From: "Gnome" <happyxenu@my-dejanews.com> Subject: Re: 'FACTNet' reviewed in Internet.AU mag Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,aus.general Message-ID: <01be2a68$159f9d60$bc0265cb@dorie> Date: 18 Dec 98 09:26:44 GMT Nick Andrew <nick@zeta.org.au> wrote in article <759ral$nsi$1@gidora.zeta.org.au>... > In <01be295c$67937680$e80f65cb@dorie> "Gnome" <happyxenu@my-dejanews.com> writes: > > >A site for the paranoid in all of us, FACTNet is a self-declared watch-dog > >over mind controlling cults froim around the world - especially the > >Scientologists. > > Say ... what happened with your web page? > > Nick. > -- > Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400 > G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/ My webpage ( http://web.one.net.au/~gnome/xenu.html ) is still there. I've made some subtle changes to avoid hassles. And I've put a better version at http://www.angelfire.com/hi/xemu/xenu.html which I do intend to add to after taking care of the various beer-drinking and merriment obligations. Cheers! Gnome, part-time smart-alec yobbo "Henry Bartnik" sent me this, which I found interesting: Return-Path: <hbartnik@ozemail.com.au> Delivered-To: gnome@one.net.au Received: (qmail 9209 invoked from network); 14 Dec 1998 09:39:38 -0000 Received: from fep7.mail.ozemail.net (203.2.192.99) by lightgrey.one.net.au with SMTP; 14 Dec 1998 09:39:38 -0000 Received: from hqhrnhbb (slsyd94p32.ozemail.com.au [203.108.215.32]) by fep7.mail.ozemail.net (8.9.0/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA19325 for <gnome@one.net.au>; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:39:33 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <199812140939.UAA19325@fep7.mail.ozemail.net> From: "Henry Bartnik" <hbartnik@ozemail.com.au> To: <gnome@one.net.au> Subject: Religious belief Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 20:39:19 +1100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Status: U Dear "Gnome" As I haven't heard from you I have to conclude that the idea of a meeting in person didn't suit you so I thought of sending a copy of something that I sent recently to a media producer: "I refer to a program you ran recently which took a sideways look at "unbelievable" religious ideas. The underlying premise of the program, as I understand it, was that such ideas were legitimately the subject of derision and in the first of these programs you broadcast some of the beliefs of Scientology which you knew Scientologists to be sensitive about. "I write to offer to you another point of view with regard to religious beliefs which, by their very nature, are beliefs that persons hold as being deeply significant and even precious. Aboriginal spirit sticks, for example, are apparently of great spiritual and tribal importance to Aborigines and I think you would agree that it would be "on the nose" and plain stupid for a yobbo (as an example) to come along and steal some of these or desecrate the general area as a lark in front of his mates. You wouldn't think that that was cool or funny and I'm not even talking about political correctness. "That is all of my point, actually. I don't think it is good TV or radio to take up people's beliefs as a subject for humour. It is upsetting and creating of divisions between people and if you think people shouldn't be so sensitive about their beliefs then you miss the point of religious belief. You can do better without adding to the general disillusionment in the world today." Gnome, the same applies to your web site. What is the point you are trying to make? That people are stupid for believing such a thing? There are two ways to look at such strange-seeming beliefs or religious writings: one is that they are attempts to describe spiritual truths which do not lend themselves to accurate description in physical universe terms (hence the parables of Jesus, the strange images in the Revelations chapter of the bible etc) and they are not meant to be taken literally, so one is not actually going to see a chariot with an angel blowing a trumpet... Another point of view is that these stories or accounts are actually true. Who is to say that Jesus' parents did not actually come from a galaxy across the universe? (As one major religion holds). It may actually be true ... Physicists don't have an explanation of the universe that makes any more sense. For goodness sake, black holes, anti matter etc - where did this all come from if not from spiritual forces? The point here is that it is unacademic and somewhat hoonish to scoff at what people believe and I think you damage your case against Scientology by including that kind of angle in your web site. Have a go at us for sure. Sometimes we probably didn't get it right. Maybe scientologists did goof at the time. Maybe we deserve censure now. Go right ahead. Express your point of view. But scoff at our (claimed) confidential writings or beliefs and you enter into the camp of smart-alec yobbos and you'll lose many of your intended audience. You position yourself as a person who is prepared to violate religious sensitivities. This is Sydney and we're pretty tolerant of the other guy's point of view or beliefs. You don't have to abuse that to make your point. Henry