§  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

   

    

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=26C0HOA737671.5478472222%40Gilgamesh-frog.org&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Message-ID: <26C0HOA737671.5478472222@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
From: Cambridge <cambrdge@ivy.league>
Subject: Re: Call for Volunteer Chris Owen, 3rd request
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
References: <K7U2RXSV37670.973125@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, <3e52d22f@news2.lightlink.com>, <RKS8UR6M37671.2411689815@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, <3e532525@news2.lightlink.com>
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail services.
You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP !!!
Get information about complaints from the URL below
X-Remailer-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/
Date: 19 Feb 2003 13:10:49 +0100
Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News
Lines: 115
X-Mail2News-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 06:33:05 GMT
in message <3e532525@news2.lightlink.com>
desertphile@RE-MOVEhotmail.com (Shy David) wrote:

>On 19 Feb 2003 04:47:17 -0000, Cambridge <cambrdge@ivy.league> wrote:
>
>> Posted & mailed to Chris Owen

>> >On 18 Feb 2003 23:23:36 +0100, Cambridge <cambrdge@ivy.league> wrote:

>> >> It was pointed out to me that perhaps the reason Chris Owen isn't
>> >> responding to my good faith request for help with access to
>> >> documents to aid in research is that for one reason or another he
>> >> isn't seeing my messages.

>> >Conversely, perhaps Mr. Owen has a Real Life, and he's too damn busy
>> >to read a.r.s. but only follows threads he initiated.

>> I believe you may be right. That probably is the entire explanation.
>> So in addition to posting this, I am also mailing it to him to alert
>> him to the thread in a.r.s. Thank you for the excellent suggestion.
>
>For what it's worth: please blow it out of your ass in in hot, dry
>chunks. You damn well know I "suggested" no such thing.

I beg your pardon. Your quoted suggestion that "Mr. Owen has a Real Life,
and he's too damn busy to read a.r.s." still reverberates above. You may
want to look into short term memory loss as a symptom. Again I thank you
for the excellent suggestion, and I believe that my posting and mailing my
request to Mr. Owen addressed it.

>If he is
>ignoring you (i.e., intentionally not bothering to read--- let alone
>answer--- your queries), that's certainly his right:

Yes, I am not requesting that he surrender any rights, nor am I requesting
of you a recitation of human rights. I am asking for his help in providing
some valuable evidentiary source documentation in the form of court
trascripts that he has cited numerous times.

>your little
>attempts at emotional coercion is, in any case, silly.

The only emotion that has been injected into this thread to date has come
from you and Mr. Bird over a simple request for documents. I cannot imagine
a life so devoid of interests that one could get exorcised over such a
pedestrian request from one researcher to another for important records.

>If he is not
>ignoring you, he'll get to you eventually. In either case, no one owes
>you a reply and it is unfair and childish to expect one.

That point of view, I suppose, would arise out of your ignorance of the
importance of primary source documents, an ignorance that I know for a fact
Mr. Owen does not suffer from. Mr. Owen has emphasized this very point
repeatedly. He has said:

"The lesson I had drummed into me by my tutors at Oxford was, 'if it
can't be documented it isn't worth a damn'. That's why serious works of
history (and many other academic fields, for that matter) are festooned
with footnotes - so that other researchers can look at the same source
material and, the author hopes, come to the same conclusions. ...How
historians interpret the source material often varies; the key point is
that there *is* verifiable, referenced source material in the first
place."

Indeed he has festooned his works with footnotes and cites to source
material which he has available to look at. Unfortunately, those source
materials do not currently meet his other specified criterion, which is
that "other researchers can look at the same source material." Those court
transcripts he cites are currently extremely difficult to obtain. I am
asking for his help in making them available in this public forum so that
they can be accessed and looked at not just by him, but by all.

If you could express your objection to such a benign and rational request a
little more lucidly, or even coherently, perhaps I could be swayed away
from a desire to actually see the documents. But I doubt it.

Though you may not understand the importance of such primary source
documents, it should be clear to you now that Mr. Owen does, and so fully
understands my request for his help in this.

Mr. Owen himself has said, "...the first rule of historiography - the
primary sources are the ones which matter most."

The transcripts are the primary sources I am seeking. I hope Mr. Owen's own
epigrammatic quote above helps you to understand why.

And there is no compelling reason for him not to post them, as he has
pointed out himself:

"Quick rules of thumb: if this information is in public records, then it is
in the public domain. ...If it's in the public domain there is no real
reason why it shouldn't be publicised. ...[U]nless the information is
non-public there's no compelling reason not to post it, either."

The court transcripts certainly were in public records, which is how he has
them, and so are in the public domain.

I think he has made his case conclusively. I believe his case is
inarguable.

So since I cannot conceive of any possible objection Mr. Owen himself could
have to making these important documents public, I certainly, then, cannot
understand your own heated, disturbed, and overought posturing and
intervention in something that concerns you not at all, and is only
something that you, among all others, could also benefit from.

I think it is abundantly clear that Mr. Owen is capable of speaking for
himself, don't you agree?

Cambridge

 

Thread

 

§  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §