AOL SCN Board is Down
TFC VP
Harrassment of a fellow Scientologist seems to have become the "mission
statement" for a board that claims " An area for the supportive and positive
discussion of Scientology by Church members and Layman". I cannot even begin to
tell you how ridiculous the TOS complaints had become---childish and appalling.
On the internet, as in real life, the church must realize that their
harrassment tactics are not welcome among honest,thinking, feeling people.
This COS has truly become the "make wrong" religion, and that was the only
"fellowship" communication exhibited on the AOL board.
COS must also realize that people will not succumb to their efforts to harrass
and silence those who communicate a different message from their own.
PS. LtD. had nothing whatsoever to do with the closing of this board
They just don't have that kind of juice!
Best Regards
Patricia
Peter Harding
> Hatted posters were abusing the TOS system with unwarranted complaints.
> Harrassment of a fellow Scientologist seems to have become the "mission
> statement" for a board that claims " An area for the supportive and positive
> discussion of Scientology by Church members and Layman". I cannot even begin to
> tell you how ridiculous the TOS complaints had become---childish and appalling.
Please tell us - all us non-AOL people out here can't see these "more
able" people making dicks out of themselves with the tech.
--
Read the truth about Scientology on http://www.xenu.net
Homepage http://i.am/chewie Tel 0870 7878617
GDAuthor
>statement" for a board that claims " An area for the supportive and positive
>discussion of Scientology by Church members and Layman". I cannot even begin
>to
>tell you how ridiculous the TOS complaints had become---childish and
>appalling.
>
harrassment tactics are not welcome among honest,thinking, feeling people.
Although they may not be up to this level of cognition from the way things
look.
>This COS has truly become the "make wrong" religion, and that was the only
>"fellowship" communication exhibited on the AOL board.
>>COS must also realize that people will not succumb to their efforts to
harrass and silence those who communicate a different message from their own.
>--
Obviously, "Safe" really got under their skin, because the purpose of the board
was only to spam each other with good news and fake "wins." I seriously thiink
this was only a sort of trolling effort to snag the occasional passerby from
AOL who asked a question, and then lure them in for a personality test.
>PS. LtD. had nothing whatsoever to do with the closing of this board They just
don't have that kind of juice!
>--
The proof will be in whether they get the board put back, moderated, under
their control. I would say doubtful.
Jeaux
GDAuthor wrote in message <19981203110940...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
>>Harrassment of a fellow Scientologist seems to have become the "mission
>>statement" for a board that claims " An area for the supportive and
positive
>>discussion of Scientology by Church members and Layman". I cannot even
begin
>>to
>>tell you how ridiculous the TOS complaints had become---childish and
>>appalling.
>>
>On the internet, as in real life, the church must realize that their
>harrassment tactics are not welcome among honest,thinking, feeling people.
You need to define those concepts in terms that Scientologists can
understand.
David Alexander
Podkayne
gdau...@aol.com (GDAuthor) wrote:
> I seriously thiink
> this was only a sort of trolling effort to snag the occasional passerby from
> AOL who asked a question, and then lure them in for a personality test.
Not sure about that - whenever a non-Scn asked a question, it seemed they
turned on him pretty quick, no matter what the question was. CLKates,
back when she was a Scn, was chided for responding IIRC.
Ted Mayett (KOX)
Scientology is Expanding
Jeaux
Antaine <cuch...@heII-fIame-wars.org> wrote in article
<3675d68a...@news.alt.net>...
> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 19:52:43 GMT, ORA...@aol.com (ORAC) wrote:
>
> >In article <740frl$2t3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, gschmi...@usa.net
wrote:
> >
> >>I am not a neo-nazi, but I can't stand the idea of Jews talking about
their
> >>past and how they get victimized nowadays.
> >
> >I always get suspicious when someone starts his post off with a comment
> >like "I am not a neo-Nazi" or "I am not an anti-Semite" followed by the
> >word "but." Nine times out of ten, what follows in the post demonstrates
> >that the person is exactly what he says he is not.
>
> Yeah, imagine Jews having the nerve to still be pissed that six
> million of their own were murdered by a drug addicted psychotic
> while, for a time, the rest of the world stood idly by and did
> nothing.
The "holocaust" is a proven hoax. Jews control the media and tell lies
about Hitler. Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"The man who is not opposed and vilified and slandered in the Jewish
Press is not a staunch German and not a true National Socialist. The best
rule whereby the sincerity of his convictions, his character and strength
of will, can be measured is by the hostility which his name arouses among
the mortal enemies of our people.
"The followers of the movement, and indeed the whole nation, must be
reminded again and again of the fact that, through the medium of his
newspapers, the Jew is always spreading falsehood and that if he tells the
truth on some occasions it is only for the purpose of masking some greater
deceit, which turns the apparent truth into a deliberate falsehood. The Jew
is the Great Master of Lies. Falsehood and duplicity are the weapons with
which he fights.
"Every calumny and falsehood published by the Jews are tokens of
honour which can be worn by our comrades. He whom the decry most is nearest
to our hearts and he whom they mortally hate is our best friend.
"If a comrade of ours opens a Jewish newspaper in the morning and
does not find himself vilified there, then he has spent yesterday to no
account. For if he had achieved something he would be persecuted,
slandered, derided and abused. Those who effectively combat this mortal
enemy of our people, who is at the same time the enemy of all Aryan peoples
and all culture, can only expect to arouse opposition on the part of this
race and become the object of its slanderous attacks.
"When these truths become part of the flesh and blood, as it were, of
our members, then the movement will be impregnable and invincible."
KattBoxx
>On the internet, as in real life, the church must realize that their
>harrassment tactics are not welcome among honest,thinking, feeling people.
I have no doubt that the Scientologists on the AOL fellowship board also feel
that they've been harrassed. Given the situation that had developed on the
fellowship board, I'd judge that the AOL Scientologists have more reason to
feel this way than do the AOL critics of Scientology.
At any rate, though, AOL is not the internet and the AOL Scientology fellowship
board is not even accessible from the internet. AOL is entirely justified in
limiting the kinds of posts that are made on that board.
>COS must also realize that people will not succumb to their efforts to
>harrass
>and silence those who communicate a different message from their own.
This is certainly relevant to public communication such as pickets and that
found on the internet (a.r.s. and web pages.) AOL is not public communication
in this sense, though. The huge number of AOL members makes it *seem* like
it's analogous to a public street corner, but it's not. It's still entirely
within AOL's rights to limit the kinds of posts that are made on the
Scientology fellowship board.
>PS. LtD. had nothing whatsoever to do with the closing of this board
>They just don't have that kind of juice!
And we should take your word on this because....?
The evidence supports LtDaughterr's claim that she asked that the Scn board be
disabled. Not only that, it makes sense that she would have requested it. The
original purpose of the board had been pretty much lost.
Deana Marie Holmes
>And we should take your word on this because....?
Because TFCVP has been instrumental in getting unjustified TOSes
lifted from people who were harassed by Scn as a result of their posts
on the AOL "fellowship" board?
Deana Marie Holmes
The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list)
$cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today?
mir...@xmission.com
EldonB123
>be
>disabled. Not only that, it makes sense that she would have requested it.
This weekend would have been her best time to do so, Katt. Just to stifle
communication to CofS members a bit more. They probably issued a directive not
to watch TV for a week or two as well. "Cut your comm, Scientologists! Bad
entheta comin' down the cable...."
>The original purpose of the board had been pretty much lost.
>
Can you tell us what you think that was? I think it was trolling for converts,
Hon. Now just a minute...we'll get you hypnotized yet, Katt...
EldonB123
>
>Because TFCVP has been instrumental in getting unjustified TOSes
>lifted from people who were harassed by Scn as a result of their posts
>on the AOL "fellowship" board?
>
>Deana Marie Holmes
TF...@aol.com is a major heroine, who really knows how to get things done. Her
boss Peter is a pretty kewl ex-Scieno.
Deana, you and TFC have a lot in common when it comes to personal values.
Rebecca Hartong
Deana Marie Holmes wrote in message <3668e4bf...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>
>Because TFCVP has been instrumental in getting unjustified TOSes
>lifted from people who were harassed by Scn as a result of their posts
>on the AOL "fellowship" board?
So I've heard. I don't find that a compelling reason to believe that TFCVP
has any more insight into the situation than has anyone else.
Rebecca Hartong
EldonB123 wrote in message <19981204113249...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
>>The original purpose of the board had been pretty much lost.
>>
>Can you tell us what you think that was? I think it was trolling for
converts,
>Hon. Now just a minute...we'll get you hypnotized yet, Katt...
I think the original purpose of the Scn board was whatever it is that the
majority of Scientologists wanted it to be: whether that's posting dozens of
"big win" stories, or posting snippets from the Scientology web sites, or
posting strident anti-psychiatry messages. If it's what the majority of the
AOL Scientologists want to see (providing it doesn't violate TOS, of course)
then that's what the purpose of the board ought to be.
If it's trolling for converts (and how many religions don't!?) then *that's*
what the purpose ought to be, too. As for hypnosis... I've never been
hypnotized and I suspect I might not be a good subject but it would be fun
to try it some time. I don't believe that Scientologists become or remain
Scientologists because of hypnosis or because of any kind of distinct "mind
control" though, anyway, so I'm not too concerned about becoming a
Scientologist myself.
EldonB123
"The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews rivals 'The Protocols
of The Learned Elders of Zion' in fantasy and gross distortion.
The absurdity of its pretensions to scholarship are outweighed
only by its sheer viciousness. It must be taken with deadly
seriousness as a transparent attempt to foment anti-Semitism,
irrationality, and hatred, and to subvert intellectual discourse
and common decency on our campuses."
Eugene D. Genovese
Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence
The University Center in Georgia
"Black anti-Semitism and Jewish anti-Black racism are real,
and both are as profoundly American as cherry pie. All of us
who are American must struggle against the devaluation of the
Jewish people, which persists in the myths and symbols of
what it is to be a citizen of this country. Blacks have a deep
moral obligation to fight against anti-Semitism. And Jews have
the same duty to combat Jewish anti-Black racism.
"Black anti-Semitism is also a degraded people’s resentment
of a downtrodden people that is moving quickly up the social
ladder. One sees this resentment in Louis Farrakhan, who
evokes the image of alleged Jewish unity and homogeneity
(certainly a myth!) in the process of asserting that if Blacks
could be like Jews and create a sense of achievement and
dignity among themselves, then they could succeed in similar
fashion. "...I’ve argued with Farrakhan’s people - first,
insisting that they understand that Jews are human beings, but,
second, trying to point out to them that Jews are not as
important as Black Muslims think.... If you want to talk about
power, start with multinational corporate America."
Cornel West
Professor of Afro-American Studies and Religion
Harvard University
EldonB123
>St. Alicia Erisdaughter wrote:
>
>to scatty:
>> >-- Yeah we've heard ya sing it to your little fella..pecker head..
>> What's it's name today..? Gloria???
>> I think we got your number.... I think we have the alias
>> You been living under...you don't have to answer..keep us
>> hanging on the line..Glory..Gloria....!!!
>
>I love you BayBee, rest easily.
> . .
> (^`---'^)--._
> ) u u ( `.
> === Y === __ )
> \-._.-',' ` /)
> ,--.--.<----'/
> `--^--'`----'
Smiles..and feels you're loving arms around her...you're my BaBee... sighs
softly..contented and drifts off in Timothys arms to dream land....her
little white points nestled in his lap....mmmmmmmmmm
~~**z~~**z~~**z~~**z~~**z~~**
XOXOXXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXXOXOXOXOXOXOXO
>--
> Timothy and Kathy Sutter
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/2307
KattBoxx
: Roger Williams wrote:
: > Also spracht J. Raoul Xemblinosky III <rao...@telstar.bungmunch.edu>:
: > > In article <366623...@luciano.com>, Salvatore Lucania
: > > <lu...@luciano.com> wrote:
: > > > Mike MacLennan wrote:
: > > > > Who has heard the joke about Italian Tires?
: > > > Dago through rain...
: > > Dago through snow...
: > But when dago through mud ...
: What about this one: There's this Wop, Spic and a Jew....
Don't call Roger a jew. He's very sensitive.
His grandmother died in a concentration camp, and Roger once put
his head into a microwave owen.
You know the story: Goodbye all 13 functioning braincells etc.
But he still got his birds...
--
Kristian Mikael Tanner < Head Librarian >
There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a
suitable application of high explosives.
Robert Hummels
good look at this. Being a Free Scientologist,
I tend to side with those who were telling the
truth to the SCN board. I DO see a very bad
action being praised by many here though.
Closing down a discussion group is what
got many of you on ARS is it not? Rather
than celebrating a victory over the CofS,
I think you should all be crying about
the violation of free speech, and the
censorship issue on the part of AOL.
This is an issue of rights. Forcing
the board to close is so much like the
rmgroup msg sent out on ARS that it
smacks of do as I say not as I do.
It hurts me to see ANYONE even the
CofS lose their right to communicate.
Yes, we WANT them to know what'sup...
but we need to respect their right
to their own brand/style of free speech.
bob
Free Scientology
WWW.FZA.ORG
Geoffrey V. Bronner
>
>I think all the critics need to take a really
>good look at this. Being a Free Scientologist,
>I tend to side with those who were telling the
>truth to the SCN board. I DO see a very bad
>action being praised by many here though.
>
>Closing down a discussion group is what
>got many of you on ARS is it not?
[snip]
>Yes, we WANT them to know what'sup...
>but we need to respect their right
>to their own brand/style of free speech.
I think their 'style' is the reason for some people being pleased with the
demise of the Scn AOL board. The abusive use of TOS was really just more
censorship. Why have a 'public forum' where no discussion is allowed unless
it follows a certain script? Sure, some critics went in with stuff that was
just begging for a response like that but I've also seen snippets from AOL
that seemed reasonable and got attacked anyway.
I haven't personally formed an opinion about this since it is not clear if
the board was killed by AOL for their own reasons or because the
Scientologists requested it.
If the Scientologists want a truly 'entheta free' discussion area they
should run it on a web server in scientology.org, then they would be free
to run it in whatever manner they see fit and no one would be able to say
otherwise. They won't get that on AOL.
-Geoff
--
Emetibloa
>should run it on a web server in scientology.org, then they would be free
>to run it in whatever manner they see fit and no one would be able to say
>otherwise. They won't get that on AOL.
>
>-Geoff
>--
>
>
Agreed. Scn should either run a discussion board on their own server, or
direct their members to join TNX.
For the number of AOL scns that posted regulary on the AOL fellowship board,
that level of traffic for sharing wholesale quotes from WiS? and "wins" could
have easily been handled by "buddy chat", and /or group mail directories.
But that wouldn't have served their PR purpose now would it? Ergo, QED, it
'wasn't a discussion board', but a propaganda/recruitment board.
All the critics did was jam "tokyo rose" Lt. Hat. off the airwaves, regardless
of "who" actually caused the plug to be pulled.
Critics are still free to post on the ACLU board, and not get TOSsed for silly
alledged infractions.
I'd score the "game" Critics 1. Scns. 0.
Emet
ExScio
>good look at this. Being a Free Scientologist,
>I tend to side with those who were telling the
>truth to the SCN board. I DO see a very bad
>action being praised by many here though.
There was no "truth" coming from many of the posters -- just standard
CoS PR.
>Closing down a discussion group is what
>got many of you on ARS is it not? Rather
>than celebrating a victory over the CofS,
>I think you should all be crying about
>the violation of free speech, and the
>censorship issue on the part of AOL.
>
>This is an issue of rights. Forcing
>the board to close is so much like the
>rmgroup msg sent out on ARS that it
>smacks of do as I say not as I do.
>
>It hurts me to see ANYONE even the
>CofS lose their right to communicate.
>
>Yes, we WANT them to know what'sup...
>but we need to respect their right
>to their own brand/style of free speech.
>
>bob
>Free Scientology
>WWW.FZA.ORG
I personally had no problem with the board and was glad it
was there (to let others see what the "orthodox" Scientology
mind set was).
However, I had serious problems with the way the board monitors
and Scientologists abused TOS to harrass people who just
wanted to express an opinion. After all, Scientologists who
express unpopular opinions on ARS don't have their Internet
access taken away from them.
In any case, it was AOL itself that pulled the board. There are
plenty of other places where Scientologists can re-establish a
message board without the abuse that was going on before.
Its up to them. Its not critics of Scientology who got the board
pulled, it was the Scientologists themselves and their bad actions.
<<<<< ExScio (with the emphasis on EX) - St. Louis area SP >>>>>
Rebecca Hartong
ya02408000R11...@news.dartmouth.edu>,
geoff....@dartmouth.edu says...
> I think their 'style' is the reason for some people being pleased with the
> demise of the Scn AOL board. The abusive use of TOS was really just more
> censorship. Why have a 'public forum' where no discussion is allowed unless
> it follows a certain script?
The thing is... AOL is not a public forum in the same sense that a street
corner is a public forum. AOL has always imposed fairly strict rules on
the kinds of things that are allowed. (The rules are often ignored, but
that's beside the point.)
> Sure, some critics went in with stuff that was
> just begging for a response like that but I've also seen snippets from AOL
> that seemed reasonable and got attacked anyway.
That sort of thing happens all over AOL, though. Once I got a TOS
warning because my post debunking the "multiple personality" diagnosis
(on another AOL message board) made someone feel "uncomfortable." AOL's
TOS rules are often abused and are used simply as a convenient stick for
whapping people whose ideas one finds bothersome. AOL is a weird sort of
social engineering experiment gone wrong. You simply can't create a
space where *everyone* is going to feel happy and content.
> I haven't personally formed an opinion about this since it is not clear if
> the board was killed by AOL for their own reasons or because the
> Scientologists requested it.
>
> If the Scientologists want a truly 'entheta free' discussion area they
> should run it on a web server in scientology.org, then they would be free
> to run it in whatever manner they see fit and no one would be able to say
> otherwise. They won't get that on AOL.
If Scientology were like other religious groups with boards on AOL, it
would be easier for the monitors to recognize harassment when it's
posted. The thing with Scientology, though, is that the beliefs and the
language are so unusual that only critics and Scientologists themselves
know what half the stuff that's posted even means. It's easier for
critics to criticize (something which I still believe isn't appropriate
on a fellowship board) when the monitors don't recognize it as criticism.
If the Scientologists really can get their own monitor in place on AOL,
it would help them to protect themselves against some of the more
questionable kinds of posts.
--
Rebecca Hartong
LRonsScam
<snip>
>If the Scientologists really can get their own monitor in place on AOL,
>it would help them to protect themselves against some of the more
>questionable kinds of posts.
I have a problem with a Scientologist being a monitor. What if the Scientology
monitor leaves his chosen faith? And you wouldn't be allowed to post to that
board unless you were registered. I don't think that is fair because there is
no way to define a person who adheres to a certain faith. You need an impartial
moderator.
The answer surely isn't a simple one.
******
Having two faiths is controversial. Scntlgy is one that claims compatibility
with all beliefs. You most certainly can be a faithful Scngist and a Christian
but you can not be a faithful Christian and a Scngist. Scngsts faith is rooted
in money.
Ron Newman
Rebecca Hartong <har...@erols.com> says...
>AOL is a weird sort of social engineering experiment gone wrong.
Now *that* would make a marvelous .signature file.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/home.html
Rebecca Hartong
lron...@aol.commbine says...
> I have a problem with a Scientologist being a monitor. What if the Scientology
> monitor leaves his chosen faith?
I suppose then they'd no longer get to be monitor. It would be sort of
like being president of the local Knights of Columbus chapter (if they
have presidents...) If you're not a Roman Catholic in good standing, you
can't be president.
> And you wouldn't be allowed to post to that
> board unless you were registered.
You could post, but many of your posts might not make it through. (I
know.. semantics.) Considering, though, that the purpose of the board is
fellowship among Scientologists (and that "Scientologist" is defined by
the majority of the Scientologists on the board to be someone who is in
good standing with the church and who isn't interested in reform),
there's probably not much that a non-Scientologist like myself (or like
yourself) would have to say that would be appropriate material for the
board.
It seems to me that part of the frustration some of us critics feel
towards Scientologists is that many of them simply aren't interested in
hearing what we have to say.. so, some of us think we ought to just
*make* them listen to us. There's certainly a place for that kind of
thing--pickets, for example. But the AOL Scientology fellowship board is
not such a place, imho.
> I don't think that is fair because there is
> no way to define a person who adheres to a certain faith. You need an impartial
> moderator.
I don't think that's true. Certainly, you'd want a monitor who was fair-
-but one can be fair without being impartial. Consider all the monitored
newsgroups on Usenet, for example.
> The answer surely isn't a simple one.
I disagree. I don't see how having a Scientologist monitor on a
Scientology fellowship board is unreasonable. Having a Scientologist
monitor on the ACLU Scientology board, though, would be likely be a
problem.
--
Rebecca Hartong
Podkayne-Xenu
> I think all the critics need to take a really
> good look at this. Being a Free Scientologist,
> I tend to side with those who were telling the
> truth to the SCN board. I DO see a very bad
> action being praised by many here though.
>
> Closing down a discussion group is what
> got many of you on ARS is it not? Rather
> than celebrating a victory over the CofS,
> I think you should all be crying about
> the violation of free speech, and the
> censorship issue on the part of AOL.
>
> This is an issue of rights. Forcing
> the board to close is so much like the
> rmgroup msg sent out on ARS that it
> smacks of do as I say not as I do.
Here's my reconstruction of events:
People who posted anything that wasn't pure approved Hubbard or wins got
TOSed. This includes Hubbard quotes that trueScns have problems with, even
if they're in "offical" writings - I don't mean higher-level stuff,
either. The weird abortion engrams are one example.
LtHat could flood the board with "Narconon is great, lots of studies prove
this" - yet asking where these studies could be found would very likely
result in a TOS.
Somewhere in Dejanews there's even discussion (TNX archives?) of how the
trueScns would deliberately try to get someone's accounts yanked (3 TOSes
& you're out)
At one point the "Reform Scns" asked for a "Reform Scn" board, but this
never happened. I suspect the trueScns were claiming (in email) that
would be a copyright violation, that there was no sucn thing as "Reform
Scn", etc. The Religion board admin leader tends to side with the
fundamentalists of any religion.
A few months back the Religion board admins were looking for a Scn to be
the board monitor. Don't know if they got any takers. Once again, I
wouldn't be surprised if the trueScns were claiming only a trueScn would
do, while the reform Scns were claiming that a trueScn would be channeling
Torquemada ;-)
TFCVP got interested in the TOS attacks, finally got AOL upper-levels
interested in watching. It seems they realized that many of the TOSes
*weren't* justified, that any *real* discussion was being TOSed and
derided, and decided to pull the plug entirely til they could come up with
a better mechanism to police it.
I do believe this is only temporary and the board will be back with a
better description and more clearly defined rules.
(I can dig out some of the attacks on Safe that are not fellowship by
*any* definition of the word, yet the trueScns were cheering these people
on!)
> If Scientology were like other religious groups with boards on AOL, it
> would be easier for the monitors to recognize harassment when it's
> posted. The thing with Scientology, though, is that the beliefs and the
> language are so unusual that only critics and Scientologists themselves
> know what half the stuff that's posted even means. It's easier for
> critics to criticize (something which I still believe isn't appropriate
> on a fellowship board) when the monitors don't recognize it as criticism.
> If the Scientologists really can get their own monitor in place on AOL,
> it would help them to protect themselves against some of the more
> questionable kinds of posts.
I agree with the sentiment, I just think we have a mutual M/U on
"discussion" ;-). It's one thing for acknowledged critics to point out
how the Co$ is out-ethics by wog ethic rules, quite another for a Scn to
say the Co$ is out-ethics by *Scn* ethics rules. Or to point out that
300+ definitions have been removed from the latest WiS.
If they don't want discussion at all, just wins & pr, fine - but make it
*clear* that's what the board is for. If you say it's for discussion,
then it's perfectly reasonable to think that you can discuss changes in
WiS.
They like to use the analogy of anti-Catholics posting rude things about
the Pope to Catholic boards - well, the Scn equivalent was a pretty rare
occurence. Safe's posts were more like pre-Vatican II (Latin liturgy,
etc) complaining about poor translations in the vernacular liturgy. (See
Mark Johnson on arc.roman-catholic ;-) )
--
2,4,6,8 who do we enturbulate? Xenu! Xenu! Xenu!
Read more Heinlein
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <74s7ms$4...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Ron Newman
<rne...@thecia.net> wrote:
> In article <MPG.10db518ea...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> Rebecca Hartong <har...@erols.com> says...
>
> >AOL is a weird sort of social engineering experiment gone wrong.
>
> Now *that* would make a marvelous .signature file.
How about "AOL is to Usenet as a Renaissance Fair is to the Middle
Ages?"
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBNnHc+zi+NNkNDrbMEQKJxwCg2Ptjz/dQIN2UExcGecEnPNrHRB4Anid9
3sXP7sEQ4KtwNtcK4UST+eaS
=cKSL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
"By the taping of my glasses,
something geeky this way passes" Captain Nerd
cpt...@nerdwatch.com
http://www.nerdwatch.com
---== http://www.newsfeeds.com - Largest Usenet Server In The World! ==---
---== http://www.newsfeeds.com - Largest Usenet Server In The World! ==---
William Barwell
Captain Nerd <cpt...@nerdwatch.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article <74s7ms$4...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Ron Newman
><rne...@thecia.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <MPG.10db518ea...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>> Rebecca Hartong <har...@erols.com> says...
>>
>> >AOL is a weird sort of social engineering experiment gone wrong.
>>
>> Now *that* would make a marvelous .signature file.
>
> How about "AOL is to Usenet as a Renaissance Fair is to the Middle
>Ages?"
>
Rush Limbaugh is to journalism as a Heckle and Jeckle
cartoon is to drama.
- Me some years ago in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Deana Marie Holmes
wrote:
>I think all the critics need to take a really
>good look at this. Being a Free Scientologist,
>I tend to side with those who were telling the
>truth to the SCN board. I DO see a very bad
>action being praised by many here though.
Look, Bob. It should be remembered that AOL is not the Net. Please
do not confuse the two places (despite AOL's continued muddying of the
waters).
In any case, the AOL Scns were doing stupid things, and TF...@aol.com
was spending a couple of hours a day trying to get TOSses removed from
accounts. The final straw was when somebody got a person
Xe...@aol.com TOSsed for his email name, because it was "too close" to
a real name....
But the upshot is, AOL is not the Net, and different rules apply
there. And Scns have to abide by them as well....
Emetibloa
>Date: Fri, Dec 11, 1998 17:52 EST
>Message-id: <74s7ms$4...@edrn.newsguy.com>
>
>In article <MPG.10db518ea...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>Rebecca Hartong <har...@erols.com> says...
>
>>AOL is a weird sort of social engineering experiment gone wrong.
>
>Now *that* would make a marvelous .signature file.
>
>Ron Newman
In my mind, AOL is like one big hugmoungous Florida condominium community
where half the residents are complaining about the kids peeing in the pool, and
wanting 47 more regulations posted.
Eventually, those that don't like the pee, either stay out of the pool, or
move.
Kids *will* pee, and you can't herd 13 million subscribers by some arbitrary
TOS "rule" that restricts the plurality of action by them.
Rebecca, eventually, economics rules Britannia, condo pools, and yes, even AOL.
Emet
Emetibloa
>Date: Fri, Dec 11, 1998 22:03 EST
>Message-id: <cptnerd-1112...@alex-va-n020c126.moon.jic.com>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article <74s7ms$4...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Ron Newman
><rne...@thecia.net> wrote:
>
>> Rebecca Hartong <har...@erols.com> says...
>>
>> >AOL is a weird sort of social engineering experiment gone wrong.
>>
>> Now *that* would make a marvelous .signature file.
>
>Ages?"
>
>
>
Dear Cap, Mee thinks your simile is inverted.
Just a lowly squire, sire.
Emet
Captain Nerd
Hash: SHA1
In article <19981211232002...@ng-ce1.aol.com>,
emet...@aol.com (Emetibloa) wrote:
Mayhap, good sirrah, were I to elaborate, my meaning
would be revealed.
AOL - Pretends to be rough-and-tumble, like Usenet, but
is too clean and controlled. You pay a lot for the
experience, too.
A Ren Faire - Pretends to be like the Middle Ages, but is
too clean and controlled (no bloodshed, smallpox, or
manure dumped on the patrons), and you pay to get in.
Not a perfect analogy, I'll grant, but I hope you take
my meaning.
Cap.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.1
iQA/AwUBNnIAFzi+NNkNDrbMEQLXOwCg1xdKBwKr+YrcT34NLC4tgq0kXWkAn2ms
A/Jn5beEHeR/niDirCcZC7qA
=nwOP
Rebecca Hartong
podk...@aol.com-Xenu says...
> People who posted anything that wasn't pure approved Hubbard or wins got
> TOSed.
As KattBoxx, I've never been TOSed.
> LtHat could flood the board with "Narconon is great, lots of studies prove
> this" - yet asking where these studies could be found would very likely
> result in a TOS.
I think they view it as being on par with critics of Catholicism asking
for proof of Mary's virginity. I know that most of us consider "studies"
to be something tangible that people can actually review and discuss, but
it seems that to Scientologists "studies" are a matter of faith. ;-)
> Somewhere in Dejanews there's even discussion (TNX archives?) of how the
> trueScns would deliberately try to get someone's accounts yanked (3 TOSes
> & you're out)
>
> At one point the "Reform Scns" asked for a "Reform Scn" board, but this
> never happened. I suspect the trueScns were claiming (in email) that
> would be a copyright violation, that there was no sucn thing as "Reform
> Scn", etc. The Religion board admin leader tends to side with the
> fundamentalists of any religion.
And yet they have (or had) boards for stuff like "Neo-Pagan" and
"Satanist" religious groups. Go figure...
> A few months back the Religion board admins were looking for a Scn to be
> the board monitor. Don't know if they got any takers. Once again, I
> wouldn't be surprised if the trueScns were claiming only a trueScn would
> do, while the reform Scns were claiming that a trueScn would be channeling
> Torquemada ;-)
Cardinal Fang!--fetch... the comfy chair!
> (I can dig out some of the attacks on Safe that are not fellowship by
> *any* definition of the word, yet the trueScns were cheering these people
> on!)
That's because the majority of Scientologists on AOL do not believe that
reform of Scientology is a good thing. They view suggestions for reform
as harassment. I can understand that. If you've got something that you
think is working really well just as it is, you don't want people coming
in and mucking around with it. You and I may think Scientology really
needs reform--Safe may think Scientology needs reform--but until the
majority of *Scientologists* think Scientology needs reform such
discussions are not going to be welcome among them on a fellowship board.
That would be true of any group, really, not just Scientologists. The
best thing AOL could do to solve this problem would be to create a Reform
Scientology board in the Other Religions area.
> I agree with the sentiment, I just think we have a mutual M/U on
> "discussion" ;-). It's one thing for acknowledged critics to point out
> how the Co$ is out-ethics by wog ethic rules, quite another for a Scn to
> say the Co$ is out-ethics by *Scn* ethics rules. Or to point out that
> 300+ definitions have been removed from the latest WiS.
But, either way, we're talking about topics that the majority of
Scientologists on AOL don't want to discuss on their fellowship board.
If they don't want to deal with that sort of thing on their fellowship
board, they shouldn't have to. I really believe that. (As if you
couldn't tell!)
> If they don't want discussion at all, just wins & pr, fine - but make it
> *clear* that's what the board is for. If you say it's for discussion,
> then it's perfectly reasonable to think that you can discuss changes in
> WiS.
The problem is that one person's discussion is another person's debate.
> They like to use the analogy of anti-Catholics posting rude things about
> the Pope to Catholic boards - well, the Scn equivalent was a pretty rare
> occurence. Safe's posts were more like pre-Vatican II (Latin liturgy,
> etc) complaining about poor translations in the vernacular liturgy. (See
> Mark Johnson on arc.roman-catholic ;-) )
Hmmm.... but, I think the Pope analogy does work with Safe's stuff, too.
If the Pope (Miscavige) says the current translation is an accurate
reflection of what the liturgy ought to be, then complaining about the
translation is in effect complaining about the Pope.
Ah..whatever. We'll just have to wait and see what happens next.
There's not much point in getting too excited about a board that no
longer exists! ;-)
--
Rebecca Hartong
Emetibloa
>There's not much point in getting too excited about a board that no
>longer exists! ;-)
>
>--
>Rebecca Hartong
Perhaps Katt. But I *am* amused that now that the posting activity level on
AOL's "other religions" discussion boards forum has dropped by over 95% due to
the loss of this one "fellowship" forum, that its moderator, Jerry White now
seems to have enough time on his hands to read the ACLU Scn board and post
there *as well*. Apparently, his "excitement" about a Scn board is unwaned
enough for him to still try to defend it, ex-post facto.
Perhaps you could elaborate of just what *did* constitute a" majority of Scns"
on the fellowship board? In my view, the number of individual posters (!!)
was pretty evenly split between the two "camps".
It would be difficult for me to remember the screen names of *even 10* of the
"majority" there.
You did always manage to find the center of the see-saw when the ups and downs
of the board were in full oscillation. That you never received any TOS
accusations, is revealing, yet not at all surprising.
Emet
KattBoxx
http://www.avotaynu.com/csi/csi-home.html
http://www.avotaynu.com/csi/csi-home.html
http://www.avotaynu.com/csi/csi-home.html
http://www.avotaynu.com/csi/csi-home.html
http://www.avotaynu.com/csi/csi-home.html
CONSOLIDATED J*WISH SURNAME INDEX -
(note that this list is so thorough that it lists many gentile names which j*ws
have hidden
under. Thus if a name is on this list it does not mean that *everyone* with that
last name is a j*w)
Beware the Alien Invasion - Beware the j*wish Conspiracy!
http://ourhero.com THE LIBRARY: people of the world unite against the
j*wish conspiracy!
http://abbc.com/islam/ - radio islam
http://holywar.org/ - christian alternative
http://hebron.com
http://ourhero.com
THE LIBRARY: A PLACE FOR GENTILE HEALING
"make the world free! stop the j*wish conspiracy!"
------------------
http://ourhero.com THE LIBRARY: people of the world unite against the j*wish conspiracy!
http://vespeg.com VESPEG - the Voluntary Eugenics and Surrogate Parentage Euro-Group.
------------------------
"To read any of my previous articles please visit the following
URLS:"
RECENT
http://x2.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?QRY=ourhero&ST=PS&defaultOp=OR&svcclass=dncurrent&maxhits=100&format=threaded&showsort=score">Deja
OLD
http://x2.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?QRY=ourhero&ST=PS&defaultOp=OR&svcclass=dnold&maxhits=100&format=threaded&showsort=score
News Archive of Posts and Essays Doc Tavish (recent)
http://x2.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?QRY=tavish&ST=PS&defaultOp=OR&svcclass=dncurrent&maxhits=100&format=threaded&showsort=score
-------------
Catholic webpage http://holywar.org
-------------
http://www.microplanet.com
download gravity newsreader for reading newsgroups because it
has a feature called the 'bozo bin' which can be used to set
your newsreader to ignore and delete posts from j*ws. This is
my favorite newsreader for browsing (for posting use free agent)
because i can enjoy intelligent discussions without having to
have it rudely interrupted by j*wish prattle).
- Also note that the federal government and various j*wish hate-groups are spending your tax dollars to hire federal agents
a various 'activists' to spam the internet with forged posts in my name as well as in the name of other non-j*wish dissidents
who are speaking out against j*wish tyranny. A good way to discern my posts from any imposter thus far is that the imposters
usually degrade the conversation to petty insults and incomplete sentences. For those who are more computer literate, you can
check the newsgroup headers for my posts - the ones actually coming from me will come through my news server ols-inc.com.
Two examples of infiltrators who are trying to distort the right-wing message and create infighting are 'bo' gritz the
militiaman and Harold Covington (http://nwspp.com)
In addition to forged posts, these sneaks will also reply
to a post in which they will doctor, or completly change
what the original person said and then quote that as having
been what the person actually said. They do this because
they are incapable of arguing on the basis of facts or reason,
and find a campaign of smearing or degredation to be more to
their natures.
=======================
"The corrupt and politicized judicial system in America remains a
threat to everyone, of course. It remains a tool which the rich and
connected can use to harass and bankrupt the not-so-rich or the
not-so-connected. That is a general sort of jeopardy which existed
before the Dees lawsuit and will continue to exist until America
undergoes a revoluntionary cleansing."
Dr. William L. Pierce
-------------------
The Peoples' Resistance Movement - The Christian Alternative
"Onward Christian Soldiers!"
http://holywar.org
Rob Clark
>In article <19981211183700...@ng99.aol.com>,
>lron...@aol.commbine says...
>> I have a problem with a Scientologist being a monitor. What if the Scientology
>> monitor leaves his chosen faith?
>I suppose then they'd no longer get to be monitor. It would be sort of
>like being president of the local Knights of Columbus chapter (if they
>have presidents...) If you're not a Roman Catholic in good standing, you
>can't be president.
[information in this post concerning the college of cardinals and papal
procedures are taken from http://www.aquinas-multimedia.com/cards/
sacred college of cardinals: an historical website.
i am continually baffled by those who insist on repeatedly dragging in the holy
roman catholic church
the catholic church is an undisputed church. the pope is a religious leader,
who issues spiritual counselling in the form of encyclicals, and who is elected
in a secret ballot with no campaigning by the college of cardinals. a
cardinal's title, while a great honor, does not extend the powers of holy
orders.
succession and authority of the pope have been orderly and done according to
strict protocol with the college of cardinals having no discretion whatever in
matters reserved for the apostolic see (the papacy) in the vacancy of that see.
all these rules are public information and can be accessed by any catholic, or
non-catholic, on the internet with ease. these rules are adhered to strictly.
while there is an ability to excommunicate, in recent decades this has been used
very sparingly, and only for those who have outspokenly rejected core doctrine
of the church. further, this excommunication does not also involve further
harassment of the person, or attempts even to deny them the right to call
themselves a catholic through heavy-handed legal maneuverings.
scientologists such as safe4mulas and honnicut have been mercilessly harassed
and persecuted, despite obviously being genuine scientologists. david
miscavige, whatever his legal scum and thugs might think, does not have the
right to tell people what religion they can belong to. his "church" is just a
money-grubbing corporation, with no rules but pure dictatorial whim inured to
the successor of a similar ruthless law-breaking felon, hubbard himself. he is
not a rightfully ordained religious leader, he has written no tech whatsoever
and has not offered spiritual leadership but instead pure ruthless naked
bullying, from an office and bully pulpit he usurped in a naked power grab.
perhaps if the board were advertised as a corporate-run RTC-controlled
OSA-monitored and censored forum, it would not be fraudulent to advertise it as
a "fellowship" board to customers who are paying just as much for their access.
the board was always on there under false pretenses, with frivolous orchestrated
TOS campaigns against even scientologists in good standing who did not violate
the fellowship rule by vocally rejecting tenets of the scientology religion, but
by questioning the policies of the corporate bodies or the behaviors of OSA.
catholics are allowed to question the behavior of their ecclesiastical leaders
and often do, without finding dead cats on their front porch or getting sued,
harassed, excommunicated and "destroyed utterly." while compared to these acts
the censorship of an AOL folder is small potatoes, it amounts to an attempt
under false pretenses and not legitimate TOS issues to deny these AOL
subscribers the benefit of their contract with AOL and thus a right to deny them
the intangible right of honest service.
i am astonished to see you condone this ghastly conduct.
>> And you wouldn't be allowed to post to that
>> board unless you were registered.
>You could post, but many of your posts might not make it through. (I
>know.. semantics.) Considering, though, that the purpose of the board is
>fellowship among Scientologists (and that "Scientologist" is defined by
>the majority of the Scientologists on the board to be someone who is in
>good standing with the church and who isn't interested in reform),
>there's probably not much that a non-Scientologist like myself (or like
>yourself) would have to say that would be appropriate material for the
>board.
while i would ordinarily not find a religious fellowship board an appropriate
venue for the sort of comments i tend to make, and indeed i have never posted to
the AOL folder partly for that reason, that folder was never a fellowship board,
but a billboard plastered over by a few OSA personnel and had very little
fellowship. any genuine discussions were immediately subject to fanatical
squelching by Lt.Hate and her merry little gang of bigots and bullies. the few
real scientologists who tried to discuss anything were denied issue authority
and TOSed and threatened with lawsuits mercilessly, like honnicut was.
>It seems to me that part of the frustration some of us critics feel
>towards Scientologists is that many of them simply aren't interested in
>hearing what we have to say.. so, some of us think we ought to just
>*make* them listen to us. There's certainly a place for that kind of
>thing--pickets, for example. But the AOL Scientology fellowship board is
>not such a place, imho.
they refuse even to listen to their own members. while again i do not
personally post my rants to the AOL fellowship board--they'd be inappropriate so
i don't--and while a few over-the-top posts were probably inappropriate for a
fellowship board and legitimately TOSed, even entirely reasonable material by
actual scientologists that obviously fell under the rubric of fellow
scientologists discussing their religion, and totally benign posts were
ruthlessly squashed off the board whenever the hate gang went on one of their
fits of delete-o-mania.
those slime are not there for fellowship, and they bully their fellow
scientologists with no authority to do so whatever. they have no right to tell
people what their own religion is, if anything, their conduct is far more
off-topic and reprehensible for a folder supposedly there for fellowship and now
browbeating, threats and harassment.
>> I don't think that is fair because there is
>> no way to define a person who adheres to a certain faith. You need an impartial
>> moderator.
>I don't think that's true. Certainly, you'd want a monitor who was fair-
>-but one can be fair without being impartial. Consider all the monitored
>newsgroups on Usenet, for example.
>> The answer surely isn't a simple one.
>I disagree. I don't see how having a Scientologist monitor on a
>Scientology fellowship board is unreasonable. Having a Scientologist
>monitor on the ACLU Scientology board, though, would be likely be a
>problem.
having a scientologist monitor is one thing. having an OSA thug is quite
another.
rob
Rebecca Hartong
emet...@aol.com says...
> Perhaps Katt. But I *am* amused that now that the posting activity level on
> AOL's "other religions" discussion boards forum has dropped by over 95% due to
> the loss of this one "fellowship" forum, that its moderator, Jerry White now
> seems to have enough time on his hands to read the ACLU Scn board and post
> there *as well*. Apparently, his "excitement" about a Scn board is unwaned
> enough for him to still try to defend it, ex-post facto.
It looked to me like he was defending himself--not Scientology. You did,
after all, make some pretty spectacular claims about him (including, if I
recall correctly, that he had been fired from AOL?)
> Perhaps you could elaborate of just what *did* constitute a" majority of Scns"
> on the fellowship board? In my view, the number of individual posters (!!)
> was pretty evenly split between the two "camps".
Indeed. I meant exactly what I wrote-- the majority of Scientologists.
At least half of the regular contributors to the Scn board were not
Scientologists by their own admission.
> It would be difficult for me to remember the screen names of *even 10* of the
> "majority" there.
LtDaughtr, JDavis, Theta88888, Thetajet, OT9Soon, Qwerty, LSZipzap,
Mou...something (the guy with the coffeeshop), Bibidyboo, Lizzy... all
Scientologists, all pretty much unified in their opposition to
discussions involving reform of Scientology.
> You did always manage to find the center of the see-saw when the ups and downs
> of the board were in full oscillation. That you never received any TOS
> accusations, is revealing, yet not at all surprising.
You're right. I think you might find some disagreement about what it
reveals, though.
Don't think for a minute that people like LtDaughtr aren't fully aware of
my feelings about Scientology. In fact, I am told that one of my fellow
critics took it upon himself to e-mail LtDaughtr copies of some of my
more biting posts from a.r.s. just to try to stir things up a bit. (I
think in one of them I said something like "she would have signed up to
be a cheerleader for the Gestapo.") She knows exactly what I think of
Scientology, but she appreciates that my principles with regard to
fairness extend to everyone--including Scientologists.
--
Rebecca Hartong
Rebecca Hartong
says...
> i am continually baffled by those who insist on repeatedly dragging in the holy
> roman catholic church
It is probably overused, but I think it's a useful analogy.
> the catholic church is an undisputed church. the pope is a religious leader,
> who issues spiritual counselling in the form of encyclicals, and who is elected
> in a secret ballot with no campaigning by the college of cardinals.
This is incorrect. There may not be campaigning in the sense that
American political candidates campaign with television commercials and
bumper stickers, but from most accounts there is plenty of campaigning
among the Cardinals.
(snipped--yes, there are certainly many MANY differences between
Scientology and Catholicism. I certainly never meant to imply that there
weren't. It is important, too, to keep in mind that the RCC is generally
brought up--by me, at least--for purposes of analogy, not for direct
comparison.)
> scientologists such as safe4mulas and honnicut have been mercilessly harassed
> and persecuted, despite obviously being genuine scientologists.
It's not all that obvious to me that anyone who doesn't toe the CoS line
is a "genuine Scientologist." Nor am I at all convinced that either
Safe4mulas or Honnicut were "mercilessly harassed and persecuted."
> david
> miscavige, whatever his legal scum and thugs might think, does not have the
> right to tell people what religion they can belong to.
I'm not following you. How has he done this?
> his "church" is just a
> money-grubbing corporation, with no rules but pure dictatorial whim inured to
> the successor of a similar ruthless law-breaking felon, hubbard himself. he is
> not a rightfully ordained religious leader, he has written no tech whatsoever
> and has not offered spiritual leadership but instead pure ruthless naked
> bullying, from an office and bully pulpit he usurped in a naked power grab.
I pretty much agree with you, but I don't think *our* opinions about what
Scientology is ought to necessarily prevail (except, of course, in
situations where laws are being broken.) If a member of Scientology
thinks Scientology is a religion, I believe they are entitled to that.
> perhaps if the board were advertised as a corporate-run RTC-controlled
> OSA-monitored and censored forum, it would not be fraudulent to advertise it as
> a "fellowship" board to customers who are paying just as much for their access.
> the board was always on there under false pretenses, with frivolous orchestrated
> TOS campaigns against even scientologists in good standing who did not violate
> the fellowship rule by vocally rejecting tenets of the scientology religion, but
> by questioning the policies of the corporate bodies or the behaviors of OSA.
Correction... people who have *claimed* they were Scientologists in good
standing. I have my doubts about some of the people on AOL who have
claimed to be Scientologists. It would, after all, be a clever method of
slipping criticism onto the board to claim one was a Scientologist
without actually being one.
>
> catholics are allowed to question the behavior of their ecclesiastical leaders
> and often do, without finding dead cats
I would imagine that their are plenty of lapsed and critical Catholics
who have found dead cats on their front porches. Some of them may even
think their local KoC branch is responsible! ;-) But, since there is no
evidence of guilt, I'm reserving judgement about the KoC *and* the CoS on
this matter.
> on their front porch or getting sued,
> harassed, excommunicated and "destroyed utterly."
Pretty vile behavior, no doubt about it.
> while compared to these acts
> the censorship of an AOL folder is small potatoes, it amounts to an attempt
> under false pretenses and not legitimate TOS issues to deny these AOL
> subscribers the benefit of their contract with AOL and thus a right to deny them
> the intangible right of honest service.
Ultimately, it is the responsibility of AOL and its assigns to ensure
honest service, though, no? As for the TOS warnings: let us be honest,
shall we? Can you think of a single reason why someone might post to a
Scientology fellowship board using a screen name like Xenuu or LRonsScam
except to offend Scientologists? This is simply not the sort of thing
anyone who was genuinely interested in fellowship with a Scientologist
would do. These screen names are offensive to Scientologists by design.
> i am astonished to see you condone this ghastly conduct.
I don't condone frivolous TOSing, but I do understand the frustration the
AOL Scientologists must feel.
> while i would ordinarily not find a religious fellowship board an appropriate
> venue for the sort of comments i tend to make, and indeed i have never posted to
> the AOL folder partly for that reason, that folder was never a fellowship board,
> but a billboard plastered over by a few OSA personnel and had very little
> fellowship.
I don't think either one of us is in any position to judge what members
of some other group might consider fellowship.
> any genuine discussions were immediately subject to fanatical
> squelching by Lt.Hate and her merry little gang of bigots and bullies. the few
> real scientologists who tried to discuss anything were denied issue authority
> and TOSed and threatened with lawsuits mercilessly, like honnicut was.
The majority of Scientologists apparently don't feel that discussion of
some issues is very supportive or is in the spirit of fellowship as
defined by the CoS. They're entitled to that, I think. I think they're
entitled to rule as a Scn majority in that particular forum.
> they refuse even to listen to their own members.
They are entitled to, aren't they? If enough of their members become
disgruntled their membership will either shrink away to nothing or there
will be a coup and the reformers will take control. I know this bugs the
shit out of you, but I'm going to draw another RCC analogy: consider the
movement (particularly in the US) for ordination of women. Not too long
ago the Pope issued something basically telling all Catholics everywhere
"Enough! We're not changing that and I don't want to hear about it
anymore!" When people get fed up enough with a church, there's a schism.
That's the way it's always worked and I don't see any big reasons why it
can't work that way for Scientology, too.
> while again i do not
> personally post my rants to the AOL fellowship board--they'd be inappropriate so
> i don't
Hmmm... and why do you say that, Rob? ;-)
> those slime are not there for fellowship, and they bully their fellow
> scientologists with no authority to do so whatever.
This has not been my experience. I've had e-mail exchanges with a couple
of AOL Scientologists and they really do get a fellowship kind of thing
out of the board. Some of them live in areas where there aren't many
Scientologists so they welcome the opportunity to compare "wins." Yes,
that all seems sort of silly and pathetic to me, but it's their thing and
they're entitled to it.
> they have no right to tell
> people what their own religion is,
I'm not following you on this... are you referring to the regular AOL
Scns telling reformers that they're not actually Scientologists? To a
certain degree, I disagree with you. Certainly, if someone tells me
they're a Roman Catholic (again!) but they don't believe in
transubstantiation and they believe that abortion and married clergy and
women clergy are okay (among other things), I am justified in saying to
them "Hey, you're not a Roman Catholic, pal! You're a Lutheran!"
> if anything, their conduct is far more
> off-topic and reprehensible for a folder supposedly there for fellowship and now
> browbeating, threats and harassment.
Of course, none of the browbeating, threats and harassment would be
happening if people had just left them alone to do their thing. I liked
to think of the AOL Scn folder as a place for observing Scientologists in
their natural habitat--sort of a sociological experiment kind of thing...
What better way to learn about them?
--
Rebecca Hartong
Rob Clark
>In article <74u9cc$s1m$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>, xe...@mindspring.com
>says...
>> catholics are allowed to question the behavior of their ecclesiastical leaders
>> and often do, without finding dead cats
>I would imagine that their are plenty of lapsed and critical Catholics
>who have found dead cats on their front porches. Some of them may even
>think their local KoC branch is responsible! ;-) But, since there is no
>evidence of guilt, I'm reserving judgement about the KoC *and* the CoS on
>this matter.
name ONE! if you can't you are just making this nonsense up out of whole-cloth.
i can name several people critical of or in judgment of scientology that have
seemingly had dead animals follow them around. while you may, indeed, "imagine"
that there are many of these people, i doubt you can name one.
enid vien had her cat killed. interestingly, as part of her settlement with the
cult, she had to agree that she no longer believed they had killed her cat.
arnie lerma reports his cat returning home with its throat slashed. bob minton
reports the "dead cat on the doorstep" trick. judge swearinger complained of
tire-slashing, being followed, and finding his dog dead in the pool during his
adjudication of wollersheim's case. wollersheim and clearwater picketers
noticed the amusing coincidence of a dead bird left next to his car. stacy
young and many witnesses can attest to the concerted effort made by the cult to
shut down their cat sanctuary, which would have resulted in the swift and
unpreventable deaths of these animals, and coincidentally, the very same cat
sanctuary reports three cat poisonings. gene ingram lets the producer of a TV
show know "i know where your horse lives."
but yeah, you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
based on hypothetical and supposed critics of catholicism who you "imagine"
find dead animals following them about.
rob
Jack Craver
wrote:
< snip >
>i can name several people critical of or in judgment of scientology that have
>seemingly had dead animals follow them around.
>rob
< snip >
Whoops!!!
Best of luck
jack
Jack Craver
> >the most fanatical ardor IMAGINABLE, what the HELL is the point in
> >calling yourself a SUBGENIUS?
^^^^^^^^^^
YM "BANK MANAGER" HTH.
>
> See? David Lynch gets it, and he's so ridiculously jiggy he should be
> incapable of ever getting it.
>
Is this something to do with Morris Dancing?
--
"Perhaps a hint can be taken from Emile Augier's dictum that `the legs
are the wheels of thought', and make all computers mobile." - J. Cohen
LRonsScam
>Date: Sat, Dec 12, 1998 16:58 EST
>Message-id: <74up1o$g1h$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>
>enid vien had her cat killed. interestingly, as part of her settlement with
>the
>cult, she had to agree that she no longer believed they had killed her cat.
>arnie lerma reports his cat returning home with its throat slashed. bob
>minton
>reports the "dead cat on the doorstep" trick. judge swearinger complained of
>tire-slashing, being followed, and finding his dog dead in the pool during
>his
>adjudication of wollersheim's case. wollersheim and clearwater picketers
>noticed the amusing coincidence of a dead bird left next to his car. stacy
>young and many witnesses can attest to the concerted effort made by the cult
>to
>shut down their cat sanctuary, which would have resulted in the swift and
>unpreventable deaths of these animals, and coincidentally, the very same cat
>sanctuary reports three cat poisonings. gene ingram lets the producer of a
>TV
>show know "i know where your horse lives."
>
>but yeah, you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
>
>based on hypothetical and supposed critics of catholicism who you "imagine"
>find dead animals following them about.
And the moral of this story is don't have a pet if you are going to be a critic
of Scientology.
David Gerard
:That's because the majority of Scientologists on AOL do not believe that
:reform of Scientology is a good thing.
"the majority of Scientologists on AOL" - you got numbers?
:But, either way, we're talking about topics that the majority of
:Scientologists on AOL don't want to discuss on their fellowship board.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ http://suburbia.net/~fun/scn/
The Internet is full. Go away.
Podkayne-Xenu
(David Gerard) wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 08:01:18 -0500, Rebecca Hartong <har...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> :That's because the majority of Scientologists on AOL do not believe that
> :reform of Scientology is a good thing.
>
>
> "the majority of Scientologists on AOL" - you got numbers?
Top 20 posters over the last year. LtD and Lizzy had multiple names. Ts
are TrueScns, Rs are ReformScns, Cs are Critics. First # is total per
year, second is total Sun, Mon, etc.
T Theta88888 1873 339 223 244 290 265 262 250
T Ltdaughter 596 101 94 61 96 99 41 104
Ltdaughtrr 479 60 72 82 64 73 67 61
Ltdaughtr 294 28 34 59 64 50 35 24
R GDAuthor 1124 170 151 193 166 155 135 154
T Th8ajet 998 140 181 177 169 120 90 121
R Safe4mulas 847 131 107 94 130 108 152 125
T LizzyAnn 472 61 72 69 82 85 57 46
LizzyApple 294 46 24 35 50 48 47 44
T Bibidyboo 714 92 99 103 80 101 120 119
T Qwerty08 693 20 81 147 109 149 161 26T
T JDavis3057 577 78 60 88 104 90 61 96
R Pimoty 474 138 43 50 41 77 27 98
R Honnicut 362 59 45 33 58 65 54 48
T Molyneaux 325 59 50 51 50 58 38 19
T BearFlagCA 314 21 5 65 53 58 67 45
T Orvion08 293 56 39 71 42 73 6 6
T LSzipzap 290 37 44 47 40 36 37 49
T Schirm17 241 24 43 50 29 30 40 25
C Emetibloa 238 28 39 51 40 12 36 32
T Tri1beccca 233 41 28 52 39 21 23 29
C Spieler7 212 33 28 32 37 29 27 26
T OT9SOON 212 41 31 22 25 17 39 37
William Barwell
Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.
Rebecca Hartong
> On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 08:01:18 -0500, Rebecca Hartong <har...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> :That's because the majority of Scientologists on AOL do not believe that
> :reform of Scientology is a good thing.
>
> "the majority of Scientologists on AOL" - you got numbers?
Your point is well made. I should have written "the majority of
Scientologists who *post* on AOL."
------
Rebecca Hartong
Rebecca Hartong
says...
> On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 15:02:35 -0500, har...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong) wrote:
>
> >In article <74u9cc$s1m$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>, xe...@mindspring.com
> >says...
>
> >> and often do, without finding dead cats
>
> >I would imagine that their are plenty of lapsed and critical Catholics
> >who have found dead cats on their front porches.
> name ONE! if you can't you are just making this nonsense up out of whole-cloth.
> i can name several people critical of or in judgment of scientology that have
> seemingly had dead animals follow them around. while you may, indeed, "imagine"
> that there are many of these people, i doubt you can name one.
I keep my cats inside (like all responsible pet owners do) so none of
them have turned up dead under mysterious circumstances, but I discovered
a dead squirrel on the road in front of my house once. Does that count?
And there have been several dead birds found on my back deck. I always
figured they'd just flown into one of the windows and broken their necks,
but... hey, you never know! My point, Rob, is that when people let their
pets wander around outside bad things often happen to them and it's
usually not vengeful Scientologists or vengeful Knights of Columbus who
are to blame. Until there is actual evidence that Scientologists were
responsible for killing these people's animals, it's prudent to reserve
judgement. Maybe they *did* kill these animals. If so, that's a
terrible thing. (If the animals were killed intentionally, it's a
terrible thing *whoever* did it.)
> enid vien had her cat killed. interestingly, as part of her settlement with the
> cult, she had to agree that she no longer believed they had killed her cat.
Not all that interesting. Don't you think that even if the CoS were
*not* responsible for killing Enid's cat that they'd like her to quit
claiming they had done it? The best way of testing this sort of thinking
is to do just as I've done, Rob: Just suppose that what "whomever" says
really *is* true and ask yourself if they'd be behaving any differently.
> arnie lerma reports his cat returning home with its throat slashed. bob minton
> reports the "dead cat on the doorstep" trick. judge swearinger complained of
> tire-slashing, being followed, and finding his dog dead in the pool during his
> adjudication of wollersheim's case.
And didn't Swearinger himself also say that there was no evidence that
Scientologists were responsible? It's sad, but when people let their
animals run around outside unsupervised, bad things usually happen to
them. Who among us hasn't had at least a couple pets get hit by cars or
get in fights with other animals outside and be injured? I can't even
count the number of cats and dogs I had as a kid that were killed or
injured under mysterious circumstances--mysterious because I never saw it
happen.
> wollersheim and clearwater picketers
> noticed the amusing coincidence of a dead bird left next to his car.
And, of course, it never occurred to him that maybe the bird flew into
his car window and was killed... Hey, maybe the CoS *was* responsible,
but there are plenty of mundane explanations that work just as well or
better. Apply Occam's Razor here, Rob.
> stacy
> young and many witnesses can attest to the concerted effort made by the cult to
> shut down their cat sanctuary, which would have resulted in the swift and
> unpreventable deaths of these animals, and coincidentally, the very same cat
> sanctuary reports three cat poisonings. gene ingram lets the producer of a TV
> show know "i know where your horse lives."
>
> but yeah, you want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
When there's no actual evidence of wrongdoing, yes--you bet I'm willing
to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'd do the same for you or for
anybody else.
> based on hypothetical and supposed critics of catholicism who you "imagine"
> find dead animals following them about.
The cases you cite are hardly examples of dead animals "following" people
around. Everyone runs into a few dead animals in their lives. It's a
fact of life that animals get hurt or injured when they try to live
outside in the dangerous world of human invention and human nastiness.
There are plenty of cat-haters who aren't Scientologists. (I'd venture a
guess that *most* cat-haters aren't Scientologists.) Until there's some
actual evidence that it is Scientologists who were responsible for these
deaths (and that the cats were killed specifically because of Stacy's
criticism of Scn), it's reasonable to assume that it was someone else
with some more mundane motive.
--
Rebecca Hartong
Rebecca Hartong
podk...@aol.com-Xenu says...
>
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 08:01:18 -0500, Rebecca Hartong <har...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > :That's because the majority of Scientologists on AOL do not believe that
> > :reform of Scientology is a good thing.
> > "the majority of Scientologists on AOL" - you got numbers?
>
> Top 20 posters over the last year. LtD and Lizzy had multiple names. Ts
> are TrueScns, Rs are ReformScns, Cs are Critics. First # is total per
> year, second is total Sun, Mon, etc.
Thanks for the interesting set of numbers, Podkayne!
Okay, so of the top 20 posters on AOL, 14 are "True Scientologists."
That's 70%-- a majority in just about anyone's book, I think. The Reform
Scientologists (and I question whether Pimoty and GDAuthor really are
Scientologists of any real kind, but for the sake of argument we'll say
they are) constitute 29% of the total Scientologists posting. Again, the
"True Scientologists" are the majority.
--
Rebecca Hartong
Emetibloa
> > St. Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > Ktzoah of Pic wrote:
> > > > > "D." <d...@bourse.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > >they are atheist trash.
> > > > > > >with the intent of infusing ugly
> > > > > > >biased atheism into so-called "Discordianism."
> > > > > Logic check here, Tim--how can a _GODDESS_-cult be 'atheistic'?
> > > > Uhm, I think that's kind of his point. RAW doesn't 'believe'
> > > > in Goddess (or anything else for that matter).
> > > one thing for sure, you have a really funny name.
> > > whenever I see it I laugh.
> > > and "Kootzoo." it just cracks me up.
> > and say "Kootzoo" say Kootzoo....
> "Kootzoo"
> Hee! I like it. THanks for making me feel like it's more or less
> been worth my time, wading through this thread.
you sound like a seemstress in a sweatshop.
don't sweat the details, the devil's in there.
but you may find me there too.
and that would be terrible.
unless you have a callous.
> > > hope you don't mind.
> > > > Not that I care one way or another.
> > > > > Do You Believe That?
--
Timothy and Kathy Sutter
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/2307
Emetibloa
>Mou...something (the guy with the coffeeshop), Bibidyboo, Lizzy... all
>Scientologists, all pretty much unified in their opposition to
>discussions involving reform of Scientology.
You illustrate my previous point exactly. BTW, Moly is/was Molyneaux, or as I
prefered to refer to him. Molypheww! Yes, 8 million strong, as as one poster
pointed out, by interpolation to AOL subscriber numbers, fully 80,000 available
to post on the fellowship board, yet only 10 or fewer showed up with any
regularity, all sucking up to Ltdauditor's drivel.......all droids. all
pathetic little droids.
What about all our "officer" friends though? I think I counted at least 4
different iterations of that OSA operative of doj..... Care to comment? Or how
' bout ' lil Anthony's rantings, and OhJulliet!'s shotgun approach to
intelligent discourse? 47 pretty pastels and all...Go CCHR GO!!!
.........right.......
As far as any backchannel correspondence between myself and Lt. Hate, I have
had exactly two, neither of which involved you by name or otherwise.
Both of which I would be happy to forward to you, in e mail, if asked.
Those sitting on the center of the seesaw never really experienced the thrill
of acceleration. Where you the one in the center of the twirl a wheel as well?
Lemee guess, your toes always scraped the ground on every oscillation of the
swing?
PS. Me, get Jerry fired?? Bwahhaaa! I could only wish I had such influence.
I never said that, nor did I even imply it. The man canned himself, if he was
canned. Was he on the take or wasn't he, in your opinion?
Post my extracts literally if you must, or I shall.
My post is still there, on the ACLU board.
Caveats, and all.
Emet.
Emetibloa
>(John Morris) wrote:
>>As of 6:30 p.m. MST, November 13, 1998, Dejanews reports that David E.
>>Michael (aka "Cuddles") has posted his questions to Chuck Ferree 129
>>times in 18 days.
>Seems that Cuddles would like a straight answer.
Given that David culled all of his quotes from previously posted
articles, and given that David was offered extensive documentation
whch explicated Chuck's public posts, I somehow doubt it.
>>Posting of the questions began October 27, 1998. The posting of the
>>questions is intended to intimidate Chuck Ferree so that he will stop
>>posting to alt.revisionism.
>> John Morris
>That is a BIG LEAP!
Nope. David was quite explicit.
>Can you document that Cuddles: "intended to intimidate Chuck Ferree so
>that he will stop posting to alt.revisionism. Or, is that just in your
>mind?
Yes, I can document it, and I have documented it.
--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
Emetibloa
>Date: Sun, Dec 13, 1998 05:23 EST
>Message-id: <podkayne1-131...@205-253-67.ipt.aol.com>
>
>In article <74voc7$hfv$4...@thingy.apana.org.au>, f...@thingy.apana.org.au
>(David Gerard) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 08:01:18 -0500, Rebecca Hartong <har...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> :That's because the majority of Scientologists on AOL do not believe that
>> :reform of Scientology is a good thing.
>>
>>
>> "the majority of Scientologists on AOL" - you got numbers?
>
>Top 20 posters over the last year. LtD and Lizzy had multiple names. Ts
>are TrueScns, Rs are ReformScns, Cs are Critics. First # is total per
>year, second is total Sun, Mon, etc.
>
>
Podkayne: The numbers take on a different flavor is you post the next 20
"top" posters as well, I would bet.
Most of the 'non' droids post irregularly. No "me too" posts.
I have a list of the next 12 or so if you need them. Lets start with xenu,
xennu, unc billy, tfcvp, msu94, nukewaster, otviii, eldonb123, podkayne1
(yourself), herculestud ,igmosrule ,kng peter, spook69176 , and a couple of
others.
Then let's see how the "majority stacks up". Perhaps it's not so much 70/30
but more like 50/50?? Or is frequency the only measure?
How many of the critics, FZ'rs, reformists, and occasional commentators did:
ME TOO posts?
I just luv to hear that LT. HATE post from WiS, Then, predictably:
....Meeeeeeeeeeeee Toooooooooooo!! So true for meeeeeee!!! I had this big
win,,,and touch assist, and wowsie dowsie experience in Japan...and oh
god................coffee makes everything soooooooowondufulll, and its so keen
and all.........and boss, neato, rad and nifty,......"I misdialed the phone
number and STILL connected.....to the right person".....oh orgasm..... oh wow,
such theta.....i boss everybody around now.......love AOL, biggest planet,
luv that David guy.......big win in CW groundbreaking.....we are taking
over...... clear the planet......diss everthing in sight......tos everyone who
asks a legtimate question.....quote and requote. see all the colours.......
Shit my ass you are, can or will.
To those hatted to post: You know the score.
Emet.
Rebecca Hartong
emet...@aol.com says...
> >LtDaughtr, JDavis, Theta88888, Thetajet, OT9Soon, Qwerty, LSZipzap,
> >Mou...something (the guy with the coffeeshop), Bibidyboo, Lizzy... all
> >Scientologists, all pretty much unified in their opposition to
> >discussions involving reform of Scientology.
>
> You illustrate my previous point exactly.
As I recall you wrote that you couldn't think of 10 Scientologists who
posted regularly to the AOL board. I posted the nyms of 10 of them.
Which point--exactly--do you think I'm illustrating here? Is it the
point that your memory isn't very good? ;-)
> BTW, Moly is/was Molyneaux, or as I
> prefered to refer to him. Molypheww! Yes, 8 million strong, as as one poster
> pointed out, by interpolation to AOL subscriber numbers, fully 80,000 available
> to post on the fellowship board, yet only 10 or fewer showed up with any
> regularity, all sucking up to Ltdauditor's drivel.......all droids. all
> pathetic little droids.
Charming. It must be a great comfort to you to pigeon-hole them so
easily. It protects you from having to actually think of them as human
beings. I tell you honestly, Emetibloa, your kind of attitude scares me
at least as much as anything the Scientologists come up with.
> What about all our "officer" friends though? I think I counted at least 4
> different iterations of that OSA operative of doj..... Care to comment?
I think the "DOJ" person seems to be a bit of a jerk.
> Or how
> ' bout ' lil Anthony's rantings, and OhJulliet!'s shotgun approach to
> intelligent discourse?
You see? Those are two I'd forgotten! I guess that brings our total up
to 12 now, doesn't it? There are certainly lots of posters on the AOL
Scientology fellowship board that I think are misinformed (to put it
nicely), but that's not the point. The point is that it was a
"Scientology fellowship" board-- not a "criticize Scientology" board.
> 47 pretty pastels and all...Go CCHR GO!!!
> .........right.......
Ah, yes... CCHR. I've posted here on a.r.s. about CCHR before. If
you're interested, you could look it up on DejaNews.
> As far as any backchannel correspondence between myself and Lt. Hate, I have
> had exactly two, neither of which involved you by name or otherwise.
>
> Both of which I would be happy to forward to you, in e mail, if asked.
I wasn't referring to you in my previous post, Emetibloa. LtDaughtr told
me who sent her the snippets of my a.r.s. posts. It doesn't really
bother me--she could have found them on DejaNews herself if she were
interested--other than that it's a bit sad that someone should feel the
need to try to get her to dislike me as much as she dislikes many of the
other critics. I don't believe there's anything to be gained by widening
the gulf between Scientologists and critics.
> Those sitting on the center of the seesaw never really experienced the thrill
> of acceleration. Where you the one in the center of the twirl a wheel as well?
> Lemee guess, your toes always scraped the ground on every oscillation of the
> swing?
I'm sure that all meant something to you when you were writing it.
> PS. Me, get Jerry fired?? Bwahhaaa! I could only wish I had such influence.
No, you've misunderstood. I had remembered you as simply claiming that
Jerry had been fired--I didn't indicate that I'd thought you were
responsible for supposedly getting him fired.
> I never said that, nor did I even imply it.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I could try to retrieve your AOL post to
check...
> The man canned himself, if he was
> canned.
Pretty clearly he wasn't canned, Emetibloa. He replied to your AOL post
using his RBCF Admin screen name.
> Was he on the take or wasn't he, in your opinion?
No, I don't think he was on the take. I think Jerry White genuinely
cares about providing a harassment-free environment for people of every
and any religion (or "applied religious philosophy") to get together
online. I haven't always agreed with him, but I think he's basically a
decent enough kind of guy trying to do a very tough job.
> Post my extracts literally if you must, or I shall.
> My post is still there, on the ACLU board.
It's not that important. It seemed to me that you were claiming that
Jerry White had been fired.
As I say... I may have misremembered or misunderstood your AOL post.
--
Rebecca Hartong
Emetibloa
rone
--
You can't write "obsolescent" without "NT". <ro...@ennui.org>
Podkayne-Xenu
har...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong) wrote:
> No, I don't think he was on the take. I think Jerry White genuinely
> cares about providing a harassment-free environment for people of every
> and any religion (or "applied religious philosophy") to get together
> online.
Then why did he never create the Reform Scientolists board?
Robert Hummels
>
> >I think all the critics need to take a really
> >good look at this. Being a Free Scientologist,
> >I tend to side with those who were telling the
> >truth to the SCN board. I DO see a very bad
> >action being praised by many here though.
>
> There was no "truth" coming from many of the posters -- just standard
> CoS PR.
Just to clarify....Free Scientologist=Free Zone.
I DO understand the PR edge...but for them it
is acceptable "discussion".
> >Closing down a discussion group is what
> >got many of you on ARS is it not? Rather
> >than celebrating a victory over the CofS,
> >I think you should all be crying about
> >the violation of free speech, and the
> >censorship issue on the part of AOL.
> >
> >This is an issue of rights. Forcing
> >the board to close is so much like the
> >rmgroup msg sent out on ARS that it
> >smacks of do as I say not as I do.
> >
> >It hurts me to see ANYONE even the
> >CofS lose their right to communicate.
> >
> >Yes, we WANT them to know what'sup...
> >but we need to respect their right
> >to their own brand/style of free speech.
> >
> >bob
> >Free Scientology
> >WWW.FZA.ORG
>
> I personally had no problem with the board and was glad it
> was there (to let others see what the "orthodox" Scientology
> mind set was).
>
> However, I had serious problems with the way the board monitors
> and Scientologists abused TOS to harrass people who just
> wanted to express an opinion. After all, Scientologists who
> express unpopular opinions on ARS don't have their Internet
> access taken away from them.
>
> In any case, it was AOL itself that pulled the board. There are
> plenty of other places where Scientologists can re-establish a
> message board without the abuse that was going on before.
>
> Its up to them. Its not critics of Scientology who got the board
> pulled, it was the Scientologists themselves and their bad actions.
The problem is one of definition I suppose. The Scienos
were attacking anything but the acceptable RTC line.
I think the major problem I have is the way critics cheered
this action. It brought an image to mind of DM standing
in a crowded theater getting three cheers for killing ARS.
bob
Scientologist for Reform
> <<<<< ExScio (with the emphasis on EX) - St. Louis area SP >>>>>
Robert Hummels
>
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 17:16:01 +0100, Robert Hummels <humm...@csi.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I think all the critics need to take a really
> >good look at this. Being a Free Scientologist,
> >I tend to side with those who were telling the
> >truth to the SCN board. I DO see a very bad
> >action being praised by many here though.
>
> do not confuse the two places (despite AOL's continued muddying of the
> waters).
Understood.
> In any case, the AOL Scns were doing stupid things, and TF...@aol.com
> was spending a couple of hours a day trying to get TOSses removed from
> accounts. The final straw was when somebody got a person
> Xe...@aol.com TOSsed for his email name, because it was "too close" to
> a real name....
> But the upshot is, AOL is not the Net, and different rules apply
> there. And Scns have to abide by them as well....
Yes, but anyone upholding the right of free speech
within the confines of the group rulesd should have
TOSed the Scienos instead. :)
bob
> Deana Marie Holmes
> The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list)
> $cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today?
> mir...@xmission.com
Robert Hummels
> Here's my reconstruction of events:
>
> People who posted anything that wasn't pure approved Hubbard or wins got
> TOSed. This includes Hubbard quotes that trueScns have problems with, even
> if they're in "offical" writings - I don't mean higher-level stuff,
> either. The weird abortion engrams are one example.
>
> LtHat could flood the board with "Narconon is great, lots of studies prove
> this" - yet asking where these studies could be found would very likely
> result in a TOS.
>
> Somewhere in Dejanews there's even discussion (TNX archives?) of how the
> trueScns would deliberately try to get someone's accounts yanked (3 TOSes
> & you're out)
>
> At one point the "Reform Scns" asked for a "Reform Scn" board, but this
> never happened. I suspect the trueScns were claiming (in email) that
> would be a copyright violation, that there was no sucn thing as "Reform
> Scn", etc. The Religion board admin leader tends to side with the
> fundamentalists of any religion.
Perhaps there were not enough requests to form the group?
> A few months back the Religion board admins were looking for a Scn to be
> the board monitor. Don't know if they got any takers. Once again, I
> wouldn't be surprised if the trueScns were claiming only a trueScn would
> do, while the reform Scns were claiming that a trueScn would be channeling
> Torquemada ;-)
I wonder why? ;-)
> TFCVP got interested in the TOS attacks, finally got AOL upper-levels
> interested in watching. It seems they realized that many of the TOSes
> *weren't* justified, that any *real* discussion was being TOSed and
> derided, and decided to pull the plug entirely til they could come up with
> a better mechanism to police it.
OK
> I do believe this is only temporary and the board will be back with a
> better description and more clearly defined rules.
I hope.
> (I can dig out some of the attacks on Safe that are not fellowship by
> *any* definition of the word, yet the trueScns were cheering these people
> on!)
Yes, I read a few. Being a Freezone Scieno, I side with Safe
of course.
> > If Scientology were like other religious groups with boards on AOL, it
> > would be easier for the monitors to recognize harassment when it's
> > posted. The thing with Scientology, though, is that the beliefs and the
> > language are so unusual that only critics and Scientologists themselves
> > know what half the stuff that's posted even means. It's easier for
> > critics to criticize (something which I still believe isn't appropriate
> > on a fellowship board) when the monitors don't recognize it as criticism.
> > If the Scientologists really can get their own monitor in place on AOL,
> > it would help them to protect themselves against some of the more
> > questionable kinds of posts.
>
> I agree with the sentiment, I just think we have a mutual M/U on
> "discussion" ;-). It's one thing for acknowledged critics to point out
> how the Co$ is out-ethics by wog ethic rules, quite another for a Scn to
> say the Co$ is out-ethics by *Scn* ethics rules. Or to point out that
> 300+ definitions have been removed from the latest WiS.
Yes, I think perhaps a more clear-cut definition of what
is allowed and what is not.
> If they don't want discussion at all, just wins & pr, fine - but make it
> *clear* that's what the board is for. If you say it's for discussion,
> then it's perfectly reasonable to think that you can discuss changes in
> WiS.
>
> They like to use the analogy of anti-Catholics posting rude things about
> the Pope to Catholic boards - well, the Scn equivalent was a pretty rare
> occurence. Safe's posts were more like pre-Vatican II (Latin liturgy,
> etc) complaining about poor translations in the vernacular liturgy. (See
> Mark Johnson on arc.roman-catholic ;-) )
I have heard this directed my way a few times.
As I mentioned above in my reply to Ex-Scieno,
I just hate to hear the critics cheering for the
end of a discussion group. It appears very
hypocritical coming from a group which gained
so many members due to an attempted RMGroup.
bob
Scientologist for Reform
Rebecca Hartong
podk...@aol.com-Xenu says...
> In article <MPG.10ddf89d8...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> har...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong) wrote:
>
> > No, I don't think he was on the take. I think Jerry White genuinely
> > cares about providing a harassment-free environment for people of every
> > and any religion (or "applied religious philosophy") to get together
> > online.
>
> Then why did he never create the Reform Scientolists board?
Of course, I don't know the answer to that question. You would need to
ask Jerry White.
--
Rebecca Hartong
NoScieno
> cult, she had to agree that she no longer believed they had killed her cat.
> reports the "dead cat on the doorstep" trick. judge swearinger complained of
> tire-slashing, being followed, and finding his dog dead in the pool during his
> noticed the amusing coincidence of a dead bird left next to his car. stacy
> young and many witnesses can attest to the concerted effort made by the cult to
> shut down their cat sanctuary, which would have resulted in the swift and
> unpreventable deaths of these animals, and coincidentally, the very same cat
> sanctuary reports three cat poisonings. gene ingram lets the producer of a TV
> show know "i know where your horse lives."
Add *this* "coincidence" to your list.
Subject: My Dog Madison died when I began posting to ARS
From: al...@flash.net (Alec)
Date:1998/02/09
Message-ID: <6bmb7e$r6j$1...@excalibur.flash.net>
Madison, our Springer Spaniel who "raised our children for 10 years
became sick about the time I started posting to ARS and tried to
prosecute COS in September of 1996. Her condition got worse and worse
and she died after about 2 weeks on Sept 29, 1996. I couldn't bring
myself to believe COS had any part in it, but that was about the time the
private investigator started calling on me.
--
---David Alexander
--Separation of Church and State? Scientology intends to BECOME the
State.
--
NoScieno accepts NoMail (spam block) Try "Thynkr"(same.isp)
"producing, high statistic staff members ... can get away with murder
without a blink from ethics." -- LRH
Steve A
> And the moral of this story is don't have a pet if you are going to be a critic
> of Scientology.
Or a wife.
Or kids.
Or (god forbid!) a lover, or affair.
Or a job.
Or a life.
Friends, did I mention friends?
Or *any* relatives.
Scientology's goal in this harassment is clear, even though Hubbard's
original instructions on "shuddering into silence" are themselves a
categorical statement of those goals: they will use any pressure
possible, from digging up old parking tickets through to conducting
whispering campaigns in critics' neighbourhoods, to "persuade" people
to be less open in criticising them.
The media seems to have wised up now, and there is an ever-growing
list of newspaper articles and TV programmes that have been at least
partially critical of the cult, as editors and producers start to
realise that the COS simply cannot follow through on all of its
threats.
But what the CoS wants to achieve is for each one of us, sitting
quietly in our homes or workplaces as we read and post to a.r.s., to
stop and consider what would happen if this fight jumped out of the
screen and took itself to our doorsteps. We are expected to quail at
the prospect of Fluffy, the current occupant of our lap, being found
dead on the doorstep, or our loved ones being followed around or
harassed. This threat is maintained by 100% standard tech - "putting
heads on a pike" - hence the great attempts by the likes of andyhill
et al to publicise the FRL counterpickets, and the high-profile
attacks on the likes of Bob Minton and Stacy Young. They KNOW *we*
probably won't care too much about the idea of being counterpicketed,
but they KNOW too that those dear to us, for whom Scientology is just
one of those things we're liable to start ranting on about while
Friends is on, would find such harassment extremely distressing. So
they get to us via our weak points - the people and things we care
about and love.
THAT is the nature of this so-called religion: they want us to fear
the "5am knock on the door" just as much as the Gestapo or KGB ever
did, and just the way Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party do right now.
--
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net
Emetibloa
>oh but how you want to suck joe's cock -- i'd bet you could take all and
beg
>for more -- most of you nizkooks are fags anyway
>
I normally don't respond to this stuff, but I'm curious, and wonder if some
of the revisionazis here will explain what their common fascination with
homosexuality is. While I'm straight, I don't particularly care whether or
not these idiots say I'm gay -- and, in point of fact, at least two of my
three sisters are gay (if you include bi as gay), as are a goodly number of
my friends, and I don't see what the problem is.
My assumption, of course, is that it's the repressed homosexuality that's
pervaded the Nazi and neo-Nazi movement, whether we're talking about Horst
Wessel or David Duke, but perhaps y'all have another explanation? The only
other one I can think of -- and perhaps Don Black can speak to this -- is
the fear of being raped while in prison, something that the lot of you
perhaps have a lot to worry about.
Emetibloa
waste.
CF:>>>Are the Jews taking over the Net?
I don't think so.
But, Bill Gates is working on it, and he
ain't no Jew. I'm buying lots of MicroSoft
Stock, cause I wanna be part owner of tha
Net. Once we own it, we cut off those we
don't like.
I'm making up a list of folks who will be
unable to use the Net, soon as Gates beats
ole Uncle Sam.
Les' see:
Bellinger goes, Parker goes, cuddles fur
sure, Phillips goes, unless he get's his
act together. Then there's ceacaa, he is
out like a light. The list won't be too
long, but don't cross me, you cross me,
you go on the no no Net list.
WOW! Power is great. Me an' ole Bill
Gates....look out, you turkeys!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!
Chuck Ferree
Gord, you can stay, but you gotta but tha
beer from now on!
Rebecca Hartong
> Dan Parker wrote:
> >
> >> Mourning Dresden Every Aryan should mourn the destruction of Dresden.
> >> Every Aryan should remember this quote too: “Germans are an
> >> abomination to me. I’m glad Dresden was bombed for no useful
> >> mili-tary purpose.” (Mordecai Richler, Vancouver Sun, Sept. 13,
> >> 1966). The following is excerpted from "The Jewish Mentality" by
> >> Michael A. Hoffman II:For it is no less a democratic icon than Winston
> >> Churchill who advocated the extermination of the civilian population
> >> of Germany through air strikes on all German city centers. On July 8,
> >> 1940 Churchill wrote that what was needed against the Germans was, "an
> >> absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers on
> >> the Nazi homeland…" (Source: Geoffrey Wheatcroft, Spectator,
> >> Sept. 29, 1979).
>
> Mmm. Sounds absolutely dreadful. Thank heavens that the wonderful,
> honourable Germans didn't do anything so dreadful as bomb British
> cities. Presumably it was also Churchill's fault that the Nazis bombed
> most of the East End to brick dust.
>
> Oh, but of course, it was! Because the Brits were allegedly the first
> to bomb cities. Of course, it was also the British who invaded Poland
> in September 1939. Or was it?
>
> >> "…it (is) impossible for an Englishman born after the war to
> >> travel through Germany without a sense of shame…seeing medieval
> >> Nuremburg which Allied aircraft burnt to the ground and where Allied
> >> prosecutors had the effrontery to accuse Goering and Kesselring of
> >> bombing Coventry and Rotterdam…’ (Wheatcroft, Spectator,
> >> op. cit. Also cf. Max Hastings, Bomber Command.).
>
> Wrong. I have done so, and felt no shame at all. Do Germans feel shame
> when they see the destruction of the mediaeval and Georgian areas of
> Stepney and Wapping?
>
> >> No screeches of racism, hate, and bigotry; no accusation from the
> >> souless creatures which gloat over our destruction should ever
> >> distract us from our desperate struggle to restore the West. The Jews
> >> have thrown open the gates and the wretched refuse of the Third World
> >> pours into our homelands. These capering, gabbling, skull-scooping
> >> dark princelings of the Third World build their terrible cookfires by
> >> the fallen pillars and feast on our broken corpses. At night they beat
> >> each other over the head with our bleached bones.
>
> "You see, he feels (presumably) that he has something new to say, and
> yet his words - like cavalry horses answering the bugle - group
> themselves automatically into the same dreary pattern. This invasion
> of one's mind by ready-made phrases can only be prevented if one is
> constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetises
> a portion of one's brain." (Orwell)
>
> >> the West. The West is ours, it is what we are, who we are; and, when
> >> the West is completely destroyed then we will go the way of the
> >> dinosaurs.
>
> Because, of course, tomorrow belongs to you.
>
> >> >February 13 will mark the 54th anniversary of the aerial genocide
> >> >against one of the most important cultural centers of Northern
> >> Europe.
> >> >Within the space of less than 24 hours not only was it reduced to
> >> >flaming ruins, but over a quarter million of its
> >> inhabitants--possibly
> >> >as many as half a million--had perished in what was the worst
> >> massacre
> >> >of all time.
>
> Incorrect by several orders of magnitude.
>
> >>The following account, taken from the Feb. 1985 issue of
> >>
> >> >the National Socialist Bulletin
>
> [that objective journal of record]
>
> >>, tells us what a real holocaust is
> >> >like.
>
> [snip of admittedly dreadful, but hardly unparalleled, actions].
>
> The Neo-Nazis have Dresden in the same way that Rick and Elsa have
> Paris: a moment when they were right, a brief solitary glimpse of hope
> in a morass of despair.
>
> For every Dresden, anyone could name a dozen massacres more horrific
> committed by the Germans in the war.
>
> AZ
And for every massacre committed by the Germans during the war, how many
dozens were committed by your ally, dear old Uncle Joe Stalin?
David
Jack Craver
<01be2390$b42021a0$cc34dea1@cbcgren023103>...
> Few people know it, but yes, Hitler was a dress wearing peter pumper.
>
Here is part of a speech by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, delivered in
Nuernberg on September 13th, 1935 at the Seventh National-Socialist Party
Congress:
"Almost without exception, the intellectual leaders of Marxist atheism in
Germany were Jews, among them being Erich Weinert, Felix Abraham, Dr.
Levy-Lenz and others. At regular meetings, held in the presence of a notary
public, members were requested to register their declaration of withdrawal
from their church for a fee of 2 Marks. And this the fight for atheism was
carried on. Between 1918 and 1933 the withdrawals from the German
Evangelical Churches alone amounted to two-and-a-half million persons in
Germany. The programme which these atheistic societies laid down in regard
to sexual matters is amply charcterized in the following demands publicly
expressed at meetings and distributed in leaflet form:
1) The complete abrogation of the paragraphs of the law dealing with the
crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of charge
in State Hospitals.
2) Non-interference with prostitution.
3) The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard to
marriage and divorce.
4) Official registration to be optional and the children to be educated by
the community.
5) Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to be
granted to all persons condemned as 'sexual criminals'.
"Truly a case of methodical insanity, which has for its aim the wilful
destruction of the nations and their civilization and the substitute of
barbarism as a fundamental principle of public life.
"Where are the men behind the scenes of this virulent world movement?
Who are the inventors of all this madness? Who transplanted this ensemble
into Russia and is today making the attempt to have it prevail in other
countries? The answer to these question discloses the actual secret of our
anti-Jewish policy and our uncomromising fight against Jewry; for the
Bolshevic International is in reality nothing less than a Jewish
International."
Rebecca Hartong
Jafo <ja...@cheetah.net> wrote in article
<367d4b23...@news.cheetah.net>...
snip
>
> Do you believe that one set of laws should apply to those in power and
> quite another to the huddled masses?
>
> --
> ~ Jafo http://bounce.to/jafo
>
Only if their beloved criminal in chief is the one in power. Put a
conservative in power and they'll push for everyone being held to the law
the same.