05 May 2002 Reporter answers Phil C.'s complaints

05 May 2002

jpilkonis1@aol.com (JPilkonis1)

Very interesting reply, Phil. What makes it interesting to me is that, while everyone with the Narconon organization trips over himself to deny any connection with the Church of Scientology, you speak as though they are one in the same. I suspect that if you're not careful, they might be coming after you next.

That Scientology is "wholly ethical," I would submit that NO religion is wholly ethical: human beings are flawed creatures. In this case, with enormous amounts of money involved, the likelihood of unethical behaviou increases dramatically. Every representative I've spoken with from this organization has been very deliberately evasive or has been caught in lies BY ME or my editor or publisher.

You can't blame internet propoganda for this. In this particular case, I think they have people who have very strict rules as far as how to comport themselve with the media, local government, etc., but who just aren't very good at it. Some people are virtuosi at deception. Some are inept. The ones I've met favor the latter.

And insofar as buying into the propaganda I've read on the Anti-Scientology side, I take all that with a cynical eye and a grain of salt, too. I'd have to. You imply that my motivation in doing this is some sort of self-aggrandisement.

I should point out that an angle of "Wackos attempt to deride beneficial drug treatment program" would be just as interesting a read.

Is it not a contradiction to write, at one point, that you do not consider me a rube, while, in an earlier passage proclaim, "Georgia. Hmm. That figures." Which is it?

Also, don't you think any argument you might make would be much, much more effective if you just went a little easier on the insults and harder on the evidence. Phil, you can call me stupid as many times as you want. Trust me, it's not going to hurt. I have a myriad of insecurities just like everyone else, but my intelligence is not one of them. (Call me ugly. That one works.)

Also, take the time to examine the tone of what you write. This is not the tone of a rational person attempting to correct misperceptions; It's the tone of desperation, of someone so unable to use logic and facts to make his case that insults and raving are the sole alternatives. (Count the number of times you attacked my intelligence. Once would have been enough to make your point had the premise behind the accusation been strong enough.)

Perhaps you should be examining this particular situation not by blasting me and what I'm doing - trust me, every word of what you write inspires me to dig even deeper - but, by extension, to examine where Narconon and Scientology is going so wrong as to draw such criticism and skepticism.

The truth is, if Narconon came to town and said, "We're a Scientology-based program, we've had some pretty decent successes, and we'd like to come to your area," I probably wouldn't have paid them much attention.

Finally, you really need to relax. Maybe some valium might help.

Your pal,