Re: Response from Paulette

Subject: Re: Response from Paulette
From: Kristi Wachter <>
Message-ID: <3d456c76$>
Date: 29 Jul 2002 12:25:26 -0400

Dear Paulette,

I am always so glad to see you posting. (I am a rock and roll fan, so even before a.r.s. I learned not to take farewell announcements as irrevocable. <grin>)

I appreciate your efforts to set the record straight, although I kind of wish that, were something to prompt you to post, it would be anything other than feeling a need to respond to distortions. That is - I don't mean I wish you didn't feel compelled to respond, but rather I wish there were nothing for you to respond to.

One of the difficult things to deal with about the online medium is the ghost of the silent majority. I don't post about all that many things - there are massive chunks of ars swirl about which I've said nothing - and there are many, many people who never post at all, feeling safer as lurkers.

I believe that many of those people feel as I do (because, of course, the rest of the world is just like me <grin>). I learned to ignore certain posters (even some who have not ended up in my killfile), and I learned to ignore certain comments from people I do often read.

You have nothing to prove to me, Paulette, and I think there are a lot of people who share that feeling. I am happy to read your posts whenever you do feel a need to respond to something on a.r.s., whether it's about your own history or about Mike Flynn or about cats or the weather or anything else that moves you to write.

You have friends here, including friends who have never met you, who understand that you are human and imperfect and who admire your remarkable strength and resilience - and clarity and eloquence and humanity.

A large part of my continuing interest in Scientology is an interest in learning the truth. That means sometimes learning that people I admire and like have done things that disturb me - like Stacy and Bob; it also means learning, again and again, how a ruthless organization watches unblinkingly for any weakness or mistake that it can exploit. It means watching what happens to critics when Scientology manages to find a weakness or a mistake - or manages to create one by tricking or attacking its perceived enemies.

Knowing what you experienced, to the extent that you can talk about it without getting into legal trouble, is tremendously helpful in learning more about the truth.

<sigh> I'm rambling now, when all I really meant to say is this:

You have friends here. Your friends are not deceived by attempts to smear you.

Even if you never speak another word about Scientology, your past work remains an inspiration ... and all your future words are welcome here, at least to me, even if they're off-topic - I'm always happy to hear from you, and I wish you, always, well.



-- Kristi Wachter the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me)

If I am not who you say I am, then you are not who you think you are. - James Baldwin

I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop it. See for more.