In <rnewman-ya02408000R1007970221090...@snews2.zippo.com>, rnew...@thecia.net (Ron
Newman) wrote: >> Baker and Ron Newman engaged in some sort of attempted cover-up of her >> post -- doing a "Rob Clark" by claiming that she had not written the >> message in spite of irrefutable evidence that she had. I guess I have >> to include Ron Newman in the category of "mythologizers" as well.
>And you'd probably be right to do so. This wasn't one of my >prouder moments on a.r.s.
So you are admitting that you knew that Kim did write that text?
In <33cae6d4.10939...@news.dds.nl>, hubb...@xenu-spam-trap.dds.nl
(Michael 'Mike' Gormez) wrote: >> - The court in The People vs. Stephen Cooper
>Has this anything to do with Kathleen Wilson? Can you post some >excerpts of it or post a URL?
Yes, Kathleen Wilson was the girl who failed to be rescued by her friend. Her friend was indicted and then acquitted. Articles on the case should be found on dejanews (if not, e-mail me directly).
But I must take back that one, sorry. I looked again and the "hypnosis" allegation came from the defendant, not from the jury (nevertheless, he got away with his rescue attempt).
>I really wished that some of the other France/Dutch speaking ars'ers would >dig into this report, I simply don't have the time for it.
Same for me, sadly.
I don't like messing with a 300 page PDF document.
ronsam...@aol.com (RonsAmigo) wrote: >As an added note, I would comment that many of the "critics" on ARS >have fallen below the point of being able to even see things in "black & >white" and are now only capable of seeing things in "black." :)
refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote: >On Sun, 06 Jul 1997 23:52:34 GMT, b...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote: >>refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote: >>>If you can support your statement that "the Sea Org is what >>>$cientology wants it all to be about" with a specific reference, >>>please do. I've never seen anything written by Hubbard that makes >>>such a claim. I doubt that the Vatican would like to see all Roman >>>Catholics become monks, nuns, and priests either.
Sorry for the late reply.
>>Were does the C org hold its quarter? >I'm not sure if you mean "headquarters" or "berthing" here, Bernie.
Mainly berthing and place of work of SO members. I know the headquarters are at Flag and other high level organizations.
The point I am trying to make in this post is that life in the SO is not fundamentally different than life in a "normal" Scn staff environment, although of course there will be differences between any environment, like the size of the organization or its closeness to top level of management.
Now I understand that this is more of a side issue compared to what your original statement was. If I understand correctly, your proposition was that abuses as related by ex-members who were in the SO were often used to depict the condition of the COS as a whole, while the public or even non-SO staff member of lower organizatins may not even be aware that such abuses exist at all.
I take it that by "SO ex-members" you really have in mind the long-time, deeply involved, high level scieno, sort of. In this sense, I understand the spirit of what you mean, and agree with it. So, nothing of what follows is meant to challenge this view. I only address the side-issue of the difference between a SO staff member and a non-SO staff member.
To start with, I am not sure that the SO member does not have, in addition to his one billion year contract, an other contract with the organization with which he is working. I think he does.
In addition, I never saw anybody, SO staff or not, going anywhere else than where he wanted to go. Actually, he had to be "recruited" to join whatever organization. He had to be convinced to go there, with nice pictures of Flag, the Ship, Saint Hill, etc, even though he signed a SO contract.
I also am not aware of any difference between a normal staff member and a SO staff member. Both have free and unlimited access to services in exchange of their work. Both have free housing/meal, some pocket money etc.
As for the RPF, is there any policy or directive saying it is reserved for SO members?
In other words, I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the one billion year contract is more of a moral engagement contract than a real one.
>From what I understand, any Roman Catholic can enter a religious order >as well. I don't understand the point you're making with this.
Someone in a religious order would have a very different life from a Roman Catholic leading a mundane life. Your comparison hold true between a staff member and a paying public, not really between a SO staff and a non-SO staff.
>>It is not clear to me why you think that C org members are >>treated differently, or that experiences within the C org >>quarters are different than in the rest of the organization. For >>this to happen, they would need to have their own quarter to >>start with. Where is it? >Do you mean living quarters different from those of non-Sea Org staff?
Living quarters and places of work.
>From my understanding, which could well be wrong, some staff live in >communal quarters while others live in their own homes, depending on >their marital status and circumstances.
That's also my understanding, and it would apply to both SO staff and normal staff. I lived in both environment, SO and non-SO, and I never saw any difference in conditions of living or of work.
>I have been led to believe >that Sea Org staff must live in Sea Org quarters--at least when they >are living at Flag or in LA. >When they are sent as "missionaires" to >lower orgs, of course, there are not enough Sea Org members to justify >separate berthing arrangements, so I imagine they live where they can.
Most of the time SO missionaries would be housed by the local org managers. Missionaries were respected, if not feared. To my knowledge, they were given the best accommodation the org could provide them with.
>From my discussions with Scientologists[tm] in various stages of >leaving the organization, Sea Org members definitely dislike being >sent off to a lower org as a "missionaire" because of the lack of CoS- >provided food and housing.
Isn't that strange? If SO quarters and conditions of living/working are so dreadful, why did they dislike being sent off to a lower org as a missionary? Surely, the accommodation the lower org provided them as a guess of honor would be better than their daily rice and beans and other chain lockers ;-)
I think that their problem with missions comes from an other source. They had to "get the show on the road" and "make things go right". Maybe that's not so pleasant.
>While at Flag or LA, they receive food and >housing free of charge. When sent to lower orgs, they must provide >this for themselves out of the meager living stipend they receive from >the CoS. This is difficult to do.
I don't think so. My experience of this is that they were housed and fed by the local org.
As for the accounting of any penny a missionaries has to do, according to Joe, this seems only fair. I also have to present to my current employer (and no, it isn't OSA ;-) every bill of the expenses made abroad if I want to be re-imbursed.
>I have discussed this problem with the Sea Org husband of a Sea Org >wife who became pregnant and decided to carry the pregnancy to term. >The couple was told they would be sent out to a lower-level (Class >IV?) org because of her pregnancy. Their concern over how they could >raise a child in their reduced circumstances as "missionaires" led >them both to apply for (and receive) leaves of absence from the Sea >Org.
Again, if they are concerned for the conditions in which they can raise their child in a lower org compared to a SO environment, this would indicate that the SO environment is better than the one of the lower org, isn't it? It would run against the argument that the living/working conditions of the SO are worst than those of the lower org.
Or do you mean to say that the SO environment offers them an easier way of living, where everything is provided for them, and that it would be more difficult for a SO member to find ways to sustain himself than it would be for a non-SO member?
Again, I don't see why. Many staff members (non-SO and SO members alike) often do what is referred to as "Moonlighting", i.e. have occasional jobs on the outside to complement their need. I always did, both in the local org and in the GO WW. Many of my peers did the same, including many SO members from the GO. Some of them even owned companies in the East Grinstead area.
>I doubt if non-Sea Org staff is faced with such problems, Bernie. >Ar non-Sea Org staff members ever demoted to lower level orgs for getting >pregnant?
I don't know. You and Joe said this happened. It might be. Are the conditions different in the US than they are in Europe? In Danemark, where I lived and worked with SO personnel too, I saw more than a few pregnant women and more than a few babies (I mention it in my story). They even had a Kindergarten for them, with special staff whose job it was to manage the Kindergarten and look after the children.
>It's my understanding that the RPF exists only for Sea Org members.
Joe said so too, but based himself on the fact that 'Directives and documents regarding the "RPF" are Sea Org only issues and they are not generally available outside of the confines of a Sea Org org.' This says nothing about the RPF being a Sea Org member only "privilege", only that existing documents are SO only issues.
Of courses, RPFs may only exit in larger orgs, and larger orgs may be considered as SO orgs. But this doesn't prevent, IMO, a non-SO member to be sent in the RPF just as well.
>I realize that staff members can be placed in lower ethics conditions >and be required to work their way back, but I hadn't heard that they >could be subjected to the RPF.
RPF is an extreme, almost last-hope measure. I think that very few people are assigned to it.
The only sign of RPF I ever saw was in Danemark, when I had to temporary stay at the same place in which they lived. There were about 2 or 5 people in it. They weren't locked in basements neither tortured, as some people would like us to believe. They could "blow" any time they wanted - and so did they, actually.
Is there any ex-members posting to this newsgroup who actually experienced the RPF? Maybe. I just don't remember ever having read about it. If so, what is the percentage between those who did and those who didn't?
I was never sent to the RPF, even though I told straight in the face of Jane kember's direct assistant: "I want to leave, please route me out". I also don't know any of my friends who were sent to the RPF, although many experienced difficult living and working conditions - both as SO staff and non-SO staff.
>Some organizations, such as RTC and the CSI are, I believe, staffed >*only* by Sea Org members. I remember this being discussed in CoS >lawsuits against the IRS when they were attempting to get tax-exempt >status for these organizations (before the IRS capitulation).
Maybe. Joe says that Advanced organizations are SO only. I lived and studied in the two main advanced SO organizations in Europe (Danemark and Saint Hill). In addition, I lived and worked in the two main administrative organizations in Europe (the Europe and Africa Center in Copenhagen and the Guardian Office World Wide), admittedly organizations akin to high level managements entities such as RTC and CSI. I never saw anything in either of
...
>Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> wrote in article ><33d53c90.3368...@news.snafu.de>... >> In <19970710180300.OAA29...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ronsam...@aol.com >> (RonsAmigo) wrote:
>> >Amigo
>> You have still not been able to tell the difference between an >> anti-black bigot and a scientologist, Amigo.
>> --- Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
>> Speaking of all-consuming bigots, how is the goose-stepping practice >going? Create your own little Gestapo yet, you mindless little Nazi?.
Garry:
I am sure there are 1000 arsers to come to Tilman's side. Let me be the 1001st.
No matter how much you are being paid for this, no matter how much you are promised, no matter what you think you gain, no matter what fears you consider are alleviated, no matter whom you think you please, no matter anything, because God does not call you to madness, don't do it. Do your part to end the madness. Tell the truth. Even if you are paid to tell lies. Your life is worth more than all the lies from the beginning of dissemblance.
Do not email me. If you will engage me, then let it be in open communication. Answer people's questions.
And for me, please tell the truth about my friend Tilman.
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 02:21:09 -0400, rnew...@thecia.net (Ron Neuman), <rnewman-ya02408000R1007970221090...@snews2.zippo.com> wrote :
->In article <33c4165c.30338...@snews.zippo.com>, refe...@bway.net wrote: ->[to Martin Hunt] -> ->> Although you apologized to me privately, you never corrected the ->> "myth" you participated in spreading about me on this newsgroup. Kim ->> Baker and Ron Newman engaged in some sort of attempted cover-up of her ->> post -- doing a "Rob Clark" by claiming that she had not written the ->> message in spite of irrefutable evidence that she had. I guess I have ->> to include Ron Newman in the category of "mythologizers" as well. -> ->And you'd probably be right to do so. This wasn't one of my ->prouder moments on a.r.s. -> ->-- ->Ron Newman rnew...@thecia.net ->http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
<spit> Sheriff Neuman admits his inaccuracy once again.
<PA TOO EE!>
----------------------------------------------------------- ! Keith Wyatt http://www.teleport.com/~kewyatt ! ! PO Box 18357 Salem, OR 97305 503-373-4696 ! ! PGP KEY by finger and keyservers ! ! Proud member of the Cult of Catholicism. Hail Mary. ! -----------------------------------------------------------
"In all fairness to Larry, there are a probably a lot of lawyer pushing on him to "show them the money;" and, ethically lawyer are, after all, lawyers." Tom Klemesrud on alt.religion.scientology
<Tilman Hausherr : speaking of all-consuming bigots, how is the goose-stepping practice going? Create your own little gestapo yet, you mindless little Nazi.>
Well, Scarff joins Rons Amigo as living examples of what happens to a person who gets involved with scientology. Deviousness, lies and irrational hostility become a major part of their lives. I will qualify this and give Rons Amigo recognition for not displaying the fuming hostility that seems to consume Scarrf.
Perhaps Scarff's renewed scientology friends, Abelson and Rinder will give him some mercy auditing, perhaps at the OT III level. This may be one of his BTs (body thetans) that is babbling away. And a miracle touch assist from John Travolta would be welcome. If they work on horses as someone recently proclaimed, they ought to work on Scarff.
refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote: >What do you consider "bullying" about the above quote, Martin?
All I have to say is that if you ever have the gall to post your "Roman Catholic Church" harangue again, I will tear into you like a pit bull into a toy poodle, Diane.
>Has it stopped Arnie Lerma from posting his Liberty Tree essay to this >newsgroup? Did it produce dozens of posts mocking Lerma's sentiments? >Was Lerma laughed off the newsgroup because of this sarcastic quip? >You know as well as I that it did none of those things, nor was it >intended to.
Please consider this an all-purpose apology to you. Whenever you read anything of mine that offends, irritates, or otherwise irks you, just pull out this post and read my ready-made apology to you, Diane.
>Arnie Lerma repetitiously posted a screed in which he detailed reasons >why Scientologists[tm] should be forbidden to hold government >positions. Many of the reasons he gave for keeping >Scientologists[tm] out of the government directly refuted the concept >of personal liberty he endorses in his "Liberty Tree" essay. Perhaps >you are incapable of recognizing the irony in supporting the civil >liberties of everyone *but* Scientologists[tm], as Arnie Lerma >appeared to do in the post to which I was responding. The point was >not lost on other readers.
It was not irony, Diane. I'm amazed at your eagerness to offer up psychological analyses of me based on nothing more substantial than my Usenet posts. Like most people, I'm far too complex to understand than that.
>I do not understand why you consider the above quote an example of >bullying behavior. The only ridicule expressed in it was >self-ridicule. Do you think that describing myself as a "pit bull" >somehow insults Arnie Lerma?
I have readily admitted that I've been wrong. I'm not sure why it's so important for you to believe otherwise.
>What do you mean by "slap them down," Martin? What do you want me to >do? Could you be specific and post an example of what you consider a >"sickeningly sycophantic post" from an "AOL friend" of mine? I have >not used my AOL account (if, indeed, it is still active) for more than >a year. Do you think I hold court somewhere deep within some AOL >inner sanctum? I do not. I no longer even have the AOL software on
>my computer.
Up to this point, you have refused to explain what it is about my post that you find "wrong." I will be glad to engage in a flame-free discussion of this post with you if you so desire. If you don't wish to discuss the post, I can only surmise that all you wish is an admission of error from me and an apology from me.
>The friends I made on AOL are Judith Bradford, Tashback, Neil Woods, >and Cerberus. The only post Judith Bradford has made recently was an >endorsement of Rob Clark's apology for lying about the line he claimed >was a forgery. I fail to see how that post could be considered >"sickeningly sycophantic."
If you wish to point out the flaws in the post, do so. We can discuss our differences of opinion. I have already attempted to do this with you, unsuccessfully.
>Neil Woods recently posted a series of AOL CoS folder messages. I was >not the subject of his posts and was not mentioned in them. I also >fail to see how those posts could be considered "sickeningly >sycophantic."
Since you've admitted that you don't know about the hierarchy of the Sea Org and stated that you don't wish to learn about it, I don't understand how you can claim that the post was faulty.
>Tashback has posted responses to pro-CoS posters' a.r.s. messages >here. None of them mention me at all. How are her posts "sickeningly >sycophantic"?
My hackles are not raised. I do not have adrenaline surging through me as I post. I'm not sure why you believe you are capable of assessing my emotional state by reading my words. Your perception of my emotional state is very, very inaccurate.
>I haven't seen Cerberus post to this newsgroup for quite some time, >sadly.
>I don't believe I ever ran into Rebecca Hartong on AOL, if she ever >had an account there at all. The only contact I've had with Rebecca >is here on the newsgroup. We have, perhaps, exchanged 3 or 4 e-mails >over the years we've both participated on a.r.s. While I respect her >opinions and enjoy reading her posts, we could hardly consider >ourselves friends. Do you include her in the group you call my "AOL >friends"?
That response, and the one that followed, made it quite clear that you had no desire to discuss the issues raised by the post. Your only purpose in posting was to tell me that I was wrong, without defending your opinion.
>Have I missed anyone that you consider my "AOL friend"? If so, please >let me know who it is you consider belongs in that category.
>I don't know what you mean by "coming on to you that way." In fact, >I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about at all. No one >has "come on to me," at least not as I understand that phrase, and I >certainly don't see how what you're describing constitutes "herd >mentality."
You have posted lengthy "analyses" of me on ars., Diane. If anyone doubts this, a simple dejanews search on Diane's id and the subject "Bullshit Thread" will pull up at least one of them posted just a few months ago.
>I know nothing, Martin. You know everything. I would not even dare >think that I might be able to teach you anything.
-- Cogito, ergo sum. ARS & Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282 Warning: strong spamblocking software in effect; include "xenu" or "arscc" in From:, To:, or Subject: headers, or your email will not get through.
mart...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote: >Neither have I. It was a trivial affair, no better than Bernie's >recent comments about my wife which I also choose to ignore.
??? Now I learn something. Did I comment about your wife, Martin?
Please post where I did so. I have no recollection of this whatsoever.
refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote: >You have done your part in forwarding a.r.s. myths, Martin. I guess >that would make you an "a.r.s. mythologizer," along with Kim Baker and >the other people with whom you shared gossip.
I'll add it to my .sig; thank you. "Official Mythologizer". It has kind of a snappy ring to it, actually. I shared gossip with Kim? BWAHAHAHA! Where's Jon Atack when you need him to correct an outright lie? :-) You couldn't be further from the mark. Kim and I were not on speaking terms, and, to put it mildly, I didn't believe that she had not made that famous post about you.
>Let me state that I would not bring up this incident if it were not >for your "challenge." I believe it's something better left forgotten, >but since you are insisting, I will cooperate.
Oh, yes, the "you forced me into it" line. This is, what, the 8th time you've done this, I believe. I thought the times you used it over Bast and Rob were the best; I look forward to you using the same tactic on me, finally. Geez, for the founder of the arscc, I get no respect around here. I wonder if you'll be able to upset me as much as you uspet them? <looks inside to emotional state> Nope; don't think so. I think I'll just relax and have fun with it. Cerberus has the right attitude. It's so easy to lose slack nowadays with people who take everything *far* too seriously and are *far* too uptight about life. You go for it; I intend to have fun. You'll have to excuse me for that. :-)
>You may recall that, in the midst of a vicious flamewar with Dennis, >you claimed that I was committing adultery. Your words were, I >believe, something to the effect that Dennis was "fucking Diane behind >her husband's back." If you insist, I will locate the entire post and >repost it here in full. I think you will agree that I am not >misrepresenting what you wrote.
Sure, I could have said that. Why don't you dig up the exact quote? Far be it from me to push the slackless time under the rug. It's all true!
>Kim Baker, at about the same time, also brought up that myth. She was >not quite so blunt about it, asking me, rather, if I was really >committing adultery and asking if I didn't think such unethical >behavior might afffect my credibility on the newsgroup.
Is this the post allegedly from Kim, which she denied? Several people who were around at the time, including Kim herself, know what my reaction was to all of that.
>Immediately after you posted your comment, I e-mailed you. It was not >a flame (although I certainly would have been justified for roasting >you over that comment). I explained to you that I had been divorced >for about a decade and that I was certainly not committing adultery >with anyone.
Hmm; I vaguely recall that, now that you mention it. (see, Cerberus, you have to keep her strung along; your approach, ie, "take me now!" was *far* too direct. Also, mention of leathers and whips should stay for *after* you get her aroused.)
>You did not reply to my post.
I seem to recall an apology I sent you; must be my lousy memory, again.
>You did, however, repeat the charge in >yet another post directed at Dennis. Once again, I e-mailed you to >let you know that I was not married -- that, in fact, I had not been >married for quite some time. Once again, you failed to respond to my >e-mail message.
You sent me *two* email messages?
>Months later, you offered me a rather belated apology for your
Months later? It only seemed like a day or two. Well, when you get to my age, memory starts to play tricks on you. <cough cough>
>defamatory and inaccurate comment about me. You told me that Kim >Baker had not passed the "myth" along to you in e-mail. You stated >that she had not been the source; rather, the source was someone who >corresponded with both of you and who was considered a credible source >of valid information by a.r.s. "regulars."
>When I asked you to identify the person spreading such a "myth" behind >my back, you refused to reveal your source.
Well, I couldn't, as it was told to me in confidence. I still cannot mention the source of that; I'm stubborn on such little points of nettiquette. I agree I'm torn with it; my usual habit in such cases is to just email the person in question (ask Steve Fishman and many others about that one) with the backstabbing. Despite your usual hysteria about "backchannels", very little of my voluminous correspondence is gossip about anyone, never mind you of all people.
Diane, I believe you've seen an example of this recently where I emailed you comments from an exchange with someone else, someone else who, btw, was very angry about my deciding to post you my words to avoid talking about you behind your back, but I still consider what I write to be my property, and I do with it as I see fit, in this case, sending you a copy of the comments. I could hope you'd extend the same courtesy to me, but I doubt you would. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to do the right thing, even if your only reply isn't a thank you for being direct in my dealings with you - it's not about you, but about me. I want to able to look at myself in the mirror, and if you at least have access to the remarks, you can use your able skills to defend yourself, as I believe you are quite capable of doing. But how can you defend yourself against comments that you don't even know about? If anything, by emailing or posting such gossip as I hear, (and these two bits here aren't the only examples; I'm sure you'll recall the "fucking bivalve post" and maybe others) it is at least brought out into daylight, where you can say
something about it.
If you would rather that from now on, whenever I hear something about you I keep it hidden from you, just say the word, Diane.
>I have never again asked >you about who was spreading such inaccurate gossip about me. In fact, >I've never mentioned the entire episode since.
Neither have I. It was a trivial affair, no better than Bernie's recent comments about my wife which I also choose to ignore. As the Queen once said, "it's better not to mention such things." :-)
>Although you apologized to me privately, you never corrected the >"myth" you participated in spreading about me on this newsgroup.
Far from participating in spreading, Diane, I was the one who exposed the myth to the light of day, and allowed you to contradict it. If you'd rather I kept such things from you, just say the word. Most people would probably want to know what was being said about them behind their back rather than pretend it isn't happening, but I'll follow your wishes on it. As a Diane Groupie, can I do less? Boy, you sure ride your groupies hard, don't you? I signed on for the groupie part, but not the S&M. Cerberus? Here's your chance, Hadean hound!
>Kim >Baker and Ron Newman engaged in some sort of attempted cover-up of her >post -- doing a "Rob Clark" by claiming that she had not written the >message in spite of irrefutable evidence that she had. I guess I have >to include Ron Newman in the category of "mythologizers" as well.
Well, maybe you'll remember me kindly then about that incident. I refused to believe Kim at the time, a fact I'm not proud of, as later events have shown me that there's a good possibility she did not, in fact, make that post. I'm now uncertain about it, and I'll probably never know the truth about it, but I'm no longer so certain that she lied to me about it. It's annoying; I like to be able to nail things to the floor, but in this case, there's no way to know for certain.
>I hope I have answered the "challenge" to your satisfaction, Martin.
Yes, very satisfying. Your groupie thanks you.
>You were more than willing to forward inaccurate, defamatory gossip on >this newsgroup when it suited your purpose.
Right. That purpose being exposing inaccurate, defamatory gossip. Just say the word, and I'll keep it all to myself from now on, and you'll never know what's being said about you behind your back, Diane.
>You have never felt any >compunction to publicly correct the errors you forwarded, even when >you knew that the gossip you were engaging in was entirely wrong.
Take, as an example, this:
"I hear that Pat Broeker is still in Scientology, working as HHU staff at Hemet cocksucking David Miscavige. Does anyone know more about this?"
Is that: A. a question raised. B. a "error" I "forwarded"?
You can twist it as much as you want, but I'd by lying if I didn't consider your feelings about having gossip going on behind your back. I'm out of the loop with certain people I considered friends over all this for taking my stand on it, but I cannot do otherwise - it's my nature, Diane.
As I said to Margaret on the phone not long ago about you in re gossip and attacks "how do you think *she* feels about it?" I'm not without an awareness of all of this and the possible impact on you; it comes as part of the groupie hat. If I were really so full of malice as you think me, I would be engaged in all kinds of vicious gossip about you behind your back at the moment, but I'm not. What little has been said has been forwarded to you a couple days ago before my computer troubles. What would you have, keep it to myself or forward a copy to you? Would you rather it stay on your famous "backchannels" (which is becoming a verifiable word here; congrats), or be posted out in the open?
You say the word; I'll respect your wishes either way.
>Now I will offer you a challenge, Martin. I will agree to continue >expanding my list of "a.r.s. mythologizers" if you will agree to post >the names of all the people who were engaging in e-mail gossip about >my marital status.
Hmm. That's a bit tricky. You're asking me to turn in people who explicitly asked that their names not be revealed. In return, you're offering up your murky thoughts about certain people. Hardly a fair trade now, is is? Tell you what, if you tell me all the
...
refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote: >On 9 Jul 1997 13:49:17 -0700, mart...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) >wrote: >Martin, I've taken the liberty to re-insert the "blather" which you >snipped from your response.
Must you? These threads seem interminable. I get the feeling that time has stopped. It's almost like doing TR0 to a supervisor pass, Ma'am.
But I'm just the lowly groupthinking, mythologizing groupie. Who am I to question the wisdom of these massive threads about nothing? All that spurs me on is that dirty dog, and the thought of making him jealous. If he hadn't jumped into the middle of all of this, I would have dropped it, allowed Diane another well-deserved victory over the white male oppressor, and moved on to something else more entertaining. After all, this is what we do with our leasure time, isn't it?
>I think it's only fitting that I be given >an opportunity to challenge you on exactly the same point on which you >challenged me in another post.
Diane, I would never dream of giving you an opportunity which you can take whenever you want in any case by sheer steamrollerability. :-)
>You wrote, and then snipped:
>I replied, and you snipped:
>Although you now appear to view this exchange as nothing but >"blather," just today you "challenged" me to stop generalizing and >"name names." I quote from another message you posted to this >thread today:
Here; I've kept in everything you say. I must tell you, it was non-malicious snipping. Diane, nothing was missed, nothing was forgotten, you were not slighted, but, if someone doesn't snip, the threads will extend beyond the capacity of many newsreaders (60kb per post cutoff on size) to even *see*! Must we write book-length posts back and forth? Can't we just do a little executie summary of what's been said to date in a few sentences? Brevity, I realize, is an acquired taste, but still!
>Martin, need I point out that you have engaged in exactly the same >thing you claim to dislike in my posts? Who are my "AOL friends"? >What do you consider "sickeningly sycophantic" posts from these >unnamed people?
You're right, Diane; I'm wrong. Consider this an all-purpose apology from your humble groupie. Whenever you see something in one of my posts that you disagree with, pull out this apology and cut and paste it in. I'm sorry for disagreeing with you, Diane.
>Martin, I challenge you now to not repeat this logical error and >define the subset of the ars posters whom you label with this new >generalization. Who are my "AOL friends"? What do you mean by >their "sickeningly sycophantic" posts?
Diane, I challenge you now to not repeat this logical error and define the subset of the ars posters whom you label with this new generalization. Who are the "Groupthinkers"? What do you mean by their "sickeningly uniform" opinions?
And I know you've said who a few of the mythologizers are, and I thank you for that, particularly since I made the cut, and I've added that to my sadly withered vanity sig, which I'll here include, but who, besides Kim, Ron, and myself is an official ars mythologizer? Surely, you wouldn't claim that these two people, both of whom I've gone months without corresponding to at times, are my only fellow mythologizers? And can the mythology only apply to *you*, to your esteemed person? I could have sworn when you invented this new label that you were using it in a more general case, as to apply to other opinions, not just gossip about Diane?
>I have responded to your challenge. I would hope you have the >civility to respond to mine.
I have responded to your challenge and named one of your AOL buddies who use sycophantism and even gave an example of when he used it to look up, and the thread name. I hope you have the civility to respond to mine.
Cerberus, are you learning anything?
-- Ex-Scn and proud to be a Wog, FAQ maintainer, Member - ars moderation team, Black Hat #4 (AS, CAN), The Jester, J&D #1, Fearless Leader, KoX, 1.1, Sally's loverboy, Enturbulator, the Royal We, little Hitler, keeper of the sacred C word, read OT III and didn't get pneumonia, multiple Kobringram recipient, Merchant of Chaos, OSA INT ARS Project I/C, Critic, Hate Monger, DB, copyright terrorist, Original ARS Bigot, in the front of the bus (with an ARS babe on my lap), Studmuffin of ars, Basher, Homo Sap, Meatball, Cancelled from ARS, OSA File# 700167r, Two-Faced Liar, FO-SP, KoH, KL 24, GGBC, Founder-ARSCC, lead balloon PMS winner, item j on cult's search-term hit list in Grady case, word-twister, Alpha Male, master troller, ARSCC books project I/C, KBM, leading suppressive, SP 5, PC minion, another OSA plant, fair use censored by $cientology, ARShole, Official Groupthinker, Usenet Neo-Nazi, Grady mouth case, One Third Hunt, part-time volunteer consulting Swedish supervisor, Hate-Seller of the Month candidate, KFBG, punch-drunk ars addict, Diane Groupie, Official ARS Mythologizer, a dozen more forgotten - 10,000+ ars posts. Webpages: Just the FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282 ARSCC Photo Gallery: http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/arscc.htm Art Online: http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/hompage.html Email: uo...@freenet.victoria.bc.ca av...@freenet.carleton.ca mart...@freenet.hut.fi mart...@islandnet.com foun...@arscc.com
<Rolan...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote: >Bernie wrote: >> In article <SXUyzMdlg85P09...@islandnet.com> >> mart...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote: >> >Neither have I. It was a trivial affair, no better than Bernie's >> >recent comments about my wife which I also choose to ignore. >> ??? Now I learn something. Did I comment about your wife, >> Martin? >> Please post where I did so. I have no recollection of this >> whatsoever. >On Deja News >----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Martin might be not always read, but.. he's been out for a while..
>At least that's what his wife said. >----------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL. Is that the "comments about my wife" on which Martin takes offence? These were made in a completely fantasied post which I repost here under. Take special notice to my very first paragraph, that says "Warning: This post is for entertaining purpose only."
Coming from people who are defending the cause of ridiculing the COS' spiritual tenets, I am surprised they seem not to be able to see the irony of this post.
----------------- start of repost ---------------------
From: b...@arcadis.be (Bernie) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.flame Subject: Asshole looking for posters to plonk [was: Re: Stupid, childish plonkers was: Re: are apologists for cannibals as bad as cannibals?] Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:08:43 GMT Message-ID: <34505865.175293449@news.Belgium.EU.net>
Warning: This post is for entertaining purpose only.
>i realize that it's not really cool to off or <snip> everything that somebody >says..
You should keep something on. Here - take that towel.
>but look at it this way.. >Bernie.. I'm at least in as many killfiles as you.
Sorry, my agenda is full.
>I'm an asshole.
And you think you're cute.
>or even worse.. the people looking are pompous assholes. >so..
Never mind.
>I can tell you one thing. >I've never plonked anybody,
It's never too late, ya know. Ask your neighbor, maybe he would agree.
>it may have to do with that I use WinVN.
I use London Befeuchtet Markenpräservative.
>I don't undertand this whole thread shit
It's German.
>I see with Netscape or about a dozen >other newsreaders.
A bit like wearing a dozen glasses at the same time. No wonder that you never plonked anybody.
>As it happens, I read everything.
You should present yourself to the arshole of the year contest.
>And I've never felt like not reading anybody.
Scientology can help you with that.
>I do skip around. >If I have about a half hour.. I'll go look at Dennis,
Wow! Is he to be seen somewhere in a red window, a bar, or a sidewalk?
>Grady, Rnewman and >anybody else who interests me
I am not sure they are available. You can always try.
>Bernie.. you are sometimes in that high group.
Thanks, but I am very busy, you know.
>Because I don't want to just hear what I agree with.
That's not my style, but as I was spying on Dennis, I heard him saying something like "yes, yes, OSA scum, hit me, hurt me, aaargh...". You may try him.
>If I have a half hour.. >I can look through as to time
Half an hour would be about enough time.
>PopeC is always read
I suspected that.
>Martin might be not always read, but.. he's been out for a while..
At least that's what his wife said.
>He's also been not so interesting last 10 posts..
He may be getting bored with you. Ask Grady for advices.
>Admittedly.. at least 2 of his posts were very much worth reading.
Shhhhhhh! Kids may be reading this.
>So.. >if I had plonked him.. >I never would have seen them.
True, unless you were some kind of yogi who could stretch somehow.
>But Bernie.. I don't even like you..
No, no, look over there, what a nice post from Martin, Mmmmm.
>why haven't I plonked you?
I am not the one you think, you know.
>(answer: I live in your world, and enjoy you being here)
Eh, it's *my* bed, get out. I have no time.
>what's the opposite of "plonk" >plink?
Sorry, I really have no time. Try someone else <door shut>.
Bernie
------------------- end of repost --------------------------
On 13 Jul 1997 14:43:06 -0700, mart...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
[snip]
>Please consider this an all-purpose apology to you. Whenever you read >anything of mine that offends, irritates, or otherwise irks you, just >pull out this post and read my ready-made apology to you, Diane.
On 13 Jul 1997 14:42:59 -0700, mart...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
[snip]
>Sure, I could have said that. Why don't you dig up the exact quote? >Far be it from me to push the slackless time under the rug. It's >all true!
There are still enough people reading this newsgroup who remember your statement, Martin. I'm not going to repost it unless you deny having written it. You know you wrote it.
>>Kim Baker, at about the same time, also brought up that myth. She was >>not quite so blunt about it, asking me, rather, if I was really >>committing adultery and asking if I didn't think such unethical >>behavior might afffect my credibility on the newsgroup.
>Is this the post allegedly from Kim, which she denied? Several >people who were around at the time, including Kim herself, know >what my reaction was to all of that.
This is not about your reaction to Kim Baker's post, Martin. This is about your use of unverified (and incorrect) gossip on this newsgroup. Not only did you forward this inaccurate gossip, you never publicly corrected your accusation once you learned it was false.
>>Immediately after you posted your comment, I e-mailed you. It was not >>a flame (although I certainly would have been justified for roasting >>you over that comment). I explained to you that I had been divorced >>for about a decade and that I was certainly not committing adultery >>with anyone.
>Hmm; I vaguely recall that, now that you mention it. (see, Cerberus, >you have to keep her strung along; your approach, ie, "take me now!" >was *far* too direct. Also, mention of leathers and whips should >stay for *after* you get her aroused.)
Martin, your efforts at sexual banter are pathetic. Your recent exchanges with Cerberus, which you cc'd to me, do not rise even to the level of a socially inept 14-year-old trying to learn to cope with his surging hormones.
If you really have that much difficulty dealing with your masculinity, I'd suggest that you seek professional help. You might wish to begin by sharing your recent writings with your wife. Perhaps the two of you can work out your problems together. I sincerely hope you can.
>>You did not reply to my post.
>I seem to recall an apology I sent you; must be my lousy memory, >again.
As stated below, you e-mailed an apology to me months after you made your a.r.s. posts. We exchanged e-mail and participated in a.r.s. discussions on other matters between the time you posted your accusation and the time you apologized for it. I never mentioned it to you in the interim. I was willing to let the matter drop.
>>You did, however, repeat the charge in >>yet another post directed at Dennis. Once again, I e-mailed you to >>let you know that I was not married -- that, in fact, I had not been >>married for quite some time. Once again, you failed to respond to my >>e-mail message.
>You sent me *two* email messages?
Yes, I wrote you with the facts two separate times, both times after you posted inaccurate information about my private life to the newsgroup. I wanted to make sure you understood the information you had been told about me was wrong. I did not receive a response from you either time.
>>Months later, you offered me a rather belated apology for your
>Months later? It only seemed like a day or two. Well, when you get >to my age, memory starts to play tricks on you. <cough cough>
>>defamatory and inaccurate comment about me. You told me that Kim >>Baker had not passed the "myth" along to you in e-mail. You stated >>that she had not been the source; rather, the source was someone who >>corresponded with both of you and who was considered a credible source >>of valid information by a.r.s. "regulars."
>>When I asked you to identify the person spreading such a "myth" behind >>my back, you refused to reveal your source.
>Well, I couldn't, as it was told to me in confidence. I still cannot >mention the source of that; I'm stubborn on such little points of >nettiquette. I agree I'm torn with it; my usual habit in such cases >is to just email the person in question (ask Steve Fishman and many >others about that one) with the backstabbing. Despite your usual >hysteria about "backchannels", very little of my voluminous correspondence >is gossip about anyone, never mind you of all people.
I am unable, then, to provide you with the names of all a.r.s. mythologizers as you challenged me to do, Martin. You are aware of who the others are. You have made me aware that there are others, but you have not identified them.
I'm sure you will understand why I resort to "generalizations" about a.r.s. mythologizers then. Your acknowledgement that such people exist is good enough for me.
[Martin's rambling justification for his actions snipped.]
>>Although you apologized to me privately, you never corrected the >>"myth" you participated in spreading about me on this newsgroup.
>Far from participating in spreading, Diane, I was the one who >exposed the myth to the light of day,
You are justifying a morally unjustifiable action. You did not expose a myth to the light of day. You perpetuated a myth. You spread this myth without making any effort to ascertain its accuracy, even though doing so would have been as simple as sending me e-mail.
Although I realize it makes no difference to you, my estimation of your character has just fallen even lower.
[Effort at deflecting the discussion to Kim Baker snipped.]
>>You were more than willing to forward inaccurate, defamatory gossip on >>this newsgroup when it suited your purpose.
>Right. That purpose being exposing inaccurate, defamatory gossip.
That was not your purpose in posting the gossip, Martin. You were not engaged in a discussion of the accuracy of backchannel gossip. You presented the gossip as fact. You did so as part of an all-out attack on Dennis Erlich, with whom you were fighting at the time.
There are plenty of people around who remember the incident, Martin. Your attempt to misrepresent what you said in an effort to justify your action is an embarrassment.
the indefatigable mart...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote an enormous amount of bandwidth because:
>In article <33c42a4c.35442...@snews.zippo.com>, >refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) some more stuff >that is obviously WAY over my head:
[MASSIVE snip]
>Cerberus, are you learning anything?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... Huh? Wha'?
Gosh. Sorry Martin. I dropped off about 600 paragraphs ago. Dogs don't have much attention span. Mostly we sleep, and when we wake up we pretty much wonder whether it's time to eat.
But I did save some Shakespeare for you in case you run out of things to say about Diane. Wouldn't want this fascinating dialogue to die out just 'cause the damned dog can't stay awake.
So when's dinner?
Best,
Cerberus ___________
O, she misused me past the endurance of a block! An oak but with one green leaf on it would have answered her...She told me...that I was duller than a great thaw; huddling jest upon jest, with such impossible conveyance, upon me, that I stood like a man at a mark, with a whole army shooting at me. She speaks poniards, and every word stabs. If her breath were as terrible as her terminations, there were no living near her; she would infect the north star. I would not marry her, though she were endowed with all that Adam had left him before he transgressed. She would have made Hercules have turned spit, yea, and have cleft his club to make the fire too. Come, talk not of her. You shall find her the infernal Ate in good apparel. I would to God some scholar would conjure her; for certainly, while she is here, a man may live as quiet in hell as in a sanctuary; and people sin on purpose, because they would go thither; so indeed, all disquiet, horror and perturbation follows her.
"In Germany they first came for the insane, raving, IQ-testing, barratrous, money-laundering, tax-dodging cultists, and I didn't speak up because I was not an insane, raving, IQ-testing, barratrous, money-laundering, tax-dodging cultist. Then things got MUCH better, and we're all fine now. Thanks for asking."
(Cerberus) wrote: >Hiya Martin, >the indefatigable mart...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote an >enormous amount of bandwidth because: >>In article <33c42a4c.35442...@snews.zippo.com>, >>refe...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) some more stuff >>that is obviously WAY over my head: >[MASSIVE snip] >>Cerberus, are you learning anything? >Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..... Huh? Wha'? >Gosh. Sorry Martin. I dropped off about 600 paragraphs ago. Dogs >don't have much attention span. Mostly we sleep, and when we wake up >we pretty much wonder whether it's time to eat. >But I did save some Shakespeare for you in case you run out of things >to say about Diane. Wouldn't want this fascinating dialogue to die >out just 'cause the damned dog can't stay awake.
I am glad to hear that I am not the only one who couldn't make much sense of Martin's reply. I even missed where he named the AOL buddy who recently made a sycophantic post on Diane. Is it a sort of "find where it is buried" game or what? I call on your infallible dog's nose, Cerber. I promise I'll give you some reaaaaaally tasty stuff if you find it.
bernie wrote:>>As you say, he or she is supposed to be 100% on the job. In
real terms, I saw them moonlighting just like non-SO staff members.<<
Interesting - I only ever saw moonlighting by SO members on a very very small scale and then only on occasion.
>>Until then, I view claims of people being chained in the
basement and being tortured in the RPF as anything short of a true picture.<<
I have seen a lot of the RPFs - in PAC, Flag, UK and EU and I did the RPF at Flag - on no occasion, and I mean on no occasion did I ever see any physical abuse. You said in your posting (and which I forgot to include above) that someone could walk out of the RPF and blow - yep this is true but I think on that score you miss out on some other aspects: 1) Married partners - should the person blowing tell his or her partner they intend to go? If their partner is "true blue" they will report the person to ethics for "handling" if they do not say anything they risk losing their partner. 2) any kids? Collect the kids? Leave them and come back later? 3) Money for living expenses, travel? Most SO members have very little money. Other ex-so members on ARS, I hope, can provide further background. 4) Peer pressure - in my experience (which, I hasten to add is not all embracing by far) most who originally blow or leave are unhappy with their current circumstances rather than being "anti-scientology" per se. First off they have to get past the feeling that they are betraying their friends and their group, they also have to overcome a lot of indoctrination about themselves - for example by POLICY all "ex-SO members" are officially (by the man himself) Degraded Beings (ie scum) - when you have been folliwng that teaching, sometimes for years, it is hard to overcome.
>>What would be a concrete example of that?<<
Lying? Well the first one would be "Scientology is compatible with other religions" - this is utter rubbish as CST has admitted in their submission to the IRS. Scientology doctrine in PR has a concept known as "The Acceptable Truth" what that means is that if one considers that telling the whole truth would be unacceptable either because it would outrage the recipient or would make the church look bad then one has to find something that will cover the bases and (and this is important) cannot be proven to be not true. An example of this would be "There is no church of Scientology in Israel". In fact there is an org and its called a Religious Education Center because calling it a church would cause it all sorts of problems.
> Diane Richardson wrote: >> mre...@rmi.nospam.net (Michael Reuss) wrote: >> ...[Diane's snip]... >>I think Diane was embarrassed by her own lame opinions. She apparently >>had some sense of shame or pride or something. Of course, she's not >>physically prevented from posting here. I hope she comes back someday. >>Maybe you should learn something from this episode. Ridicule is power. >>Mass movements are very powerful. >> I have nothing to be embarrassed or ashamed about, Michael.
What was I thinking? I must have been projecting. Yeah, projecting, that's the ticket. Were I you, I would have been embarrassed had I made the "Leo Ryan deserved to die at the hands of Jim Jones for being an arrogant politician, but wait no, Jim Jones is at fault after all" argument you made just prior to your oh-so-gracious departure. But I must have simply misunderstood your argument.
>> I'm curious as to why you feel justified attributing emotional >> reasons for my recent absence from this newsgroup.
I guess I was all wrong about you yet again. Silly me, I thought I had detected a whiff of peevishness on your part.
I guess I misunderstood your kind and compassionate words about how worthless the newsgroup had become. I misinterpreted your calm, peaceful thoughts with goodwill towards all, and malice towards none. Your words of love and friendship to Rob and Monica especially moved me.
>> Should I do the same and conjecture that you've been shamed into >> silence when you're away from the newsgroup, too?
Say whatever you like, Diane. You always do...
-- Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail) Honorary Kid
borkbor...@aol.com (BorkBorkem) wrote in article <19970707030101.XAA14...@ladder01.news.aol.com>:
>After the events of Feb. 95 an upsurge in the ars census included >a high proportion of people able to think through and craft a well >written, substantive post. However the news that "this is where the >really interesting fight on the net is" brought along a different element >as well, and a considerable amount of nastiness (while long present >on ars) uptrended as well, to go along with the Scientology flack >tactics that uptrended. Just at the present moment we are >seeing in ars a downtrend of the mostly picket-and-taunt oriented >poster, which might be seasonal or might not, though it remains a >dominant thrust of posting often.
A good point. ARS may turn now more interesting as a reflection forum rather than a confrontational one.
"Jack Craver" <inmi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article <01bc8a6f$07852320$292f6020@jacks-box>:
>Geoffrey Burling <llyw...@no.spam.agora.rdrop.com> wrote in article <33bf1eee.18437...@news.zippo.com>... >> Well, Jack, CoS has been accused of lots of crimes by folks here in >> ARS, & they furnish a lot of evidence to back this up. >Where is the evidence on brainwashing or hypnotism. Where is the evidence >that scientology causes husbands to kill thier wives or people to commit >suicide? Wher is the evidence that scientology plans genocide?
An excellent point. There are some evidences of Scn malpracticed, when these are not overly exaggerated or very old. But from there, "critics" claim that they represent evidence for their unrelated and unwarranted claims. That's illogical.
|
