It is NOT the fastest growing ‘church’ by a long shot by most churches’ definition of growth: PEOPLE. Counting square feet of real estate is as lame as the 1.1 attitude. Have a great day and I hope you find your way out.

Sherbet…today is Wednesday, and I miss you

Ooopsie. ;<)

Awesomeness! I will be the one with the epic hair. 😉

ok…I’ll try that…See you Thurs.

I should also point out to you this: “YOU are trying your best to make it sound as though you have discovered some interesting legal issue”
Uh, *I* was not the person who raised the question about “affected” third parties interfering. If you think it is such a boring issue that it pains you to talk about it, then YOU should have not have raised it IN EMPHATIC SCREAMING CAPITALS

Let’s recap: when Leah’s subpoena was quashed, ABC assumed, as I would have assumed had Tony not said otherwise, that it was Leah’s representative objecting. A motion to quash a subpoena is usually about hardship for the witness. Why would Scientology be allowed to plead some burden on Leah if Leah wasn’t complaining? I asked this and you told me I was a dumbass not to understand the difference between the opposing party and a non-party witness. I replied as politely as I could that this was precisely my point, that it was weird to give the opposing party an automatic veto over taking evidence from a willing witness. OK, so you found that the rule only says the opposing party is allowed to object to formal defects in the subpoena. I said I was surprised that it was allowed at all, but at least it was under limited circumstances.

And that it where it would have ended, except that you came back to emphasize to me that the rules also allow ANY AFFECTED PERSON. So I asked if there was any language clarifying how broad this was: on the face of it, you could drive a Mack truck through that. Apparently, from what transpired today, what it means is that someone claiming a confidentiality interest in sealing some testimony that might be given has the right to object. If I want more clarity on that, I will ask somebody other than you.

Uuuh… it depends on whether is boy’s earwax or girl’s earwax. If it’s boy’s earwax it’s made of frogs and snails and puppy dog tails. If it’s girl’s earwax it’s made of sugar and spice and everything nice. Really, I’m sure of it!

Sherb, you are a wise woman and I want you to know that I have your back as I know you’ve had mine. You have always stuck up for others, even when it wasn’t the popular thing to do, and that means a great deal to all of us who have witnessed and felt your kindness and your voice of reason in action here, especially the Turtle -Z Busters.

You were declared “Dame Sherbet” here and that title still sticks. It also means that even when you’re not logged into the bunker, you retain that title, and as you know; there is nothing like a Dame!

I am now going to the store to buy some green sherbet in your honor.

Love ya!

I contacted the NCCC too. Sent several e-mails, and also sent e-mails to some of the conventions of denominations represented by the NCCC. I understand it wasn’t the churches themselves, but the fact that they allowed the NCCC to support Scientology- in their name, it aggravates me. I saw that Rutherford was a lost cause and didn’t bother contacting them.

Refresh. We’re up to 95 on this list.