New Scn website disses Minton
Emma
How interesting ...... Why in the world would Scn be slamming Minton after
the detente they reached back in 2002? Could something be changing for
Minton? Why would Scn put up this site after 4 years of total silence from
them regarding Minton? Anybody have any news that would indicate a change in
their deal.
-Emma
Emma
This is the correct one:
http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/what-is-the-lisa-mcpherson-trust.php
- Emma
JAFAW
"Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote in message
news:4qlck1F...@individual.net...
Also, see previous thread started by Barbz
Subject: "Fun site full of lies and mythdirection"
Android Cat noted:
Ahhh, most likely spin-control by Doug Dohring.
www.dougdohring.com 70.87.76.162
www.jasondohring.com 70.87.76.162
www.scientologymyths.info 70.87.76.162
Emma
"JAFAW" <an...@anon.net> wrote in message
news:xDf1h.22063$gO3....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
I did see that earlier thread but it didn't address the seeming charge of
heart taken by Scientology.
I thought there was some deal where if Bob left them alone, they'd leave him
alone.
He doesn't appear on RFW yet WAS Scn's biggest SP. As far as I know this
"deal" didn't have a statue of limitations.
What does this mean? It could just be that Dohring doesn't know about the
deal. OR perhaps the deal is off.
Any web site that mentions Scientology is supposed to be approved by OSA, so
I would imagine his would be the same. So if OSA approved it, have they
broken the agreement? Or is Bob open for Fair Game again?
- Emma
>
Magoo
Thanks, Emma!
I love it...........nothing like Scientology, lying through their
teeth, one more time.
Here's a bit of their falsehoods, right here. I bought these lines for 30
years. I was so sure Fair Game had been cancelled, I stood up in court,
saying so.
This is from the link above:
" And the misinterpreted policy of "Fair Game"? It is used as an attack
method by apostates and hate-mongerers. It is not a policy used by the
Church, it was cancelled over 30 years ago. And when it was used, it was not
used as is alleged".
Well, just swing by their other hate site:
RFW to read some utterly false claims made against their
critics. That's Fair Game! "You can lie, cheat, steal, destroy s
someone utterly". L. Ron Hubbard
Just because they got "OT" businessman/floormat Joel Phillips
to tack his name to RFW, now saying it's "his" Web site....
doesn't mean it isn't connected to C of S.
Best,
Tory/Magoo~~
>
>
Tigger
Hi Emma,
Thanks for finding that. Is there any way to tell how long it's been
there?
Fair use quote:
"Facing these and other sanctions for their harassment and for their
interference in civil litigation, on November 3, 2001, the LMT
announced in the media that they were disbanding and closing their
Clearwater offices. The corporation disbanded in 2002 and Minton
withdrew from any participation in anti-Scientology activities.
© 2006 scientologymyths.info all rights reserved. All trademarks are
held by their respective owners
End of Quote
That piece certainly didn't finish the story....
I wonder if the "church" ever gave the rest of the story to its
members. You'd think Minton would have made a great poster boy for
them as Scientology's Enemy No One learning the "truth" abut
Scientology and becoming its friend.
The COS counterclaim against Minton isn't over, is it? Apparently that
was being delayed to keep THE PROFIT from being released.
If there is nothing left that Minton can do for the "church", perhaps
the "church" is going back on its deal to leave Minton alone? Does
anyone expect a devil to keep its word and honor its deals?
Tigger
Emma
"Tigger" <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1162186415.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Hi Emma,
Fair use quote:
End of Quote
Tigger
This from whois:
Domain ID:D14799285-LRMS
Domain Name:SCIENTOLOGYMYTHS.INFO
Created On:20-Sep-2006 16:17:42 UTC
Last Updated On:06-Oct-2006 04:26:39 UTC
Expiration Date:20-Sep-2008 16:17:42 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Go Daddy Software Inc (R171-LRMS)
Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Status:TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:GODA-023582457
Registrant Name:Registration Private
Registrant Organization:Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Registrant Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street2:15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province:Arizona
Registrant Postal Code:85260
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4806242599
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:+1.4806242599
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:SCIENTOLOG...@domainsbyproxy.com
Admin ID:GODA-223582457
Admin Name:Registration Private
Admin Organization:Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Admin Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
Admin Street2:15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Scottsdale
Admin State/Province:Arizona
Admin Postal Code:85260
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.4806242599
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:+1.4806242599
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:SCIENTOLOG...@domainsbyproxy.com
Billing ID:GODA-323582457
Billing Name:Registration Private
Billing Organization:Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Billing Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
Billing Street2:15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Billing Street3:
Billing City:Scottsdale
Billing State/Province:Arizona
Billing Postal Code:85260
Billing Country:US
Billing Phone:+1.4806242599
Billing Phone Ext.:
Billing FAX:+1.4806242599
Billing FAX Ext.:
Billing Email:SCIENTOLOG...@domainsbyproxy.com
Tech ID:GODA-123582457
Tech Name:Registration Private
Tech Organization:Domains by Proxy, Inc.
Tech Street1:DomainsByProxy.com
Tech Street2:15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Tech Street3:
Tech City:Scottsdale
Tech State/Province:Arizona
Tech Postal Code:85260
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.4806242599
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.4806242599
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:SCIENTOLOG...@domainsbyproxy.com
Name Server:NS213.WEBSITEWELCOME.COM
Name Server:NS214.WEBSITEWELCOME.COM
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
Name Server:
So by the looks of it the domain was purchased on 29th September, and last
altered (site uploaded?) 6th October.
It must be recent because Google hasn't indexed it yet (I think that takes
about a month).
- Emma
Lermanet.com
Perhaps everything you thought was true was only true for you?
again?
Emma
"Lermanet.com" <Arnie...@Lermanet.COM> wrote in message
news:bb4bk2pnbjg14r4b7...@4ax.com...
Care to elaborate? Some people would like to know and seeing as you are his
bestest buddy, perhaps you can shed some light.
Hmmmmm...On second thought that might be asking a tad too much.
- Emma
>
Dave Touretzky
Tigger <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
>
>Emma wrote:
>> http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/what-happened-to-lisa-mcpherson.php
>>
>> How interesting ...... Why in the world would Scn be slamming Minton after
>> the detente they reached back in 2002? Could something be changing for
>> Minton? Why would Scn put up this site after 4 years of total silence from
>> them regarding Minton? Anybody have any news that would indicate a change in
>> their deal.
>>
>> -Emma
>
>Hi Emma,
>
>Thanks for finding that. Is there any way to tell how long it's been
>there?
The domain was created on September 20, 2006.
The domain registration is anonymous, and there is no author
information anywhere on the site. Cowards.
I don't think this site was created to answer critics, or to educate
raw meat. It was written for Scientology public, to try to help them
keep their belief system intact in the face of the overwhelming
entheta now pervading both the Internet and the real world.
Nice try, snapperheads, but it ain't gonna work.
-- Dave Touretzky: "Scientology makes you crazy."
http://PerkinsTragedy.org
Lermanet.com
Hmmm.. curious....thanks for info
There doesn't seem to be any mention of Dennis Erich
or his now famous Heber and the Body Raisens
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=326
That's because dennis settled with scientology and
gagged sttlement agreements cut both ways.
Looks like physical evidence, a smoking hot piece of the UFO that Bob
Minton did not settle with scientology.
no2dforme
I have raised this issue many times,
the amount of money people took to defend the memory of a woman who
they so intently would have disliked and ridiculed in life.
That is probably the most truthful page on the site.
The Church have enough incriminating data on Bob to keep him quiet for
years to come.
Once they are done with Bob, Arnie is next...
Juju
On Oct 30, 6:26 am, Lermanet.com <ArnieLe...@Lermanet.COM> wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2006 01:03:43 -0500, d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <1162186415.878822.299...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> >Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> >>Emma wrote:
> >>>http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/what-happened-to-lisa...
> Minton did not settle with scientology.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
banchukita
no2dforme wrote:
> I have raised this issue many times,
>
> the amount of money people took to defend the memory of a woman who
> they so intently would have disliked and ridiculed in life.
>
> That is probably the most truthful page on the site.
No, it's just misleading.
Nobody disliked or ridiculed Lisa before she died, or any other
Scientologist victims.
It's the actions and abusive policies of the belief system she
supported --without informed consent --that people have a problem with;
and the way her desire to leave was [cough] "handled."
>
> The Church have enough incriminating data on Bob to keep him quiet for
> years to come.
>
> Once they are done with Bob, Arnie is next...
>
So how do you know this if, as you point out in another post, the
church is not 'yours?'
Why would you give a tinker's damn about this organization, it's
innermost dirty tricks network, and their next target?
-maggie, human being
> Juju
>
> On Oct 30, 6:26?am, Lermanet.com <ArnieLe...@Lermanet.COM> wrote:
> > On 30 Oct 2006 01:03:43 -0500, d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >In article <1162186415.878822.299...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > >Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
> >
> > >>Emma wrote:
> > >>>http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/what-happened-to-lisa...
> >
> > >>> How interesting ...... Why in the world would Scn be slamming Minton after
> > >>> the detente they reached back in 2002? Could something be changing for
> > >>> Minton? Why would Scn put up this site after 4 years of total silence from
> > >>> them regarding Minton? Anybody have any news that would indicate a change in
> > >>> their deal.
> >
> > >>> -Emma
> >
> > >>Hi Emma,
> >
> > >>Thanks for finding that. ?Is there any way to tell how long it's been
> > >>there?
> >
> > >The domain was created on September 20, 2006.
> >
> > >The domain registration is anonymous, and there is no author
> > >information anywhere on the site. ?Cowards.
> >
> > >I don't think this site was created to answer critics, or to educate
> > >raw meat. ?It was written for Scientology public, to try to help them
> > >keep their belief system intact in the face of the overwhelming
> > >entheta now pervading both the Internet and the real world.
> >
> > >Nice try, snapperheads, but it ain't gonna work.
> >
> > >-- Dave Touretzky: ?"Scientology makes you crazy."
> > > ?http://PerkinsTragedy.org? ? ?Hmmm.. curious....thanks for info
> >
> > ?There doesn't seem to be any mention of Dennis Erich
> > or his now famous Heber and the Body Raisens
> >
> > ?http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=326
> >
> > That's because dennis settled with scientology and
> >
> > gagged sttlement agreements cut both ways.
> >
> > ?Looks like physical evidence, a smoking hot piece of the UFO that Bob
Emma
"Lermanet.com" <Arnie...@Lermanet.COM> wrote in message
Are you mad?
So to you this proves Minton didn't settle??
OMG.
Stick to the hypnosis theories.
- Emma
antisectes
ans scientology must be "rehabbed" by ... adding more lies upon the past lies.
So, better transform their past defeats into "victories" uh, victolies.
the dwarf will never accept its defeat as long as he'll be alive. He's too small
a DB to be acceptably defeated!
r
"Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
4qlck1F...@individual.net...
Patty Pieniadz
Geeze Arnie, since Bob is your "friend" as you portray
in your many posts, then it should be NO problem for you
to find out.
"Seems that you wouldn't have to wonder about why
after 4 years, there's been no DA of Bob, and now all
of a sudden it's back".
Patty P
RolandRB
Or it might be a site set up by Bernie or that guy in the UK who
couldn't get processing but was on the side of Scientology.
Zinj
says...
Do you have any evidence for this 'deal' between Bob and the
'Church'?
Are'nt you guys supposed to be four-square for presenting
'evidence'?
Or, is it only when somebody *else* speculates that you get to
demand 'evidence' and scream 'Liar! Liar' if it's not presented
to your satisfaction?
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> Geeze Arnie, since Bob is your "friend" as you portray
> in your many posts, then it should be NO problem for you
> to find out.
>
> "Seems that you wouldn't have to wonder about why
> after 4 years, there's been no DA of Bob, and now all
> of a sudden it's back".
>
> Patty P
Wasn't it you who was demanding that people present 'evidence'
Patty?
Where's your 'evidence' of this putative 'settlement' between
Bob and the 'Church'?
What are its particulars?
Or, as long as it's just you and your 'friends' making claims
about your 'enemies', do you get to just pull claims and
speculation out of your ass?
Hartley Patterson
> Or it might be a site set up by Bernie or that guy in the UK who
> couldn't get processing but was on the side of Scientology.
Bernie seems to have vanished. Someone was doing Google Ads for his
website so I wrote to ask if that was him, but no reply. It's not his
style anyway.
'Theta', the UK guy, would be a more likely candidate, though I'm not
sure if it's all written by one person. Some pages attempt to be
'reasonable', other try to cram as many hate words in as they can.
--
"I just might be the angel at your door"
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
A medieval spreadsheet and enturbulating entheta.
Tigger
Zinj wrote:
> In article <4qmechF...@individual.net>, ppie...@gmail.com
> says...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Geeze Arnie, since Bob is your "friend" as you portray
> > in your many posts, then it should be NO problem for you
> > to find out.
> >
> > "Seems that you wouldn't have to wonder about why
> > after 4 years, there's been no DA of Bob, and now all
> > of a sudden it's back".
> >
> > Patty P
>
> Wasn't it you who was demanding that people present 'evidence'
> Patty?
>
> Where's your 'evidence' of this putative 'settlement' between
> Bob and the 'Church'?
Gee Zinj,
Much of the eviddence can be found here:
Minton's own testimony and actions before and after the Diqual Hearings
are also evidence.
Dandar Disqualification Hearing DocumentsWednesday, August 28, 2002
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/
Why don't you try reading some of it?
Are you saying that Bob Minton was stupid enough to do what he could to
destroy critics and cases without making a "deal" with the "church" of
the unholy lawsuit?
He was pretty stupid to meet with OSA's Rinder & Miscavige lawyer
Yingling ten to twelve times without his lawyer present to protect him,
but was he stupid enough to do what he did WITHOUT getting a "deal"
from COS? And of course both sides would want such a deal to be
secret. If not, why didn't Minton take a lawyer with him to those
meetings?
So, if Minton was stupid enough not to get a "deal" and not to get it
in writing, noterized and filed somewhere, why do you think he and
Brooks contacted Mike Rinder to make a settlement and then attempted to
do the things on COS' to-do list as recorded by Moniue Yingling WHEN
Minton's lawyer was present?
Was Minton supposed to prove his worth by making the Lisa wrongful
death suit "go away", etc. before COS would agree to "settle"?
Why did COS remove his and Brooks' RFW pages and has not said a word
about Minton in four years?
If there was NO DEAL, wouldn't Minton have made a great poster boy for
COS: "Scientology's Enemy No. One Has Now Learned the Truth about
Scientology and Admits He Was Misled by Other Ignorant Bigots of Our
Great REligion"?
> What are its particulars?
>
> Or, as long as it's just you and your 'friends' making claims
> about your 'enemies', do you get to just pull claims and
> speculation out of your ass?
Nope.....we leave that to you and Lerma. Your asses are so full of it.
:-)
Like I said you can find "particulars" in the court documents.
If Arnie has some proof that proves otherwise, let him produce it. And
"Bob told me" don't cut the mustard. Bob is a proven perjurer and OSA
pawn.
Tigger
Zinj
Tiggeri...@webtv.net says...
I've not only read some of it, Tigger, I've read all of it, much
of it numerous times.
Nowhere in those 'liberated' court files is the record of Bob's
'deal' with the 'Church'.
Yet you (and others) feel not only free to speculate on its
terms, but suggest that it's being broken, while at the same
time presenting *no* evidence beyond your slavering speculation.
Since it's intended to bash Bob or anyone you choose to lump in
with him, it's not surprising.
I'm just pointing out the hypocricy, considering the whining
demands for 'evidence' otherwise common to your chummy club.
Why are'nt *you* being called a 'liar' by the usual suspects?
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
>
>I have raised this issue many times,
>
>the amount of money people took to defend the memory of a woman who
>they so intently would have disliked and ridiculed in life.
>
>That is probably the most truthful page on the site.
>
>The Church have enough incriminating data on Bob to keep him quiet for
>years to come.
>
>Once they are done with Bob, Arnie is next...
Be very careful Arnie. This is a threat that could not but have come
from the little sociopath running the Scientology cult.
Note that even though Bob Minton is not participating in the
opposition to Scientology fraud, abuses and criminality, the Miscavige
cultists are not "done" with him. The Miscavigeites not only want to
shudder their opponents into silence, they want them done for.
Scientology is a murderous philosphy. If the Miscavigeite
Scientologists ever came to political power, which they seek, they
will dispose of good people in the hundreds of millions.
Scientology agents have physically assaulted me on six occasions and
have threatened to put a bullet between my eyes. These people are
sociopaths. They will kill to make their postulates stick.
Be very careful out there.
>
>Juju
>
>On Oct 30, 6:26!m, Lermanet.com <ArnieLe...@Lermanet.COM> wrote:
>> On 30 Oct 2006 01:03:43 -0500, d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article <1162186415.878822.299...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>> >Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>Emma wrote:
>> >>>http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/what-happened-to-lisa...
>>
>> >>> How interesting ...... Why in the world would Scn be slamming Minton after
>> >>> the detente they reached back in 2002? Could something be changing for
>> >>> Minton? Why would Scn put up this site after 4 years of total silence from
>> >>> them regarding Minton? Anybody have any news that would indicate a change in
>> >>> their deal.
>>
>> >>> -Emma
>>
>> >>Hi Emma,
>>
>> >>Thanks for finding that. s there any way to tell how long it's been
>> >>there?
>>
>> >The domain was created on September 20, 2006.
>>
>> >The domain registration is anonymous, and there is no author
>> >information anywhere on the site.
owards.
>>
>> >I don't think this site was created to answer critics, or to educate
>> >raw meat. t was written for Scientology public, to try to help them
>> >keep their belief system intact in the face of the overwhelming
>> >entheta now pervading both the Internet and the real world.
>>
>> >Nice try, snapperheads, but it ain't gonna work.
>>
>> >-- Dave Touretzky: "Scientology makes you crazy."
>> > (ttp://PerkinsTragedy.org mmm.. curious....thanks for info
>>
>> here doesn't seem to be any mention of Dennis Erich
>> or his now famous Heber and the Body Raisens
>>
>> (ttp://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=326
>>
>> That's because dennis settled with scientology and
>>
>> gagged sttlement agreements cut both ways.
>>
>> ooks like physical evidence, a smoking hot piece of the UFO that Bob
>> Minton did not settle with scientology.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Zinj
al...@hull.edu says...
> In article <1162209109.1...@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "banchukita" <banch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Nobody disliked or ridiculed Lisa before she died, or any other
> > Scientologist victims.
>
> ridiculing them seems to be the dominant paradigm here.
>
> The general tone of glee of late about the airing of the Perkins family
> tragedy is but one example of the intent of the critics to harm
> scientology rather than to help people.
>
> So be it.
>
> But someday perhaps you will encounter people who can not understand nor
> accept your beliefs, and will fight you for your right to hold them.
>
> And a circle will close.
>
> alex
Nobody 'fights' Scientologists about their 'right to hold their
beliefs'. At most we oppose their attempts to impose their
beliefs on *us* and society in general, and the malicious
mischief, criminal activity and deliberate abuse inherent in the
'application' of the 'applied religious philosophy' of
Scientology/Hubbardism.
But, as for ridicule; sometimes it's the best way to point out
to the naked Scientologists that they have no clothes, while
pandering to their delusions merely serves to 'validate' them in
their delusions and support them 'supporting' the malicios
activity of the 'Church' of Scientology.
If someone chooses to ridicule *my* beliefs, that's just peachy
with me, since I'm not trying to sell them or impose them on
others.
banchukita
Alex wrote:
> In article <1162209109.1...@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "banchukita" <banch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Scientologist victims.
>
> ridiculing them seems to be the dominant paradigm here.
>
You're not grasping the point at all.
> The general tone of glee of late about the airing of the Perkins family
> tragedy is but one example of the intent of the critics to harm
> scientology rather than to help people.
If telling the truth is harming Scientology, then damn, y'all should
have taken care of that yourselves before it started hurting PEOPLE
outside the organization.
More people know and are that much closer to informed consent should
they choose to become Scientologists. Nobody's stopping them, except
maybe Scientology, Inc. and its abusive policies, actions and inability
to correct itself.
>
> So be it.
>
> But someday perhaps you will encounter people who can not understand nor
> accept your beliefs, and will fight you for your right to hold them.
LOL! Oh, wow, yeah, that's never happened to me or my relatives or
anyone I know.
WHen have Scientologists ever faced anything like what happened to
French Huguenots or Shawnee or Cherokee on the Trail of Tears and when
Native American religious ceremonies such as Ghost Dance were made
illegal?
My ancestors, both those who came her to escape real religious
persecution and those who endured it at the hands of everybody who
wasn't a Quaker, died for your right to hold your beliefs and nobody's
contesting that right as long as those beliefs aren't generating
actions that are illegal, abusive, or harassing those who don't agree
with them.
I just want you to be able to have your beliefs with informed consent,
without devastating your finances, and without covert actions against
critics.
*cough*
For all the great comm course wins, you still aren't grasping that it's
not about the beliefs, it's about the abusive practices that are
predicated on the beliefs.
Zinj
@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, banch...@yahoo.com says...
<snip>
> For all the great comm course wins, you still aren't grasping that it's
> not about the beliefs, it's about the abusive practices that are
> predicated on the beliefs.
Oh, I think Alex comprehends the actual issues pretty well. He
just chooses to ignore them.
Maybe he even believes what he's spewing, since that is one of
the 'wonders of The Tech' that it allows the adept to believe
rubbish even and despite the full knowledge that it's rubbish.
It's always hard to tell, with a Scientologist, where delusion
and ignorance mix with disingenuity and outright lies, since, by
design Scientology does not discriminate between 'acceptable
truth', lies and useful 'shore stories'.
Tigger Tigger
>The general tone of glee of late about
> the airing of the Perkins family tragedy
> is but one example of the intent of the
> critics to harm scientology rather than to
> help people.
I am happy about the airing of the Perkins' tragedy because it will
educate the public about Hubbad's pseudo science and the weird beliefs
Hubbard instilled in the people he conned. Thereby helping people by
preventing them from being conned and/or used by Scientology where they
might end up like a Elli Perkins, a Greg Bashaw, a Lisa McPherson, a
Noah Lottick, etc. Goverment or religion....the people should know the
truth.
Knowledge is power. That's why COS tries to hide behind front groups.
Knowledge gives wogs the power to resist the manipulations of a
distructive "religion" or a totalitarina government.
>So be it
>But someday perhaps you will encounter
> people who can not understand nor
> accept your beliefs, and will fight you for
> your right to hold them.
Has little or nothing to do with "beliefs" or "religion"...It only has
to do with beliefs if those beliefs lead people to commit harmful acts.
It's the abuse, misuse and corruptiong of human beings I disagree with.
Tigger
barbz
> In article <1162209109.1...@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "banchukita" <banch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Scientologist victims.
>
> ridiculing them seems to be the dominant paradigm here.
>
> tragedy is but one example of the intent of the critics to harm
> scientology rather than to help people.
>
>
> But someday perhaps you will encounter people who can not understand nor
> accept your beliefs, and will fight you for your right to hold them.
>
>
> alex
And just how is warning people about Scientology's stance on mental
health not helping people, Alex?
If the Perkins family had sought treatment for Jeremy, the whole thing
might have turned out different and Elli might still be alive.
--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net
Zinj
al...@hull.edu says...
> In article <MPG.1faff371a...@news-server.woh.rr.com>,
> arena of public opinion.
>
> While beliefs are not directly assaulted the goal is the same.
>
> No Scientology.
>
> a
If you're equating 'Scientology' with the 'movement' of
Scientology, with its stated goals of 'safe pointing' and
'Keeping Scientology Working' and 'Clearing the Planet' and
freewheeling 'shuddering into silence' and 'ruining utterly' and
'eliminating quietly and without sorrow' as 'religious
practices', then yes, you're right.
The 'goal' is no Scientology.
However, it's not the 'beliefs' that are 'under attack', but the
*appplication* of those beliefs.
That a 'Scientology Movement' couldn't possibly exist with 'full
disclosure' and if Scientology can't exist in the arena of
Public Opinion if the public is *aware* of it in any complete
sense...
Well. Tough shit.
Zinj
al...@hull.edu says...
> In article <MPG.1faff7122...@news-server.woh.rr.com>,
>
> a
Muldoon and I agree on far more than we disagree on, although
there are any number of disagreements on individual points,
conclusions or tactics.
Raptavio
Alex wrote:
> In article <1162209109.1...@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "banchukita" <banch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Scientologist victims.
>
> ridiculing them seems to be the dominant paradigm here.
>
> The general tone of glee of late about the airing of the Perkins family
> tragedy is but one example of the intent of the critics to harm
> scientology rather than to help people.
>
your part.
Raptavio
Alex wrote:
> In article <MPG.1faff371a...@news-server.woh.rr.com>,
> Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> arena of public opinion.
>
> While beliefs are not directly assaulted the goal is the same.
>
> No Scientology.
I think if Scientology ceased to be practiced as a faith today the
result would be a net improvement in Mankind.
But if the Church of Scientology closed its doors forever, leaving the
FreeZone and others to practice independently, the same improvement
would be the result.
Which means the problem is the Church, not the faith.
Zinj
@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, rapt...@gmail.com says...
There is not one single 'evil' or abusive or deplorable element
of the 'Church' of Scientology or, as Alex puts it, 'current
culture' that is not four-square supported by the 'faith' as
revealed by L. Ron Hubbard.
It's a direct outgrowth.
If the 'Freezone' or 'Indie Scientologists' can castrate the
'faith' to the extent that these points are *not* practiced or
advocated, well, fine.
But, it's like trying to get the chocolate out of the M&M
without damaging the sugar coating.
Raptavio
I do not think that overall, the beliefs of Scientology are beneficial
to physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual health, but as with many
lifestyle choices, the damage done, without the Church's corrupt power
and influence, is limited to the individual.
I think only if one includes HCOPLs and HCOBs are part of the "faith"
that one could consider the "faith" to be dangerous to others.
Lermanet.com
"Manipulators strive to divorce us from the facts. Rather than
encouraging us to examine the evidence and reasoning of people who
appear to disagree with us, they block communications and openly or
indirectly try to persuade us that people who disagree with their
views are dishonest, not trustworthy, incompetent, biased, racist,
only concerned with money, insulting our intelligence, corrupt,
betrayers of the American dream, and so on.
Do what we tell you, without realizing that we are controlling you."
Like cult leaders, manipulators encourage us to close ranks and form
an in-group suspicious of those who question the party line."
Lermanet.com
Perhaps they hoped to settle, and then gave up?
Or the DA effort was being handled by others...
" Manipulators strive to divorce us from the facts. Rather than
encouraging us to examine the evidence and reasoning of people who
appear to disagree with us, they block communications and openly or
indirectly try to persuade us that people who disagree with their
views are dishonest, not trustworthy, incompetent, biased, racist,
only concerned with money, insulting our intelligence, corrupt,
betrayers of the American dream, and so on.
Do what we tell you, without realizing that we are controlling you."
Like cult leaders, manipulators encourage us to close ranks and form
an in-group suspicious of those who question the party line."
And I am under no obligation to answer any questions, and stand by
the one example I gave that illustrated my reply to the techniques
outlines in the paragraphs above:
Of course what is true for you is true.
again?
Lermanet.com
<ge...@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote:
>On 30 Oct 2006 03:32:18 -0800, "no2dforme" <Dianet...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I have raised this issue many times,
>>
>>the amount of money people took to defend the memory of a woman who
>>they so intently would have disliked and ridiculed in life.
>>
>>That is probably the most truthful page on the site.
>>
>>The Church have enough incriminating data on Bob to keep him quiet for
>>years to come.
>>
>>Once they are done with Bob, Arnie is next...
>
>Be very careful Arnie. This is a threat that could not but have come
>from the little sociopath running the Scientology cult.
>
>Note that even though Bob Minton is not participating in the
>opposition to Scientology fraud, abuses and criminality, the Miscavige
>cultists are not "done" with him. The Miscavigeites not only want to
>shudder their opponents into silence, they want them done for.
>
>Scientology is a murderous philosphy. If the Miscavigeite
>Scientologists ever came to political power, which they seek, they
>will dispose of good people in the hundreds of millions.
>
>Scientology agents have physically assaulted me on six occasions and
>have threatened to put a bullet between my eyes. These people are
>sociopaths. They will kill to make their postulates stick.
>
>Be very careful out there.
>
>>
I truly understand Gerry
That's why I've got nothing more to say in response to
their needling.. its a shame to the movement that they do not see the
pattern of manipulation that Hubbard used to make them into
scientologists, being used again, only without the lingo to try to
crush by force any dissenting opinion, despite merit or collateral
damage.
http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=268
The questions they need to ask are outlined by Dennis Marlock
in his book on CONfidence Artists..
Ill even give them a money back guarantee.. if they don't get
anything out of Dennis Marlock's book.. *I* will buy it from them..
"This book is dedicated to those who have fallen prey to the
deceivers of our world, and to law enforcement officers, private
citizens, and others who have dedicated themselves to beating the cons
at their own game"
Tigger
Zinj wrote:
> In article <1162222975....@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> Tiggeri...@webtv.net says...
> >
> >
> > Zinj wrote:
(snip)
> > > Where's your 'evidence' of this putative 'settlement' between
> > > Bob and the 'Church'?
> >
> > Gee Zinj,
> >
> > Much of the evidence can be found here:
> > Minton's own testimony and actions before and after the Disqual Hearings
> > are also evidence.
> >
> > Dandar Disqualification Hearing DocumentsWednesday, August 28, 2002
> > http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/
> >
> > Why don't you try reading some of it?
> >
> > Are you saying that Bob Minton was stupid enough to do what he could to
> > destroy critics and cases without making a "deal" with the "church" of
> > the unholy lawsuit?
> >
> > He was pretty stupid to meet with OSA's Rinder & Miscavige lawyer
> > Yingling ten to twelve times without his lawyer present to protect him,
> > but was he stupid enough to do what he did WITHOUT getting a "deal"
> > from COS? And of course both sides would want such a deal to be
> > secret. If not, why didn't Minton take a lawyer with him to those
> > meetings?
> >
> > So, if Minton was stupid enough not to get a "deal" and not to get it
> > in writing, notarized and filed somewhere, why do you think he and
> > Brooks contacted Mike Rinder to make a settlement and then attempted to
> > do the things on COS' to-do list as recorded by Monique Yingling WHEN
Well all the indications are that he did make a deal. I find it
interesting that both you and Arnie avoid answering the questions
asked.
The facts are:
1. Minton and Brooks approached OSA's Mike Rinder to arrange a
settlement of some kind.
2. Minton notifies Ken Dandar that he has to drop the Lisa McPherson
case. Mr. Dandar refuses to backstab his client.
3. After a couple meetings where Minton's lawyer was present and
Minton threw up in the bushes, Minton and Brooks then met ten or twelve
times with OSA's Rinder and Miscavige tax expert lawyer, Monique
Yingling WITHOUT THEIR ATTORNEYS PRESENT to safeguard Minton's
interests.
4. Monique Yingling was forced to produce her notes taken when
Minton's lawyer was present. These included a list of things for
Minton to do if he wanted a settlement. When Minton's lawyer was
EXCLUDED, Yingling CLAIMED she took no notes.
5. Minton and Brooks don't take their recants to their lawyers. They
take them to Rinder and Yingling. WHY?
6. Minton did recants of recants. Why?
7. Minton proceeded to do the things on the COS list for him to do to
get a settlement, such as sending Lerma to get Wollersheim to withdraw
his case against COS; removing or attempting to remove sworn affidavits
by Brooks and others in the Wollersheim case and the Lisa wrongful
death suit; being OSA/COS' star witness to get Ken Dandar disbarred or
dfisqualified and "make the Lisa wrongful death suit go away". In
addition Minton joined COS in suing to get Lisa's family removed as
executors of her estate.
8. Minton and Brooks' RFW pages, along with Mark Bunker's were
removed.
So tell us, Zinj, if these facts were known about anybody but Minton,
would you still be singing Lerma's lyrics?
>
> Since it's intended to bash Bob or anyone you choose to lump in
> with him, it's not surprising.
>
> I'm just pointing out the hypocricy, considering the whining
> demands for 'evidence' otherwise common to your chummy club.
There is no "chummy club". Heck, you do remember the bashing I got
from the kids you named "buttersquashers", don't you?
We are just individuals who agree on this issue because we can see the
facts in spite of all the mud Lerma has thrown at Ken Dandar and
Patricia Greenway.
>
> Why are'nt *you* being called a 'liar' by the usual suspects?
Because *I* am not lying? Because the "usual suspects", whoever they
might be, have no proof that what the transcripts and Minton's actions
indicate is not true? If you, Lerma or the "usual suspects, woever they
might be, think I am lying , what do think these "lies" are.
Geesh, Zinj.....you get more like Lerma every day. Why don't you
answer the questions? Why do you think Minton, who was seeking to
make a deal and apparently doing his part, did NOT make a secret deal
with the "church of the unholy lawsuit"?
What indicates to you that there was no deal?
Why do you think COS removed Minton's RFW pages and hasn't said one
word about him for more than four years?
Why do you think there is a new Scientology website telling "Part" of
the Minton story now?
Why do you think Alex is trying to change the title and topic of this
thread?
Tigger
Zinj
al...@hull.edu says...
> In article <9587-454...@storefull-3337.bay.webtv.net>,
> Tiggeri...@webtv.net (Tigger Tigger) wrote:
>
> > Has little or nothing to do with "beliefs" or "religion"...It only has
> > to do with beliefs if those beliefs lead people to commit harmful acts.
>
> scientological ones, but the ones in action when he killed his mother.
>
> He acted from insanity not scientology.
>
> The case is made that except for the influence of scientology, he would
> not have killed.
>
> Yet it is not uncommon to hear of insane people who have had standard
> mental health treatment doing exactly the same thing.
>
> The Perkins familly tragedy is a convenient tool for anti scientology
> propoganda, but not a defining condemnation of scientology at all.
>
> alex
Far more than you're willing to admit.
The 'Church' actively desires to eliminate *all*
psychological/psychiatric treatment as a matter of faith (and
has announced the imminent demise of 'psychiatry' numerous times
in the recent past, as well as emphasizing the elimination as a
goal.)
But, rather than 'treat their own', when Jeremy was in the Sea
Org, they just 'offloaded' him into the care of his parents,
while also declaring him 'PTS type III' (as if it was a well
known phenomenon within Scientology,) but did not even apply the
'Church Tech' which is the purported 'cure' for the condition.
(The Introspection Rundown.)
Admittedly, considering the earlier disasters in the application
of this bit of 'infallible Scientology Tech', it's not
surprising.
Still, they washed their hands of one of their own, while at the
same time attempting to *eliminate* any other treatment.
That his loving parents were *themselves* believers in The Tech
is one problem. That the 'Church' abdicated any responsibility
is another.
The 'Tech' failed jeremy and elli. And, all the 'Church', which
claims the infallibility of The Tech could think of to do was
try to cover up any connection with Jeremy at all.
And lie and lie and lie.
Pts 2
as a qualified source for and of the info contained within. It could be
layered and if not smothered with mounds of court transcripts in
jurisdictions where judges have a long history of no backbone with the
$cn cult. This all seems so silly and futile to me.
But the fact remains, the is no known "deal" between $cn's goober execs
& lawyers, and Robert Minton. It's all speculation by the Bob=satan
club and the BSers.
Tom
---------------------------
www.thebridgemovie.net
Pts 2
History shows it was Hubbard who set up this whole hurt ploy. It was
he who went the religion (church gack) route way back in the early
1950s when the Am. Psychological Assn and the Am. Psychiatric Assn
dispelled his dianetics theories as rubbish and bad science.
Exposing the the cult, actually helps $cienos. Saving lives from fraud
and quackery is not a bad or "harmful" thing.
Tom
---------------------------
www.thebridgemovie.net
Emma
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fafd0dcd...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
> In article <4qlf0qF...@individual.net>, emm...@bonbon.net
> says...
>>
>> "JAFAW" <an...@anon.net> wrote in message
>> news:xDf1h.22063$gO3....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>> >
>> > "Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote in message
>> > news:4qlck1F...@individual.net...
>> >>
>> > http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/what-happened-to-lisa-mcpherson.php
>> >>
>> >> How interesting ...... Why in the world would Scn be slamming Minton
>> >> after
>> >> the detente they reached back in 2002? Could something be changing for
>> >> Minton? Why would Scn put up this site after 4 years of total silence
>> >> from
>> >> them regarding Minton? Anybody have any news that would indicate a
>> >> change
>> > in
>> >> their deal.
>> >>
>> >> -Emma
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > Subject: "Fun site full of lies and mythdirection"
>> >
>> > Android Cat noted:
>> >
>> > Ahhh, most likely spin-control by Doug Dohring.
>> >
>> > www.dougdohring.com 70.87.76.162
>> > www.jasondohring.com 70.87.76.162
>> > www.scientologymyths.info 70.87.76.162
>> >
>>
>> I did see that earlier thread but it didn't address the seeming charge of
>> heart taken by Scientology.
>>
>> I thought there was some deal where if Bob left them alone, they'd leave
>> him
>> alone.
>>
>> He doesn't appear on RFW yet WAS Scn's biggest SP. As far as I know this
>> "deal" didn't have a statue of limitations.
>>
>> What does this mean? It could just be that Dohring doesn't know about the
>> deal. OR perhaps the deal is off.
>>
>> Any web site that mentions Scientology is supposed to be approved by OSA,
>> so
>> I would imagine his would be the same. So if OSA approved it, have they
>> broken the agreement? Or is Bob open for Fair Game again?
>>
>> - Emma
>
> Do you have any evidence for this 'deal' between Bob and the
> 'Church'?
>
> Are'nt you guys supposed to be four-square for presenting
> 'evidence'?
>
> Or, is it only when somebody *else* speculates that you get to
> demand 'evidence' and scream 'Liar! Liar' if it's not presented
> to your satisfaction?
>
> Zinj
> --
> You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
If there was no deal then please explain why Minton's & Brooks' RFW pages
dissapeared 4 years ago and the CoS has been silent about him ever since.
Do you expect us to believe that the CoS forgot about them? This seems a
little hard to believe considering the likes of Ida Camburn and Alan Walter
are still considered "dangerous" enough to warrent their own entry.
Perhaps you could answer Tigger's questions while you are at it instead of
sweeping them under the rug.
- Emma
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> > Do you have any evidence for this 'deal' between Bob and the
> > 'Church'?
> >
> > Are'nt you guys supposed to be four-square for presenting
> > 'evidence'?
> >
> > Or, is it only when somebody *else* speculates that you get to
> > demand 'evidence' and scream 'Liar! Liar' if it's not presented
> > to your satisfaction?
> >
> > Zinj
> > --
> > You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
>
> If there was no deal then please explain why Minton's & Brooks' RFW pages
> dissapeared 4 years ago and the CoS has been silent about him ever since.
>
> Do you expect us to believe that the CoS forgot about them? This seems a
> little hard to believe considering the likes of Ida Camburn and Alan Walter
> are still considered "dangerous" enough to warrent their own entry.
>
> Perhaps you could answer Tigger's questions while you are at it instead of
> sweeping them under the rug.
>
> - Emma
Your claim; your evidence. Or not.
As the case may be.
And, I would certainly *never* sweep 'Tigger' under the carpet!
Lermanet.com
>
>"Lermanet.com" <Arnie...@Lermanet.COM> wrote in message
>news:bb4bk2pnbjg14r4b7...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:16:03 +1100, "Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/what-happened-to-lisa-mcpherson.php
>>>
>>>How interesting ...... Why in the world would Scn be slamming Minton after
>>>the detente they reached back in 2002? Could something be changing for
>>>Minton? Why would Scn put up this site after 4 years of total silence from
>>>them regarding Minton? Anybody have any news that would indicate a change
>>>in
>>>their deal.
>>>
>>>-Emma
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps everything you thought was true was only true for you?
>>
>> again?
>>
>
>Care to elaborate? Some people would like to know and seeing as you are his
>bestest buddy, perhaps you can shed some light.
>
>Hmmmmm...On second thought that might be asking a tad too much.
>
>- Emma
>>
>
Alexander Dvorkin wrote paper about a fake 'academic' critic of
cults, who appears to be trying to take over the anti-cult movement in
Russia, and was funded by the Moonies...
He ended his fine presentation with this one liner Russian proverb:
...it reminds me of a Russian proverb about the situation at a
country fair where those who scream the loudest: "There is the thief!
Get him!" are the pickpockets themselves.
Boy does THIS sound familiar!
See the posting by Gerry Armstrong of Alex Dvorkin's paper
Subject: Prof. Alexander L. Dvorkin's paper presented at the FAIR
Conference in London, October 25, 2006 (Prof. Eileen Barker's role for
the cult lobby in Russia)
Message-ID: <sdick25pr351cmjv2...@4ax.com>
Emma
"Lermanet.com" <Arnie...@Lermanet.COM> wrote in message
Use all the distraction techniques you like, it doesn't change the fact that
for 4 years the cult has left Minton alone. Now they are Fair Gaming him.
Whether there was a "deal" or not is actually irrelevant. They weren't fair
gaming him and now they are.
You can use your psychobabble to distract all you like, but it doesn't
change anything.
Lets say there was "no deal". Lets say the cult took down its DA page on
Minton because.......ooh I dunno...they felt sorry for him? .....or
ummmmm.... they ran out of bandwidth? ........ or they lost their "M" key on
their keyboard? I mean there must be a reason why they'd take down the DA
page on the fellow they consider to be "the self-appointed financier of the
anti-Scientology movement". Whatever the reason, it was gone, alone with
the one on Brooks. Meanwhile they updated their site to include Patty
Pieniadz and possibly some others yet never reinstated the pages on Minton &
Brooks.
3 - 4 years pass by.
Now, out of the blue, comes this slick new site with all sorts of nasty
stuff about Minton & Brooks.
Aren't you the least bit interested in why there is this change in tactic?
- Emma
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> Lets say there was "no deal". Lets say the cult took down its DA page on
> Minton because.......ooh I dunno...they felt sorry for him? .....or
> ummmmm.... they ran out of bandwidth? ........ or they lost their "M" key on
> their keyboard? I mean there must be a reason why they'd take down the DA
> page on the fellow they consider to be "the self-appointed financier of the
> anti-Scientology movement". Whatever the reason, it was gone, alone with
> the one on Brooks. Meanwhile they updated their site to include Patty
> Pieniadz and possibly some others yet never reinstated the pages on Minton &
> Brooks.
>
> 3 - 4 years pass by.
>
> Now, out of the blue, comes this slick new site with all sorts of nasty
> stuff about Minton & Brooks.
>
> Aren't you the least bit interested in why there is this change in tactic?
>
> - Emma
Let's say that the smarmy and 'holier than thou' calls for
'evidence' mean nothing to you (and patty and friends) unless
they're against your *enemies* in factional disputes within the
'critical community'.
Not that I think you're 'doing OSA's Work' (although you are)
deliberately, or that you don't object to many of the same
things about the 'Church' of Scientology that most of us do,
because, I believe you do. (all of you)
I realize that life and the party line would be far simpler for
your simple-minded cliquism if I were an 'Arnie's Army'
supporter, but, as anyone who actually knows shit knows, I've
objected to his and his friend's excesses and have openly
objected to and sneered at their silly pretensions for years,
with the result that I'm 'banned' on any Arnie channel as surely
as on any buttersquishie one :)
*And*, along with many of the 'squishies', I'm also eternalized
on Gerry's 'OSA Follies' page.
Now, I will say that I highly appreciate much of the critical
effort given by both 'buttersquashers' (or, anti-bobists, or
'elves' or 'smug back-channel-manipulative-assholes) as much as
their 'enemies', the 'totally-effective-legitimate-activist-
holy-grail-toting' zealots who so sternly march shoulder-to-
shoulder down the streets of our fair newsgroup.
Still; the whole barbie-doll-house of factional cliquism is at
best amusing and never more than a distraction from the main
event.
A pox upon both your houses.
Emma
My post wasn't addressed to you.
I know you think everyone except you is a fool.
I know you wish pox upon us all.
I don't care.
I want to know why, after 4 years, the cult is DAing Bob Minton. It's a
pretty simple question, so why do we get cries of "buttersquash!" or "OSA"
for asking?
If that is "doing OSAs work", then how the hell is anyone supposed to be
able to ask a question without being branded.
And please stop pretending you are banned from either irc channel because of
your impariality. You are banned because you are a tool.
- Emma
Pts 2
fair gaming him, now they are."
Fair Game is defined here: www.fairgamed.org
"May be tricked, sued, lied to, or destroyed..."
Personally I have never seen one shred of evidence, that the fairgaming
of Mr.Minton has ever stopped. So to assert it's started up again,
makes little or no sense.
However Emma, if you are referring to verbally ragging on someone in
cyberspace as a very narrowed form of "fairgaming," well then we have
Tigger to thank for keep whipping the dead horses pulling that Bob=satan
bandwagon on ARS, OCMB, and FACTnet MB.
Tom
------------------
www.xenutv.com
Zinj
says...
> My post wasn't addressed to you.
But, but, butt...
It was *me* who asked you for some 'evidence' of the 'deal' long
before Arnie, so, I felt addressed :)
> I know you think everyone except you is a fool.
I wish. As healthy as my 'self-esteem' may be, I'm far from
thinking that I'm not 'foolish', or that 'everyone' else is more
so. I'm consistently amazed at how admirable other people are
and it helps me strive to be better.
> I know you wish pox upon us all.
No; upon your *groups*. Groups; get it? Individually you all
are more than the sum of your parts.
> I don't care.
That's your right, and a healthy sign.
> I want to know why, after 4 years, the cult is DAing Bob Minton. It's a
> pretty simple question, so why do we get cries of "buttersquash!" or "OSA"
> for asking?
The fact that you think that is an *important* question reveals
your essential opportunism and irrelevant obsession.
'Why' the 'Church' of Scientology does something is seldom
something we get handed on a plate, since they're insane and
devious and enemy of my enemy's pet poodle's second to last
bitch to sniff his butt obsessed.
We 'know' what the 'Church' is thinking when the gummint raids
the orgs and we get to see the 'mimeos'.
Everything else is speculation.
> If that is "doing OSAs work", then how the hell is anyone supposed to be
> able to ask a question without being branded.
Questions are questions; rhetorical questions intended to make a
point are *not* questions, but 'arguments disguised to avoid
rebuttal.
Have you stopped picking your nose while you sit on the toilet
yet Ms. Emma?
> And please stop pretending you are banned from either irc channel because of
> your impariality. You are banned because you are a tool.
>
> - Emma
Heh.
Who's tool?
Simkatu
Dave Touretzky wrote:
<snip>
> >Emma wrote:
http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/what-happened-to-lisa-mcpherson.php
<snip>
> The domain was created on September 20, 2006.
>
> The domain registration is anonymous, and there is no author
> information anywhere on the site. Cowards.
>
> I don't think this site was created to answer critics, or to educate
> raw meat. It was written for Scientology public, to try to help them
> keep their belief system intact in the face of the overwhelming
> entheta now pervading both the Internet and the real world.
>
> Nice try, snapperheads, but it ain't gonna work.
Try this Professor Dave:
http://whois.sc/dougdohring.com
then compare the IP address you find with this:
http://whois.sc/scientologymyths.info
So why is Doug Dohring spending the money on a whois proxy to hide the
fact that he is the one behind the website ScientologyMyths.com? Why
didn't he at least spend the extra $5 a month to make sure the site
didn't share his IP?
Why is Dohring in hiding?
For those of you who don't know, Doug Dohring is a wealthy Scientologis
who once was owner of embattled Clearwater, Florida scientology-owned
company called Digital Lightwave:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Dohring
--
Simkatu
Zinj
@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, sim...@mail.com says...
The same people the FBI were suprised to find worked out of the
office suite above theirs in Clearwater...
Yet *another* hmmm....
Android Cat
It *might* be a coincidence that the Dohrings shifted to that IP address end
of August/start of September.
After all, there are some 913 sites on that IP.
And it *might* be an idea to watch out for low-flying porcines.
--
Ron of that ilk.
Susan
"Alex" <al...@hull.edu> wrote in message
news:alex-232388.1...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <9rq1h.591$Hc2...@newsfe11.phx>,
> barbz <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Alex wrote:
>> > In article <1162209109.1...@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "banchukita" <banch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Nobody disliked or ridiculed Lisa before she died, or any other
>> >> Scientologist victims.
>> >
>> > If as a critic you take most all scientologists to be victims of a
>> > sort,
>> > ridiculing them seems to be the dominant paradigm here.
>> >
>> > The general tone of glee of late about the airing of the Perkins family
>> > tragedy is but one example of the intent of the critics to harm
>> > scientology rather than to help people.
>> >
>> > So be it.
>> >
>> > But someday perhaps you will encounter people who can not understand
>> > nor
>> > accept your beliefs, and will fight you for your right to hold them.
>> >
>> > And a circle will close.
>> >
>> > alex
>>
>> health not helping people, Alex?
>>
>> If the Perkins family had sought treatment for Jeremy, the whole thing
>> might have turned out different and Elli might still be alive.
>
> Or the crime could have been all the more vicious, if that could be
> imagined.
>
> Why is it that people dont want to stay on their meds? Shall we
> legislate mental treatment? Thats scary.
>
> You should think about that, as a person who has on occasion differed in
> appearance and demeanor for the run of the mill wog.
>
> Scientologys stance on mental health is readily available with out the
> need for sensational warnings from those who hate us.
You certainly are living in your own delusionary bubble- the cult
indoctrinated world of Alex.
Fortunately, no one outside of the cult indoc is falling for it
Susan
>
> alex
AJ Simkatu
> RolandRB rolan...@hotmail.com:
>
>> Or it might be a site set up by Bernie or that guy in the UK who
>> couldn't get processing but was on the side of Scientology.
>
> Bernie seems to have vanished. Someone was doing Google Ads for his
> website so I wrote to ask if that was him, but no reply. It's not his
> style anyway.
>
> 'Theta', the UK guy, would be a more likely candidate, though I'm not
> sure if it's all written by one person. Some pages attempt to be
> 'reasonable', other try to cram as many hate words in as they can.
*BEEEEEEP* wrong answer.
It was set up by Doug Dohring. It shares the same IP address as his own
website:
Compare the IP addresses:
http://whois.sc/dougdohring.com
http://whois.sc/scientologymyths.info
--
Simkatu
El Ron Crozo
start again from Scientology I will be there in the battle. I actually
e-mailed him recently to wish him a happy birthday and thank him for
what he did while he could. He replied back and said thanks. That
really made my day.
El Ron Crozo
Zinj
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, imwiths...@msn.com says...
> I'm curious about the current threat to Bob. If the attacks on Bob
> start again from Scientology I will be there in the battle. I actually
> e-mailed him recently to wish him a happy birthday and thank him for
> what he did while he could. He replied back and said thanks. That
> really made my day.
>
> El Ron Crozo
It's unlikely that the 'threats to Bob' ever stopped.
That's not how the 'Church' works.
It's doubtful that there ever was any kind of 'settlement', but,
practically excluded that the 'Church' would keep it, unless Bob
was clever enough to rig it like Dennis did, which he wasn't.
Other than that kind of threat, there is absolutely no
possibility that the 'Church' would ever get off Bob's case.
They hate him and *need* to destroy him utterly.
It's a matter of faith.
El Ron Crozo
in that situation. I can only fathom the things that have happened to
him that we don't know about since his departure.
El Ron Crozo
Zinj
zinj...@yahoo.com says...
What I said was unfair. Bob was and probably still is a very
smart guy, and it's wrong to devaluate him by implying that he
wasn't (and isn't) a very clever guy.
Beyond the very brave and caring guy he was anyway.
Dennis was in a very unique position that Bob wasn't. And he
found his 'cubic centimeter of luck' and took it. Kudos.
Bob was a guy who's own best instincts led into a trap, which
his hubris helped him fall into.
Kudos to Bob; and, best wishes. He helped a lot of people, and
may still help many more, but, he deserves recognition for the
good he's done; and ridicule and excoriation for the silliness
:)
El Ron Crozo
still help many more, but, he deserves recognition for the good he's
done; and ridicule and excoriation for the silliness :)"
Here here!
El Ron Crozo
AJ Simkatu
> I'm curious about the current threat to Bob. If the attacks on Bob
> start again from Scientology I will be there in the battle. I actually
> e-mailed him recently to wish him a happy birthday and thank him for
> what he did while he could. He replied back and said thanks. That
> really made my day.
You communicate with Bob Minton?
--
Simkatu
Zinj
sim...@gmail.com says...
Considering how difficult it always has been to get to Bob over
e-mail, that is indeed as impressive as talking to a burning
bush :)
But, he hasn't spoken to Grady Ward yet... and *that* is a bit
of ARS history that's sorely missed.
Actually, in retrospect, the 'Critical Community' lost its soul
when Grady left.
Gerry Armstrong
I'm sure glad then I left your soulless little community around the
same time as Grady.
>
>Zinj
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Zinj
ge...@gerryarmstrong.org says...
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:22:05 GMT, Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >Actually, in retrospect, the 'Critical Community' lost its soul
> >when Grady left.
>
> I'm sure glad then I left your soulless little community around the
> same time as Grady.
Heh. Grady is entertaining; at best you might rival Gerald Ford
giving the troops a 'pep talk'.
Emma
> In article <4qmechF...@individual.net>, ppie...@gmail.com
> says...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Geeze Arnie, since Bob is your "friend" as you portray
>> in your many posts, then it should be NO problem for you
>> to find out.
>>
>> "Seems that you wouldn't have to wonder about why
>> after 4 years, there's been no DA of Bob, and now all
>> of a sudden it's back".
>>
>> Patty P
>
> Wasn't it you who was demanding that people present 'evidence'
> Patty?
>
> Where's your 'evidence' of this putative 'settlement' between
> Bob and the 'Church'?
>
>
> Or, as long as it's just you and your 'friends' making claims
> about your 'enemies', do you get to just pull claims and
> speculation out of your ass?
>
> Zinj
> --
> You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Seeing as I'm one of those "friends" I'll reply to this.
I spent a couple of hours surfing around today to get you your proof.
From Jesse Prince's affidavit:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/affi_jesse_05_01.htm
Quote: "Stacy swore that she would protect Bob no matter what. She did in
fact arrive in NH on the same day in question to help Bob. The next day
after Stacy arrived in NH, I called to check and see how things were going.
I talked to Bob and he told me he was going to contact Mike Rinder, who is
the top executive of Scientology's legal and intelligence activities to see
if he could work out a deal."
Are you calling Jesse Prince a liar too? He says it right there "to see if
he could work out a DEAL"
Quote: "He said he called Ken and begged him to drop the wrongful death
lawsuit at the demand of Michael Rinder, but Ken refused saying he had an
obligation to his client Dell Liebreich."
Now, why would Bob be begging for the Lisa case to be dropped "at the demand
of Michael Rinder" if he hadn't cut a deal? Would YOU start running around
taking orders from Rinder if you hadn't cut a deal?
Quote: "10. The next day, late in the afternoon I talked to Stacy on the
phone and she told me that Mike Rinder called and said he really didn't
understand why Bob and Stacy walked out of the meeting. She went on to say
that Mr. Rinder said that he understood that Bob and Stacy could not dismiss
the wrongful death suit and the Wollersheim case in CA, but there were
things Stacy and Bob could do."
Sounds like a deal to me! Well, if you can't make the cases go away, there
are other things you can do. Yeah, that's not a deal, Zinj? And you can
chalk it up to blackmail if you wish, but in any blackmail scheme a DEAL is
struck----you know? Quid pro quo? Ever heard of it? That's considered a
DEAL.
Quote: "Stacy was happy about being able to negotiate with Scientology "
Negotiate? Does that not connote a DEAL? Jeez, to negotiate at a flea
market, it's considered a DEAL. When dealing with the cult, it's a pact with
the devil....but a deal nonetheless.
Just as a side note, you can refer to this same document, item 12 to find
out that all of Lerma's recent weird rantings were NOT based in fact. There
was no PERJURY hearing or trial as Lerma lied about---it was a CONTEMPT
hearing....not defended by Steve Jonas as Lerma stated, but by Bruce Howie.
The technicality was played by Mr. Howie not Jonas and since Mr. Howie nor
Minton provided the transcripts for that hearing, they are NOT available on
the web. So that settles your and Lerma's constant whining about
"transcripts that were hidden"----more bullshit from two people who never
bother to actually READ or ask questions. Don't you get tired of lambasting
people with false accusations?
Now, back to the deal:
Quote: "Bob and Stacy continued to have meetings with Mike Rinder and
company and both started to reveal to me what Scientology wanted them to
do."
Hmmmm....let's see: negotiations? Quid pro quo? One party expressing desire
for the other party to fulfill some task? Sounds like a deal to me.
Quote: "Bob laughed and said another thing he had offered Scientology as
part of the settlement negotiations was to turn over my partnership in the
film "The Profit" so Peter and Patricia would have to deal with Scientology
on the film. "
Offers? settlement negotiations? Heard enough yet?
Quote: "I told them Scientology was making a fool out of them in my opinion.
Stacy said the reason I felt that way was because I did not have all of the
information. She said I had been left in the dark about some things that
both her and Bob were not able to talk about because they had signed a
non-disclosure agreement with Scientology concerning the
settlement talk and it was time they brought me into the picture."
Settlement talk, got that? NON-disclosures. And in case you wonder how a
cult can be judge and jury when threatening someone with jail, they can't.
It's a deal, plain and simple. Last I looked, negotiating what you can offer
in a quid pro quo situation is called a DEAL
Now, unless you want to call Jesse Prince a LIAR as you imply with your
statement: "you and your 'friends' making claims about your 'enemies', do
you get to just pull claims and speculation out of your ass?", maybe you'd
like to post here that Jesse is pulling it out of his ass as well. Because
his sworn affidavit spells out the deal, the parties to the deal and the
terms of the deal. So maybe you just like to accuse people of "pulling it
out of their ass" when it doesn't confirm the wild allegations you so
readily belch out on this newsgroup.
I urge anyone who has any interest in this topic to read in full this
affidavit from Jesse Prince.
- Emma
Zinj
says...
Silly woman.
I've *met* Jesse Prince. Have you?
I remember well the period when exactly the same people you're
aligned with were manufacturing horror stories about Jesse.
Before the collapse of the LMT that is.
Do you really think you know shit?
Why don't you ask your 'friends' where Flybrat is? And how well
that worked out while they were defending Jolie against the evil
Mintonista :)
I can understand how Jesse might be disappointed in Bob; we all
were.
But, I doubt seriously that he jumped onto the garbage scow of a
rescue boat that Buttersquash offers :)
Especially considering the level of viciousness your 'friends'
brought against him, back when he was the 'enemy'.
Silly silly silly
Ignorant
Zinj
zinj...@yahoo.com says...
Just to add here. The 'point' of the 'new site' was to
accomplish exactly what they achieved; i.e. re-incite and revive
old flame warfare in intra-critical squabbles.
It worked :)
But, like Dianetics, the more often it shows up, the more of a
yawn factor it has.
Abreaction therapy :)
If anybody still gives a fuck about the Minton Wars, maybe it's
time for them to take up knitting, rather than offering
themselves up as stalking horses to the Scientology moloch.
When this is all over, Buttersquash may be remembered as either
a 'guiding light in the darkness of anarchic internet activism'
and the 'Legitimate Activists' may be remembered as 'those who
kept the faith while all others despaired...
But, more likely is that it will only be remembered that the
'Church' of Scientology went *down* with a hearty bang when the
vacuum of its internal lies collapsed on itself.
When that happens, it will be true. Scientology is its own
worst enemy and the *best* any of us has ever done is help.
Maybe we'll get credit for 'Three Stooges Prop Development' or
'Targets Willingly Offered For the 'Church' to demonstrate its
true Nature Against'.
Now, that would be a good credit on this film.
Emma
Keep your misogynist comments to yourself, there's nothing silly about
showing you how stupid you are.
>
> I've *met* Jesse Prince. Have you?
I don't need to meet Jesse Prince to read his sworn affidavit. You should
try reading more and name-dropping less. Who CARES who you met
> I remember well the period when exactly the same people you're
> aligned with were manufacturing horror stories about Jesse.
>
> Before the collapse of the LMT that is.
RENT A CLUE!. I am not aligned with anybody when I go to the trouble of
researching the facts for dimwits like you. You don't want to believe Jesse
Prince's sworn affidavit, that's YOUR problem and it has nothing to do with
my ability to read what he wrote.
>
> Do you really think you know shit?
Obviously I prefer the facts as stated in sworn testimony to your howling
insults
>
> Why don't you ask your 'friends' where Flybrat is? And how well
> that worked out while they were defending Jolie against the evil
> Mintonista :)
>
I don't care about anybody called Flybrat. She has nothing to do with Bob
cutting a deal. I don't care about any Jolie. I am addressing your
allegations that Bob didn't cut a deal. No thanks to you and your sliming up
the newsgroup, I spent quite a bit of time finding out about the deal and I
documented it. You just hate being caught out as a loon who claimed there
was no deal.
> I can understand how Jesse might be disappointed in Bob; we all
> were.
>
That wasn't an affidavit about Jesse Prince's disappointment, it was ALL
about Jesse describing the terms of the deal and with whom it was made. Get
used to it.
> But, I doubt seriously that he jumped onto the garbage scow of a
> rescue boat that Buttersquash offers :)
RESCUE BOAT? are you dilusional? Who said anything about boats? We're
discussing Bob Minton's deal as documented by Jesse Prince. Nowhere in that
affidavit is a mention about buttersquashers. Are you deranged? Or just
obsessed with them?
>
> Especially considering the level of viciousness your 'friends'
> brought against him, back when he was the 'enemy'.
FRIENDS? ENEMIES? Maybe YOU need to decide if this affidavit is a lie or
not, then say so....instead of howling about boats, enemies, flybrats,
jolies and buttersquashers
>
> Silly silly silly
> Ignorant
>
It must really suck being you. You can't even address the statements made by
Jesse Prince.
> Zinj
> --
> You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
- Emma
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> It must really suck being you. You can't even address the statements made by
> Jesse Prince.
*sigh*
One of the saddest things about 'Buttersquash' is their
deplorable exploitation of exiting cult members like you and jay
and even patty.
From one cult to another.
Emma
"Au contraire, mon frere!" YOU demanded proof of a deal. I provided the
proof from Jesse Prince. When you didn't like the proof I provided instead
of either admitting Jesse outlined a DEAL, or calling him a liar, you chose
to turn the whole issue into an opportunity to reinvigorate your feud with
the buttersquashers. This thread has nothing to do with anybody but the fact
that Minton is being DA'd for the first time in 4 years and it is
noticeable.
Jeez is that so hard for you to understand?
- Emma
Tigger
No, Emma is not silly. You asked for proof. She gave you proof. And
what do you do? Instaed of addressing the issue, you do a
Lerma/Padgett dance.
>
> I've *met* Jesse Prince. Have you?
Has absolutely nothing to do with Jesse Prince's affidavit.
> I remember well the period when exactly the same people you're
> aligned with were manufacturing horror stories about Jesse.
>
> Before the collapse of the LMT that is.
Has absolutely nothing to do with Minton making a deal or Jesse's
testimony.
>
> Do you really think you know shit?
Emma knows what Jesse's sworn testimony is. Are you saying it's
"shit"? Are you saying Jesse is a liar?
>
> Why don't you ask your 'friends' where Flybrat is? And how well
> that worked out while they were defending Jolie against the evil
> Mintonista :)
That was before my time, but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with
Jesse's sworn testimony.
Why aren't you asking Lerma, who claims Minton is his "best friend", if
he's going to let Minton know about this new anti-Minton Scientology
webpage?
>
> I can understand how Jesse might be disappointed in Bob; we all
> were.
>
> But, I doubt seriously that he jumped onto the garbage scow of a
> rescue boat that Buttersquash offers :)
It was not "might be disappointed"....Jsse was 'MIGHTY
DISAPPOINTED....Why? Because Minton and Brooks tried to get him to lie
for the COS. Jesse was so disappointed, he called Minton a
scientologist and contacted the FBI to try to stop the "deal" that he
saw Minton making with Mike Rinder.
>
> Especially considering the level of viciousness your 'friends'
> brought against him, back when he was the 'enemy'.
Has ABSOLUTLELY NOTHING to do with Jesse's affidavit or MINTON making a
"deal" with Mike Rinder.
>
> Silly silly silly
> Ignorant
Yes, Zinj, you certainly are. Silly, silly, silly and IGNORANT to
think you can get away with changing the subject, ignoring the evidence
and personally attacking the person who took the time and made the
effort to dig up proof which YOU asked for.
Tigger
Emma
There's nothing CULTISH about spending hours on the internet trying to
determine if in fact there was a deal. Jesse Prince was very close to Bob
Minton. He said there was a deal and I'm taking him on his word. PERIOD.
But NICE TRY Zinj, trying to accuse me of cultish behavior when you have NO
response to the fact that I provided the proof you demanded.
-Emma
You can lead Zinj to an affidavit; but you can't make him read it.
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> "Au contraire, mon frere!" YOU demanded proof of a deal. I provided the
> proof from Jesse Prince. When you didn't like the proof I provided instead
> of either admitting Jesse outlined a DEAL, or calling him a liar, you chose
> to turn the whole issue into an opportunity to reinvigorate your feud with
> the buttersquashers. This thread has nothing to do with anybody but the fact
> that Minton is being DA'd for the first time in 4 years and it is
> noticeable.
>
> Jeez is that so hard for you to understand?
>
> - Emma
Calm. Calm Smoke a hit on this opium pipe and relax.
Let me know when you're feeling calm and relaxed.
Watch this watch swinging... left to right; right to left
Over and over.
Your eyes are getting very heavy.
Better now?
Ahhhhhh.....
So anyway, Jesse's affidavit is *not* evidence of a
'settlement' between 'Bob' and the 'Church'.
It isn't.
Ask Kady. It isn't.
It's certainly evidence of extortion by the 'Church' against
Bob, and evidence that Bob was in communication with 'The
Church'.
It's even quite likely that some kind of 'agreement' was
reached, but, there is no *evidence* for it.
Nor is there any 'evidence' for the particulars of the putative
'settlement'.
Nor any basis for speculation about how it was being 'breached'.
Now.
When I count to 10 you will open your eyes and feel very
refreshed
Zinj
I'm sorry Tigger and Emma,
Jesse's affidavit isn't evidence of an agreement or
'settlement' between Bob and the 'Church'.
That's not surprising. Jesse would *not* be party to such a
settlement.
What his testimony is is evidence showing 'settlement
discussions'.
As you *should* know, settlement discussions may or may not
advance to the point of becomming 'settlements'.
You do know that, don't you?
I seem to remember you making that distinction a few times over
the past years.
So; we do know that Bob was in discussion with the 'Church'.
That's fairly simple.
OK?
But, we do *not* have evidence for any 'settlement'; much less
one that is now being 'breached' as suggested.
Kay?
On the other hand, we have SP Times and CBS news references to a
settlement between the Lisa McPherson Estate and the 'Church',
which as of april of 2005 was being denied by you, Tigger.
My objection has been from the start that speculation that the
'Church' was breaking an 'agreement' with Bob was purely idle
speculation, since there is no evidence for an 'agreement' at
all, and therefore nothing to 'break'.
I started this because I was making fun of your own demands for
'evidence' in all speculation.
I'm not surprised you missed that point.
And; no. What you have presented so far is *not* evidence of an
agreement that could be 'broken'.
zeeorger
Emma wrote:
> "Lermanet.com" <Arnie...@Lermanet.COM> wrote in message
> news:j31dk2dnmb39gs3d2...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:49:28 +1100, "Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Lermanet.com" <Arnie...@Lermanet.COM> wrote in message
> >>news:bb4bk2pnbjg14r4b7...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:16:03 +1100, "Emma" <emm...@bonbon.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/what-happened-to-lisa-mcpherson.php
> >>>>
> >>>>How interesting ...... Why in the world would Scn be slamming Minton
> >>>>after
> >>>>the detente they reached back in 2002? Could something be changing for
> >>>>Minton? Why would Scn put up this site after 4 years of total silence
> >>>>from
> >>>>them regarding Minton? Anybody have any news that would indicate a
> >>>>change
> >>>>in
> >>>>their deal.
> >>>>
> >>>>-Emma
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps everything you thought was true was only true for you?
> >>>
> >>> again?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Care to elaborate? Some people would like to know and seeing as you are
> >>his
> >>bestest buddy, perhaps you can shed some light.
> >>
> >>Hmmmmm...On second thought that might be asking a tad too much.
> >>
> >>- Emma
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > Alexander Dvorkin wrote paper about a fake 'academic' critic of
> > cults, who appears to be trying to take over the anti-cult movement in
> > Russia, and was funded by the Moonies...
> >
> > He ended his fine presentation with this one liner Russian proverb:
> >
> > ...it reminds me of a Russian proverb about the situation at a
> > country fair where those who scream the loudest: "There is the thief!
> > Get him!" are the pickpockets themselves.
> >
> >
> > Boy does THIS sound familiar!
> >
> > See the posting by Gerry Armstrong of Alex Dvorkin's paper
> > Subject: Prof. Alexander L. Dvorkin's paper presented at the FAIR
> > Conference in London, October 25, 2006 (Prof. Eileen Barker's role for
> > the cult lobby in Russia)
> > Message-ID: <sdick25pr351cmjv2...@4ax.com>
>
> Use all the distraction techniques you like, it doesn't change the fact that
> for 4 years the cult has left Minton alone. Now they are Fair Gaming him.
>
> Whether there was a "deal" or not is actually irrelevant. They weren't fair
> gaming him and now they are.
>
> You can use your psychobabble to distract all you like, but it doesn't
> change anything.
>
> Lets say there was "no deal". Lets say the cult took down its DA page on
> Minton because.......ooh I dunno...they felt sorry for him? .....or
> ummmmm.... they ran out of bandwidth? ........ or they lost their "M" key on
> their keyboard? I mean there must be a reason why they'd take down the DA
> page on the fellow they consider to be "the self-appointed financier of the
> anti-Scientology movement". Whatever the reason, it was gone, alone with
> the one on Brooks. Meanwhile they updated their site to include Patty
> Pieniadz and possibly some others yet never reinstated the pages on Minton &
> Brooks.
>
> 3 - 4 years pass by.
>
> Now, out of the blue, comes this slick new site with all sorts of nasty
> stuff about Minton & Brooks.
>
When has the CoS ever really quit re-introducing past 'sucessful'
on-source on-policy actions ... after a suitable waiting period. It
is SOP.
> Aren't you the least bit interested in why there is this change in
tactic?
Hum, the tactics may be slightly different (mild adaptation to a
more hostile environment), but the overarching startegy behind
the tactics remains unchanged. More distortions, more lies, ...
I don't expect there to be any change in strategy, no more
than can be expected from say a snake not to shed its skin.
If there are any interesting indicators - they are to be found in
what is not being shown or looked for ... declining Org stats,
general staff and public in low tone (both physical and mental),
staff burn-out from two decades of being in a semi-perpetual
state of non-E. Scientology has not had a "Big Win" in years.
The IRS win was 12 years ago - that's 3-4 lifetimes in clam
years. The long awaited "public reach" for a better mouse trap
has failed to materialize ... how many OT8's have been made
since they debugged the stops on The Bridge and removed all
barriers to Unprecedented Expansion!
As LRH well knew, if you don't make a new game, then the
game will be to get you [KSW #1] ... any time now the new
"game" will be "get shorty".
Unfortunately "getting apostates" may be the only "good"
and last game DM and his minions can come up with before
he gets f*cked over by his own and Scientology goes under.
Z
Patty Pieniadz
> In article <4qmechF...@individual.net>, ppie...@gmail.com
> says...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Geeze Arnie, since Bob is your "friend" as you portray
>> in your many posts, then it should be NO problem for you
>> to find out.
>>
>> "Seems that you wouldn't have to wonder about why
>> after 4 years, there's been no DA of Bob, and now all
>> of a sudden it's back".
>>
>> Patty P
>
> Wasn't it you who was demanding that people present 'evidence'
> Patty?
>
> Where's your 'evidence' of this putative 'settlement' between
> Bob and the 'Church'?
>
> What are its particulars?
>
> Or, as long as it's just you and your 'friends' making claims
> about your 'enemies', do you get to just pull claims and
> speculation out of your ass?
>
> Zinj
HAH....the PROOF? Read Jesse's affidavit!! Or are you and Arnie prepared to
call Jesse a LIAR? And what about the Yingling notes?
"From Jesse Prince's affidavit:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/lisa_mcpherson/bob/affi_jesse_05_01.htm
snip to:
"He said he called Ken and begged him to drop the wrongful
death lawsuit at the demand of Michael Rinder, but Ken
refused saying he had an obligation to his client Dell Liebreich."
Now, why would Bob be begging for the Lisa case to be dropped "at the demand
of Michael Rinder" if he hadn't cut a deal? Would YOU start running around
taking orders from Rinder if you hadn't cut a deal?
snip to:
"10. The next day, late in the afternoon I talked to Stacy on the
phone and she told me that Mike Rinder called and said he
really didn't understand why Bob and Stacy walked out of the
meeting. She went on to say that Mr. Rinder said that he
understood that Bob and Stacy could not dismiss the
wrongful death suit and the Wollersheim case in CA, but
there were things Stacy and Bob could do."
Sounds like a deal to me! Well, if you can't make the cases go
away, there are other things you can do. Yeah, that's not a
deal, Zinj. And you can chalk it up to blackmail if you wish,
but in any blackmail scheme a DEAL is struck----you know?
quid pro quo? ever heard of it? that's considered a DEAL.
snip to:
"Stacy was happy about being able to negotiate with Scientology "
Negotiate? Does that not connote a DEAL? Hell, to negotiate at a flea
market, it's considered a DEAL. When dealing with the cult, it's a pact
with the devil....but a deal nonetheless.
Just as a side note, you can refer to this same document, item 12 to find
out that all of Arnie's recent weird rantings were NOT based in fact. There
was
no PERJURY hearing or trial as Lerma lied about---it was a CONTEMPT
hearing....not defended by Steve Jonas as Lerma stated, but by Bruce Howie.
The
technicality was played by Mr. Howie not Jonas and since Mr. Howie nor
Minton
provided the transcripts for that hearing, they are NOT available on the
web. So
that settles your and Lerma's constant whining about "transcripts that were
hidden"----more bullshit from two people who never bother to actually READ
or
ask questions. Don't you get tired of lambasting people with false
accusations?
Now, back to the deal:
snip to:
"Bob and Stacy continued to have meetings with Mike Rinder and company and
both started to reveal to me what Scientology wanted them to do."
let's see: negotiations? quid pro quo? one party expressing desire for the
other party to fulfill some task? Sounds like a deal to me.
snip to:
"Bob laughed and said another thing he had offered Scientology as part of
the settlement negotiations was to turn over my partnership in the film
"The
Profit" so Peter and Patricia would have to deal with Scientology on the
[page 7]
film. "
Offers? settlement negotiations? Heard enough yet?
snip to:
"I told them Scientology was making a fool out of them in my
opinion. Stacy said the reason I felt that way was because I
did not have all of the information. She said I had been left in
the dark about some things that both her and Bob were not
able to talk about because they had signed a non-disclosure
agreement with Scientology concerning the settlement talk
and it was time they brought me into the picture."
Settlement talk, got that? NON-disclosures. And in case you
wonder how a cult can be judge and jury when threatening
someone with jail, they can't. It's a deal, plain and simple.
Last I looked, negotiating what you can offer in a
quid pro quo situation is called a DEAL.
Now, unless you want to call Jesse Prince a LIAR as you
imply with your statement: "you and your 'friends' making
claims about your 'enemies', do you get to just pull claims
and speculation out of your ass?", maybe you'd like to
post here that Jesse is pulling it out of his ass as well.
Because his sworn affidavit spells out the deal, the parties
to the deal and the terms of the deal. So maybe you just like
to accuse people of "pulling it out of their ass"
when it doesn't confirm the wild allegations you so readily
belch out on this newsgroup.
Patty P
barbz
> In article <9rq1h.591$Hc2...@newsfe11.phx>,
> barbz <xenu...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Alex wrote:
>>> In article <1162209109.1...@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "banchukita" <banch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nobody disliked or ridiculed Lisa before she died, or any other
>>>> Scientologist victims.
>>> If as a critic you take most all scientologists to be victims of a sort,
>>> ridiculing them seems to be the dominant paradigm here.
>>>
>>> The general tone of glee of late about the airing of the Perkins family
>>> tragedy is but one example of the intent of the critics to harm
>>> scientology rather than to help people.
>>>
>>> So be it.
>>>
>>> But someday perhaps you will encounter people who can not understand nor
>>> accept your beliefs, and will fight you for your right to hold them.
>>>
>>> And a circle will close.
>>>
>>> alex
>> And just how is warning people about Scientology's stance on mental
>> health not helping people, Alex?
>>
>> If the Perkins family had sought treatment for Jeremy, the whole thing
>> might have turned out different and Elli might still be alive.
>
> Or the crime could have been all the more vicious, if that could be
> imagined.
She's dead, Alex. Stabbed 77 times. Unless you're a screenplay writer
working on the next Saw movie, I can't fathom anything more vicious than
that. Besides, this tendency to play "what if" is fatuous. The fact is,
they didn't try everything they could to treat Jeremy's mental illness.
The fact is, he's doing much better on medication. While it's true that
medication doesn't help 100% of sufferers from mental illness, don't you
think it should have been tried? Why wasn't it? Scientology beliefs,
that's why.
>
> Why is it that people dont want to stay on their meds? Shall we
> legislate mental treatment? Thats scary.
Would you prefer to have people with delusions running around loose?
What if the voices in their heads tell them that you need killing? Since
you're so fond of playing 'what if,' that's a valid concern. But, it's
always easy to pontificate when it hasn't affected you or your loved
ones, innit?
>
> You should think about that, as a person who has on occasion differed in
> appearance and demeanor for the run of the mill wog.
My demeanor has never included hearing voices that aren't there, or
urges to kill someone for looking at me funny. If you're talking about
getting a mohawk, that is merely one of those 'just for fun' things
people occasionally do. Don't take it to the absurd edge like this.
There's a vast difference between someone playing punk rocker and a
shit-encrusted street mutterer who might be a danger to themselves and
others. Run of the mill wog culture understands this, even if you don't.
>
> Scientologys stance on mental health is readily available with out the
> need for sensational warnings from those who hate us.
Nobody "hates" you, Alex. Quit playing the victim. You know perfectly
well that most people don't hate Scientologists. If the 48 Hours program
was "sensational," it is because the crime was, and the cult's reaction
to it continues to be. The presentation was neither sensational nor
hyperbolic, save the hyperbole from cult spokesclams. It is your
"church" which persists in sensationalizing psychiatry. The only
sensationalistic material on that show came from Scientology's own web
pages. It makes you look ridiculous, and you're so indoctrinated, you
can't even see how absurd it is.
>
> alex
--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net
barbz
> In article <9587-454...@storefull-3337.bay.webtv.net>,
> Tiggeri...@webtv.net (Tigger Tigger) wrote:
>
>> Has little or nothing to do with "beliefs" or "religion"...It only has
>> to do with beliefs if those beliefs lead people to commit harmful acts.
>
> So then should not your target be Jeremy Perkins beliefs? Not his
> scientological ones, but the ones in action when he killed his mother.
>
> He acted from insanity not scientology.
>
> The case is made that except for the influence of scientology, he would
> not have killed.
*Might* not have killed. Clue up, Alex. Nobody can predict with
certainty what might have happened had Jeremy received treatment.
>
> Yet it is not uncommon to hear of insane people who have had standard
> mental health treatment doing exactly the same thing.
There are many factors involved, most of which are conveniently
overlooked by Scientology when touting its anti-mental-health
propaganda. Like Columbine. The kid quit taking his meds, but you never
will hear THAT from a CCHR representative!
>
> The Perkins familly tragedy is a convenient tool for anti scientology
> propoganda, but not a defining condemnation of scientology at all.
If the program had addressed everything that's wrong with Scientology,
it'd still be airing...
Tigger
Zinj wrote:
> I'm sorry Tigger and Emma,
>
> Jesse's affidavit isn't evidence of an agreement or
> 'settlement' between Bob and the 'Church'.
There is evidence that:
1.Minton contacted Rinder to make a "deal".
2. Minton asked Jesse to lie for the COS
3. Minton met with Rinder/Yingling ten to twelve times without his
attorney
4. Minton found other "ways" to try to make the wrongful death suit "go
away and fulfill his part of the "negotiations".
5. COS removed the RFW pages for Minton, Brooks and Bunker and hasn't
put them back up.
Four years of Minton doing Rinder's bidding and four years of OSA
"forgetting" about Minton certainly looks like some sort of "deal" was
made or was in the works to be finalized.
I think Minton made a big mistake, but I don't think he would try to
destroy critics and cases unless he had some reason (like getting COS
off his back) for it. So if he didn't have a "deal" with Rinder, why
would he do what he did? Do you think he was that stupid that he
would try to do what COS wanted him to without having a "deal"?
> That's not surprising. Jesse would *not* be party to such a
> settlement.
Minton and Brooks wanted Jesse to meet with COS so he would be a
"party" to the "settlement" and help them fulfill their part of their
deal. Jesse refused to lie for Minton and the COS.
>
> What his testimony is is evidence showing 'settlement
> discussions'.
And Minton's testimony and actions are evidence that he either had made
a deal or wanted desperately to make a deal.
>
> As you *should* know, settlement discussions may or may not
> advance to the point of becoming 'settlements'.
Who would do what the other party wanted before a deal was made? If
they did, why would the other party need to give anything in return?
>
> You do know that, don't you?
>
> I seem to remember you making that distinction a few times over
> the past years.
>
> So; we do know that Bob was in discussion with the 'Church'.
> That's fairly simple.
>
> OK?
And we also know that Minton was doing things that most people wouldn't
do at all and certainly not unless they had a deal.
So if Minton didn't have a deal, how stupid was he and why was he so
desperate?
>
> But, we do *not* have evidence for any 'settlement'; much less
> one that is now being 'breached' as suggested.
>
> Kay?
No, it's not "Kay". There is evidence that a settlement was made.
Unless you think Minton was stupid enough to do Rinder's bidding
without a deal to get COS off his back. If by evidence, you mean
court documents.....it is my understanding that court documents in
settlements are not available to the public.
>> On the other hand, we have SP Times and CBS news references to a
> settlement between the Lisa McPherson Estate and the 'Church',
> which as of april of 2005 was being denied by you, Tigger.
Huh? April of 2005? Where's your proof?
Is this like your "speculation" without any proof that transcripts were
missing from the Dandar DisQualification Hearings?
>
> My objection has been from the start that speculation that the
> 'Church' was breaking an 'agreement' with Bob was purely idle
> speculation, since there is no evidence for an 'agreement' at
> all, and therefore nothing to 'break'.
And you aren't speculating that there was no deal at all? HA! And
with ZERO evidence too.
There is evidence that a deal was made.
*A settlement was desperately wanted by Minton & Brooks.
*Rinder was contacted
*Meetings without an attorney for Minton present.
*Yingling's notes.
*Minton's efforts, of which there were many, to fulfill COS' list of
things for him to do.
*The removal of RWF pages
> I started this because I was making fun of your own demands for
> 'evidence' in all speculation.
Yeah, you do that a lot. Make fun of serious issues.
>
> I'm not surprised you missed that point.
Oh, that point wasn't missed. How could it be missed? I just
considered it another effort to distort and ignore the issue. You
disappoint me, Zinj. I thought you were better than Lerma and Padgett.
>
> And; no. What you have presented so far is *not* evidence of an
> agreement that could be 'broken'.
Was it evidence of an agreement that could not be broken by the
"church"? :)
And considering the "church" in question,
do you have any doubt that if it wanted to break an agreement, it
WOULD?
Tigger
barbz
> In article <EsG1h.3047$SI6....@newsfe13.phx>,
> belief the the perkins family knew not to be for them also. I do not
> doubt that drugs would have made Jeremy behave different. I do not
> though accept as a logical conclusion that he would not have murdered.
>
>>> Why is it that people dont want to stay on their meds? Shall we
>>> legislate mental treatment? Thats scary.
>> Would you prefer to have people with delusions running around loose?
>> What if the voices in their heads tell them that you need killing? Since
>> you're so fond of playing 'what if,' that's a valid concern. But, it's
>> always easy to pontificate when it hasn't affected you or your loved
>> ones, innit?
>
> belief the drugging is not the solution. All kinds of people with
> delusions and deadly intent ARE running around loose. Its only the ones
> that act in certain ways that are "captured and sedated".
>>> You should think about that, as a person who has on occasion differed in
>>> appearance and demeanor for the run of the mill wog.
>> My demeanor has never included hearing voices that aren't there, or
>> urges to kill someone for looking at me funny. If you're talking about
>> getting a mohawk, that is merely one of those 'just for fun' things
>> people occasionally do. Don't take it to the absurd edge like this.
>> There's a vast difference between someone playing punk rocker and a
>> shit-encrusted street mutterer who might be a danger to themselves and
>> others. Run of the mill wog culture understands this, even if you don't.
>
> some error in your ways. My point is others perceptions. Think about Joe
> retired grocery clerk and his wife betty driving their buick to church
> on sunday seeing you. Now how much differentiation do you think they
> make between you and an escaped mental patient?
>
> I think the shit encrusted street mutterer has as much right to that
> lifestyle as you to punk poseur. I personally would find you much more
> acceptable, but others may find YOU to be the scary one.
>>> Scientologys stance on mental health is readily available with out the
>>> need for sensational warnings from those who hate us.
>> Nobody "hates" you, Alex. Quit playing the victim. You know perfectly
>> well that most people don't hate Scientologists. If the 48 Hours program
>> was "sensational," it is because the crime was, and the cult's reaction
>> to it continues to be. The presentation was neither sensational nor
>> hyperbolic, save the hyperbole from cult spokesclams. It is your
>> "church" which persists in sensationalizing psychiatry. The only
>> sensationalistic material on that show came from Scientology's own web
>> pages. It makes you look ridiculous, and you're so indoctrinated, you
>> can't even see how absurd it is.
>
>
> :)
>
> alex
>>> alex
"Poseur?" Oh, snap! A throwdown! Like you'd know the difference, Alex.
<spit>
Raptavio
Alex wrote:
> In article <1162229283.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Raptavio" <rapt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Alex wrote:
> > > In article <1162209109.1...@e64g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "banchukita" <banch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nobody disliked or ridiculed Lisa before she died, or any other
> > > > Scientologist victims.
> > >
> > > If as a critic you take most all scientologists to be victims of a sort,
> > > ridiculing them seems to be the dominant paradigm here.
> > >
> > > The general tone of glee of late about the airing of the Perkins family
> > > tragedy is but one example of the intent of the critics to harm
> > > scientology rather than to help people.
> > >
> > your part.
>
> Harming the church hurts scientologists.
It only hurts those Scientologists with evil intentions. The Church is
a corrupt organization that benefits a select few at the expense of the
many. To harm the Church protects the many from the few. And the many
include the bulk of the parishioners of the CofS... including you.
Pts 2
Lerma and Padgett."
Buying into the group think of the alt.buttersquash.posse.lynchmob is
not a matter of being "better." Never was and never will be.
There are simply way too many particles of information that are missing
in this topic. Making flaming personal remarks to those who are aware
of the extremely large mass of frozen material beneath the surface is
not a sound argumentative approach. An iceberg's tip is NOT it's whole.
It is you who is disappointing Shirley. If your intense energies were
directed at the source of the problem ($cn cult and the judicial
incompetence in the Tampa Bay area,) more things might get resolved
here.
Here's another example of your extreme prejudice and vast blind sides.
When The Bridge movie was released, you wanted to send $50 to have the
film re-shot. Why? Because you actually saw the film and didn't like
it's accuracy and content? Nope! It was because the $cienos and MCs
(moderate critics) wrote enough riff that predictably you protested
without seeing the evidence first hand. Then when you found out
Hedal-Lund, Lerma, Padgett, and Bunker had something to do with the
movie, you went ballistic with claims of disappointment, again without
seeing the actual film. Extreme prejudice based on hearsay and obeyance
to party lines swaying your every post, does not "=" completeness in
fact-finding. It doesn't now. It didn't back 4 years ago. And it
won't in the future.
None-the-less, I wish you a Happy Halloween,
:-))
Tom
------------------------
www.thebridgemovie.net
RolandRB
Happy Halloween, Tom.
So what's with the story about Minton meeting Rinder and him going out
to throw up into a bush?
Tigger Tigger
PROVE IT.
barbz
> In article <ksL1h.752$Hc2...@newsfe11.phx>,
>
> alex
It's all black and white with you, isn't it Alex? Just because I didn't
choose to address the other points right that minute, does not mean I
consider them valid, right, accepted, whatever.
It's like saying "If you're against Scientology, you're for psychiatry."
That's just stupid.
If you're lucky, maybe I'll get around to ripping apart the fallacious
arguments presented. But right now, I don't feel like it.
I hope that was stated clearly enough for you. I hate to repeat myself.
Keith Henson
>
>"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
snip
>"Au contraire, mon frere!" YOU demanded proof of a deal. I provided the
>proof from Jesse Prince. When you didn't like the proof I provided
Jesse talking about a deal does not mean one actually happened.
>instead
>of either admitting Jesse outlined a DEAL, or calling him a liar, you chose
>to turn the whole issue into an opportunity to reinvigorate your feud with
>the buttersquashers. This thread has nothing to do with anybody but the fact
>that Minton is being DA'd for the first time in 4 years and it is
>noticeable.
That's true.
Was it a screw up and the page will go away shortly? Or--if there was
a deal (even an informal one) of some kind that provided for mutual
silence--did Bob or the cult decide to break it?
Someone wished Bob a happy birthday recently and when he replied, they
posted his email to ars. Was that enough to break some kind of deal?
Ghod knows. We will eventually find out, the way we found out why
Ashlee Shaner was killed.
Keith Henson
Keith Henson
<Arnie...@Lermanet.COM> wrote:
>On 30 Oct 2006 01:03:43 -0500, d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) wrote:
>
>>In article <1162186415.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>>Tigger <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Emma wrote:
>>>> http://www.scientologymyths.info/lisa-mcpherson/what-happened-to-lisa-mcpherson.php
>>>>
>>>> How interesting ...... Why in the world would Scn be slamming Minton after
>>>> the detente they reached back in 2002? Could something be changing for
>>>> Minton? Why would Scn put up this site after 4 years of total silence from
>>>> them regarding Minton? Anybody have any news that would indicate a change in
>>>> their deal.
>>>>
>>>> -Emma
>>>
>>>Hi Emma,
>>>
>>>Thanks for finding that. Is there any way to tell how long it's been
>>>there?
>>
>>The domain was created on September 20, 2006.
>>
>>The domain registration is anonymous, and there is no author
>>information anywhere on the site. Cowards.
>>
>>I don't think this site was created to answer critics, or to educate
>>raw meat. It was written for Scientology public, to try to help them
>>keep their belief system intact in the face of the overwhelming
>>entheta now pervading both the Internet and the real world.
>>
>>Nice try, snapperheads, but it ain't gonna work.
>>
>>-- Dave Touretzky: "Scientology makes you crazy."
>> http://PerkinsTragedy.org
>
> Hmmm.. curious....thanks for info
>
> There doesn't seem to be any mention of Dennis Erich
>or his now famous Heber and the Body Raisens
>
> http://ocmb.lermanet.us/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=326
>
>
>That's because dennis settled with scientology and
>
>gagged sttlement agreements cut both ways.
>
> Looks like physical evidence, a smoking hot piece of the UFO that Bob
>Minton did not settle with scientology.
At least not the same way Dennis Erlich did.
Of course, they might go after Dennis next week for all we know.
Or perhaps the guy who put this thing together didn't know about
whatever has been keeping the cult silent about Bob and a list of
other people for the last few years.
There was considerable work in this site, the "acceptable truth" just
drips off every paragraph. As a guess, it took a month or two to
write it up and at least a few weeks to get the internal sign off to
do it. (Though rereading it, parts were taken from years out of date
material.)
Thinking back two or three months (maybe more) can anyone guess at
what event(s) caused DM to get this feather up his ass?
Re the entry itself, it is strange that Mark Bunker is not named.
Grady was and I am, but with respect to the LMT my connection was far
weaker and less important than Mark Bunker or Grady Ward.
Be interesting to see if this section stays up.
Keith Henson
PS And the graphics! A Goth inspired hellfire site.
Keith Henson
>
>"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1fb0a43d1...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
snip
>>
>> Why don't you ask your 'friends' where Flybrat is? And how well
>> that worked out while they were defending Jolie against the evil
>> Mintonista :)
>>
>
> I don't care about anybody called Flybrat. She has nothing to do with Bob
>cutting a deal.
Actually, that's not entirely clear.
>I don't care about any Jolie.
Just for background so you will know what Zinj is talking about, the
original split in the critics ranks was over Jolie (Laura as she was
known to the CAN staffers).
Bob isn't that easy for people, especially sensitive women, to get
along with (he can be hot headed and very crude though he has always
been entirely civil to me). Bob was sure his phones were being tapped
because the cult knew where he was too much of the time. He had a
highly respected PI firm look into the matter. They were the ones who
fingered Jolie (CAN's Laura) as feeding Bob's locations to scn.
Because Cynthia Kisser could not believe an op of this magnitude had
been pulled on her, she supported Jolie (CAN's Laura) and as far as I
know has *never* changed her mind about Jolie Steckart, master's
degree in acting, being an asset of scientology.
Flybrat, mirele, even kady (and some others, I can't remember all the
details) stuck with Cynthia Kisser in spite of what I considered
overwhelming evidence. I think it was at motivated by disliking Bob
as much as wanting to support a woman who was attacked by Bob and
supporting the former director of CAN who in my opinion was just wrong
about her former trusted volunteer and friend and would not admit it.
After that, Bob could do nothing right in the eyes of a considerable
groups of vocal critics. I won't say they had nearly the influence of
the dozen or so scientology lawyers and corrupt judges who were making
life miserable for him, but the lack of social support (and outright
attacks) probably contributed to his finally giving up and trying to
get out of the fight.
Then they really ripped into Bob.
There is no doubt from what Jesse said that Bob and the cult were
talking about a deal, but we don't know if they ever reached one.
I kind of suspect that it never reached the ink on paper stage because
wording it would be a bitch. But that's just a guess.
Keith Henson
Keith Henson
snip
>> It's doubtful that there ever was any kind of 'settlement', but,
>> practically excluded that the 'Church' would keep it, unless Bob
>> was clever enough to rig it like Dennis did, which he wasn't.
>>
>> Other than that kind of threat, there is absolutely no
>> possibility that the 'Church' would ever get off Bob's case.
>>
>> They hate him and *need* to destroy him utterly.
>> It's a matter of faith.
>
>What I said was unfair. Bob was and probably still is a very
>smart guy, and it's wrong to devaluate him by implying that he
>wasn't (and isn't) a very clever guy.
>
>Beyond the very brave and caring guy he was anyway.
>
>Dennis was in a very unique position that Bob wasn't. And he
>found his 'cubic centimeter of luck' and took it. Kudos.
Morrison and Forester had the cult by the short hairs and were about
to rip them in court. The law firm cut the deal, and it no doubt has
draconian penalty clauses if the cult were to break it. Bob was just
not in that position.
>Bob was a guy who's own best instincts led into a trap, which
>his hubris helped him fall into.
Yes.
>Kudos to Bob; and, best wishes. He helped a lot of people, and
>may still help many more, but, he deserves recognition for the
>good he's done; and ridicule and excoriation for the silliness
>:)
Bob really ripped into the cult. Before Tom Cruise started couch
jumping, he might have held the record for doing damage to the cult.
Keith Henson
ida...@aol.com
I find it amazing and also disgusting that those who claim to be
wanting
to help expose the the $cientology cult would find such pleasure in
rehashing
something that has been over for years.
Get a life--get a breath of fresh air and try doing something positive
instead of
trying to drumb up arguments that do nothing to help anyone.
Some of you read as tho you need major help.
Ida Camburn
'The cult of confession' -- "There is the demand that one confess to
crimes one has not committed, to sinfulness that artificially induced,
in the name of a cure that arbitrarily imposed." (Lifton, Thought
Reform and the Psychology of Totalism)