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

   

    

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=AKQ1P41S37676.0158564815%40Gilgamesh-frog.org&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Message-ID: <AKQ1P41S37676.0158564815@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
From: Cambridge <cambrdge@ivy.league>
Subject: Re: Call for Volunteer Chris Owen, 3rd request
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
References: <LVVX9R3Z37674.3448726852@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, <b37a5b02uac@drn.newsguy.com>, <F40PANCD37674.5313310185@Gilgamesh-frog.org>, <3E578B9F.1ECB@mpinet.net>
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: 24 Feb 2003 00:24:08 +0100
Organization: Happy Lobster & Partners / LE Mail2News
Lines: 189
X-Mail2News-Contact: http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/


On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 14:44:57 GMT
in Message-ID: <3E578B9F.1ECB@mpinet.net>
Beverly Rice <dbj1120@mpinet.net> wrote:

>Cambridge wrote:
>
>> The entire matter could have been dispensed with by a single responsive
>> reply from Mr. Owen. Instead, he elected, after some time had elapsed,
>> to engage in public evasive discourse about the matter with an
>> irrelevant, antisocial, interloping bedlamite, much as I am doing now.
>
>
>Hey, I would ~love~ to see that stuff posted . . .
>I truly would.

Of course, as would any thinking person interested in truth.

>but guess what?
>
>Chris isn't interested

That would seem to say quite a lot.

>and that's the way it is and will be.

Yes, I believe that is clear now, which unfortunately for us all belies an
ingenerate hypocrisy in Mr. Owen that I never dreamed I could encounter,
particularly in such a vocal pulpiteer for the disclosure of important
source material.

I quote again from his own sermon:

"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."

That's the creed Mr. Owen preaches but seems curiously indifferent to
practicing. The real lesson, I suppose, is that we all should do as Mr.
Owen says, not as he does.

My crime has been to take him at his word. My crime has been the
expectation that he responsibly would honor his words and not debar the
public from the reasonable opportunity to "look at the same source
material" that he has used to his own ends, and which he, alone, to my
knowledge, has in his possession. I have placed every conceivable resource
at his disposal to make public disclosure of the transcripts possible with
minimal, if any, inconvenience to him. His answer is the precise measure of
his perfidy.

>Who knows, maybe one day we'll get a nice suprise, but in the
>meantime, even though I am with you on really desiring to see
>the transcripts he has posted . . .

Yes, well, lamentably he has not posted them, which is the crux of the
matter. He hardly has quoted from them at all. He only has paraphrased them
to his own design, then typed cites to them, secure in the knowledge that
no relevantly independent or disinterested individual or group possessed a
copy of the transcripts against which to review his usage of them.

Of course this is the most dishonest approach to historiography possible.

He well knows the value and importance of the availability of such source
material. Again we have Mr. Owen's own angel food on this very subject:

"[T]he first rule of historiography - the primary sources are the ones
which matter most."

Yet he has elected to hide and hoard "the ones which matter most" and dole
out only his own evaluations and interpretations, knowing that these
vitally important materials are not currently available in any public or
easily accessible way to any other researcher for any sort of peer review,
or even lay review, of his version of "the truth."

So guarded and protective is he of what is contained in the materials that
he will not exhibit even the decency and courtesy to say where he got them
so that others can purchase a copy for the benevolent and philanthropic
purpose of making public what he will not.

In historiography, in investigative reporting, in any kind of honest
research, there is no more grievous offense. To defend it on any grounds is
to champion dishonesty, duplicity, and deceit.

If all of this weren't enough, it is further compounded, if that is even
possible, by the recognition that the only other people in the world who
might probably possess a copy of the transcripts are the attorneys who were
overseeing all Hubbard related litigation at the time of the Armstrong and
Christofferson trials: Lenske, Lenske & Heller. They, who created all the
existing Scientology related corporations, are curiously whitewashed from
Mr. Owen's treatise on the corporations, "Piercing the Corporate Veil," the
very essay in which he cites the Armstrong transcripts, using those cites
to support the most egregious misrepresentations concerning "Church of
Spiritual Technology" (CST). I don't suppose I need remind you that CST is
the one corporation where the very same attorneys just so happen to operate
in positions of highest authority as Special Directors, something that Mr.
Owen entirely omitted.

If you can tolerate this kind of blatant and wholesale assault by Mr. Owen
on honesty and disclosure, if you can defend the kind of insufferable
hypocrisy he has posed, then I believe you should be nominated for
sainthood for your patience alone.

>and the most super patient human being that I am . . .

"La patience est amre, mais son fruit est doux." --Rousseau
(Patience is bitter but its fruit is sweet.)

He has had the transcripts in his private hoard and kept them secret from
the public for over five years. Is this what you describe as patience?

>your getting just a bit repitious to the point of being rather
>gnat-like.

Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur.
(The judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted.)

>If Chris wants to post them he will do so when he pleases . . .

And since Mr. Owen wants not to post them, perhaps CST will make room for
Mr. Owen to hide his recherche transcripts of the Armstrong and
Christofferson trials in their titanium vaults.

>if not . . . trust me, he's got your message and knows what
>you want.

Pro bono publico, probum non poenitet.
(For the public good, the upright man does not repent.)

>So please post about what you do have and know

The study of the Flynn clients will be posted regardless of whether Mr.
Owen elects to remain in his self-appointed Sophist Office of Censorship or
not. Of course the transcripts he is hoarding, quite in addition to their
intrinsic catholic value and interest, would be a welcome addition to our
own study, and I won't pretend otherwise. Mr. Owen is in a unique position
to help us expedite the completion and publication of our study a great
deal, itself pro bono publico, while also greatly enriching the public
storehouse of available sources. I had no reason to expect that he would do
otherwise. The very thought that he could conduct himself in such a cheap
and odious manner was beyond any conceit I could have conjured up before
being witness to it.

But, as you have observed, for reasons known only to him, he apparently
does not want to help at all, even with the simple courtesy of advising us
where to find the transcripts so that we can obtain our own copy and make
them public for the public good.

Therefore efforts are being made independently of the abject reprobate to
learn who the court reporters were so the transcripts can be obtained and
published pro bono publico despite his hypocritical obstructionist
stonewalling and unpardonable suppression of the data.

>it's an awful
>lot, but trust me, your point with the repitious inquiry has
>been made, you will get to the point that even the few that
>do look foward to your posts are going to get tired of it.

Those who pretend to be the voice of the many have no voice of their own. I
welcome your own personal view, but your pretense that you have the
faintest idea about, or even means of knowing, how many people read my
posts or not is tiresome, irrelevant, and false on its face. You might put
that over on a credulous child but it is wasted on me.

All of your flogging is wasted on me, because I'm not the one withholding
the trial transcripts from you, am I? Why didn't you invest your time
writing instead to chastise Mr. Owen for his flagrant hypocrisy?

Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur.

>Sometimes straining too hard only gives one a bad case of
>hemmorhoids, with no "valuable work product".

I believe it would be a stretch to embellish your moving analogy.

>Yeh, I know, you just value my opinion ~SO~ much. :-)
>
>Hahahahahaha!!!

In fact I do value your opinion, as I value the opinion of anyone with a
receptive and inquisitive mind.

On the other hand, I find your censure in the instant matter to be very
badly misguided indeed.

Cambridge

 

Thread

 

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