Bob Minton - Deep Undercover OSA?
DeadAgent1
Decided to post. Y'all need an exspaminater.
I know it may sound bizarre, but I believe that Bob Minton is a deep-cover OSA
plant. Yes, he has attacked the C of S, and he has been in turn attacked, but
could this not just be part of a clever plot to give him credibility. Consider
the facts:
1) Bob Minton has done more to "enturbulate" critics and turn them against one
another than any ARS regular, Scientologist or critic.
2) And then there's "Dorian." I would submit that "Dorian" doesn't exist and
is simply a creation of Bob Minton's . How much harm has been done to the
anti-Scientology cause by Bob's first becoming a high profile critic, and then
appearing to be a gullible fool at the very best, and a multiple personality
lunatic at the worst?
3) He has undermined FACTNET in the extreme. Under Minton's leadership, the new
FACTNET mission is "to aid ex-Scientologists." This removes any plausible
reason for FACTNET to exist, since only an extremely small percentage of
ex-Scientologists need or want such "help."
4) Minton's violent outbursts have not aided the anti-Scientology cause in the
least. He has in fact done more than any other critic to position critics as
psychos.
5) RVY, since Minton's arrival on the scene and the betrayel of friendship
which followed, has effectively been "shuddered into silence."
6) Minton now has the confidence of many in the anti-Scientology community. If
he is indeed a plant, how valuable is the information he is now able to glean
and pass on to OSA?
If you look, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with many other things that
simply don't add up when it comes to Bob Minton. And If you add up the full
scoresheet, rather than dismissing this post as a troll, you might be
surprised to find yourself asking the same question I have asked here.
And if Minton is indeed an OSA plant, what about Stacy Young? Has she in fact
returned to the side of her old comrades?
On the other hand perhaps Minton is not pretending and is simply what he
appears to be, a fool in wolf's clothing.
Rocky
William Barwell
DeadAgent1 <deada...@aol.com> wrote:
>Caught up on a lot of ARS goings on. (With a little help from DejaNews)
>Decided to post. Y'all need an exspaminater.
>
>I know it may sound bizarre, but I believe that Bob Minton is a deep-cover OSA
>plant. Yes, he has attacked the C of S, and he has been in turn attacked, but
>could this not just be part of a clever plot to give him credibility. Consider
>the facts:
Stop being silly.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Lisa Chabot
>3) He has undermined FACTNET in the extreme. Under Minton's leadership, the new
>FACTNET mission is "to aid ex-Scientologists." This removes any plausible
>reason for FACTNET to exist, since only an extremely small percentage of
>ex-Scientologists need or want such "help."
Your logic is moronic.
.
.
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
"What I mean by a shifty eye," continued Miss Marple, "is the kind
that looks very straight at you and never looks away or blinks."
Enzo Piccone
> Caught up on a lot of ARS goings on. (With a little help from DejaNews)
> Decided to post. Y'all need an exspaminater.
>
> I know it may sound bizarre, but I believe that Bob Minton is a deep-cover OSA
> plant. Yes, he has attacked the C of S, and he has been in turn attacked, but
> could this not just be part of a clever plot to give him credibility. Consider
> the facts:
> another than any ARS regular, Scientologist or critic.
> 2) And then there's "Dorian." I would submit that "Dorian" doesn't exist and
> is simply a creation of Bob Minton's . How much harm has been done to the
> anti-Scientology cause by Bob's first becoming a high profile critic, and then
> appearing to be a gullible fool at the very best, and a multiple personality
> lunatic at the worst?
> FACTNET mission is "to aid ex-Scientologists." This removes any plausible
> reason for FACTNET to exist, since only an extremely small percentage of
> ex-Scientologists need or want such "help."
> least. He has in fact done more than any other critic to position critics as
> psychos.
> 5) RVY, since Minton's arrival on the scene and the betrayel of friendship
> which followed, has effectively been "shuddered into silence."
> 6) Minton now has the confidence of many in the anti-Scientology community. If
> he is indeed a plant, how valuable is the information he is now able to glean
> and pass on to OSA?
>
> If you look, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with many other things that
> simply don't add up when it comes to Bob Minton. And If you add up the full
> scoresheet, rather than dismissing this post as a troll, you might be
> surprised to find yourself asking the same question I have asked here.
>
> And if Minton is indeed an OSA plant, what about Stacy Young? Has she in fact
> returned to the side of her old comrades?
>
> On the other hand perhaps Minton is not pretending and is simply what he
> appears to be, a fool in wolf's clothing.
>
> Rocky
It's a stretch even to speculate that Bob is a plant. Unless, of
course, we take into consideration such as cabbages and turnips.
It is interesting, though, that one could argue such a case and probably
convince some people. Keith Henson comes to mind.
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
"My Aunt Prissy said I could choose anything I liked, because I had
grown to be such a fine strong boy. I chose the two china dogs on the
mantelpiece. They are on my mantelpiece at this moment, listening with
their long ears to every word I am writing down. I like my two china
dogs. When I write down anything wicked, one of them look very serious;
but the other one, he wink." From the novel, The Book of Ebenezer Le
Page, by G. B. Edwards.
Rebecca Hartong
Lisa Chabot wrote in message ...
>DeadAgent1 <deada...@aol.com> wrote:
>>3) He has undermined FACTNET in the extreme. Under Minton's leadership,
the new
>>FACTNET mission is "to aid ex-Scientologists." This removes any plausible
>>reason for FACTNET to exist, since only an extremely small percentage of
>>ex-Scientologists need or want such "help."
>
I wouldn't say his logic is necessarily moronic, only that his point is
unproven. This is something I've been interested in but haven't had the
time (or the training--yet!) to pursue. How many ex-Scientologists REALLY
view their Scientology participation as something that was significantly
bad? How many REALLY need--or want--help of some kind?
Of course, many terms must be defined: What is a Scientologist? Even among
Scientologists, definitions vary. Some differentiation would need to be
made between people who were just public Scientologists and people who were
on staff. It might also be necessary to differentiate between different
types of staff. What would be meant by "significantly bad"? Is it possible
to differentiate between those who need help and those who want help? And,
it would be useful to get some idea of what these help-needing people were
like *before* they became involved with Scientology.
I'm guessing that a large majority of those who have taken Scientology
courses haven't needed or wanted help adjusting to their post-Scientology
lives. I'm guessing that it's primarily people who have gone on staff and
who have spent more than 3 or 4 years involved with Scientology who
encounter the most difficulties after leaving. But I'm just guessing.
G. SCARFF
> And if Minton is indeed an OSA plant, what about Stacy Young? Has she in fact
> returned to the side of her old comrades?
Unfortunately, Bob Minton doesn't qualify as an OSA agent, Rocky. He has this
problem called "integrity" that disqualifies him from Scieno-spydom.
> On the other hand perhaps Minton is not pretending and is simply what he
> appears to be, a fool in wolf's clothing.
A fool that has obviously pissed off alot of Scienotology executives and sent them
scammering to a corner they can't get out of.
By the way, Rocky, aren't you overdoing it a little on the psychotropic drugs?
Garry
Lisa Chabot
>
>Lisa Chabot wrote in message ...
>>DeadAgent1 <deada...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>3) He has undermined FACTNET in the extreme. Under Minton's leadership,
>the new
>>>FACTNET mission is "to aid ex-Scientologists." This removes any plausible
>>>reason for FACTNET to exist, since only an extremely small percentage of
>>>ex-Scientologists need or want such "help."
>>
>>Your logic is moronic.
>
>
>I wouldn't say his logic is necessarily moronic, only that his point is
>unproven. This is something I've been interested in but haven't had the
>I'm guessing that a large majority of those who have taken Scientology
>courses haven't needed or wanted help adjusting to their post-Scientology
>lives. I'm guessing that it's primarily people who have gone on staff and
>who have spent more than 3 or 4 years involved with Scientology who
>encounter the most difficulties after leaving. But I'm just guessing.
The logic I am faulting is this:
because few need help (premise)
then it is not "plausible" to aim to help any
I am not arguing with the premise for now (others may chose to),
I am arguing against saying just because many don't need help,
it's silly to offer help to any. To reduce this argument, possibly
to an absurd level:
Few people have boils, therefore doctors should not treat boils.
I confess, "moronic" was chosen in a fit of alliteration for which I
should be shot.
Rebecca Hartong
Lisa Chabot wrote in message ...
>The logic I am faulting is this:
>
> because few need help (premise)
> then it is not "plausible" to aim to help any
Oh. Oops. ;-)
>I am not arguing with the premise for now (others may chose to),
>I am arguing against saying just because many don't need help,
>it's silly to offer help to any. To reduce this argument, possibly
>to an absurd level:
>
> Few people have boils, therefore doctors should not treat boils.
I agree with you, then. Certainly, even if only a few people need or want
help-- those who DO need or want help should receive it.
>
>I confess, "moronic" was chosen in a fit of alliteration for which I
>should be shot.
No, no... I like it! "Moronic Logic"... it has a nice ring to it.
Rebecca Hartong
G. SCARFF
Zvi the Fiddler wrote:
> >The motivation behind the prohibition itself may
> >involve the milk of non-kosher animals, but that is not the same thing
> as
> saying
> >that non-Cholov Yisroel milk is prohibited only when there is a
> danger of
> >non-kosher milk being mixed in
>
> Forgive my ignorance. What is non-kosher milk?
>
> Zvi the Fiddler
In this context, milk from a non-kosher animal. (I corrected my typo
above).
Be well,
Binyomin
Martin Hunt
"G. SCARFF" <gar...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Bob Minton ... has this problem called "integrity"
Something you wouldn't know if it slapped the dog shit out of you
with a samurai sword, baggy. Why even mention the word? BTW, you're
as lousy a judge of character as you are a possessor of such.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
"...you are replying to an off-topic forged message that was posted
by a 'bot. The person whose name appears in the From: header of that
message almost certainly did not post it. Many regulars on a.r.s.,
including me, have been victims of these forgeries.
This appears to be a CoS plot to discredit critics by associating us
with racist and pro-Nazi statements that we did not in fact make."
- Ron Newman
Rebecca Hartong
Delia Candle wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote in message <36A630D8...@smart.NOSPAMnet>...
> >
> >you read what was already discussed.
> >(And, if a bunch of babble on NG means "nada", why
> >are you asking me to do more of it?)>>
>
> I'm not. I'm asking you to cite an authoritative source.
>
> Do you know what the word "cite" means? Do you know what a "source" is? Do
> you know what the word "authoritative" means?
Do you know what the words "been there, done tyat" mean?
It's what we've been trying to say to you.
>
>
> >
> >> Go ahead, I dare you, cite me that source.
> >
> >Go ahead, I dare you - be sensible!!>>
>
> That's an idiotic evasion of the issue. You made it because you have no
> sources to cite on this subject.
No, I make it to show you how idiotic you are being.
> Nevertheless, I repeat my challenge: produce one, and I shall gracefully
> concede.
Nevertheless, I repeat my challenge: re-read what has already
been discussed, & I will consider you as actually interested in the
subject, rather than trying to show how bigoted you are.
Susan
G. SCARFF
:Napolitano) wrote:
:
:>:I spoke to Kurt at the '97 Mid-Ohio con. I was curious about the hoops he
:>:had to jump through to get to thrash the building. He said there were
:>:none. They didn't have any plans for the building
:>:
:>:--
:>:alan
:>
:>What type of "plans" for the building would you have liked to see?
:
:To live in it?
That's it? You guys have been crying about the building just so they
could live in it?
Sheesh.
I can see it now. Kurt asks "Can I blow up the Baxter Building?"
The answer: "No, you can't. That's where the FF live! If you blow
it up, there can never be any good FF stories ever!"
But of course, only a hack writer would want to keep the FF
out of their skyscraper.
kevin
G. SCARFF
G. SCARFF
>
>
>Warren Burstein wrote:
>
>> In <36a59013...@news.netvision.net.il> Lisa wrote:
>>
>> > Susan, it's not nice to tell someone with Delia's... problems... to
>> > have to go and look things up.
>>
>> In <36a58e71...@news.netvision.net.il>, Lisa wrote, in a reply to
Delia
>>
>> > To quote my father when I used to ask questions he felt I was capable
>> > of finding the answers to on my own, "Look it up".
>
>As far as I can see, all this does is fortify Lisa's (& my)
>answers to Delia. If she were at all serious about the
>actual subject, instead of lookoing for a stick to beat
>people (i.e., Lisa)>>
I'm not looking for a stick to beat any body with, I am looking for
consistency and freedom. Freedom for Jews to be Jewish in their own way, a
freedom that Lisa would deny the rest of us, while arrogating to herself the
practice to violate divinely mandated halakha (in her view, not mine) as she
sees fit.
with, she would just go look up what
>was already discussed, rather than insist on being told
>something that doesn't actually answer the question
>anyway.>>
I have already explained to you , and will continue to do so, since I am a
patient person, that I do not consider NG insults and ramblings to be
authoritative sources.
If Lisa wants to invoke halakha, then the customary procedure is to provide
a citation. This she has not done. Nor have you. Nor have any of the
usually loquacious Orthodox participants in this NG.
Exactly what is your point?
That there is One True Path of Judaism, AKA Orthodoxy?
That those of us who are not Orthodox are heretics and bad Jews?
That Orthodoxy sanctions homosexuality?
That homosexual persons who practice rituals and who call themselves frum
(which I compare to
meat-eating vegetarians) be encouraged to say that the rest of us are
mistaken in our beliefs and
practices?
I'm beginning to think that she already knows
>exactly what the truth is, & doesn't really care.>>
I'm under the impression that halakha condemns homosexuality with a clarity
that it reserves for few subjects. I am happy to be proved wrong in this
impression. Please do so.
DC
NYC
Martin Hunt
<idnlnj2...@alpha.hut.fi>...
>
> "Paulo Costa" <darkm...@mail.telepac.pt> writes:
>
> > If they are renowned photographers of the Daily Bugle and have
published a
> > book with successful sales, I can imagine it.
>
> Did you notice the word 'poor' I had there? But, yes, rich
> 16 year old would be as capable living in the middle of Manhattan
> as rich 23 year old.
But Peter in his mid-20s is not poor anymore. What I mentioned above are
aspects that became part of Peter's life. He's not a poor 16 year old kid
anymore. He's an economically balanced 25-to-27 year-old written press
professional and book author, married to a professional model and actress.
He may not be rich, but those scenes of Peter looking inside his
refrigerator to find it empty are gone. Right now, there's nothing to
indicate that he should be poor.
--
Paulo Costa
Please visit the Marvel Credits List page at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4489/mclist/Entry.htm
Lisa Chabot
jcoop....@earthlink.net (Janie Cooperman) writes:
>Love,
>
>Janie
>
>"Have you ever wanted to fill a jacuzzi with cheese and have the biggest
>tube of fondue ever? I have." --a VERY warped friend of mine.
>
>
Verrrrry interesting! ;)
Sheldon
````````````
On a recent Night Court rerun, Judge Harry Stone had a wonderful line:
"I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out."
Lisa Chabot
G. SCARFF
you get can make the extra money worthwhile. Often PC products are more
thoughtfully designed and better made then dept store models. Plus I feel good
knowing the extra few pennies I spend is going to support my friend in her
homebased business rather then some corp giant who doesn't really need it.
The stones are VERY cool.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rebecca Hartong
> Susie wrote:
>
> > How true! I'm terrified of of my refrigerator.
> >
> > With cans and boxes, you're not forced to look at the contents to decide
> > its fate. Ewwww. I'm due to clean out the fridge pretty soon...wish me
> > luck! After this holiday season's cook-fest, I'm preparing for a battle.
>
> (embarrassed) There's a Tupperware container of chicken tortilla soup
> in my refrigerator that I'm genuinely afraid of opening. Has anyone
> else actually thrown out the container with the scary food rather than
> risk opening it and dying?
>
> nancy
Don't worry...you're not the only one. If I see large mold colonies growing
in the container I simply chuck the whole thing. >I< don't feel like cleaning
that container...I get disgusted just thinking about the smell from when I
checked it...much less while I'd be trying to clean it.
Frank
Rebecca Hartong
Lisa Chabot
Why can't you Jets fan admit that both the Broncos and the Jets were off
their game last Sunday. You keep ranting how we looked bad, and you gave
the game to us. We both played relatively poorly, and the better team won.
If the Jets came with their best game, and Denver was hitting on all eight
cylinders, the point difference would be about the same, just with a higher
scoring game.
OmegaMan69 <omega...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990121205848...@ng144.aol.com>...
> >DevilMan wrote in message <783q20$p...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
> >>AFC Championship -
> >>
> >>Broncos fans - The Jets gave you the game. They fucked up. Your team
> >>looked like shit. We beat ourselves, and handed you the game.
Rebecca Hartong
>Oh yeah! Parcells is classless. Puhleeze. When did you ever see him
complain about officiating
Certainly no complaining when they hand you a win over Seattle. You can do
better than that to show parcells has class.
He donated money privately to Fluties Charity. That's class.