Kat got run out of a.r.s. Meow!

[Chris Hoelze]

There's nothing funnier than a Kat running.

[roger....@live.com]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 9:31:22 AM UTC+2, Chris Hoelze wrote:
> There's nothing funnier than a Kat running.

who's running? When a Caterpillar Bulldozer roar and show its forepaw they can’t be controlled with a whip. Caterpillar Bulldozers eat David Miscaviges ideal orgs into its bones and leaves what they can’t eat to the vultures.

[john]

On 29/05/2013 5:31 PM, Chris Hoelze wrote:
> There's nothing funnier than a Kat running.
>

A win.
What will all you people do with the newsgroup when you finally claim it?

[Kat]

Pft, no win. I haven't fed the local troll population in over a year and I have no intention of feeding this one. :P

[SpamБuster]

=============================================================
KEEP IT THE HELL OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS
==============================================================


On 5/29/2013 12:31 AM, Chris Hoelze wrote:

[roger....@live.com]

Caterpillar Bulldozers eat the ideal buildings and leave the rest to the rats (Marty Rathburns)

[roger....@live.com]

a $cientology giving all the scrap to RPF.ers violate rats rights in the society.

[Davis]

Instead of Kat, try working on running Koos out of here

[Buster@nyet.ca SpamБuster]

==========================================================

KEEP IT THE HELL OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS

==========================================================

On 5/31/2013 8:58 PM, Davis wrote:

[Buster@nyet.ca SpamБuster]

[roger....@live.com]

A $cientology unable to deliver what's promoted is in a trade with its own fantasies and not with the real world.

[70.66...@sjrb.ca]

On 31 May 2013, =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbdCRdXN0ZXI=?= <Spam Bus...@nyet.ca>
posted some news:TQgqt.20541$ZU7....@newsfe28.iad:

> From: =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbdCRdXN0ZXI=?= <Spam Bus...@nyet.ca>
> Reply-To: SpamБus...@nyet.ca
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0)
> Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,us.politics,alt.psychology
> Subject: Re: Kat got run out of a.r.s. Meow!
> References: <XnsA1CF55...@94.75.214.90>
> <51a97213$0$17351$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com> In-Reply-To:
> <51a97213$0$17351$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com> Content-Type:
> text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding:
> 7bit Lines: 9
> Message-ID: <TQgqt.20541$ZU7....@newsfe28.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.70.65
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: 1370069427 70.66.70.65 (Sat, 01 Jun 2013 06:50:27 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 06:50:27 UTC
> Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 23:50:35 -0700
> X-Received-Bytes: 1235

--

[70.66...@sjrb.ca]

On 30 May 2013, =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbdCRdXN0ZXI=?= <SpamB...@nyet.ca> posted
some news:jSOpt.4811$OA5....@newsfe12.iad:

> From: =?UTF-8?B?U3BhbdCRdXN0ZXI=?= <SpamB...@nyet.ca>
> Reply-To: Spamβus...@nyet.ca
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0)
> Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.idiot,alt.psychology
> Subject: Re: Kat got run out of a.r.s. Meow!
> References: <XnsA1CF55...@94.75.214.90>
> In-Reply-To: <XnsA1CF55...@94.75.214.90>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> Lines: 8
> Message-ID: <jSOpt.4811$OA5....@newsfe12.iad>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.66.70.65
> X-Complaints-To: interne...@sjrb.ca
> X-Trace: 1369946639 70.66.70.65 (Thu, 30 May 2013 20:43:59 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 20:43:59 UTC
> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 13:44:05 -0700
> X-Received-Bytes: 1169

--

[Steve Layton]

It's obvious she has been disciplined by her OSA masters since being wrong on the "hung" versus "hanged" argument.

[Kat]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 2:00:01 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
> It's obvious she has been disciplined by her OSA masters since being wrong on the "hung" versus "hanged" argument.

No, dumbdumb. I'm still here. I'm just not responding to the sad little troll who so clearly wants my attention. Clearly you do as well, given how many posts you made about me this afternoon.

What's the matter Tim... need to get your stats up before Thursday? lol

[Steve Layton]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 2:21:08 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
> No, dumbdumb. I'm still here.

I know you are and the reason is because OSA has assigned you to this newsgroup.

With you quick response I'm 99% certain that you are an OSA op.

The "Kat" is out of the bag. ;-)

>I'm just not responding to the sad little troll who so clearly wants my >attention.

And right on cue, again, accusing me of what's true about her.

You see, it's "Kat" that's a sad little troll who clearly wants MY attention!

Why do you think she responded so quickly?

You can always know the condition of a OSA op by looking at the condition they accuse others ( me ) of being in.

Poor "Kat", her stats must be low lately.

[Kat]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 2:29:50 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:

> I know you are and the reason is because OSA has assigned you to this newsgroup.

No, Tim. I am not OSA. I have never been in your cult. Quite frankly, I think the nickle I paid at a yard sale for Dianetics was too much given the racist, sexist, homophobic bullshit contained within.

I am here to watch your cult die, Tim.... and I won't have to wait for much longer given how many bullying retards like you are left in it.

> With you quick response I'm 99% certain that you are an OSA op.

Blah blah blah, back to your old "you are OSA because I say so" routine. It didn't work the first time, it didn't work the 35th time and it certainly won't work now at your 500th time. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, dumbdumb.

I responded quickly because I'm at the computer. There are many reasons for me to be at the computer that do not involve me being OSA, therefore your accusation is yet another fallacy.

> And right on cue, again, accusing me of what's true about her.

Are you drunk or just retarded?

Me ignoring the retarded troll who keeps changing socks and crossposting their vitriol into other groups isn't proof of anything, let alone proof of what you are accusing me of. Again, your argument is based on intellectual fallacy and is therefore invalid.

> You see, it's "Kat" that's a sad little troll who clearly wants MY attention!

Again- are you drunk or retarded? You seem to be a bit confused about cause and effect.

> Why do you think she responded so quickly?

If this is the best you can do, it's no wonder they kicked you out of your cult.

The only thing you can confirm without making assumptions is that I am at the computer to make a post. Your assumption is nothing more than a sad attempt at invalidating me via ad hom while getting your stats up.

[Steve Layton]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 3:28:48 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
> No, Tim. I am not OSA.

Her words say "no" but her actions say "yes".

Which one do you think has more significance, words or actions?

[Steve Layton]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 3:28:48 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>

> > With you quick response I'm 99% certain that you are an OSA op.
>
>
>
> Blah blah blah,

Nice intelligent argument "Kat".

I hear it's used by all the best middle schoolers.

>back to your old "you are OSA because I say so" routine.

No because I say so, based on her actions.

It's Kat's actions that tell on her.

>It didn't work the first time,

What makes this troll think something "didn't work"?

How does telling the truth "not work"?

>
> I responded quickly because I'm at the computer.

She responded quickly because she's been assigned to this newsgroup and being "at the computer" is part & parcel of an assignment like that.

[Kat]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 4:03:26 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:

> Her words say "no" but her actions say "yes".

Actions? lol More like your biased interpretation of my actions. All you are doing is trolling for a reaction and then claiming anything I say or do is proof of OSA. You aren't fooling anyone with this song and dance Tim- you've been doing it for too long.

> Which one do you think has more significance, words or actions?

*yawn* Doubling down on appeal to authority (not to mention your other fallacies) will not make you right, dumbdumb... nor will snipping the bits where I pointed out the holes in your logic. :P

[Kat]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 4:10:18 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:

> > Blah blah blah,
>
>
>
> Nice intelligent argument "Kat".

That wasn't an argument, dumbdumb. That was me mocking the idiotic nonsense coming out of your mouth. The argument came after it.

> No because I say so, based on her actions.

No, Tim. The foundation of your argument is that my actions are proof of OSA because you say they are. You offer nothing beyond your word and quite frankly, you aren't known for your truthfulness. :P

> What makes this troll think something "didn't work"?
>
>
>
> How does telling the truth "not work"?

As I am not and never have been OSA, you aren't telling the truth. :P

You are presenting your biased, subjective opinion with no evidence to support that opinion beyond your own personal say so over how OSA acts.

> She responded quickly because she's been assigned to this newsgroup and being "at the computer" is part & parcel of an assignment like that.

Again- there are many reasons for me to be at the computer other than me being OSA. For example, I could be checking my email. I could be reading science articles. I could be relaxing after a hard day's work in the garden. Your argument is based on assumption and fallacy (affirming the consequent, to be exact)... and is therefore invalid.

[Steve Layton]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 4:21:43 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
>
> Actions? lol More like your biased interpretation of my actions.

There is only one interpretation of your actions:

OSA operative trolling.

>All you are doing is trolling for a reaction and then claiming anything I say >or do is proof of OSA.

Amazing, that's exactly what they "Kat" troll is doing.

Do you see how operatives ALWAYS accuse the target of what they are in fact themselves doing and accuse the target of what is in fact true about them.

That is an axiom of operatives from OSA.

>
>
> > Which one do you think has more significance, words or actions?
>
>
>
> *yawn* Doubling down on appeal to authority

Doubling down on appeal to authority?

What? All I did was ask a question.

How is that appealing to authority?

What does that have to do with the question I asked?

The question I asked was:

"Which one do you think has more significance, words or actions?"

>nor will snipping the bits where I pointed out the holes in your logic. :P

Again, snipping out bits where I pointed out holes in her logic is what SHE does.

Does this troll ever tire of accusing me of what she does?

Apparently not. I guess she gets "stats" out of it.

Where is she pointing out the holes in my logic?

How can she "point out the holes in my logic" when I wasn't putting forward anything "logical" to point out the holes in, I was asking a question.

She just says things have no basis in fact or reality.

She gives totally non sequitur responses that make no sense.

She's like Barbra Schwarz, she just says things that have no connection with reality.

She's either an OSA operative playing games or totally nuts.

[Steve Layton]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 5:02:41 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
> As I am not and never have been OSA, you aren't telling the truth. :P
>

Her ACTIONS say otherwise.

Her actions are saying loud and clear that she isn't telling the truth.

Again: What has more significance, actions or words?

> You are presenting your biased, subjective opinion with no evidence to >support that opinion beyond your own personal say so over how OSA acts.
>

That is false.

I'm pointing out her actions that expose her for being an operative.

It has nothing to do with my opinion.

>
> Again- there are many reasons for me to be at the computer other than me >being OSA.

But when one combines that with all the other things she has done over the last 10 months, it adds up to one thing, trolling behavior.

Her never going anywhere else but here to post even though she says she's apart of the group "Anonymous" and they all spend their time on "WhyWeProtest".

Her hiding her true identity when others do not.

Her never providing any proof that she's really is apart of "Anonymous" when it would incur no risk on her part to provide such proof. Her claiming to a member of "Anonymous" is just a cover.

Her stalking me around the newsgroup for the last 10 months, night and day responding to almost all my posts.

Her lighting fast responses to my post even if I hadn't being posting much to ARS in weeks. It shows newsgroup MONITORING which is something OSA would do.

>Your argument is based on assumption and fallacy (affirming the consequent, to >be exact)... and is therefore invalid.

My argument is based on circumstantial evidence gleaned from observing "Kat"'s behavior and that evidence says she is an operative.

[Steve Layton]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 5:02:41 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>

> That wasn't an argument, dumbdumb.

Glad to see that she's finally admitted that her responses to my posts are not arguments.

[Kat]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 6:25:23 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:

Three whole posts to respond to my one... you are a butthurt little shit tonight, aren't you? lol

> There is only one interpretation of your actions:
>
>
>
> OSA operative trolling.

There is only one interpretation of my actions by you because you WANT there to be only one interpretation. Again, affirming the consequent won't make you correct. Here, let me give you a hypothetical example of exactly what you are doing:

Misogynists kill hookers.
You have said misogynist things.
Therefore, you have killed hookers.

The error in your logic is your declaration that because I did something, it must confirm your opinion. There might be (and are) other motivations for my posts/actions.

Just because I have made fun of you for being a raging douchebag on the internet does not make me OSA. :P

> Amazing, that's exactly what they "Kat" troll is doing.

Really now? You started this discussion, Tim. You also started the OSA accusations.

> Do you see how operatives ALWAYS accuse the target of what they are in fact themselves doing and accuse the target of what is in fact true about them.
>
>
>
> That is an axiom of operatives from OSA.

Blah blah blah, all you are presenting is your word, Tim. Your opinion. Your subjective, biased opinion. Either you are too stupid to recognize it or too deceitful to admit it.

> Doubling down on appeal to authority?
>
>
>
> What? All I did was ask a question.
>
>
>
> How is that appealing to authority?
>
>
>
> What does that have to do with the question I asked?
>
>
>
> The question I asked was:
>
>
>
> "Which one do you think has more significance, words or actions?"

I explained it repeatedly, dumbdumb.

You are stating that you "know" that I am OSA based on your personal experiences dealing with OSA. Your expertise is in no way verified in a quantifiable way and you expect the audience to take your word for it. Then you ask the audience to again take you at your word... that you "know" that I am OSA without the benefit of even knowing my name. That is appeal to authority.... a logical fallacy.

> Again, snipping out bits where I pointed out holes in her logic is what SHE does.

*yawn* No Tim. I respond to nearly every line you post for that very reason. The only time I edit out is when I have previously answered the same question, as you frequently repeat yourself.

> Does this troll ever tire of accusing me of what she does?
>
>
>
> Apparently not. I guess she gets "stats" out of it.
>
>
>
> Where is she pointing out the holes in my logic?

I have repeatedly in this thread alone. It's not my fault if you are too retarded to understand basic logic.


> <snip of the remainder as it boils down to ad homs and stuff I previously answered>

[Steve Layton]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 8:05:31 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
> Three whole posts to respond to my one... you are a butthurt little shit >tonight, aren't you? lol
>

I was waiting for her to tell me how she was doing ;-)

"butthurt" huh Kat? ;-)

> Misogynists kill hookers.

Hookers?

What's that have to do with anything?

Another attempt at subject change?

BTW: Any women that becomes a "hooker" is already pretty messed up and in a non survival condition.

It's safe to say that a "hooker" is low toned with alot of case.

>
> The error in your logic is your declaration that because I did something, it >must confirm your opinion. There might be (and are) other motivations for my >posts/actions.
>

No Kat. What I'm saying is that your ACTIONS say what's true about you not your WORDS.

Your behavior is totally in alignment with an OSA operative.

They way you respond, how often, what you say, name calling, invalidation, Q & A, attempted derailment, Dead Agenting, never posting anywhere else on the Internet but here, lying about being a member of Anonymous, stalking me around ARS, Ad Hom attacks, leveling accusations and black PR against me with no proof.

I could go on.

You know what they say, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

>
> Just because I have made fun of you for being a raging douchebag on the >internet does not make me OSA. :P
>

Not by itself no, but when you add all the OTHER things you have done in *addition* to your Ad Hom name calling, it adds up to one thing:

t-r-o-l-l-i-n-g o-p-e-r-a-t-i-v-e

> Blah blah blah, all you are presenting is your word, Tim. Your opinion.

How is your behavior, all recorded and dated on ARS constitute my "opinion"?

>Either you are too stupid to recognize it or too deceitful to admit it.
>

More Ad Homs.

She's running a script and it repeats.

>
> You are stating that you "know" that I am OSA based on your personal >experiences dealing with OSA.

No. On my knowledge of Scientology and my personal experience of being targeted by OSA operative attacks since 2003.

>Your expertise is in no way verified in a quantifiable way and you expect the >audience to take your word for it.

Actually it is. Your behavior is the behavior of a troll.

The only difference with ARS is that nobody has the ability to ban you which is the only reason you are still here.

If this were ESMB, WWP or OCMB, you would be gone.

>Then you ask the audience to again take you at your word... that you "know"

Wrong. I ask them to look at your actions and judge for themselves.

>that I am OSA without the benefit of even knowing my name.

I don't need to know your name.

The things you DO or refuse to do tells me everything I need to know about you.

The fact that you hide your true identity is more proof that you are an operative.

>That is appeal to >authority.... a logical fallacy.
>

That's an appeal to OBSERVATION and LOOKING.

Anyone that observes your behavior for any length of time and knows what I know about what operatives do, will see what I see.

>
> *yawn* No Tim.
>

If she's so bored as her response would indicate, why is she still here responding to everything I post?

If she's so bored as her response would indicate, why does she lash out at me at times in heated anger?

If she's so bored as her response would indicate, why does she spend her time on so much labored key stroking in response to my post?

If she so bored, why doesn't she just ignore my posts and/or go off and do something else?

---> There's another reason why she fakes being bored. <----

Boredom is one level above Anger on the tone scale and is supposed to handle anger.

With every letter, with every word she types on the screen, I'm more and more certain she's a operative.

The proverbial "Kat" is out of the bag. ;-)

[Fredric L. Rice]

Chris Hoelze <cho...@cox.net> wrote:

>There's nothing funnier than a Kat running.

LOL. Because people ignoire this pants shitting Scientology cunt
the shitting Scientology cunt thinks people have run from him. :)

----
The Skeptic Tank: http://www.SkepticTank.Org/

[Kat]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:41:02 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:

> I was waiting for her to tell me how she was doing ;-)
>
>
>
> "butthurt" huh Kat? ;-)
>

LMFAO! So you making dozens of posts about me and making multiple responses to my replies... is ME being butthurt? You do realize that you just admitted to trolling for a reaction so you could claim that reaction (no matter what the reaction was) was a projection... right?

> What's that have to do with anything?

Timmy, I explained what the hooker example had to do with the discussion. Several times in fact... both above and below the example.

> Another attempt at subject change?

It was an example of the kind of logical fallacy that you are using. You snipped out the forward explaining that it was an example of your kind of logical fallacy... probably so that you could whine about supposed subject changes.

> No Kat. What I'm saying is that your ACTIONS say what's true about you not your WORDS.

No Tim. What you are saying is your prejudiced, illogical opinion that I am OSA. You base this accusation on a constantly shifting and adapting standard that only you supposedly know for certain.

You offer NO evidence for your accusation beyond YOUR WORD that what I am doing is a sure sign of OSA. That is fallacy of affirming the consequent and argument from authority. Without ever knowing my name- something that several ARS posters know btw- you claim to know for certain who I am, what I think and why I am here. That is fallacy of omniscience.

Every single accusation you have made about me has been based on logical fallacy and I suspect that you are either too stupid or too vicious to care.

> How is your behavior, all recorded and dated on ARS constitute my "opinion"?

lol Because the reality of my post history doesn't match what you claim it means, dumbdumb.

*Only one of us makes attack posts about freezone and cult critics on a regular basis.
*Only one of us believes scientology is something other than a cult and a scam. *Only one of us loads attack videos on youtube aimed at critics of the cult.
*Only one of us has been caught via IP with sock puppet use.
*Only one of us doesn't believe in medical science.
*Only one of us has impersonated critics on bondage groups to get them attacked.
*Only one of us has sent threatening emails to critics.
*Only one of us regularly makes sexually perverse comments about critics.
*Only one of us condemns/labels trolls and then uses them as allies whenever it is convenient to them.

Only one of us Tim.. and it's not me. Attacking me and claiming I am OSA is all part of your 10+ year pattern of abuse, bullying and trollery.

> No. On my knowledge of Scientology and my personal experience of being targeted by OSA operative attacks since 2003.

That would be argument from authority, Tim. You are presenting yourself as an authority... it doesn't matter what bullshit reasons you give to support it. Since you love examples so much, here's another one:

Random Geologist (person A) claims that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Asked by a random non geologist (person b) how he knows this, he replies "Because I am a geologist! I have experience in these matters". That is arguing from authority. (A non fallacy based answer would be to discuss the zircon found in Australia that was dated to 4.404 billion years old and to explain the method of dating the sample.)

That is exactly what you are doing. You prop yourself up with whatever bullshit reason you want as a so called expert on OSA and then label people OSA based on that perceived expertise. You aren't *proving* anything, other than that you lack basic logic skills.

> The only difference with ARS is that nobody has the ability to ban you which is the only reason you are still here.

Fallacy of omniscience, therefore invalid.

I suspect this is projection on your part, given how many times you have been banned for bad behavior. :P

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26826-Setting-the-Record-Straight&p=677805&viewfull=1#post677805

> I don't need to know your name.

And yet you have demanded it so frequently, usually in conjunction with a "what are your crimes?" rant.

> The things you DO or refuse to do tells me everything I need to know about you.

Fallacy of omniscience and therefore invalid, Tim.

> The fact that you hide your true identity is more proof that you are an operative.

So when you hid your name, it was proof that you were an operative. lol

Remember Tim, you didn't come clean voluntarily.. you were sloppy when you trolled Sparrow and got caught. You registered for the DC anon forums as Truthseeker... remember? That was the tipoff... if you hadn't been so fond of your old handle, you might not have ever been discovered.

All that talk, Tim. All that effort on your part and you still have nothing beyond your word that I'm OSA. If you are attempting to pander to an audience, you'll have to do better than assumptions and logical fallacies.... neither of which make you look very intelligent. If you are just attacking me to be an abusive asshole, you might as well be honest about it and spare yourself the embarrassment lol

[Steve Layton]

FYI Kat,

OSA operatives don't push Dianetics & Scientology, that's not their job on any given message board.

So if you think that because you don't push Dianetics & Scientology that means you're not an OSA operative, think again.

Their job is to attack critics of the church of scientology who they feel threatened by not push Dianetics & Scientology.

I've been one of the most outspoken critics of the church of Scientology since 2003 and that's why you attack me.

Apparently they have made a decision that I'm to be run off every single Scientology based message board on the Internet.

Either by getting me banned or trying to "dead agent" me which is what you constantly try to do.

The battle cry is "get truth seeker off all scientology message boards!"

It's also the reason why you ran to Anonymous and lied to them and told them I'm OSA so I wouldn't be able to help them be more effective against the church and you know it.

[Buster@nyet.ca SpamБuster]

CUT

==========================================================

KEEP IT THE HELL OUT OF CANADIAN NEWSGROUPS, THANKS

==========================================================

On 6/4/2013 7:44 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:

[Buster@nyet.ca SpamБuster]

[Kat]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 2:15:57 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:

> <snip>

> So if you think that because you don't push Dianetics & Scientology that
> means you're not an OSA operative, think again.

LOL! Once again, you fall back on the same tired, fallacy-based tactics:

Tim: "OSA does/doesn't do X because I say so. You did/didn't do X. You are then OSA because I say so".

It doesn't work that way, dumbdumb. I do love how you ignored everything about your inappropriate behavior on usenet- your 10 years of impersonating and attacking critics. If (by your "logic") me insulting one or two posters (who are known for being verbally abusive, trolling jerks) makes me OSA, what does that make YOU Tim?

What does impersonating Tory on a bondage site make you, hmmm? What does DAing freezone make you? What does trolling youtube comments of critics and posting fake, slanderous videos about them make YOU? What you accuse me of is NOTHING compared to your sociopathic behavior!

> Their job is to attack critics of the church of scientology

Something you have done for over 10 years. In fact, you have attacked every single current poster repeatedly over the last few months- including the trolls you try to drum up support from when you want to attack me :P

> I've been one of the most outspoken critics of the church of Scientology
> since 2003 and that's why you attack me.

No Tim. I "attack" you because you have been an outspoken critic of CRITICS since 2003. I "attack" you because you make hundreds of slanderous posts about anyone who even remotely disagrees with you. I "attack" you when you act like a foul mouthed, bullying jerk. I "attack" you because you stalk and dead agent nice old ladies who's only "crime" was posting what you have in fact done to other people on her own damn blog.

I "attack" you by pointing out that you are acting like an asshole. I have nothing to say to you when you don't behave in such a fashion, which is why I don't respond to your off-topic noise threads about car shows and sand dunes.

> Apparently they have made a decision that I'm to be run off every single
> Scientology based message board on the Internet.

Tim- you run YOURSELF out of every Scientology based message board on the internet. Remember this?

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26826-Setting-the-Record-Straight&p=677801&viewfull=1#post677801

Remember how you volunteered to take down your blogs the moment Aida and Silvia delete their posts about you? Remember how you confessed to only slandering them because you thought they slandered you by writing out the things you factually did in your blogs?

You are clearly incapable of being accountable for your own actions.

> <snip>

> It's also the reason why you ran to Anonymous and lied to them and told them
> I'm OSA so I wouldn't be able to help them be more effective against the
> church and you know it.

No Tim. You know what I told HT? I told her the truth- that you were the goon on ARS who impersonated Magoo on a bondage group and that you were POSSIBLY OSA. You then made an ass of yourself with Sparrow- someone willing to give you the benefit of the doubt- and outed yourself in the process.

Here's what Sparrow had to say about the matter: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26826-Setting-the-Record-Straight&p=677888&viewfull=1#post677888

You label me OSA because you want to make that all go away- just like you attacked Silvia and Aida to make what they said about you go away.

[Steve Layton]

On Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:54:56 AM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
> Tim: "OSA does/doesn't do X because I say so. You did/didn't do X. You are >then OSA because I say so".
>

What OSA does or does not do is not based on what I say, it's based on facts.

It's based on knowledge gain by *observation* in the past of how they behave and on information given by those who used to work for OSA as operatives, realized that what they were doing was not right and left. Then they came out and explained what they were told to do by OSA and the scripts they were instructed by OSA to run.

[Steve Layton]

On Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:54:56 AM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>

> Something you have done for over 10 years.

More lies.

If you read ALL of the articles I've put in the past under "Truth Seeker" you will plainly see that 90% were critical the church of scientology.

All you are doing is lying, twisting the facts, picking out things that support your agenda and spreading black PR, more proof that you are a troll.

[John Dorsay]

On 6/6/2013 7:32 PM, Steve Layton wrote:
> On Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:54:56 AM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>>
>> Tim: "OSA does/doesn't do X because I say so. You did/didn't do
>> X. You are >then OSA because I say so".
>>
>
> What OSA does or does not do is not based on what I say, it's
> based on facts.

Dox or STFU, Timmy.

> It's based on knowledge gain by *observation* in the past of how
> they behave and on information given by those who used to work
> for OSA as operatives, realized that what they were doing was not
> right and left.

Dox or STFU, Timmy.

Then they came out and explained what they were
> told to do by OSA and the scripts they were instructed by OSA to
> run.

Dox or STFU, Timmy.


John

[John Dorsay]

On 6/6/2013 7:36 PM, Steve Layton wrote:
> On Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:54:56 AM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>>
>> Something you have done for over 10 years.
>
> More lies.
>
> If you read ALL of the articles I've put in the past under

> "Truth Seeker" you will plainly see that 90% were DEAD-AGENTING
> PEOPLE WHO ARE critical the church of scientology.
>
> All you are doing is CATCHING ME lying, twisting the facts,
> picking out things that support your ARGUMENT that my agenda IS
> LYING and spreading black PR, more proof that you are AWARE THAT
> I AM a MISOGYNIST troll.

I fixed your post for you, Timmy.


John

[Farewell to Sicily]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:31:22 AM UTC-4, Chris Hoelze wrote:
> There's nothing funnier than a Kat running.

Timmy, do you really think that there is any one in this group who thinks that you are NOT a tool of OSA??

We know Timmy, we know who and what you are.

[Kat]

On Thursday, June 6, 2013 7:32:12 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:

Oh look, more multiple posts to my one. I think I'll start combining my replies to you, just so you have to work that much harder to get your stats up.

>
> What OSA does or does not do is not based on what I say, it's based on facts.
>
>
>

> It's based on knowledge gain by *observation* <snip>

Blah blah blah, as John said, dox or stfu. All you are offering is your interpretation and no proof. Nothing. Nada. All you are offering is your opinion of what OSA does and claiming that what I am doing is OSA behavior based on YOUR claims of what OSA does.

> > Something you have done for over 10 years.
>
>
>

> More lies.

No, Tim. It's not a lie. The ars archives are full of posts by you (under various names) that attack critics. Remember how you confessed to making posts that slandered Tory (granted, that one was on exscn.net)? Remember how you were caught impersonating her on a bondage group? Remember that fake video of some drunk canadian that you tried to say was Sparrow? Remember all the nasty posts you made about him after he broke off communications with you (because you were being an abusive jerk)?

This is simple, objective, easily verified fact. You attack critics of your cult. I attack abusive assholes who try to bully people into silence. There is a profound difference.

> If you read ALL of the articles I've put in the past under "Truth Seeker" you will plainly see that 90% were critical the church of scientology.

No, Tim. They weren't. The vast bulk of your posts were ones like this https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.religion.scientology/eq1IgGDWIQI/T0zeHvbE8-cJ

I should note you attack critics multiple times throughout the post. Remember this one? Remember how you claimed someone impersonated you based on the IP of the post and your current IP... when the post is from 2006? Remember that, Tim?

> All you are doing is lying, twisting the facts, picking out things that support your agenda and spreading black PR, more proof that you are a troll.

No Tim. I'm presenting facts that anyone can look up in the ARS archives. I back up my claims, providing examples of places you lied or attacked critics. All you do is whine that I make posts about your bad behavior and attack me for it.. the same exact reason you dead agent Aida and others.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26826-Setting-the-Record-Straight&p=677297&viewfull=1#post677297

Cut the crap, Tim. No one is buying what you are selling.

[Steve Layton]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 1:57:49 AM UTC-4, John Dorsay wrote:
>
> Dox or STFU, Timmy.
>

Here's one "Dox" that explains some things, so read it and STFU.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?8249-OSA-Operatives-How-to-Guide

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�]

"Steve Layton" <stevela...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ae88600-3460-4ca1...@googlegroups.com...

That last section sounds like EXACTLY how Kat operates! Amazing. You
sure got her pegged.

--
Sir Gregory

[Kat]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 2:23:12 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:

> Here's one "Dox" that explains some things, so read it

Dumbdumb, that's not "dox". "Dox" would be my name. It would be my personal information tying me to Scientology and OSA. You don't have those and never will, even if you uncover my name. Why? Because I have never been in Scientology. It's that simple! You can't make me be something I'm not.

Ironically, your link makes YOU out to be an OSA operative. Let's look at the list, shall we?

1) "Attend any public meeting/forum/discussion that might possibly touch upon scn and successfully steer the talk away from anything negative about scn if it appears to be heading in this direction."

I frequently mention Scientology's many failings, such as it's racism, homophobia, sexism, blatant lies about science, bullying culture and the fact that it's a CULT founded by a drug addicted lunatic. I don't just limit my criticisms to the CoS but to the tech itself.

By this example- were I OSA, I would be steering discussion away from the kinds of things that I am posting. You, on the other hand, frequently steer discussion away from the cult- particularly if people are discussing the CoS's hatred of psychiatry and the lies it tells to discredit it.

2) "Contact the target Critic by phone, pretending to be a fellow-critic. Agree with the person’s criticisms of scn and voice your own (*see note on “suitable criticisms” below). Become more strident and whiney until you successfully annoy the person into refuting something you are saying. "

I have not engaged in this behavior, but YOU certainly have! http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26826-Setting-the-Record-Straight&p=677888&viewfull=1#post677888

3) "Don’t stop, continue to whine using the reject-buttons (these are from a list written by LRH, buttons that cause people to reject what you’re saying) and refuse to stop criticising, don’t acknowledge or listen to anything the target says. If he/she refutes your data accuse him/her of supporting or being a scientologist. "

Which is what you are doing to me right now. I have refuted you repeatedly and all you continue to do is repeat the same ol tired accusations and the same ol tired logical fallacies to "support" them.

> and STFU.

lol Sorry Tim, you can't bully me into silence with bullshit.

[Steve Layton]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 3:02:48 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
> Dumbdumb, that's not "dox". "Dox" would be my name.

Incorrect.

That's not the "Dox" "John Dorsay" was requesting.

I stated:

"What OSA does or does not do is not based on what I say, it's based on facts."

Then "John Dorsay" responded to that statement with the following request:

"Dox or STFU."

He was requesting "Dox" that showed what OSA does or does not do other than based on what *I* say they do or don't do.

I provided that.

The link I provided was an article written by someone who used to work for OSA as an operative, had left OSA and spoke out on ESMB about what he use to do as an operative.

What better source for how OSA operatives operate other than someone who use to work for them, left OSA and came over to the critics side and exposed their methods?

There's proof right there that what OSA does or does not do is not based on what just what *I* say OSA ops do or don't do.

[Kat]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 2:09:55 AM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:

> > Dumbdumb, that's not "dox". "Dox" would be my name.
>
>
>
> Incorrect.

On what planet, Tim?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dox

"Personal information about people on the Internet, often including real name, known aliases, address, phone number, SSN, credit card number, etc."

"Dox" represents tangible evidence of something. It represents objective proof. It represents my name and personal information. It does not include a link to "OSA" behaviors and then your opinion that what I say or do matches those behaviors. That would be OPINION and not objective, documented fact.

> That's not the "Dox" "John Dorsay" was requesting.

Claim of omniscience, Tim. I suspect John will be along eventually to laugh at you.

> I stated:
>
>
>
> "What OSA does or does not do is not based on what I say, it's based on facts."

lol The fact is that you have no actual evidence whatsoever beyond your opinion that I am OSA. You can point and wave at links all you want, but it's not my name. It's not my life history. It's your OPINION that what I say or do matches what you state is OSA behavior.

> Then "John Dorsay" responded to that statement with the following request:
>
>
>
> "Dox or STFU."

I'm going to take a wild guess that John meant the correct definition of Dox....

"Personal information about people on the Internet, often including real name, known aliases, address, phone number, SSN, credit card number, etc."

> He was requesting "Dox" that showed what OSA does or does not do other than based on what *I* say they do or don't do.

No, I suspect he was demanding you provide my name, addy, life history, etc... tangible, objective proof that I am OSA.


> I provided that.


No, you provided a link to OSA behavior and then claimed my behavior matched it. I pointed out multiple ways that my behavior does not match the link you provided and even provided factual examples of how YOUR behavior does in fact match those links. Not only did I refute you, I showed how you implicated yourself as OSA.

How funny that you didn't address any of that in favor of arguing over the definition of "dox".

<snip of the remainder as it's nothing more than Tim claiming my behavior matches the list... when that was previously refuted... and subsequently ignored by him in favor of more fallacy-based ramblings.>

Give it up, dumbdumb. You can't make me OSA cause I'm not. It's that simple. :)

[Fredric L. Rice]

Kat <lady...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:41:02 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
>> I was waiting for her to tell me how she was doing ;-)
>> "butthurt" huh Kat? ;-)

>LMFAO! So you making dozens of posts about me and making multiple responses=

> to my replies... is ME being butthurt?

Had to smile. These loons really are Republicans.

[Fredric L. Rice]

John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/6/2013 7:32 PM, Steve Layton wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:54:56 AM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>>> Tim: "OSA does/doesn't do X because I say so. You did/didn't do
>>> X. You are >then OSA because I say so".
>> What OSA does or does not do is not based on what I say, it's
>> based on facts.
>Dox or STFU, Timmy.

Only OSA demands evidence! Er muh gawds! John is OSA!

What's amusing also is that nobody is afraid of DM's OSA pants shitters.
The letters "OSA" don't frighten anyone. The GO/OSA used to invoke
fear among the dumbest customers, but never among anyone who is not a
customer.

[John Dorsay]

On 6/12/2013 8:29 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 6/6/2013 7:32 PM, Steve Layton wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:54:56 AM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>>>> Tim: "OSA does/doesn't do X because I say so. You did/didn't do
>>>> X. You are >then OSA because I say so".
>>> What OSA does or does not do is not based on what I say, it's
>>> based on facts.
>>Dox or STFU, Timmy.
>
> Only OSA demands evidence! Er muh gawds! John is OSA!

Like that's news. Skippy pegged me as OSA *years* ago, Fred!

> What's amusing also is that nobody is afraid of DM's OSA pants shitters.
> The letters "OSA" don't frighten anyone. The GO/OSA used to invoke
> fear among the dumbest customers, but never among anyone who is not a
> customer.

LOL! You raise an excellent point. If anything, the letters "OSA"
amuse and entertain. I miss the good old days when they were
shooting themselves in the foot with far more regularity than now.

Maybe they are running out of feet?


John

[Voltaire's Child]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 5:27:39 PM UTC-7, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> Kat <lady...@comcast.net> wrote: >On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 10:41:02 PM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote: >> I was waiting for her to tell me how she was doing ;-) >> "butthurt" huh Kat? ;-) >LMFAO! So you making dozens of posts about me and making multiple responses= > to my replies... is ME being butthurt? Had to smile. These loons really are Republicans. ---- The Skeptic Tank: http://www.SkepticTank.Org/

Ruh oh, Freddie. Yanno, I'm married to a staunch Republican-- but I *know* you'd like him. (and you're always welcome to visit should you find yourself in Seattle)

Claire

[Fredric L. Rice]

John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/12/2013 8:29 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
>> John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On 6/6/2013 7:32 PM, Steve Layton wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:54:56 AM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>>>>> Tim: "OSA does/doesn't do X because I say so. You did/didn't do
>>>>> X. You are >then OSA because I say so".
>>>> What OSA does or does not do is not based on what I say, it's
>>>> based on facts.
>>>Dox or STFU, Timmy.
>> Only OSA demands evidence! Er muh gawds! John is OSA!
>Like that's news. Skippy pegged me as OSA *years* ago, Fred!

Skippy is a Republican. :) Enough said. :)

Oh! John! I should send you an email update, I no longer work at
that company any longer, it was bought out and the new owners are
not exactly ethical. I refuse to work for any company that builds
weapons that are used for war crimes, and while I have always
refused to develop weapons directly, there's that ethical problem
with working for multinationals that allow Christian, Islamic, or
Israeli terrorists to commit war crime atrocties, so I have as
much as retired.

[Fredric L. Rice]

"Voltaire's Child" <Voltair...@ymail.com> wrote:

>Ruh oh, Freddie. Yanno, I'm married to a staunch Republican-- but I *know* =
>you'd like him. (and you're always welcome to visit should you find yoursel=
>f in Seattle)

LOL, Claire, I only pretend. :) I find absolutely *zero* difference
between Republicans and Democrats so far as politicians go, they are
all corporate terrorists and traitors, theocratic fascists that are
absolutely indistinguishable among themselves and among their
Islamic and Israeli colleagues. I don't vote, I'm apolitical, but I
enjoy pointing out the lower IQ of the typical Republican from time
to time. :)

[John Dorsay]

On 7/4/2013 10:45 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> Oh! John! I should send you an email update, I no longer work at
> that company any longer, it was bought out and the new owners are
> not exactly ethical. I refuse to work for any company that builds
> weapons that are used for war crimes, and while I have always
> refused to develop weapons directly, there's that ethical problem
> with working for multinationals that allow Christian, Islamic, or
> Israeli terrorists to commit war crime atrocties, so I have as
> much as retired.

You retired? I don't believe it. Not as long as there is a speck of
smouldering brush in the mountains. And it's a lot worse than that
these days from what we hear in the Great White North. Hope you and
your colleagues are all safe and well dealing with it.

Yes email is good. Is your Sooper Secret Email Address still active?
Check it tomorrow or the next day if it is.


John

[Fredric L. Rice]

John Dorsay <restim...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You retired? I don't believe it. Not as long as there is a speck of
>smouldering brush in the mountains. And it's a lot worse than that
>these days from what we hear in the Great White North. Hope you and
>your colleagues are all safe and well dealing with it.
>Yes email is good. Is your Sooper Secret Email Address still active?
>Check it tomorrow or the next day if it is.

Yeah, I am actually never going to retire. You should maybe have seen
some of what I posted about on Facebook today, we continue to deal with
endless threats from illegal fires, but the training we get helps us
determine what we can and can not handle, so we're "at risk" some times
but always as safe as it gets, any way.

My email address works, yep! And I just went to using Thunderbird for
my POP3 client. :)

[Peter Schilte]

Op dinsdag 4 juni 2013 20:29:50 UTC+2 schreef Steve Layton het volgende:
> On Tuesday, June 4, 2013 2:21:08 PM UTC-4, Kat wrote:
>
> > No, dumbdumb. I'm still here.
>
>
>
> I know you are and the reason is because OSA has assigned you to this newsgroup.
>
>
>
> With you quick response I'm 99% certain that you are an OSA op.
>
>
>
> The "Kat" is out of the bag. ;-)
>
>
>
> >I'm just not responding to the sad little troll who so clearly wants my >attention.
>
>
>
> And right on cue, again, accusing me of what's true about her.
>
>
>
> You see, it's "Kat" that's a sad little troll who clearly wants MY attention!
>
>
>
> Why do you think she responded so quickly?
>
>
>
> You can always know the condition of a OSA op by looking at the condition they accuse others ( me ) of being in.
>
>
>
> Poor "Kat", her stats must be low lately.

You are so pathetic!
But thank you for demonstrating how scientology messes with people's minds. Every single one of your posts is a warning for everyone NEVER to get involved with your cult.
And I thank you for that.

Sir Peter

http://www.scamofscientology.nl

[Voltaire's Child]

For a bunch of alleged "SPs", I've seen a lot more decency and humor amont the critics on this thread (excluding the idiots targetting Kat- they aren't critics anyway)than I generally saw when I was in CofS.

I mean, there were exceptions in CofS- but there and then seemed like people were being smart and nice and all that in spite of Scn, not because of it.

Claire