she testify that Gerry's writings
are rambling diatribes? Would she testify that the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES
page is demented, paranoid hate pages, that is no more than a product
of Gerry's fertile paranoia?
I bet she would. I bet she would help Rosen to the best of her
ability to black PR and destroy me. She would never tell the truth,
because the truth would be that she has attacked me with unmerited
lies. She would far rather help Scientology destroy me, even by
testifying against me with the same words she puts into all her a.r.s.
posts attacking me, than tell the truth.
Or, you and Kady, prove me wrong. What Bob testified to about Ken
Dandar is not nearly as vicious and false as what Kady would testify
to against me if given the opportunity by Scientology. She doesn't
even do anything about it now before she is supoenaed to clean up the
record she's made.
And how about you, Martin? If you were subpoenaed, would you lie for
Scientology too? If Sandy Rosen asked, would you repeat your idiocy
that it is complete bullshit that people who profess to be critics of
the Scientology cult can serve the cult's malevolent purposes with
unmerited attacks on the cult's opponents? Would you testify that any
lies you told on a.r.s. are true if that served Scientology's
malevolent purposes toward its opponents?
I take pretty well everything I say on a.r.s. as potential testimony
or as evidence that will appear in some legal case or context, and
upon which I will be examined and cross-examined. That is why,
contrary to Kady's black PR that my logic doesn't meet any of the
minimal standards to so qualify, and her black PR that what I write
bears a remarkable resemblance to the insights offered by burned out
hippie barflies throughout the ages and across the world, I am
actually fairly precise in my facts, opinions, arguments and language
in what I write on a.r.s.
> It is the same crap that Scientology tells
>its members, i. e., that it is suppressive to criticize Scientology in
>public, that a Scientologist should not say negative things about
>Scientology, Hubbard and the organization to other Scientologists
>because it's entheta and it only helps the SPs, etc. etc.
No it is not the same crap at all.
But listen to what you are saying. I state a simple fact: That people
who profess to be critics of the Scientology cult can serve the cult's
malevolent purposes with unmerited attacks on the cult's opponents.
You say that it's the same crap Scientology tells its members about
criticisms. You are accusing me of acting the same as Scientology,
which is false. But when I state the truth when it's true, you say
it's complete bullshit. Now that is bullshit!
>Following your "logic", I would not be morally "
to call any
>Scientology "critic" an asshole, because he/she is above "
>criticism due to his/her position as a "critic".
No, that's your invention. You are morally allowed. Unmerited attacks
on anyone are simply unmerited attacks. They can include every word in
every language. When unmerited attacks are made on the cult's actual
opponents, such attacks can serve the cult's purposes. The cult's
purposes toward their opponents are all malevolent.
Let's consider a shooting war with live ammunition. Let's say the
Allies are fighting the Axis powers. If a soldier on the side of the
Allies shoots another soldier on the Allies side, the shooter serves
the Axis' purposes.
Now, if instead of shooting his fellow soldier, the man on the Allies'
side, gave him ammunition, fed him, encouraged him in battle, etc. he
would not be serving the Axis' purposes.
Even if the soldier on the Allies' side didn't shoot his fellow
soldier, but simply spread lies and black PR about him to the rest of
the troops, the liar would be serving the Axis' purposes. The liar
would be serving the function of undermining morale as the Tokyo Roses
and the Lord Ha-Has did.
>> >In contrast to your former hero Minton you don't have the courage
>> >name your perceived "enemies" "OSA whores"
>> What a stupid statement. I have had the courage at least to tell the
>> truth, and to web the subject posts in their entirety, without
>> comment, and with a link to the entire context. Do you have the
>> courage to do that?
>I don't find it necessary to create a web page with an assembly of
>negative posts from other people. If someone criticizes me, I either
>comment it with a reply or I don't answer it at all.
That's fine. But so what?
I tell the truth, and you say I don't have the courage to lie. How do
you justify your logic?
>> In contrast to my "former hero Minton?" Where did that
>> irrelevancy come from?
>De: Gerry Armstrong (firstname.lastname@example.org)
>Objet: Re: Caroline Letkeman letter to U.S. President, Federal
>Departments and Congress
>Groupes de discussion: alt.religion.scientology
>Date: 2003-06-29 23:20:10 PST
>On 29 Jun 2003 06:23:01 -0500, email@example.com wrote:
>[beginning of post] [...]
>>Gerry, please correct this, his name is Claus Schenk Graf von
>>Stauffenberg, so that would be Stauffenberg.
>You're right. I'm sorry. And I have no excuse. I had even written out
>his name some time back here on a.r.s. See below. I had emphasized
>his middle name (*Schenk*) because he shared that name with another
>gentleman, who was another sort of a hero to me at the time, Robert
>*Schenk* Minton. (Among us Anglos, Schenk is a very unusual middle
>name.) [...] [end of post]
I know what the cheap irrelevancy is. But I was asking where the
cheap irrelevancy came from. What motivated you to inject that cheap
irrelevancy into this particular discussion?
But thank you for posting this portion of my response to Stefan on
a.r.s. for a reason that actually is relevant. You will notice that
Stefan disagreed with me, and I didn't web his post that merely
disagreed with me. You will notice that Stefan criticized me, and I
didn't web his post that merely criticized me. You will notice that
Stefan corrected me, and I didn't, as Kady falsely states, fly into a
paranoid hissy fit, and post a 400 line screed of pseudo-intellectual
claptrap that bears a remarkable resemblance to the insights offered
by burned out hippie barflies throughout the ages and across the
Doesn't my response to Stefan prove that a claim that someone would
make that all a person has to do is disagree with me for his post to
be webbed on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page is a lie? Doesn't my
response to Stefan prove that a claim that someone would make that all
a person has to do is criticize me for his post to be webbed on the
GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page is also a lie?
Kady's statement that there exists an all too familiar pattern where I
kook out about something, some unwitting a.r.s. denizen corrects me, I
fly into a paranoid hissy fit, and post 400 line screeds of pseudo-
intellectual claptrap that bears a remarkable resemblance to the
insights offered by burned out hippie barflies throughout the ages and
across the world is, of course, an obvious lie. And it is noteworthy
that when challenged on that lie she has refused utterly to support
it. She can't, of course, because it is a lie. She also has not
acknowledged that it is a lie. In that behavior, she serves
Scientology's malevolent purposes toward their opponents. And she
would support that behavior with further attacks on the cult's fair
game targets and victims if she is called upon to testify in court.
>> > but you have to resume to
>> >alternately blinking letters
>> That's ridiculous. I don't have to resume to alternately blinking
>> letters at all. Any more than someone has to resume to the color blue
>> and Arial lettering on a web page.
>"Blinking", alternately size-changing letters that form in this
>the eye-catching word "OSA".
Yes, but so what? What does that have to do with my having to resume
to whatever you say I'm having to resume to? You haven't shown that I
have to resume to anything.
>Or have you created that visual effect
No. But what a ridiculous thing to ask.
> Hey, if you don't know it by now, it might imply to
>the innocent reader that the poeple who wrote that posts are connected
>to the "Office of Special Affairs.
But following your reasoning, it's really true that ""
not "criticize" ""critics"" because "
readers" might get the
idea that one ""critic"" or another might be connected to
An innocent reader, for example, might get the erroneous idea that you
have reason or logic on your side when you assert that the idea that
that people who profess to be critics of the Scientology cult can
serve the cult's malevolent purposes with unmerited attacks on the
cult's opponents is complete bullshit. You must be clear then for your
own innocent readers.
I would be grateful if the marquee caused innocent readers to stop and
read those posts, and examine the content of all of them, identify
lies and black PR in them, to see that they can serve OSA's malevolent
purposes toward its opponents.
>> >and lengthy, cumbersome explanations
>> That's false. There, is that short and uncumbersome enough for you?
>No, I would like to know what you had in mind when you created that
>visual effect with the "blinking" or size-changing letters.
Well it arose as a response to and an effort to satisfy Rob Clark.
I've got the explanation around here somewhere. Oh yeah, here it is:
>> Tell me, how exactly is it any different if a poster accuses me of
>> serving OSA's purposes when I say that certain posters are serving
>> OSA's purposes with certain posts, or if I web these certain posts of
>> certain posters and say that they serve OSA's purposes?
>There is a difference between posting something in a newsgroup and
>putting something on a website.
Well yes. But not a relevant difference. In fact, posts to usenet will
in all likelihood be around just as long as websites.
There's a difference between oral testimony and a written declaration,
but they're both testimony.
But how do you think it's okay to state something on usenet and not
have it put up on a website? Are you trying to stop this particular
form of free speech? And if so, why?
Google archives these same posts. There is a necessary expectation by
every poster to usenet that his posts will be archived and made
publicly available until the end of time. For this reason, it behooves
everyone to post messages in which the facts are true, the opinions
logical and based on facts, and the language unembarrassing.
I think it's valuable to web this whole set of posts by this whole set
of posters. Why do you care? If you really hold to the opinion that
the idea is complete bullshit that people who profess to be critics of
the Scientology cult can serve the cult's malevolent purposes with
unmerited attacks on the cult's opponents, then surely my claim, that
these professed critics of the Scientology cult serve the cult's
malevolent purposes with unmerited attacks on the cult's opponents,
could not possibly do any harm. If what you say is true, then my claim
that these professed critics of the Scientology cult serve the cult's
malevolent purposes with unmerited attacks on the cult's opponents
would only rise to the level of criticism or disagreement, which is
all the professed critics claim that they're doing.
Why do you have this double standard? I do realize that it's a far
nicer thing to attack me than to attack many of the folks whose posts
I've webbed on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page, because I deal with the
attacks in an honest, straight across manner and can be reasoned with,
whereas, if they treated you as they treat me, you would just get
more, and unmerited, attacks from them. But surely it isn't just fear
alone that motivates you to attack me for my critcisms while saying
nothing about their attacks, is it?
>> I ask that because I notice you have never corrected one of the
>> whose posts I've webbed when they've made such allegations, or when
>> they've lied, or when they've engaged in other unmerited attacks.
>Because I don't engage in such discussions that often.
That's the point. But why are you trying to correct my opinion, which
is supportable, and not attempting to correct actual lies that are
insupportable? Perhaps you can explain your motive.
>> I believe that my webbing of these people's posts is a much fairer
>> treatment than I get from them. As a rule, they refuse to address the
>> lies they're telling honestly and straight across. I simply say that
>> by this amazing set of posts containing an amazing number of lies and
>> put downs, and this amazing amount of viciousness, pretended
>> and black propaganda, OSA's malevolent purposes toward me are served.
>> Don't you agree?
>No, as far as I can tell, these people have nothing to do with OSA
>activities against you.
And I say that in their totality and in specifics they serve
Scientology's malevolent purposes.
Let's go back to the Bob Minton example. No, let's choose someone who
is in a more equivalent position or status to me in relation to
Scientology, for example, Ken Dandar. Dandar is engaged in a huge
ongoing case against the cult. So am I. Dandar is an attorney. I am
my own attorney. So there's a reasonable parallel between us in our
relation to Scientology, at least in the legal area.
Now let's say that a group of people made two hundred ninety or so
posts in which they accused Dandar of being, among other nasty lies, a
coward, insane, a kook, a despicable liar, a fake Christian,
anti-Semitic, a true moron, a brainwashed zombie, a leader of
sycophants, a cultist, dull and simple, delusional, cynical and
dishonest, and they charged that what Dandar's doing constitutes hate,
that he's a down and out celebrity seeker, that the authorities should
be alerted about his travels, that his "logic" meets none of the
minimal standards to so qualify, that he writes demented nut rants,
that he's quite a pro when it comes to chomping and swallowing, that
the Lisa McPherson website is no more than a product of Dandar's
fertile paranoia, that his writing sounds like he's syphilitic, that
if in a cubicle with Dandar and someone else it would be best to
choose Dandar and then shoot him, and that the solution for Dandar is
a loaded weapon, bullet and a red dot on his head at the nearest
sewage facility. Would you say it's complete bullshit that these
statements could serve the cult's malevolent purposes toward Ken
How about if everyone on a.r.s. made statements about Dandar like
this. Would that rise to serving the cult's malevolent purposes
toward him? Well how about then if everyone in Pinellas County were
brought to hate and curse him and spit obscenities at him this way;
would that serve Scientology's malevolent purposes toward him? How
about if every person in the world was brought to hate Dandar more
than they all hate Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer; if every person in the
world accused Dandar of being a coward, insane, a kook, a despicable
liar, a fake Christian, anti-Semitic, a true moron, a brainwashed
zombie, a leader of sycophants, a cultist, dull and simple,
delusional, cynical and dishonest, and they all charged that what
Dandar's doing constitutes hate, that he's a down and out celebrity
seeker, that the authorities should be alerted about his travels, that
his "logic" meets none of the minimal standards to so qualify, that
writes demented nut rants, that he's quite a pro when it comes to
chomping and swallowing, that the Lisa McPherson website is no more
than a product of Dandar's fertile paranoia, that his writing sounds
like he's syphilitic, that if in a cubicle with Dandar and someone
else it would be best to choose Dandar and then shoot him, and that
the solution for Dandar is a loaded weapon, bullet and a red dot on
his head at the nearest sewage facility. Would it still be complete
bullshit that having every person in the world attacking Ken Dandar
with all that vitriol and threat can serve the cult's malevolent
purposes toward him?
Do you really believe that people with some history on a.r.s. could
accuse Dandar of all these things, and make all these vicious attacks
on him and *not* know they were serving the cult's malevolent purposes
toward a significant opponent? Similarly, I believe that many of the
people here know they are serving the cult's malevolent purposes with
their vicious, baseless attacks on me.
>You are wasting your time with this webpage.
I think that by the reactions it has engendered, by the time it has
actually saved, and by its potential in my legal matters, I have shown
very clearly it is far from a waste of time. But really, how I spend
my time, I'm quite sure, is not something to which you really and
honestly apply your intellect, energy and heart, do you?
>If you believe that these posts and comments have anything to do, even
>remotely, with the activities of the Scientology organization against
>you, then you have lost your grip on reality.
You are wrong. In order to arrive at this clearly erroneous
conclusion, it is necessary for you to postulate the silliness you
assert above, that it is complete bullshit that people who profess to
be critics of the Scientology cult can serve the cult's malevolent
purposes with unmerited attacks on the cult's opponents.
The fact is that such professed critics *can* serve Scientology's
malevolent purposes. Why not rethink what you have posited to be
complete bullshit and see whether in the rethinking you don't reach
the opposite conclusion?
But let's look very rationally at what you've said. This is but a
small item in my defenses, prosecutions and legal strategy, but a
useful one for easily and simply disproving your silly assertion that
if I believe that these posts and comments have anything to do, even
remotely, with the activities of the Scientology organization against
me, then I have lost my grip on reality.
I'm sure you realize that for every post I make that mentions, or, in
the minds of the cultists, if they even *think* mentions, anything
related to Scientology -- even the single word Scientology -- the cult
claims, and there are court orders which state, that I must pay them
$50,000 and be jailed and fined. You do realize that, right?
You realize that I have ongoing lawsuits in which the cult does in
fact seek $50,000 for each of over 200 mentions I made, or what they
claim are mentions, that concern my beliefs relating to Scientology,
You've read their latest, and ongoing, lawsuit against me, right?
You see that Scientology reads, collects and archives my usenet posts,
and publishes them publicly, right?
You realize that the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page, which contains all these
posts and comments that you say have nothing to do, even
remotely, with the activities of the Scientology organization against
me, is itself a violation of court orders the cult has against me,
You do agree that court orders that the cult has against me, and
actions to enforce those court orders against me, do constitute
activities of the Scientology organization against me, right?
I'm sure that you also realize that to be on topic on
alt.religion.scientology a post must mention or relate to Scientology.
You realize that right?
You do realize that I do a pretty responsible job of staying on topic
on a.r.s., right?
You realize that you yourself mention Scientology in this post to
which I'm responding, right?
You realize that in order to respond rationally to your post, and to
to be on topic in the newgroup in which you posted it, I must mention
You realize that the cult is claiming that I must pay them $50,000 and
be jailed and fined for responding to your post, and any posts like
your post, right?
You realize that all the posts on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page were
posted to alt.religion.scientology, right?
You realize that to respond rationally to any of the posts on the GOoN
sQUaD FOLLIES page and to be on topic I would necessarily have to
mention something related to Scientology, right?
So let me ask you. When you wrote the post to which I am responding
here, in which you stated the inanity that it is complete bullshit
that people who profess to be critics of the Scientology cult can
serve the cult's malevolent purposes with unmerited attacks on the
cult's opponents, were you writing with the intention or invitation
that I respond?
And if you got me to respond, were you trying to make $50,000 for the
Scientology cult? Do you get paid a commission? -((((():-) < little
fakir smiley®, in case you were wondering.
Do you realize that there are about 290 posts on the GOoN sQUaD
Doing that math, if I had responded to each one, I would have to pay
the cult $14,500,000, and be jailed for perhaps two and a half years,
right? Plus be fined another perhaps two million, right?
By putting the posts up on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page without
responding to them, potentially I would have to pay only $50,000 for
the whole page. After all, according to the cult's insane "contract"
and the Marin court's insane interpretation of the "contract" I have
to pay $50,000 per *instance*, unrelated to value. In other words, if
I write a 350,000 word book the cult gets $50,000, or if I say the
single word "Nor" backwards the cult gets $50,000.
I estimate that I have responded on a.r.s. to less than 90 of the
posts on the the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page. Thus by webbing them,
instead of, as you suggest, commenting on a.r.s., I have saved myself
probably $10,000,000 and a year and a half or so in jail. Obviously I
cannot completely ignore them all because, as I say, they serve the
cult's malevolent purposes toward its opponents, so have to be dealt
with in some way.
Since what the cult is trying to do with me is unlawful, indeed
criminal, whatever the cultists claim in damages are actually my own
damages, and since I have a legal duty to mitigate my damages, I am
doing the legally responsible thing by webbing the posts I've
assembled on the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page rather than respond to them
as you suggest on a.r.s.
This is another reason why it is economically sensible for me to write
lengthy posts in which I thoroughly disprove lies and sillinesses, as
I am doing in this post, rather than just respond with the sort of
short explanation you apparently would rather read. It's $50,000 for
800 lines, and it's $50,000 for 8 lines. Why on earth should I not get
one hundred times the value for my money? Plus, I perform my duty of
mitigating my damages.
It is true that the cult actually claims that I must pay $50,000 and
be jailed and fined for each *recipient* of each of my communications
that mentions my beliefs related to Scientology. If, for example, I
write a letter to someone with eighteen people cced, in which I
mention my religious beliefs about Scientology, the cult claims that I
must pay them $950,000. And if they were able to determine how many
people would read one of my posts on a.r.s. they would claim that I
must pay them $50,000 times the number of readers. It's much harder,
of course, for the cult to determine how many visitors there are to
the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES web page that is on my own web site.
As you see, the sums involved are truly astronomical, probably up in
the trillions of dollars. But the same principle and math also hold
with the $50,000 per reader concept. Thus the GOoN sQUaD FOLLIES page
saves me probably in the hundreds of billions. I don't know how
wealthy you are, but for me that's not chicken feed. And it is all
directly related to the activities of the Scientology cult against me.
If you continue to assert, in the face of all the irrebuttable
evidence to the contrary filed in legal cases, and described by me
here, that the subject posts and comments have nothing to do with the
activities of the Scientology organization against me, it would likely
be you who have lost your grip on reality, wouldn't you agree?
> You should consider
>these posts in the same way, as you get negative comments, insults,
>etc when you walk into a Bavarian saloon and get annoying comments by
No, those bar room comments and insults would probably be unrelated to
my legal matters, there would probabably be no record, the results
would probabaly not be viewable by billions of people, Scientology is
probably not archiving and using whatever it can of what is said in
the bar, and it would probably not necessarily serve the cult's
malevolent purposes. Your analogy doesn't hold beer.
© Gerry Armstrong