FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement
Diane Richardson
After reading Ted Mayett's post, I registered with FACTNet (hi,
Larry!) and conducted a search using their search engine. On my first
effort, I hit upon what is most certainly a copyright infringement.
The work is not the property of Bridge Publications, Inc., but it is
a copyrighted work. There is no indication of the source of the
document or of its copyright status, but the full text of the document
is included in the FACTNet database. Some sections of the document
are so badly garbled by poor scanning that they are indecipherable.
Enough of the original document remains, however, to verify that it is
a word-for-word copy of a copyrighted newspaper article. The text of
the article is reproduced in the FACTNet database without any
attribution as to the copyright status or the copyright owner of the
work. I would be willing to bet the farm that FACTNet did not obtain
the copyright holder's permission to include the full text of this
work in their database, since it's apparent that whoever scanned in
the article had no idea as to its source.
The FACTNet database is not a "library" or an "archive." It is a
database. Database producers cannot appropriate the intellectual
property of others for inclusion in their databases without first
obtaining authorization from the copyright owners. It is apparent
from even the most cursory search of the database that FACTNet has not
met this legal obligation.
Has FACTNet ever wondered why libraries don't include the full texts
of works they own in their on-line catalogs? Has FACTNet ever
considered why it is that The Gutenberg Project includes only works
that have entered the public domain? Has FACTNet thought about why
full-text databases such as Nexus and Dow-Jones charge user fees?
Has FACTNet ever wondered why libraries must sign licensing agreements
before they can subscribe to these services?
Apparently not.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Tom Klemesrud
Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
: After reading Ted Mayett's post, I registered with FACTNet (hi,
: Larry!) and conducted a search using their search engine. On my first
: effort, I hit upon what is most certainly a copyright infringement.
: The work is not the property of Bridge Publications, Inc., but it is
: a copyrighted work. There is no indication of the source of the
: document or of its copyright status, but the full text of the document
: is included in the FACTNet database. Some sections of the document
: are so badly garbled by poor scanning that they are indecipherable.
: Enough of the original document remains, however, to verify that it is
: a word-for-word copy of a copyrighted newspaper article. The text of
: the article is reproduced in the FACTNet database without any
: attribution as to the copyright status or the copyright owner of the
: work. I would be willing to bet the farm that FACTNet did not obtain
: the copyright holder's permission to include the full text of this
: work in their database, since it's apparent that whoever scanned in
: the article had no idea as to its source.
I'd be willing to bet the farm that you, Diane Richardson, have such
a newspaper clipping in your residence right now too. Do you think
a federal judge should deprive you of your civil rights because of
it? Are you saying such is not fair use?
: The FACTNet database is not a "library" or an "archive." It is a
: database. Database producers cannot appropriate the intellectual
: property of others for inclusion in their databases without first
: obtaining authorization from the copyright owners. It is apparent
: from even the most cursory search of the database that FACTNet has not
As a librarian, you should know that a library or archive or database
are interchangeable concepts; and as such, are hackneyed powerless
words. What do you mean Diane--what's the agenda? Be specific.
I believe you've mistated database laws too.
Tom Klemesrud SP6
KoX
Inducto
>>After reading Ted Mayett's post, I registered with FACTNet (hi,
Larry!) and conducted a search using their search engine. On my first
effort, I hit upon what is most certainly a copyright infringement.
<<
Given your notes as to the obviously poor quality of the scan, it's
entirely possible that they got it through such means that they were
unaware of its source and copyright status.
And then again, if they're an online library, why can't they have the
clipping in their "files" the same as a regular library?
Rather than complaining, not knowing the real situation, you could make an
inquiry or even offer to help out. Certainly that way you could actually
ascertain whether they are careless scoundrels as you implied, or are
concerned about this and would actually welcome the expertise and
thoroughness of someone like you.
I.
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
"Sorry, my dog ate my homepage" (but you can try to find it at http://127.0.0.1/dev/null)
Ron Newman
> After reading Ted Mayett's post, I registered with FACTNet (hi,
> Larry!) and conducted a search using their search engine. On my first
> effort, I hit upon what is most certainly a copyright infringement.
[snip]
> Enough of the original document remains, however, to verify that it is
> a word-for-word copy of a copyrighted newspaper article.
[snip]
> The FACTNet database is not a "library" or an "archive." It is a
> database. Database producers cannot appropriate the intellectual
> property of others for inclusion in their databases without first
> obtaining authorization from the copyright owners. It is apparent
> from even the most cursory search of the database that FACTNet has not
> met this legal obligation.
To be fair, the same can be said about the contents of many of
the web sites maintained by the non-members of the ARSCC throughout
the world. Including my own.
Why single out FACTnet?
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Diane Richardson
On Sat, 2 Aug 1997 18:26:52 GMT, tom...@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud)
wrote:
[snip]
>I'd be willing to bet the farm that you, Diane Richardson, have such
>a newspaper clipping in your residence right now too. Do you think
>a federal judge should deprive you of your civil rights because of
>it? Are you saying such is not fair use?
No, Tom, because reading a personal photocopy is not the same as
distributing it on the internet. One is not generally considered an
infringement, while the other is.
>: The FACTNet database is not a "library" or an "archive." It is a
>: database. Database producers cannot appropriate the intellectual
>: property of others for inclusion in their databases without first
>: obtaining authorization from the copyright owners. It is apparent
>: from even the most cursory search of the database that FACTNet has not
>
>As a librarian, you should know that a library or archive or database
>are interchangeable concepts; and as such, are hackneyed powerless
>words. What do you mean Diane--what's the agenda? Be specific.
>I believe you've mistated database laws too.
What database laws do are you referring to? I'm talking about
copyright law. As for the terms library, archive, and database being
interchangeable, you are sorely mistaken.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Sat, 02 Aug 1997 15:27:57 -0400, rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman)
wrote:
>In article <33e35056...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>
>> After reading Ted Mayett's post, I registered with FACTNet (hi,
>> Larry!) and conducted a search using their search engine. On my first
>> effort, I hit upon what is most certainly a copyright infringement.
>
>[snip]
>
>> Enough of the original document remains, however, to verify that it is
>> a word-for-word copy of a copyrighted newspaper article.
>
>[snip]
>
>> The FACTNet database is not a "library" or an "archive." It is a
>> database. Database producers cannot appropriate the intellectual
>> property of others for inclusion in their databases without first
>> obtaining authorization from the copyright owners. It is apparent
>> from even the most cursory search of the database that FACTNet has not
>> met this legal obligation.
>
>To be fair, the same can be said about the contents of many of
>the web sites maintained by the non-members of the ARSCC throughout
>the world. Including my own.
>
>Why single out FACTnet?
Because FACTNet is appealing for funds to finance their defense
against copyright infringement charges brought against them by BPI,
Ron.
Because Larry Wollersheim has files a declaration swearing under oath
that, to the best of his knowledge, the FACTNet database does not
violate copyrights.
Neither you nor others who have websites much such claims.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Phil Weiss
Diane Richardson wrote:
> The FACTNet database is not a "library" or an "archive." It is a
> database. Database producers cannot appropriate the intellectual
> property of others for inclusion in their databases without first
> obtaining authorization from the copyright owners. It is apparent
> from even the most cursory search of the database that FACTNet has not
> met this legal obligation.
Ron Newman wrote:
> To be fair, the same can be said about the contents of many of
> the web sites maintained by the non-members of the ARSCC throughout
> the world. Including my own.
>
> Why single out FACTnet?
Because FACTnet is asking for our money. Last I checked, you weren't
pleading for money.
FACTnet also seems to be pretty belligerent about its "right" to distribute
someone elses work. I've put newspaper articles on websites before. If
asked by the copyright owner or a legal representative thereof, I would
have removed them, provided I was reasonably sure their representations
were true.
Just seems to me that Diane is pointing out a few items that are missing in
the discussion.
Phil.
Diane Richardson
On 2 Aug 1997 19:58:50 GMT, ind...@aol.com (Inducto) wrote:
>>>After reading Ted Mayett's post, I registered with FACTNet (hi,
>Larry!) and conducted a search using their search engine. On my first
>effort, I hit upon what is most certainly a copyright infringement.
><<
>
>Given your notes as to the obviously poor quality of the scan, it's
>entirely possible that they got it through such means that they were
>unaware of its source and copyright status.
Nope. It's obviously a newspaper article. It cannot be mistaken for
anything else.
>And then again, if they're an online library, why can't they have the
>clipping in their "files" the same as a regular library?
Because they have included the clipping in a database without,
obviously, first obtaining the consent of the copyright holder to
include the article in the database or permitting its distribution to
anyone with access to that database.
>Rather than complaining, not knowing the real situation, you could make an
>inquiry or even offer to help out. Certainly that way you could actually
>ascertain whether they are careless scoundrels as you implied, or are
>concerned about this and would actually welcome the expertise and
>thoroughness of someone like you.
I have offered to take over the entire Factnet "library and archive",
as long as Larry Wollersheim is not associated with it in any way,
shape or form. The offer still stands.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Nico Garcia
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) writes:
> Because FACTNet is appealing for funds to finance their defense
> against copyright infringement charges brought against them by BPI,
> Ron.
>
> Because Larry Wollersheim has files a declaration swearing under oath
> that, to the best of his knowledge, the FACTNet database does not
> violate copyrights.
Diane, do you have any *concept* of how tangled the copyrights of electronic
materials are right now? It is absolutely vital that $cientology *not*
get the precedents they want, because their precedents would chill the
most protected and vital of speech, the exposure of *fraud*.
Newspaper articles are hardly heavily protected documents: and as an
electronic library, FACTNet would seem to have as much status in
keeping a copy available for review as a public library. Of course,
the law about this is labyrinthine to say the least, for many reasons. But
I hope that the courts treat this very carefully.
What has happened to you, Diane? You used to go quite effectively
after the blatant lies, fraud, etc. of the cult. Now you are picking
on FACTnet, who while they may not be lily clean are at least *trying*
to do some good by organizing and making available information about
cults.
> Neither you nor others who have websites much such claims.
Most of us are not such big targets. Larry is *wanted* by these people,
he's probably enemy #1 or #2.
--
Nico Garcia
ra...@tiac.net
<PGP is obviously a good idea: look at who objects to it.>
Keith
Subject: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement
:The FACTNet database is not a "library" or an "archive." It is a
:database. Database producers cannot appropriate the intellectual
:property of others for inclusion in their databases without first
:obtaining authorization from the copyright owners. It is apparent
:from even the most cursory search of the database that FACTNet has not
:met this legal obligation.
Diane, how do expect FACTnet to even know what a copyright law is? Isn't the
fact that they are stopping the CRIMINAL CULT from ... Hmm what exactly are
they stopping the CoS from doing? Oh yea, from brainwashing people and taking
their money away. Doesn't that outweigh the copyright infringement? Isn't
public service a reason to break the law? Sometimes two wrongs do make a
right. Let's say that FACTnet had a database of copyrighted German newspaper
articles depicting the Scientologist as evil criminals, brainwashed dupes and
sewer rats. (For the sake of argument let's say FACTnet opposed these
articles) Would you say that the copyright infringement was justified? If you
take the copyright argument to far then you are doing a disservice to it as a
whole.
The reason there are fees collected by Lexus-Nexis is that the corporation
sells those articles for a profit. Now I don't know if FACTnet sells these
articles or charges a subscription fee, but if they don't then the copyright
infringement is minor. It is even less so then Lerma's because the copyrighted
text Lerma published had a market value. Where this article from a newspaper
that is dated really has no more of a market value. However, the newspaper can
, at it's discretion, inform FACTnet that it is violating the copyright and
collect fees.
You must also take into account that a copyright fee is already built into the
system for most major media. Whenever you make a copy of something on a pay
copy machine the fee is built into the system. The sames goes for tapes you
buy at the store. Isn't the fact that the copyright system is already
collecting fees for copyright infringement weigh into this?
Basically it is the Copyright holders responsibility to hold others for
copyright violation. If the law that is written was applied to every situation
the courts would be filled with copyright cases. However, a little common
sense goes a long way in weighing if ones copyright infringement is worth the
hassal of the corporation's attorney.
To protect itself FACTnet should obtain permissions from the copyright
holders, however a certain group of copyright holders is going to crush
FACTnet with massive litigation so the point is mute.
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------
! Keith Wyatt http://www.teleport.com/~kewyatt !
! PO Box 18357 Salem, OR 97305 503-373-4696 !
! PGP KEY by finger and keyservers !
----------------------------------------------------------
roger gonnet
Nico Garcia wrote:
>
> ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) writes:
>
> > Because FACTNet is appealing for funds to finance their defense
> > against copyright infringement charges brought against them by BPI,
> > Ron.
> >
> > Because Larry Wollersheim has files a declaration swearing under
> oath
> > that, to the best of his knowledge, the FACTNet database does not
> > violate copyrights.
>
Paid by scienos? or disliking some anti-scienos?
You used to go quite effectively
> after the blatant lies, fraud, etc. of the cult. Now you are picking
> on FACTnet, who while they may not be lily clean are at least *trying*
> to do some good by organizing and making available information about
> cults.
Clearly obvious. Some proud side has been chocked??
>
> > Neither you nor others who have websites much such claims.
>
> Most of us are not such big targets. Larry is *wanted* by these
> people,
> he's probably enemy #1 or #2.
Sure, and their best critic ever, thisn since 180; i have his work of
1980 (an affidavit) on my page in French. Already very penetrating a
look into upper levels, into LRH lies etc.
>
> --
> Nico Garcia
> ra...@tiac.net
> <PGP is obviously a good idea: look at who objects to it.>
Roger
StveJ
Roland said:
In an otherwise provacative, interesting and well written post,
Roland wondered:
>Isn't the fact that the copyright system is already
>collecting fees for copyright infringement weigh into this?
world there is a great deal of searching and checking to
see if people are paying their due. And part of the fees that
commercial sites (stations, etc.) pay goes into a general
fund. But I do not think that there is a mechanism for this
in the print world.
We should ask an expert. Roland is claiming copyright
for items on his page-
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~rolandrb/index.html
He must have all the data. Perhaps all the copyright
terrorists will see this as a gauntlet thrown
and a prompting to copy his code.
When they do, we can see how he interprets his
rights. Maybe he will think that he has already been
compensated by fees of the copyright system.
SteveJ
Peter McDermott
In article <tomklemE...@netcom.com>,
tom...@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud) wrote:
>: work. I would be willing to bet the farm that FACTNet did not obtain
>: the copyright holder's permission to include the full text of this
>: work in their database, since it's apparent that whoever scanned in
>: the article had no idea as to its source.
>
>I'd be willing to bet the farm that you, Diane Richardson, have such
>a newspaper clipping in your residence right now too.
Sure. And she'd be perfectly entitled to do so as well. However,
if she decided to publish that clipping, that would be a very
different matter.
>Do you think a federal judge should deprive you of your civil
>rights because of it?
In what sense? Whether you like it or not, if you provide the
world with evidence that you're breaking the law, only a fool
would be surprised when their enemies use this evidence to
pursue legal remedies that will seriously inconvenience you at
the very least.
>Are you saying such is not fair use?
What, publishing other people's copyrighted material in its entirity
on the web is fair use?
I don't think so, Tom. If *this* was the basis of the Scieno's case
against them, FACTnet dont stand a snowball's chance in hell of
winning.
Unfortunately, we don't actually know what the charges are, because
for some reason FACTnet won't tell us.
Peter McDermott
In article <19970802195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ind...@aol.com (Inducto) wrote:
>And then again, if they're an online library, why can't they have the
>clipping in their "files" the same as a regular library?
Um, because it's illegal? How do you distinguish between an 'online
library' and an 'online publisher'?
A. Student
On 03 Aug 1997 00:42:44 -0400, Nico Garcia <ra...@shell1.tiac.net>
wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) writes:
>
>> Because FACTNet is appealing for funds to finance their defense
>> against copyright infringement charges brought against them by BPI,
>> Ron.
>>
>> Because Larry Wollersheim has files a declaration swearing under oath
>> that, to the best of his knowledge, the FACTNet database does not
>> violate copyrights.
>
>Diane, do you have any *concept* of how tangled the copyrights of electronic
>materials are right now? It is absolutely vital that $cientology *not*
>get the precedents they want, because their precedents would chill the
>most protected and vital of speech, the exposure of *fraud*.
>
>Newspaper articles are hardly heavily protected documents: and as an
>electronic library, FACTNet would seem to have as much status in
>keeping a copy available for review as a public library. Of course,
>the law about this is labyrinthine to say the least, for many reasons. But
>I hope that the courts treat this very carefully.
>
>What has happened to you, Diane? You used to go quite effectively
>after the blatant lies, fraud, etc. of the cult. Now you are picking
>on FACTnet, who while they may not be lily clean are at least *trying*
>to do some good by organizing and making available information about
>cults.
>
>> Neither you nor others who have websites much such claims.
>
>Most of us are not such big targets. Larry is *wanted* by these people,
>he's probably enemy #1 or #2.
This situation reminds me of a war general who has orders from
strategic command to defend Europe, but then receives a notice that
his troops cannot drive their tanks through a cow pasture in
Switzerland because there is a sign posted "no tresspassing."
While the war room argues for days over the issue, the enemy moves
their tanks through the same pasture and also violates rules of
conduct in inernational airspace to fly into friendly territory and
drop bombs all over the place beyond the line of demarcation. So I
ask, in your knowledge, when was the last time Scientology violated
rules of ethics, mores, and codes? Yesterday? Today? Every day?
BTW, I wouldn't let Diane assume control of the FACTNet archives/
library/database though she may be a fine librarian and exceptionally
well-trained with a MLS. While she may know the finer points of
librarianship, she appears to have a lesser command of strategy and
rules of engagement. The FACTNet archives/library/database should
remain solidly under the direct command of FACTNet, who demonstrate a
command of these concepts. And, BTW, there is no difference between
a library, an archive, or a database if your strategic goal is to
extract data.
I wish Diane would just drop this personal clash with Wollersheim and
just offer her expertise (behind the scenes) on how to make the
FACTNet library better. People can change, and change for the better.
Cutting a little slack is a good thing sometimes. People, even
Scientologists if you can believe that, can and do make mistakes.
I'd even cut Scientology some slack if they would pay all their back
refunds in full, show compassion for past wrongs, and change for the
better, e.g., change to a religion instead of a cult.
But as long as they won't, this is war.
Frankly, Scientology should change its strategic model. It should
drop all charges for all services, and publish everything it has for
free on the Internet, and go to a pure volunteership and donations
model. Even if it means closing down much of the bricks and mortar,
if the organization can survive purely on donations, that would prove
the practice of Scientology is worthwhile. There should be an end to
the policy of disconnection. The organization should draw strong
lines between church and state, and not push for the general
infiltration of classes at educational institutions with its methods
or teachings. Since we no longer allow school prayer in the United
States, why should we now allow clay demos and ARC breaks. Seems
hypocritical.
Anyway, the organization should open the door to allow full academic
criticism of Hubbard's works, and allow for the possibility that there
are now and will be in the future people in the world much brighter
than Hubbard, and the organization could benefit greatly by their
criticsm, creativity and insight. It's time for the leadership of
Scientology to think outside the box. It's time to stop being a cult
and to start being a religion. It's either that or the cult will be
driven down to zero. Think it cannot happen? Just wait till the IRS
rules that cults are not entitled to the non-profit org tax
exemptions. This in turn will also revoke various other federal,
state, and local tax & fee exemptions including postage rates. Ouch!
A. Student
Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) writes:
>
>> Because FACTNet is appealing for funds to finance their defense
>> against copyright infringement charges brought against them by BPI,
>> Ron.
>>
>> Because Larry Wollersheim has files a declaration swearing under oath
>> that, to the best of his knowledge, the FACTNet database does not
>> violate copyrights.
>
>Diane, do you have any *concept* of how tangled the copyrights of electronic
>materials are right now?
Of course I do, Nico. The issue of whether someone can include the
full text of a copyrighted work in a database without first obtaining
authorization from the copyright owner to do so has, however, been
settled long ago.
>It is absolutely vital that $cientology *not*
>get the precedents they want, because their precedents would chill the
>most protected and vital of speech, the exposure of *fraud*.
No precedents will be set in this case. There is no need to violate
copyright to expose fraud. Courts have found that the fair use
doctrine -- an intrinsic part of the current copyright law -- serves
the purpose of exposure of fraudulent activities quite well.
The Washington Post did exactly that in their article describing the
contents of the Fishman affidavit which Arnie Lerma posted to this
newsgroup. RTC sued the Washington Post and the suit was dismissed,
because the Post's quotes from the "Advanced Technology" materials
were well within fair use guidelines. In case you don't remember, RTC
was forced to pay court costs as well as the Post's legal fees in that
case.
>Newspaper articles are hardly heavily protected documents: and as an
>electronic library, FACTNet would seem to have as much status in
>keeping a copy available for review as a public library. Of course,
>the law about this is labyrinthine to say the least, for many reasons. But
>I hope that the courts treat this very carefully.
There is nothing labyrinthine about the law in this case. Many
databases of copyrighted materials exist. They exist because they pay
the copyright owners royalties for permission to include their works
in their databases.
If FACTNet wishes to include material copyrighted by others in their
database, FACTNet can do what the other database owners do. I fail to
see why one would compare a database to a library rather than
comparing it to another database.
Libraries can own databases (in fact, many do). That does not mean
they can ignore copyright law just because they are a library. They
must adhere to copyright law just as surely as any other database
producer does. I'm afraid I just don't understand the logic of your
argument.
>What has happened to you, Diane? You used to go quite effectively
>after the blatant lies, fraud, etc. of the cult. Now you are picking
>on FACTnet, who while they may not be lily clean are at least *trying*
>to do some good by organizing and making available information about
>cults.
Nothing has happened to me. I do not like to see fraud and
misrepresentation perpetrated by any organization, whether that
organization is the "Church" of Scientology[tm] or FACTNet.
I'm not willing to apply one set of rules to one organization and a
more lax set of rules to another. I'm not willing to assign one
organization the label "good" and another organization the label "bad"
and then proceed to interpret the law based on such labels.
>> Neither you nor others who have websites much such claims.
>
>Most of us are not such big targets. Larry is *wanted* by these people,
>he's probably enemy #1 or #2.
He wasn't highly regarded by the people running the old CAN, either.
They spent a lot of time trying to undo the problems he created.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 13:50:17 GMT, astu...@top.university.org (A.
Student) wrote:
[snip]
>This situation reminds me of a war general who has orders from
>strategic command to defend Europe, but then receives a notice that
>his troops cannot drive their tanks through a cow pasture in
>Switzerland because there is a sign posted "no tresspassing."
>
>While the war room argues for days over the issue, the enemy moves
>their tanks through the same pasture and also violates rules of
>conduct in inernational airspace to fly into friendly territory and
>drop bombs all over the place beyond the line of demarcation. So I
>ask, in your knowledge, when was the last time Scientology violated
>rules of ethics, mores, and codes? Yesterday? Today? Every day?
Let me rephrase your statement to make sure I (and others) understand
what you are saying:
FACTNet may be violating the law by including copyrighted
works in their database without obtaining authorization from
copyright owners to do so.
FACTNet's violation of copyright law is justified, however,
because FACTNet is violating the law for the purpose of
exposing an even greater evil -- the "Church" of
Scientology's[tm] violation of the rules of ethics, mores,
and codes. [I'm not sure what you mean by "codes"]
I think that's a very valid argument. I do not think that whatever
"evil" FACTNet is doing in copyright infringement comes anywhere close
to the "evil" perpetrated by the management of the "Church" of
Scientology[tm]. There is a catch, however.
Take a look at the "battlefield" upon which this "battle" is being
fought. That battlefield is a U.S. Federal Court. The battle is an
accusation by Bridge Publications, Inc. that FACTNet has engaged in
copyright infringement.
Your defense of FACTNet is that FACTNet is justified in violating the
law because FACTNet is battling a mean, nasty organization that
doesn't follow commonly accepted ethical and moral principles. You're
not claiming that the CoS is violating the law, only that they are
violating standard ethical and moral practices.
Courts in the United States do not have the power to decide who is
good and who is evil. They have the power to decide who is breaking
the law and who is abiding by the law. The law is written and
codified in statutes specifically for this purpose. There is no law
that makes unethical and immoral organizations illegal, to my
knowledge (otherwise, I think we'd see a hell of a lot more
organizations than the CoS put out of business, eh?).
>BTW, I wouldn't let Diane assume control of the FACTNet archives/
>library/database though she may be a fine librarian and exceptionally
>well-trained with a MLS. While she may know the finer points of
>librarianship, she appears to have a lesser command of strategy and
>rules of engagement.
I'd suggest to you, A Student, that one of the first lessons of
military strategy is to know your enemy and to select your battles
wisely. I'd suggest that FACTNet has not done this. RTC's recent
move to disengage from the field gives every indication that the CoS
is out-maneuvering FACTNet at every turn.
[remainder snipped]
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 16:05:30 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
Erlich) wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) accuses Larry:
>
>>He wasn't highly regarded by the people running the old CAN, either.
>
> In what way, and by whom?
By Priscilla Coates and by Cynthia Kisser's husband, to be specific.
They told me, on different occasions, that they considered him
unreliable and interested in CAN more as a source of funds to pursue
his own battle with Scientology[tm] rather than as a confederate
fighting a common cause.
I would not have revealed the names of these sources, Dennis, if you
had not confronted me about my sources. No doubt you and others will
now castigate me for revealing confidences. So be it.
I also find it interesting that this post comes from you, of all
people. If you are so sure of Wollersheim's good intentions, why was
it that were so unwilling to sign over your defense fund to Larry when
he asked? And don't try to slither out of this by claiming that the
defense fund was not under your control (although it isn't). Even if
you had been able to transfer the funds to Larry, you made it quite
plain to me that you would never consider such an option because you
don't trust the guy.
>>They spent a lot of time trying to undo the problems he created.
>
> Like what, specifically? And just where did you get such data?
As I have stated above. Priscilla Coates told me how she personally
had to visit various LA law firms after Larry Wollersheim made the
rounds of them peddling his expertise and database to them as an
"expert witness."
Priscilla also told me about a meeting of anti-cult groups Wollersheim
arranged in which he more or less demanded one million dollars from
them to continue his "fight". She told me that he left many people
with the impression that he was deranged after that meeting.
Bill told me that the last correspondence Wollersheim had with CAN
was, appropriately enough, yet another request for funding. CAN by
then had grown weary of his constant appeals for money. I think he
described Wollersheim as "sleaze."
I could go on. I think you get the picture.
>And in another post to Dave, Diane said:
>>What lies have I told to serve the OSA interest, Dave?d Or would you
>>prefer to leave your accusations vague and undefined?
>
> Do these dots connect?
Are you claiming that I am serving OSA interests by making such a
statement, Dennis? If so, please stop with the cute innuendo and make
your accusations against me directly and honestly.
You *do* still pride yourself on your honesty, don't you?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
A. Student
On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 15:26:16 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>[snip]
>Let me rephrase your statement to make sure I (and others) understand
>what you are saying:
>
> FACTNet may be violating the law by including copyrighted
> works in their database without obtaining authorization from
> copyright owners to do so.
Yes, it could be. I would strongly advise against this though, and
ask FACTNet to remove any such materials from their site as soon as
possible. Either that, or modify the current materials in such a way
that they constitute fair use.
> FACTNet's violation of copyright law is justified, however,
> because FACTNet is violating the law for the purpose of
> exposing an even greater evil -- the "Church" of
> Scientology's[tm] violation of the rules of ethics, mores,
> and codes. [I'm not sure what you mean by "codes"]
No, it is not justified. But in a large archival collection, it is
possible to make a few honest mistakes. In practice, operational
mistakes do occur, and hopefully they are not too serious.
What I meant by my illustration was to point out that it is possible
to stop thinking about strategy and tactics entirely and focus purely
on operations. This is not to say operations are not important, they
are important, but tactics are more important, and strategies are most
important.
By codes, I meant legal or penal codes. Examples include CoS's
well-known improper searches and seizures which far exceeded the scope
and privilege granted under the judge's writ.
>I think that's a very valid argument. I do not think that whatever
>"evil" FACTNet is doing in copyright infringement comes anywhere close
>to the "evil" perpetrated by the management of the "Church" of
>Scientology[tm].
I'm glad that position is clear to both of us. I regret some are
having trouble seeing this.
>There is a catch, however.
>Take a look at the "battlefield" upon which this "battle" is being
>fought. That battlefield is a U.S. Federal Court. The battle is an
>accusation by Bridge Publications, Inc. that FACTNet has engaged in
>copyright infringement.
Yes, I think that's the essence of it. I haven't seen any actual
court documents to this effect though.
>Your defense of FACTNet is that FACTNet is justified in violating the
>law because FACTNet is battling a mean, nasty organization that
>doesn't follow commonly accepted ethical and moral principles. You're
>not claiming that the CoS is violating the law, only that they are
>violating standard ethical and moral practices.
For the most part, yes, except for the legal proceedings in the United
States and abroad which are as yet unfinished. Also, clearly, certain
members of the CoS did violate the law in France and Greece and
earlier, in the US and Canada. But, in no way is FACTNet justified in
breaking copyright law. I don't think that is the intent.
>Courts in the United States do not have the power to decide who is
>good and who is evil. They have the power to decide who is breaking
>the law and who is abiding by the law. The law is written and
>codified in statutes specifically for this purpose. There is no law
>that makes unethical and immoral organizations illegal, to my
>knowledge (otherwise, I think we'd see a hell of a lot more
>organizations than the CoS put out of business, eh?).
For the most part, I agree. Since I haven't explored in depth the
case law concerning violations of ethics and mores. I'm not qualified
to speak on that subject, so I'll defer. Fortunately though, there
are checks and balances outside the courts to help monitor and deter
unethical and immoral practices.
>I'd suggest to you, A Student, that one of the first lessons of
>military strategy is to know your enemy and to select your battles
>wisely. I'd suggest that FACTNet has not done this. RTC's recent
>move to disengage from the field gives every indication that the CoS
>is out-maneuvering FACTNet at every turn.
And I would agree with you in part. However, as you have an MLS and
one of my masters degrees focuses on strategy, I may have more
qualification in that area -- probably having completed more graduate
work and study in that specific area.
I tend to disagree on the first point. I do think FACTNet (and its
legal team) does know the RTC fairly well, and they have chosen their
battles as wisely as they can given the resources at their disposal.
But you do raise a good point.
As for the out-manuevering, CoS has been and continues to be very
*lucky* about manipulating the grey areas of the justice system. On
the other hand, there is solid evidence to indicate the CoS does not
have unlimited financial resources for such continued pursuits.
>[remainder snipped]
Okay.
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
>
A. Student
Ron Newman
> Let me rephrase your statement to make sure I (and others) understand
> what you are saying:
>
> FACTNet may be violating the law by including copyrighted
> works in their database without obtaining authorization from
> copyright owners to do so.
>
> FACTNet's violation of copyright law is justified, however,
> because FACTNet is violating the law for the purpose of
> exposing an even greater evil -- the "Church" of
> Scientology's[tm] violation of the rules of ethics, mores,
> and codes. [I'm not sure what you mean by "codes"]
When I was involved in various left-wing protest movements, this
was known as the "necessity defense" or "greater harm defense". (Yes, we
trespassed on the property of the nuclear power plant, but we felt this was
necessary in order to demonstrate the harm such a plant would cause
to the community if it is allowed to operate.) Sometimes, judges
accept this defense; sometimes they don't. It's a bit of a crapshoot,
but worth trying.
Rob Clark
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>When I was involved in various left-wing protest movements, this
>was known as the "necessity defense" or "greater harm defense". (Yes, we
>trespassed on the property of the nuclear power plant, but we felt this was
>necessary in order to demonstrate the harm such a plant would cause
>to the community if it is allowed to operate.) Sometimes, judges
>accept this defense; sometimes they don't. It's a bit of a crapshoot,
>but worth trying.
ted patrick used this defense on a number of occasions. sometimes
it worked.
isn't it common-law doctrine? don't you have to state in advance
you intend to make use of a common-law defense prior to the main
body of the litigation, and not some time in the middle?
rob
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 19:19:02 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
Erlich) wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>>>>He wasn't highly regarded by the people running the old CAN, either.
>
>YHN:
>>> In what way, and by whom?
>
>Diane:
>>By Priscilla Coates and by Cynthia Kisser's husband, to be specific.
>>They told me, on different occasions, that they considered him
>>unreliable and interested in CAN more as a source of funds to pursue
>>his own battle with Scientology[tm] rather than as a confederate
>>fighting a common cause.
>>
>>I would not have revealed the names of these sources, Dennis, if you
>>had not confronted me about my sources. No doubt you and others will
>>now castigate me for revealing confidences. So be it.
>
> Nobody expected you not to reveal anything you wanted, Diane. It
>is funny that you would use things told to you in confidence to rebut
>me, tho.
>
> It's ugly, but not unexpected.
Then why did you ask if you expected an answer you didn't want to see?
Dennis, you are playing games of the worst sort here. If you fail to
see what you're doing, I can assure you many others can.
If I had replied that I refused to reveal confidences, you would have
criticized me for making vague and undefined accusations against
Wollersheim.
My accusations are neither vague nor undefined, Dennis. You knew
before you asked me what I had learned about Wollersheim from
Priscilla Coates et al. If you didn't want me to make that
information public, why did you challenge me to be specific?
You would damn me if I refused to answer your question and you damn me
now because I *did* answer your question. Your behavior is shameful,
Dennis.
>>I also find it interesting that this post comes from you, of all
>>people.
>
> I wanted to see how far you were going to go in using my trust in
>you against me. It still remains to be seen.
I see. You feel you have a right to test me. Sort of like a loyalty
test, eh? Do you test all your friends? Do they enjoy it or do they
stop being your friends after undergoing a few of your sec checks?
>>If you are so sure of Wollersheim's good intentions, why was
>>it that were so unwilling to sign over your defense fund to Larry when
>>he asked?
>
> Because Larry and I do things too differently to get along well in
>a business or legal relationship. Both of us know and accept that.
>
> People don't seem to realize that the Supreme Court of the United
>States of America has twice affirmed that Larry was fair-gamed into a
>psychotic state by the scienos, and they owe him over 5 million
>dollars in damages assessed by that same high court.
Really? The Supreme Court affirmed that Wollersheim was made
psychotic by the "Church" of Scientology[t,m]???? Would you care to
quote that decision? Of course, you can't, because that's not at all
what the Supreme Court did.
You don't have a clue, Dennis. I'm sorry to have to say that, but you
really don't.
>>And don't try to slither out of this
>
> Like I slither out of things? Get specific, Diane. Unload all the
>ugliness you have on me. Best we know now how low you gonna go.
>
>>by claiming that the
>>defense fund was not under your control (although it isn't).
>
> If I had told you that I had been advised by counsel not to, and
>thereby compromised my attorney/client privilege, would that have
>satisfied? Or would it slide on by?
You refused Wollersheim's offer long before you ever talked to MoFo
about it, Dennis. You know that as well as I do. There is no
attorney/client privilege involved.
>>Even if
>>you had been able to transfer the funds to Larry, you made it quite
>>plain to me that you would never consider such an option because you
>>don't trust the guy.
>
> What I might say in a private moment under stress would, by its
>very nature, be different that I would say in a public forum, after
>due consideration to consequences.
What stress were you under when we discussed this, Dennis? You sure
didn't sound like you were under stress to me the different times we
discussed this. Or do you now claim that you're constantly under
stress? Or do you mean that the opinions you express in private are
not the same as the opinions you express in public?
>One of the consequences I expected
>by letting you into my life to the degree I did was the possible use
>of what you learned about me, to harm me. But I let that pass,
>because I liked you. And I liked being with you. And you seemed to
>understand my position and stance against the cult. And you seemed to
>admire the way I went about things, as I did about you.
>
> I asked you to lay off Wollersheim and Lerma, in confidence. Just
>as I had told you, in confidence, the misgivings and monday-morning
>quarter-backing I had considered about Larry's mess.
>
> But one thing I also let you know I was certain about is that
>"Larry's mess" was ~~>caused<~~ by the cult.
Ah, I see! So it's all the cult's fault. Larry can't be blamed for
his actions today because he was once brainwashed by the cult.
Isn't that what Fishman claims? Why aren't you so forgiving of
Fishman's foibles then? Or does "the cult made me this way" excuse
apply only to people on your good side?
>>>>They spent a lot of time trying to undo the problems he created.
>>> Like what, specifically? And just where did you get such data?
>>
>>As I have stated above. Priscilla Coates told me how she personally
>>had to visit various LA law firms after Larry Wollersheim made the
>>rounds of them peddling his expertise and database to them as an
>>"expert witness."
>
> I'm forwarding this to Priscilla to find out what she has to say
>about this. <something you should have done had you been anything
>like a sincere friend to her>
That's fine with me, Dennis. I'm sure Priscilla will remember our
long telephone conversations discussing FACTNet and Wollersheim.
Priscilla also told me that as long as Bob Penny was well, he
successfully managed to curb Wollersheim's excesses. The problems
appeared when Penny wasn't physically well enough to reign in
Wollersheim.
>>Priscilla also told me about a meeting of anti-cult groups Wollersheim
>>arranged in which he more or less demanded one million dollars from
>>them to continue his "fight". She told me that he left many people
>>with the impression that he was deranged after that meeting.
>
> That was her interpretation, perhaps. If it happened like that, I
>would certainly attribute it to remnants of Larry's scieno-induced
>psychosis (as affirmed by the US Supreme Court).
Just as Fishman's claim that you've molested your daughters is just a
remnant of Fishmans scieno-induced psychosis?
> He does thing differently than most folks. He also has a huge
>judgement against the scienos. He got it done. Now he's trying to
>collect. If there's any justice in america, he will.
The last time anyone from FACTNet reported on this was more than two
years ago, Dennis, when Bob Penny posted a message to the newsgroup.
Do you know if Wollersheim has actually done anything since then about
the judgment?
If the case is as simple as reported by FACTNet, Wollersheim could
certainly find an attorney to take collection on the judgment on a
contingency basis. Why hasn't he? Or is this yet another unsolved
FACTNet litigation mystery?
If Wollersheim hasn't found a lawyer willing to take a case involving
collection on an outstanding judgment, I'd say that Wollersheim hasn't
been trying to collect. What's the story, Dennis? Or has Wollersheim
kept you as much in the dark about this as everyone else?
>>Bill told me that the last correspondence Wollersheim had with CAN
>>was, appropriately enough, yet another request for funding. CAN by
>>then had grown weary of his constant appeals for money. I think he
>>described Wollersheim as "sleaze."
>
> And he told you this so you could broadcast his words to the world?
>Very nice, Diane. Did you forward him a copy of your rendition of his
>private "public statement?"
Dennis, you needn't have responded to my message as you did. Now,
after eliciting the answer you surely expected, you chastise me for
answering. If you had rather not had this information made public,
you shouldn't have asked the question. Do you know the term
"manipulative bastard," Dennis? It fits you to a tee.
>>I could go on. I think you get the picture.
>
> Of you, Diane. Yes, I do. You crossed a line here.
As did you, Dennis. As did you.
>>>And in another post to Dave, Diane said:
>>>>What lies have I told to serve the OSA interest, Dave?d Or would you
>>>>prefer to leave your accusations vague and undefined?
>>>
>>> Do these dots connect?
>>
>>Are you claiming that I am serving OSA interests by making such a
>>statement, Dennis?
>
> Not hardly. OSA couldn't control you, Diane. You'd be of no use
>to them.
>
>> If so, please stop with the cute innuendo and make
>>your accusations against me directly and honestly.
>
> I'm accusing you of objecting to vague and undefined accusations in
>one post, and engaging in the self-same practice in another, on the
>very same day. What is the word for this? Anybody?
Well, Dennis, when you called me on my "vague and undefined
accusations," I gave you specifics. You damn me for being vague and
you damn me for being specific. Looks like I can't win in this little
drama you've created.
>>You *do* still pride yourself on your honesty, don't you?
>
> Pride is not a factor related to my honesty, and never has been,
>Diane.
>
> Wait! Do you now claim I told you privately in confidence that it
>was?
You never told me you take pride in your honesty, but it's very plain
to anyone who knows you personally that you do. You have told me
privately that your former wives and your daughters have all accused
you of being a manipulative bastard. I can understand why.
Go ahead and give me a few more online sec checks, Dennis. I'm sure,
with you as the auditor, I'll flunk them all. But then, that's how
you've planned it, isn't it?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Mike O'Connor
In article <33e52a0e...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
[...]
> ?
Question mark count: 25
-Mike
Diane Richardson
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 02:24:53 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
Erlich) wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) airs my dirty laundry:
>
>>You have told me
>>privately that your former wives and your daughters have all accused
>>you of being a manipulative bastard. I can understand why.
>
> More and more ugliness, Diane. Pile it up high.
Do you dispute what I've said? I don't think you can. Since I've
been subjected to the same treatment, I'd say I'd have to agree with
them.
>>Go ahead and give me a few more online sec checks, Dennis. I'm sure,
>>with you as the auditor, I'll flunk them all.
>
> You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
No, I didn't spend years as the quality control manager
in a cult. You did. I'd say you were well-suited to your job.
Whatever you did to "deprogram" youself in the ensuing years obviously
hasn't been enough.
If you're incapable of seeing how you've manipulated me and others,
you're every bit as blind to yourself now as you were while you were
in the cult.
>>But then, that's how you've planned it, isn't it?
>
> We certainly haven't seen the end of your abusing my confidences,
>have we Di? Don't stop now.
Not until you begin challenging my sources of information again,
Dennis. Do you have any more direct questions you want me to be
specific about? If so, spit them out and I'll answer them.
> Spill the whole, ugly truth about me. Don't be shy.
Dennis, there's no ugly truth to spill. You've displayed enough of
your shortcomings on your own without requiring any help from me.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Keith Henson
Ron Newman (rne...@thecia.net) wrote:
snip
: When I was involved in various left-wing protest movements, this
: was known as the "necessity defense" or "greater harm defense". (Yes, we
: trespassed on the property of the nuclear power plant, but we felt this was
: necessary in order to demonstrate the harm such a plant would cause
: to the community if it is allowed to operate.) Sometimes, judges
: accept this defense; sometimes they don't. It's a bit of a crapshoot,
: but worth trying.
This was my basic defense--some of scientology's stuff is so dangerous as
to be life threatening to people who have it done to them. As an example,
we have Lisa McPherson, killed by scientology "treatments." However,
Judge Whyte does not want to hear any of this from the defendant, as he
seems to have put a value on RTC's "unpublished copyrights" (and formerly
trade secrets) which is higher than the value he puts on human lives.
His demonstrated attitude toward human lives in my case is not, of course,
cause to think he was knowingly involved in the Contra's project which
distributed tons of cocaine into the LA area from a storage operation in
Santa Fe Springs the Judge or his wife are reported (by Tom Klemesrud) to
have owned at the time. But it sure doesn't make it less likely either.
Keith Henson
Tom Klemesrud
Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
[...]
Diane to Dennis --
: In other words, if you'd like to continue this, take it off the
: newsgroup. Of course, if your real purpose is to embarrass both me
: and yourself in public, then I guess there's not much I can do to stop
: you.
: Diane Richardson
: ref...@bway.net
Diane, you remind me of a James Bond movie minx, who kisses, tells,
then betrays. Do you have any intelligence community background?
Be truthful.
Tom Klemesrud SP6
KoX
Diane Richardson
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 05:05:39 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
Erlich) wrote:
>YHN:
>>> More and more ugliness, Diane. Pile it up high.
>
>Diane:
>>Do you dispute what I've said? I don't think you can.
>
> Sure I dispute it, Diane. I never told you my wives and children
>have all accused me of being manipulative. That is not even true. So
>I would not have said that. Perhaps I said something similar and you,
>in your haste to spew bile at me, expanded and elaborated on a passing
>comment in order to hurt me using something I stupidly confided in
>you.
I see. So you never told me that your ex-wives and daughters called
you a "manipulative bastard." Then I obviously haven't betrayed any
confidences. That should certainly ease efish's mind some.
> Your tactics are beyond ugly.
That's right, Dennis. They're downright silly. They're not ugly at
all. Unless you wish to portray them that way. Which, of course, you
have every right to do if that's what you really want to do.
Perhaps you don't realize how foolish it is to go through all of this
on a public forum, Dennis. Although you may believe that the entire
world is interested in your personal relationships with others, most
of the world really couldn't care less.
Rod Keller
Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
: On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 02:24:53 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
: Erlich) wrote:
: > More and more ugliness, Diane. Pile it up high.
Very ugly. I'm gonna plonk The Asshole, at least for 28 days.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go
Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
Peter McDermott
In article <33e5d77b...@snews.zippo.com>,
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>>I would not have revealed the names of these sources, Dennis, if you
>>had not confronted me about my sources. No doubt you and others will
>>now castigate me for revealing confidences. So be it.
>
> Nobody expected you not to reveal anything you wanted, Diane. It
>is funny that you would use things told to you in confidence to rebut
>me, tho.
Come on, Dennis. You can't ask for someone's sources and then
whine about it when they provide you with them.
If *you* were so concerned about your friends' privacy, you'd
have done it in e-mail instead on grandstanding on the newsgroup.
The way it looks from here is that *you* were just as culpable
in bringing out this information as Diane was. You obviously
knew that what she originally posted was correct, so why goad
her into backing it up if you didn't want to see the consequences?
Peter McDermott
In article <rnewman-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com>,
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>> FACTNet's violation of copyright law is justified, however,
>> because FACTNet is violating the law for the purpose of
>> exposing an even greater evil -- the "Church" of
>> Scientology's[tm] violation of the rules of ethics, mores,
>> and codes. [I'm not sure what you mean by "codes"]
>
>When I was involved in various left-wing protest movements, this
>was known as the "necessity defense" or "greater harm defense".
When I was involved in left-wing politics, we used to have a
saying, 'no enemies to the left', which meant that it really
didn't matter how badly your allies behaved, it wasn't done
to criticize them publicly for it - you should keep that for
your common enemy.
The result was that stupid trotskyites got away with introducing
policies that did untold damage to the left as a whole, and
cost the local population untold millions that won't be paid
back in my lifetime.
The parallels with this newsgroup may or may not be apparent.
Diane Richardson
On Mon, 4 Aug 1997 09:26:16 GMT, tom...@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud)
wrote:
>Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
>[...]
>Diane to Dennis --
>: In other words, if you'd like to continue this, take it off the
>: newsgroup. Of course, if your real purpose is to embarrass both me
>: and yourself in public, then I guess there's not much I can do to stop
>: you.
>
>
>: Diane Richardson
>: ref...@bway.net
>
>Diane, you remind me of a James Bond movie minx, who kisses, tells,
>then betrays. Do you have any intelligence community background?
>Be truthful.
I confess! I confess! I *knew* you'd force the truth from me, Tom!
You must have put your secret IRS agents on my tail. I don't have a
chance. First you reveal Miss Bloodybutt and now me.
Yes, Tom, I was a member of the Dick Tracey Detective Club. I got my
membership card and super-nifty decoder ring out of a cereal box when
I was 8 years old. How did you ever guess? I thought I'd hidden it
so well.
Chalk another win up for Tom Klemesrud, Supersleuth! Will you have me
arrested before or after you sue Dennis Erlich for violating your BBS
ToS agreement?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
ef
> >>> More and more ugliness, Diane. Pile it up high.
> >
> >Diane:
> >>Do you dispute what I've said? I don't think you can.
> >
> I see. So you never told me that your ex-wives and daughters called
> you a "manipulative bastard." Then I obviously haven't betrayed any
> confidences. That should certainly ease efish's mind some.
you're nuts. kindly keep me out of your machinations.
>
> > Your tactics are beyond ugly.
>
> That's right, Dennis. They're downright silly. They're not ugly at
> all. Unless you wish to portray them that way. Which, of course, you
> have every right to do if that's what you really want to do.
>
> Perhaps you don't realize how foolish it is to go through all of this
> on a public forum, Dennis. Although you may believe that the entire
> world is interested in your personal relationships with others, most
> of the world really couldn't care less.
the above comment makes no sense at all. since you are the one who started
all this crap.
>
> In other words, if you'd like to continue this, take it off the
> newsgroup. Of course, if your real purpose is to embarrass both me
> and yourself in public, then I guess there's not much I can do to stop
> you.
as if he could stop you. nothing can stop you, that is patently obvious.
this is a personal vendetta.
man, you are totally twisted.
ef
--
Ron Newman
> You never told me you take pride in your honesty, but it's very plain
> to anyone who knows you personally that you do. You have told me
> privately that your former wives and your daughters have all accused
> you of being a manipulative bastard. I can understand why.
This is a shameful statement to make, and I hope Diane realizes this
sooner or later.
Tilman Hausherr
In <33e4b1ab...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:
>I could go on.
Please don't. What you did was very, very, very, very nasty, and
certainly a big service to scientology. I'm sure mox & co are already
preparing additional depo subpoenas.
--- Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Tom Klemesrud
etcom.com> <33e5c2a...@snews.zippo.com>
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
: On Mon, 4 Aug 1997 09:26:16 GMT, tom...@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud)
: wrote:
: >Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
: >[...]
: >Diane to Dennis --
: >: In other words, if you'd like to continue this, take it off the
: >: newsgroup. Of course, if your real purpose is to embarrass both me
: >: and yourself in public, then I guess there's not much I can do to stop
: >: you.
: >
: >
: >: Diane Richardson
: >: ref...@bway.net
: >
: >Diane, you remind me of a James Bond movie minx, who kisses, tells,
: >then betrays. Do you have any intelligence community background?
: >Be truthful.
: I confess! I confess! I *knew* you'd force the truth from me, Tom!
: You must have put your secret IRS agents on my tail. I don't have a
: chance. First you reveal Miss Bloodybutt and now me.
: Yes, Tom, I was a member of the Dick Tracey Detective Club.
Is that headquartered in Langley?
Tom Klemesrud SP6
KoX
Bernie
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote in article
<rnewman-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com>:
>In article <33e52a0e...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>
>
>> You never told me you take pride in your honesty, but it's very plain
>> to anyone who knows you personally that you do. You have told me
>> privately that your former wives and your daughters have all accused
>> you of being a manipulative bastard. I can understand why.
>
>This is a shameful statement to make, and I hope Diane realizes this
>sooner or later.
But is extremely descriptive of what Dennis is. Fits him
perfectly. I am not surprised at all to learn this. It's not for
nothing that all of those who can see through him would readily
agree with this description, and it's the very thing I tried to
demonstrate about him not long time ago.
As usual, Dennis tries to deflect the points Diane is making
about FACTNet in trying to engage her into an emotional fight
instead of sticking to the facts. He always tries to manipulate
the person rather than addressing the issue. He is a master at
this, better than any cult leader I ever known. He tries to trap
people by twisting things around and then presenting them under
another light, a positioning game, like I tried to explain
already. He certainly fully deserves the label manipulative
bastard, because that's exactly what he is.
Bernie
roger gonnet
You could be right, but look here: you have a totalitarian group named
scientololy, whose mores and attitudes are more extreme as have been
trotskysts or stalinists. What do you want? to get them on power lines?
They have already far too much for the "good" theyr have done. They do
nothing, they just irritate for the mompent, but one day, if there is
nobody to stop them, they'll have the h-bomb. and the final solution for
many.
There is a total parralel, very apparent, with this newsgroup.
Roger
Nico Garcia
ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) writes:
> inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>
> >>I would not have revealed the names of these sources, Dennis, if you
> >>had not confronted me about my sources. No doubt you and others will
> >>now castigate me for revealing confidences. So be it.
> >
> > Nobody expected you not to reveal anything you wanted, Diane. It
> >is funny that you would use things told to you in confidence to rebut
> >me, tho.
>
> Come on, Dennis. You can't ask for someone's sources and then
> whine about it when they provide you with them.
A citation is distinct from a confidential source. For Diane to first
claim Larry was disliked by CAN, then blab the sources from CAN, then
complain because Dennis *dared* ask for sources is disengenuous.
I met Cynthia Kisser a few months ago (the former head of CAN). We
discussed FACTnet's case a bit, and she didn't mention any such
difficulties with Larry.
A more interesting question is *why* is Diane picking on FACTnet and
some other ctitics of $cientology lately. Does anyone else detect a
whiff of "hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned"?
--
Nico Garcia
ra...@tiac.net
<PGP is obviously a good idea: look at who objects to it.>
Bernie
>In article <33e496d3...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>> Let me rephrase your statement to make sure I (and others) understand
>> what you are saying:
>> FACTNet may be violating the law by including copyrighted
>> works in their database without obtaining authorization from
>> copyright owners to do so.
>> FACTNet's violation of copyright law is justified, however,
>> because FACTNet is violating the law for the purpose of
>> exposing an even greater evil -- the "Church" of
>> Scientology's[tm] violation of the rules of ethics, mores,
>> and codes. [I'm not sure what you mean by "codes"]
>When I was involved in various left-wing protest movements, this
>was known as the "necessity defense" or "greater harm defense". (Yes, we
>trespassed on the property of the nuclear power plant, but we felt this was
>necessary in order to demonstrate the harm such a plant would cause
>to the community if it is allowed to operate.) Sometimes, judges
>accept this defense; sometimes they don't. It's a bit of a crapshoot,
>but worth trying.
But isn't that the very tactic that is being criticized against
the cults? That they feel justified in their dirty tricks
because they are pursuing a "greater cause"? It certainly would
be ironic to see the same critics now endorse the very same
tactic.
Bernie
Tashback
In article <xy9rac9...@shell1.tiac.net>, Nico Garcia
<ra...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
> A more interesting question is *why* is Diane picking on FACTnet and
> some other ctitics of $cientology lately.
Why is that an interesting question? I don't think questions like that are
interesting. Mostly they only lead to people projecting cliched
motivations onto other folks, such as ...
> Does anyone else detect a
> whiff of "hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned"?
Yeah! Those darn dang wimmins, whaddya gonna do with 'em ... mutter mutter
mutter ...
But the real quotation is: "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned,
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned." -- William Congreve
Helpful tip: Whenever you want to project cliched motivations, it helps to
have a Bartlett's around so you can be precise in your generalizations.
:-)
Tash
Joe Harrington
Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> After reading Ted Mayett's post, I registered with FACTNet (hi,
> Larry!) and conducted a search using their search engine. On my first
> effort, I hit upon what is most certainly a copyright infringement.
>
> The work is not the property of Bridge Publications, Inc., but it is
> a copyrighted work. There is no indication of the source of the
> document or of its copyright status, but the full text of the document
> is included in the FACTNet database. Some sections of the document
> are so badly garbled by poor scanning that they are indecipherable.
> Enough of the original document remains, however, to verify that it is
> a word-for-word copy of a copyrighted newspaper article. The text of
> the article is reproduced in the FACTNet database without any
> attribution as to the copyright status or the copyright owner of the
> work. I would be willing to bet the farm that FACTNet did not obtain
> the copyright holder's permission to include the full text of this
> work in their database, since it's apparent that whoever scanned in
> the article had no idea as to its source.
>
> The FACTNet database is not a "library" or an "archive." It is a
> database. Database producers cannot appropriate the intellectual
> property of others for inclusion in their databases without first
> obtaining authorization from the copyright owners. It is apparent
> from even the most cursory search of the database that FACTNet has not
>
> met this legal obligation.
Please e-mail a copy of the article, with the URL, to FactNet at:
man...@rmi.net and it be be checked out.
Joe
wgert
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Dennis, you needn't have responded to my message as you did. Now,
>after eliciting the answer you surely expected, you chastise me for
>answering. If you had rather not had this information made public,
>you shouldn't have asked the question. Do you know the term
>"manipulative bastard," Dennis? It fits you to a tee.
In my book it is dishonest more than manipulative.
>You never told me you take pride in your honesty, but it's very plain
>to anyone who knows you personally that you do. You have told me
>privately that your former wives and your daughters have all accused
>you of being a manipulative bastard. I can understand why.
I did some checking on one of Dennis' other famous statements - that
he observed a woman by the name of Lynn Froyland chained up in the
basement of the Fort Harrison. This is false. It never happened
according to Lynn. It is a figment of Dennis' imagination. In my
opinion it is a clear example of Dennis trying to manipulate the
opinions of people on the newsgroup who were not present. They have
to believe him as an "eye witness".
Bernie
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote in article
<33e7ee89...@snews.zippo.com>:
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
>>Come on, Dennis. You can't ask for someone's sources and then
>>whine about it when they provide you with them.
> I'm not whining. I'm just pointing it out.
> Diane made some vague and unsubstantiated claims how others (CAN
>members) felt concerning Wollersheim. Expressing the opinions of
>unnamed others to make her argument. On the same day she castigated
>someone for vague and unsubstantiated claims. I pointed this out.
>Wondering if she was so weak as to betray the confidences of others
>just to make her ugly point. And she was.
She answered your questions. Had she not, you would have blamed
her for that. Your manipulative tricks are clear, but nothing
new as far as I am concerned.
Anyway, thank you Dennis. Thanks to you, we now have a much
clearer idea about Wollersheim than before, and about yourself
as well, BTW. No surprise there either.
> She chose to make public statements about Larry for people which I
>know for certain that they did not want made. It's one of the
>liabilities in trusting anyone.
And *you* chose to put your friends at risk by asking Diane to
backup her statement, just to make your ugly point. You *know*
that Diane always backup her statement when challenged. We all
know that. Wollersheim and Kisser certainly can thank *you* for
this disclosure, Dennis.
> No good deed goes unpunished.
>>If *you* were so concerned about your friends' privacy, you'd
>>have done it in e-mail instead on grandstanding on the newsgroup.
> I'd rather know if someone whom I've taken into my life is capable
>of what Diane just did.
Even at the cost of your CAN friends and Wollersheim, eh,
Dennis? Nothing and nobody else matter than positioning your way
around, right?. Don't make us believe that you didn't *know*
that Diane would react the way she did. Everybody who followed
the newsgroup for some time knows that much about Diane. Are you
claiming to know less than those who only know her virtual
personality?
>>The way it looks from here is that *you* were just as culpable
>>in bringing out this information as Diane was.
> I didn't use other's confidences to try to make any points.
That's *exactly* what you did, Dennis. You took advantage of the
situation, playing on these confidences. You put her into a
situation in which she would either provide the information
(that you knew anyway) or accuse her of not backing up her claim
(something which you don't bother to do yourself, BTW). You
*knew* about the information Diane disclosed, didn't you? And
you *knew* that when challenged Diane always back up her claim.
You did that on purpose, Dennis, trying to trick Diane into an
emotional reaction to drive her away from the points she is
making against FACTNet (and against your bigoted support of cult
involuntary conservatorship, BTW). The result is only that you
and your gang are even more revealed for what they are than
before. Well done. I am glad Diane reacted the way she did.
>>You obviously knew that what she originally posted was correct,
> Not hardly correct. If Priscilla or Bill wanted to publicly
>castigate Larry for his behavior, I'm sure they would have done it
>themselves. Using other (unnamed) people's confidences to heap
>ugliness on a third party is a reprehensible tactic.
*Your* tactics are the reprehensible ones. You challenge Diane
to answer questions of which you know the answer, then you blame
her for doing so - all in order to upset her. That's the way you
play on emotion, Dennis. You really are a manipulative bastard.
>>so why goad her into backing it up if you didn't want to see the consequences?
> To see how low she'd go. And we really still don't really know.
So, you admit yourself being a manipulative bastard. Good.
Everybody agrees then.
Bernie
Ex Mudder
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>In article <33e496d3...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>
>
>> Let me rephrase your statement to make sure I (and others) understand
>> what you are saying:
>>
>> FACTNet may be violating the law by including copyrighted
>> works in their database without obtaining authorization from
>> copyright owners to do so.
>>
>> FACTNet's violation of copyright law is justified, however,
>> because FACTNet is violating the law for the purpose of
>> exposing an even greater evil -- the "Church" of
>> Scientology's[tm] violation of the rules of ethics, mores,
>> and codes. [I'm not sure what you mean by "codes"]
>
>When I was involved in various left-wing protest movements, this
>was known as the "necessity defense" or "greater harm defense". (Yes, we
>trespassed on the property of the nuclear power plant, but we felt this was
>necessary in order to demonstrate the harm such a plant would cause
>to the community if it is allowed to operate.) Sometimes, judges
>accept this defense; sometimes they don't. It's a bit of a crapshoot,
>but worth trying.
>
In addition, one of the basis of this fight is over how copyright
will evolve in the electronic age. Will it be a monopolistic, where
it is assumed that if you have a copy of something it is an
infringement until proven otherwise, or will it be broad based, where
the copyright owner needs to prove it was infringing.
I mean this in areas of non-commercial copyright infringement.
One way, supported by many in Congress, most big media, and
Scientology, would be the monopolistic system of maximizing profits at
the expense of the free flow of information. The other maximizes
information flow, and provides for the people who creates it.
Diane, Scientology, and Judge Whyte, are all promoting a view in
which you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent. FACTnet,
Henson, and others believe that the public good outweighs exclusive
distribution rights.
Bernie
ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote in article
<B00B8DB0...@0.0.0.0>:
>In article <rnewman-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com>,
>rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>>> FACTNet's violation of copyright law is justified, however,
>>> because FACTNet is violating the law for the purpose of
>>> exposing an even greater evil -- the "Church" of
>>> Scientology's[tm] violation of the rules of ethics, mores,
>>> and codes. [I'm not sure what you mean by "codes"]
>>When I was involved in various left-wing protest movements, this
>>was known as the "necessity defense" or "greater harm defense".
>When I was involved in left-wing politics, we used to have a
>saying, 'no enemies to the left', which meant that it really
>didn't matter how badly your allies behaved, it wasn't done
>to criticize them publicly for it - you should keep that for
>your common enemy.
>The result was that stupid trotskyites got away with introducing
>policies that did untold damage to the left as a whole, and
>cost the local population untold millions that won't be paid
>back in my lifetime.
>The parallels with this newsgroup may or may not be apparent.
A very good example. That's why I think that when Diane demands
that critics apply to themselves the same criteria they require
from the cult, she actually is doing much *more* for the cause
of the fight against the CofS than those who claim that *they*
are justified to uses unethical tactic while the CofS is not. On
the long term, Diane's approach certainly is a winner.
Bernie
Diane Richardson
>In <33e4b1ab...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
>Richardson) wrote:
>
>>I could go on.
>
>Please don't. What you did was very, very, very, very nasty, and
>certainly a big service to scientology. I'm sure mox & co are already
>preparing additional depo subpoenas.
Correction, Tilman. What Dennis Erlich did was very, very, very, very
nasty. And believe me when I tell you that with Garry Scarff and
Steve Fishman closely tied to Wollersheim's former litigation, mox &
co know *all* about Larry and his foibles.
Think about that for awhile, would you?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
ef
In article <B00C36039...@0.0.0.0>, ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter
McDermott) wrote:
> I'm really *not* seeking to criticise or take sides in this -
> despite the fact that on many of the other issues I tend to
> side with Diane. But if you believe that the ugliness is all
> coming from one side here, there's a serious mote in your eye, D.
no peter. you should not jump to conclusions. you see, you haven't been
around for a while.
some of us have been watching this sad debacle for a few months. not of
dennis' making.
ef
--
Peter McDermott
In article <33e7ee89...@snews.zippo.com>,
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>>If *you* were so concerned about your friends' privacy, you'd
>>have done it in e-mail instead on grandstanding on the newsgroup.
>
> I'd rather know if someone whom I've taken into my life is capable
>of what Diane just did.
Given this, your concern for your friends' confidences has a somewhat
hollow ring to it.
>>The way it looks from here is that *you* were just as culpable
>>in bringing out this information as Diane was.
>
> I didn't use other's confidences to try to make any points.
That's not the point. You obviously knew what she was talking
about. You asked her to put up or shut up, so she put up. Was
this really the action of someone concerned about revealing
confidences? It looks more like someone obsessed with perpetuating
a public slanging match to me.
After all, you didn't *have* to do anything at all here. You
*chose* to.
>>You obviously knew that what she originally posted was correct,
>
> Not hardly correct. If Priscilla or Bill wanted to publicly
>castigate Larry for his behavior, I'm sure they would have done it
>themselves. Using other (unnamed) people's confidences to heap
>ugliness on a third party is a reprehensible tactic.
I'm really *not* seeking to criticise or take sides in this -
despite the fact that on many of the other issues I tend to
side with Diane. But if you believe that the ugliness is all
coming from one side here, there's a serious mote in your eye, D.
True fact.
Peter McDermott
>A more interesting question is *why* is Diane picking on FACTnet and
>some other ctitics of $cientology lately. Does anyone else detect a
>whiff of "hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned"?
Not really. I *do* detect a whiff of rank sexism though.
Bernie
wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote in article
<5s5hdu$a9j$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>:
>I did some checking on one of Dennis' other famous statements - that
>he observed a woman by the name of Lynn Froyland chained up in the
>basement of the Fort Harrison. This is false.
Even if it wasn't false, the way he presents the CofS as
"locking people in basements and torturing them in RPFs" is a
clear manipulation, since it isn't representative at all of the
CofS as a whole. It is meant to play on the audience's emotion
and bring about an hysterical reaction. "A well-placed rumor is
able to overcome even slick PR sometimes." That's his words,
that's his tactic.
>It never happened according to Lynn.
Does she say it never happened? Is she still in the CofS or not?
>It is a figment of Dennis' imagination.
I would like to see evidence for this anyway.
>In my opinion it is a clear example of Dennis trying to manipulate the
>opinions of people on the newsgroup who were not present.
In my opinion too.
>They have to believe him as an "eye witness".
Yes, and once the horror of the "basement" and the RPF is
"established", it gets repeated at nauseum, with gloomy fear and
darkness wrapped in very colorful sausages. Here are some
examples taken from Dennis' posts of the last two months alone:
>7 Jun 1997
"I know they care for me and are trying to help me, but why
are they locking me in this basement?"
>19 Jun 1997
"S'trew! Priscilla Coates chained me in her basement until I
recanted my love for the RPF. (but at least she fed me well)"
>23 Jun 1997
"Does the Freezone lock people in basements or have RPF's and
BabyWatch?"
>11 Jul 1997
"The Introspection Rundown's "baby watch" step and ther RPF's
RPF are clearly a forms of torture. Designed to break a
person's will and make them compliant."
>25 Jul 1997
"She therefore 'voluntarily' submitted herself to forced
incarceration by the scienos, who left her to die, eaten by
cockroaches, probably in the same basement I was kept in for 10
days in 1978."
>30 Jul 1997
"People will object to the word "abduct", but it should be
known that it was common practice at the Fort Harrison to send
out a recovery party in a van to go to Tampa Airport and
retrieve a blown (snuck off in the middle of the nite - btw.
snuck is not a word) RPFer."
Bernie
--
Dianedroids. Invisible party line buster. Anti-anti-cultist. ARS
critic's critic. Skripted scienobot. Cult rah-rah.
Ted Mayett (KoX)
On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 21:49:28 GMT, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>I did some checking on one of Dennis' other famous statements - that
>he observed a woman by the name of Lynn Froyland chained up in the
>basement of the Fort Harrison. This is false. It never happened
>according to Lynn. It is a figment of Dennis' imagination. In my
>opinion it is a clear example of Dennis trying to manipulate the
>opinions of people on the newsgroup who were not present. They have
>to believe him as an "eye witness".
>
What's your name? Your phone number? Why do you hide?
Me, I go with what Erlich says, he says it happened, it happened!
How does that make you feel wgert?
And why did you ever stop writing to me honey?
--
Ted Mayett OT 1.1
http://xenu.phys.uit.no/cgi-bin/globloc.cgi
Ralph Hilton
On 04 Aug 1997 19:00:01 -0400, Nico Garcia <ra...@shell1.tiac.net>
wrote:
>
>A more interesting question is *why* is Diane picking on FACTnet and
>some other ctitics of $cientology lately. Does anyone else detect a
>whiff of "hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned"?
Perhaps a basic textbook on semantic BS should be a prerequisite to
posting on the net.
(Much as I hate to say it some Hubbardian Word Clearing might help).
Respond to her logic. She's a damn sight brighter than most who post
here. The only positive response you can get with such emotional
appeals is from the intellectually challenged. ( A euphemism recently
introduced in England for stupid people).
--
Ralph
Martin Hunt
In article <33e73d62...@snews.zippo.com>,
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) airs my dirty laundry:
>
>>You have told me
>>privately that your former wives and your daughters have all accused
>>you of being a manipulative bastard. I can understand why.
>
> More and more ugliness, Diane. Pile it up high.
Amazing. As little faith as I've had in her, I would never have
guessed she would explode all over my computer screen in a fetid,
vile, festering pimple eruption like this. It's like watching an
old, venerable building being dynamited and collapsing into a
heap of rubble right in front of my eyes.
Hey, Diane, do you think maybe it's time for another break from
ars? I think maybe you're overdue for a little run-away retreat
from the newsgroup here. It's been a few weeks now since your last
one. Heck, I think it might do you some good. Take a breather.
Go walk on the beach somewhere with bivalve (he still with you?)
or something.
Take it from your official groupie; you need a break from it, if
anyone ever did. It makes me wince to read your posts these days,
and I almost feel embarrassed for you. (not that you'd care, I
know, I know).
Diane to Dennis:
>I see. So you never told me that your ex-wives and daughters called
>you a "manipulative bastard." Then I obviously haven't betrayed any
>confidences. That should certainly ease efish's mind some.
Why did efish's name get dragged into your cesspool? Diane, while
you're at it, could you please tell me the length of Dennis's penis?
I mean, while you're at it anyway...
Diane to Dennis:
>No, I didn't spend years as the quality control manager
>in a cult. You did. I'd say you were well-suited to your job.
>Whatever you did to "deprogram" youself in the ensuing years obviously
>hasn't been enough.
>
>If you're incapable of seeing how you've manipulated me and others,
>you're every bit as blind to yourself now as you were while you were
>in the cult.
Amazing. A case study in something, I'm sure.
Take a rest, D. You've earned it.
martin.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. ARS & Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Warning: strong spamblocking software in effect; include "xenu" or "arscc"
in From:, To:, or Subject: headers, or your email will not get through.
Bernie
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote in article
<33e88d81...@snews.zippo.com>:
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
> I asked her sources for the bilious comment about all the trouble
>Larry had caused CAN. I assumed she had other sources for these
>statements than Priscilla or myself.
Then you could have asked her through e-mail, without putting
your own friends at risk.
>It's best to know early what to expect from people you've trusted.
You have already decided, since she challenged your fad theory
of mind-control and pointed out to your support of cult
involuntary conservatorship that she has "transmutated into a
malevolent misanthrope?", so what that's "early" in this
sentence?
> I chose to point out that Diane does exactly what she castigates
>others for doing regarding vague and undefined accusations.
No, you asked her direct questions. "In what way, and by whom?
Like what, specifically? And just where did you get such
data?".
>In order to divert this, she chose to express
She answered your question, Dennis, she didn't "divert" from
something else. Manipulation, misrepresentation, positioning.
You do it again.
>her twisted interpretation of the opinions of 2 other people
How is that "twisted"? It seems pretty straightforward to me.
Coates had to fix the damage done by Larry to LA law firms, he
more or less demanded one million dollars in a meeting of
anti-cult groups and many left the meeting with the impression
he was deranged, CAN grew weary of his constant appeals for
money, etc. How is this "twisted" interpretation, and in which
way?
>so she could "press on" with her character assassination of Larry and Arnie.
Arnie for one posts enough in the newsgroup and to not even need
character assassination. He demonstrates his character himself
just as Fishman, or Scarff. You are more devious but after a
while, those you can't fool can see through yourself as well.
> Then she attempts to blame me for it,
No. You asked specific questions to Diane, she answered, then
blame her for answering. At the end, you again try to put the
blame on her.
>calling me manipulative and misquotes something
How is that a misquote? Do you dispute the wording "manipulative
bastard?" Was it an other wording?
>I told her in a moment of intimacy about certain
>problems I had had with my most immediate family;
Certain constant and recurring problems.
>and all in order to steamroll her perceived enemy.
No, in order to expose what you did for what it is.
>>despite the fact that on many of the other issues I tend to
>>side with Diane.
> As opposed to the people that think whether she's right or wrong,
>she's transmutated into a malevolent misanthrope?
Still making character assassination instead of addressing the
issue, eh? "She may be right but she is a malevolent misanthrope
anyway". How is she a malevolent misanthrope? Because she
doesn't agree with a fallacious theory and successfully
demonstrate that contrary to the claims of its proponents it has
been rejected by the APA? Because she points out to the failings
of anti-cult proponents and objects to abuses and unethical
actions done in the all encompassing name of "fight against the
evil cult"? That's certainly enough for you to prove that she is
a "malevolent misanthrope", no doubt. You have long gone
abandoned the idea of an objective, truthful, and ethical
approach.
>>But if you believe that the ugliness is all
>>coming from one side here, there's a serious mote in your eye, D.
> My act of reciprocity is merely pointing out her behavior. I'm
>sorry your find it so ugly.
"Merely pointing", that's what you call your manipulation, and
are surprised people find it ugly.
>Snot so easy when she aims her malevolence at you.
She expressed her feeling for what you did. Still in positioning
game, eh? "She is malevolent, I am just pointing out".
Martin Hunt
In article <33e52a0e...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Then why did you ask if you expected an answer you didn't want to see?
>Dennis, you are playing games of the worst sort here. If you fail to
>see what you're doing, I can assure you many others can.
BWAHAHAHAHA! What "others", Diane? :-)
Speak for yourself; you don't represent me, you don't represent
anyone but yourself in this new level of vileness.
One true sign of desperation approaching utter loss in a debate is
to haul in nebulous "others" to back up your collapsing position.
But then, you know that as well as I do, Diane.
>By Priscilla Coates and by Cynthia Kisser's husband, to be specific.
>I would not have revealed the names of these sources, Dennis, if you
>it that were so unwilling to sign over your defense fund to Larry when
>you had been able to transfer the funds to Larry, you made it quite
>plain to me that you would never consider such an option because you
>don't trust the guy.
>As I have stated above. Priscilla Coates told me how she personally
>Priscilla also told me about a meeting of anti-cult groups Wollersheim
>Bill told me that the last correspondence Wollersheim had with CAN
>I could go on. I think you get the picture.
Oh, loud and clear. Does anyone need a translation? If so, here it
is:
"I am willing to backstab anyone and everyone and betray every
confidence from Dennis Erlich to Rob Clark to all my erstwhile
friends in pursuit of vengeance against anyone I ever get angry
at."
"Do not ever trust me again, or you may regret it one day."
- Signed, Diane Richardson.
Thanks for letting me know, not that I ever did trust you,
particularly. It's funny; some people I just quickly trust
and they never seem to let me down, even when mightily tested
in hot and angry exchanges. You know, as ugly as it once got
between some critics and I in the past, certain lines were
still never crossed. Certain lines you have just jumped clear
over.
Peter McDermott
In article <ef-040897...@news.portal.ca>,
e...@address.at.bottom (ef) wrote:
>> I'm really *not* seeking to criticise or take sides in this -
>> despite the fact that on many of the other issues I tend to
>> side with Diane. But if you believe that the ugliness is all
>> coming from one side here, there's a serious mote in your eye, D.
>
>no peter. you should not jump to conclusions. you see, you haven't been
>around for a while.
I'm not jumping to anything. I'm responding to what I see here before me.
That's the way usenet works. You deal with what's on the page. They
might well have some history, but nevertheless, they are both capable
of responding to or ignoring each others posts.
>some of us have been watching this sad debacle for a few months. not of
>dennis' making.
I don't understand how you can say that. Since I've been back I've
seen Dennis follow up a number of Diane's posts in a childish and
insulting fashion, quite clearly seeking to engage her in this sort
of personal slanging match.
Readers might believe that my response to this is shaped in some
way by my personal relationships with those involved. The fact is,
it isn't. I don't have a relationship with either of them. I've
exchanged the odd e-mail with both in the past, but never for any
extended period. If anything, my affections tended to lie more
towards Dennis than Diane, but I've always respected her consistency
in argument and her ability to back up her claims with data.
Dennis's posts usually tended to be more about his experience and
his feelings, which I feel is a different style but just as valid.
So my response isn't about my relationships with either of them,
it's about how the whole thing looks to someone who just walks in
here off the street. And it looks like Diane is doing what she
always did, ie, asking hard questions of everybody, and Dennis
looks like the person who can't let go. If he doesn't like the
way Diane posts, or what she has to say, he doesn't *have* to
read them - or follow them up so as to produce more of the same.
Personally, I don't see anything at all in her posts that justify
the sort of reactions that I've seen here in the last week or
so - either from Dennis *or* from a whole bunch of other people,
many of which seem completely unexpected and out-of-character.
And given the fact that the Scieno's are currently trying to get
at Dennis via his past relationships, I also have to wonder how
*wise* his behaviour over this matter is as well. At the very least,
it has to be a cause for gloating on their part, but I also suspect
that it's giving them the sort of insights into his personality that
I really wouldn't want them to have if *I* was going up against them
in family court.
Peter McDermott
In article <33fb71d2...@snews.zippo.com>,
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote in article
><5s5hdu$a9j$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>:
>
>>I did some checking on one of Dennis' other famous statements - that
>>he observed a woman by the name of Lynn Froyland chained up in the
>>basement of the Fort Harrison. This is false.
>
>Even if it wasn't false, the way he presents the CofS as
>"locking people in basements and torturing them in RPFs" is a
>clear manipulation, since it isn't representative at all of the
>CofS as a whole.
That may be so, but I don't believe it's intended to be. In
my view, it's intended as an indictment of the Sea Org, OSA
and the sickness at the very heart of the organization itself.
What's more, we don't have to just take Dennis's word for
this. There's more than enough corroboration from a wide
range of sources to show that these practices have always
existed, and the Lisa McPherson incident shows that there
has been no real change in attitude or practice.
>It is meant to play on the audience's emotion
>and bring about an hysterical reaction.
It's surely meant to play on the audiences emotion, but I
don't see anything wrong with that. After all, there'd be
something seriously wrong with you if you *didn't* see these
practices as seriously abusive, and a logical conclusion to
the totalitarian psychosis that runs through the cult at all
levels.
Sadly, there *does* seem to be a hysteria that is characteristic
of many of the critics here on ARS, but I think that's got a
good deal to do with the personalities of the people concerned
than the presentation of the information itself. It's a
shame the way that their emotional involvement seems to be
clouding their judgement but I'm sure it makes things a
whole lot easier when you divide the world up into black and
white, good and evil, right and wrong, friend and enemy.
At the moment, Scientology don't actually need anyone to
try and make the critics look like liars or fools. The
responses that I've seen to Diane's posts of late make it
all too clear that they are more than capable of doing that
for themselves.
Prignillius
In article <33e4b1ab...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>On Sun, 03 Aug 1997 16:05:30 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
>Erlich) wrote:
>
>>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) accuses Larry:
>>
>>>He wasn't highly regarded by the people running the old CAN, either.
>>
>> In what way, and by whom?
>
<sigh>
Why are humans built so that they are capable of deriving pleasure
from hurting others?
>
>I would not have revealed the names of these sources, Dennis, if you
>had not confronted me about my sources. No doubt you and others will
>now castigate me for revealing confidences. So be it.
I think anyone who would desecrate confidences just to appear
"right" on a Usenet newsgroup or an IRC channel has an extremely
skewed set of values.
Diane, you are trading gold and diamonds for cheap, glittery
tin-foil. You are actually the loser here. I hope someday you
will be able to realize what a bad trade you have made.
I also hope that anyone who has taken the risk of intimating
confidences to Diane is watching closely at the manner in which she
cherishes and reveres them.
>
>As I have stated above. Priscilla Coates told me how she personally
>
>Priscilla also told me about
>
>Bill told me that
>
>I could go on. I think you get the picture.
I'm afraid I do.
And I hope people are looking as closely as you looked at the FACTNet
database to see what kind of coin you use to repay those who have
vouchsafed you their trust.
>
>>And in another post to Dave, Diane said:
>>>What lies have I told to serve the OSA interest, Dave?d Or would you
>>>prefer to leave your accusations vague and undefined?
>>
>> Do these dots connect?
>
>Are you claiming that I am serving OSA interests by making such a
>statement, Dennis?
I'm not Dennis, but...
You might get a short-lived thrill out of it yourself, Diane, but
it is difficult for me to see how anyone but OSA will benefit over
the long term from this latest dido of yours.
So, yes, I would say outright that I believe your latest actions
serve the goals of OSA.
>
>If so, please stop with the cute innuendo and make
>your accusations against me directly and honestly.
I'm not accusing you of being an OSA plant. But it is impossible for
me to see how they will not be the reapers of the benefits from your
current hi-jinx.
>
>You *do* still pride yourself on your honesty, don't you?
I pride myself on my honesty.
But I would never use "honesty" as an excuse to hurt people in a
sadistic manner. And I would never dream of hurting someone IRL
with whom I had a disagreement on Usenet or IRC.
There's a vast difference in scale. The punishment in no way fits
the "crime."
Diane, you have really broken my heart with this post. I hope knowing
this affords you a short-term thrill as well.
At least that way, maybe some good will have come of it.
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
Prignillius
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Prignillius prign...@nym.alias.net |
| |
| All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men |
| to do evil in the course of opposing evil. |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
Kim Baker
In article <tomklemE...@netcom.com>,
tom...@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud) wrote:
>: >Diane, you remind me of a James Bond movie minx, who kisses, tells,
>: >then betrays. Do you have any intelligence community background?
>: >Be truthful.
>
>: I confess! I confess! I *knew* you'd force the truth from me, Tom!
>
>: You must have put your secret IRS agents on my tail. I don't have a
>: chance. First you reveal Miss Bloodybutt and now me.
>
>: Yes, Tom, I was a member of the Dick Tracey Detective Club.
>
>Is that headquartered in Langley?
Keep looking.
KB
Prignillius
In article <5s5hdu$a9j$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>,
wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
[snip]
>
>I did some checking on one of Dennis' other famous statements - that
>he observed a woman by the name of Lynn Froyland chained up in the
>basement of the Fort Harrison. This is false. It never happened
>according to Lynn.
If you have access to Lynn Froyland, I can only assume your vicious
and morally bankrupt Church has blackmailed her into making a
false statement to protect its image and calm a "PR flap." There's
one problem with a Church which lies all the time: people who know it
tend not to believe it when it issues a press release.
When did Lynn Froyland make this statement? Before or after
Leisa Goodman told TV reporters on-camera that "there is no
basement in the Ft. Harrison Hotel" ?
>
>It is a figment of Dennis' imagination. In my
>opinion it is a clear example of Dennis trying to manipulate the
>opinions of people on the newsgroup who were not present. They have
>to believe him as an "eye witness".
I see no reason not to believe Dennis's eyewitness accounts.
When I first came to alt.religion.scientology, I didn't like Dennis
very much. I found him gruff, sarcastic and somewhat non-responsive.
Over the next year, I observed him in action here on a.r.s. He won my
respect, not by trying, but just by being who he is. He didn't set
out to win my friendship, but he got it anyway.
I saw him learn, grow, and go through personal and painful
experiences in a public spotlight. I saw him make mistakes, and I
saw him sincerely apologize for those mistakes when he realized them.
Instead of lying about the accusations your morally vacuous Church made
against him in their DA packs, he brought out all the information
into the public eye. Stuff he might have even benefitted from hiding,
he dragged through the public's view.
While Dennis and I do not see eye to eye on every subject (witness
the "cult mind control" threads), I have never known him to lie
or state anything other than his honest opinion about something.
He has demonstrated a forthrightness, an honesty and a personal
integrity that is the complete antithesis of any $cientologist
I have ever seen on Usenet, and is even rare in the $cientologists
I have known personally. He is certainly no saint, but he is
the kind of human being that I can respect.
What have you demonstrated, wgert? Evasiveness, lying, sniping,
lying, dead-agenting, lying, wriggling, lying, weaseling, lying,
worming, lying. Everything we've come to expect from the PR
mouthpiece of a Church which considers lying to the public and
silencing its critics to be holy sacraments.
I expect you to non-confront this post just like you have done with
every other of my posts which asked difficult questions of you.
Why should I believe the words of a lying weasel like you over the
public statement of someone who has earned my trust, and proven
himself worth of it?
Prignillius
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Prignillius prign...@nym.alias.net |
| |
| The Church of Scientology is a boil, expanding and swelling as |
| the corruption that is at its heart festers and builds pressure. |
| In time, it will burst, splattering corruption and exposing |
| itself to the world. Hopefully before that happens, people will |
| have had enough warning to avoid the spray of putresence. |
| - Matthew Quirk |
Tilman Hausherr
>basement of the Fort Harrison. This is false. It never happened
>according to Lynn. It is a figment of Dennis' imagination. In my
>opinion it is a clear example of Dennis trying to manipulate the
>opinions of people on the newsgroup who were not present. They have
>to believe him as an "eye witness".
Thank you. Thanks to that post MoFo could now depose you to get the
whereabouts of Lynn Froyland. Either you'll have to tell or you'll
appear as a stupid liar.
Tilman
Bernie
roger gonnet <dictio...@hol.fr> wrote in article
<33E64994...@hol.fr>:
>They do nothing, they just irritate for the mompent, but one day, if there is
>nobody to stop them, they'll have the h-bomb. and the final solution for
>many.
This goes in my folder "ludicrous statement".
Bernie
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote in article
<33e85ccb...@snews.zippo.com>:
>ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
>>Since I've been back I've
>>seen Dennis follow up a number of Diane's posts in a childish and
>>insulting fashion, quite clearly seeking to engage her in this sort
>>of personal slanging match.
If my assessment is correct, he has done that since Diane
confronted him with his own words when he said:
"When Lisa McPherson wanted to leave Morton Plant
Hospital with the scieno Retrieval Party, she should
have been forcibly restrained."
[...]
"That was a case for the use of state-sanctioned
involuntary conservatorship while the person underwent
observation."
Message-ID: <33d9247...@snews.zippo.com>
Dennis doesn't like to be caught flat when his real opinion
transpires, which is in contradiction with what he claims they
are. He did the same thing with me when I called him on his on
words when he said:
"I have seen lots of people inside the scienokult who
should have been under conservatorship. Some might
still be alive today, while others might now be sane."
Message-ID: <339f0769....@news.Belgium.EU.net>
After that post he followed my posts with aggressive comments in
order to get me into a fist fight with him, which is something
he actually succeeded.
> You seem to have had a personality change since last on the ng.
Wow, Peter! Now keep disagreeing with Dennis for awhile and he
will very quickly find a nice and colored pigeonhole for you. I
am wondering what it would be. I am already a "skripted
scienobot", and Diane is already a "malevolent misanthrope". Not
to be doubted: your disagreement is a *proof* that you are under
mind-control - Gee, look, you already seem to have had a
personality change!!
>>Personally, I don't see anything at all in her posts that justify
>>the sort of reactions that I've seen here in the last week or
>>so - either from Dennis *or* from a whole bunch of other people,
>>many of which seem completely unexpected and out-of-character.
> You're fine at slinging generalities, Peter. Back up each your
>assertions with at least one quote from the newsgroup.
You are not allowed to express your opinion in this discussion
group, Peter. You need to stick your nose for hours on end in
the arcanes of usenet archives and substantiate and demonstrate
every one of your opinion. Argh! You can't? Why, you are just a
lying sack o'shit and FOS! What did OSA scums did to you before
you came back in this newsgroup? You *must* have some of your
family members held in hostage by the clams, that's for sure.
How else *dare* you express your opinion and disagree with Herr
Erlich himself!
Diane Richardson
On 5 Aug 1997 01:11:33 -0700, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
wrote:
[snip]
>Why did efish's name get dragged into your cesspool? Diane, while
>you're at it, could you please tell me the length of Dennis's penis?
Four inches longer than yours, Martin.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
ef
In article <3420c54b...@snews.zippo.com>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
> e...@address.at.bottom (ef) wrote in article
> <ef-050897...@news.portal.ca>:
> >i think diane is stuck.
>
> Stuck in what? The parrot is only learning the beginning of the
> sentence, I see. Here is the full one for you to exercise on:
<snipette of various accusation>
you mean "it's a plot" or " ef is learning her lines from dennis" or...
whatever else your mind is conjuring up at this very moment.
ooof, bernie mon choux, i don't particularly like being underestimated.
you see, as opposed to some (i *could* mention, but hell, why bother), i
do form opinions outside of various indoctrinations (which, of course, i
could mention again but i won't... i am *such* a nice person, don'tcha
think?).
them's opinions all of my very ownie! wouldn't ya know!
> She *criticize* the unethical actions of *critics*? By
> Jove! Now somebody do something for her, quick!
well, that is your take on it. quelle surprise.
ef
--
Diane Richardson
On 4 Aug 1997 16:04:31 -0700, Arnie Lerma wrote:
[snip]
> The idea comes from common law. When a highway is blocked, you
>may cross private property without consequence. And may not be enjoined from
>doing so..
>
>It is also the duty of a citizen to alert his fellow citizens to a threat to
>thier safety.
There is no need to violate copyright in order to do that, Arnie.
Read Judge Brinkema's decision in your case again. Apparently, you
missed what she wrote about that. Or else you didn't understand it.
>If a plague were coming, you'd certainly want to tell your neighbors to prepare.
There is no need to violate copyright to warn your neighbors about a
coming plague.
> You would have a moral obligation to do so....
>
> Thats exactly how it looked to me.
But not how it looked to Judge Brinkema.
> When I hit send - to post the Fishman aff to ars.
>
> Was 2 years ago today and last few, that I did that.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
>A more interesting question is *why* is Diane picking on FACTnet and
>some other ctitics of $cientology lately. Does anyone else detect a
>whiff of "hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned"?
Scorned by whom, Nico? Or would you be violating a confidence if you
told me your source? ;-)
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Number 3
In article <33e9aad5...@snews.zippo.com>, inF...@super.zippo.com
(Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You mean she has become a boil on the butt of humanity? Yes, that's
> >what I concluded some time ago.
>
> No. That's not ~at all~ what I mean, Dave.
>
> I mean she has gotten stuck, emotionally. And she should cease
> doing what she is doing, shift her focus from ars, and get on with her
> life.
>
> She is another human being. Just like us. She'll get over it.
> Then we'll be friends again.
>
really? you're a bigger man than i would be. but more than that,
i doubt she'll get over it.
-- see...@ix.netcom.com
Friends of Dennis Erlich (www.netcom.com/~seekon/friends.html)
Number 3
> On 5 Aug 1997 01:11:33 -0700, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Why did efish's name get dragged into your cesspool? Diane, while
> >you're at it, could you please tell me the length of Dennis's penis?
>
> Four inches longer than yours, Martin.
>
i never before thought you were a total flaming idiot.
congratulations. you have educated me.
Martin Hunt
> I mean she has gotten stuck, emotionally. And she should cease
>doing what she is doing, shift her focus from ars, and get on with her
>life.
I agree; this group gets to everyone sooner or later. Diane deserves
a break from it all. (Not that she'd even *dream* of taking my advice).
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Scientology FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282
Join the Scientology Webring: http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/webring.htm
Keith Henson
Tashback (tash...@primenet.com) wrote:
: In article <xy9rac9...@shell1.tiac.net>, Nico Garcia
: <ra...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
: > A more interesting question is *why* is Diane picking on FACTnet and
: > some other ctitics of $cientology lately.
: Why is that an interesting question? I don't think questions like that are
: interesting. Mostly they only lead to people projecting cliched
: motivations onto other folks, such as ...
: > Does anyone else detect a
: > whiff of "hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned"?
: Yeah! Those darn dang wimmins, whaddya gonna do with 'em ... mutter mutter
: mutter ...
: But the real quotation is: "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned,
: Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned." -- William Congreve
: Helpful tip: Whenever you want to project cliched motivations, it helps to
: have a Bartlett's around so you can be precise in your generalizations.
: :-)
ROTF! "Precise in your generalizations. Priceless, Tash. Keith Henson
PS, the Evolutionary Psychology people take a lot of old sayings
*seriously* and look for where in our past such tendencies would have had
influence on the all important "reproductive success" factor.
Martin Hunt
In article <33e6783e...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>On 04 Aug 1997 19:00:01 -0400, Nico Garcia <ra...@shell1.tiac.net>
>wrote:
>
>>A more interesting question is *why* is Diane picking on FACTnet and
>>some other ctitics of $cientology lately. Does anyone else detect a
>>whiff of "hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned"?
>
>Scorned by whom, Nico? Or would you be violating a confidence if you
>told me your source? ;-)
<sigh>
I had hoped to avoid this, but you leave me no choice. It was
I. I was Nico's source. Diane came on to me in a long, sexy email
reply to my wooing of her posted here a couple weeks back that
astute readers will recall. I was wrong; I didn't fall flat on
my face with her, as I had predicted. I actually succeeded beyond
my wildest dreams, and thus the problem: it was inconvenient at
the moment.
So I turned her down. All this venom and such you see posted here
is a result of that. She's broken up with bivalve (Keith Spurgeon),
and she was stuck on me for a while. When I turned her down flat,
she got angry. She felt rejected. Diane, don't make me post that
email. I will if I'm forced to, if you deny any of this.
ttyl,
martin. (BTW, "lovey-ducks" and "sweet-cheeks" would *never* have
worked, in any case. What *were* you thinking?)
Martin Hunt
In article <33e660bc...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Correction, Tilman. What Dennis Erlich did was very, very, very, very
>nasty.
From this side of the monitor it just doesn't seem that way at
all. Dennis seemed positively restrained. I guess if you keep on at
him long enough, he might be provoked, but not so far, not from what
I've seen (and I've carefully read the whole exchange). You're too
involved in it, too tied up in it all, to be objective about it.
I think your judgment is clouded on this issue.
>And believe me when I tell you that with Garry Scarff and
>Steve Fishman closely tied to Wollersheim's former litigation, mox &
>co know *all* about Larry and his foibles.
>
>Think about that for awhile, would you?
Think about this: you need a break from ars. Please consider it, if
for no other reason than all this anger and vituperation on your part
cannot possibly be very good for you.
ttyl,
martin.
Bernie
>months, peter. steadily running down people, one by one. right now, she is
>working on dennis. whether he reponds or not,
LOL! So it is Diane who *started* this ugly fight???
What did she do, ef? Did she ask Dennis questions that she knew
he could not answer without "breaking confidence" while pushing
his button of "not substantiating" his claims and engaging in
innuendoes that the "Dots" connect? Is that what she did, ef?
Eh, Dennis "only responds" to her vile attacks, right? You must
be out of your mind.
>i think diane is stuck.
Stuck in what? The parrot is only learning the beginning of the
sentence, I see. Here is the full one for you to exercise on:
"I mean she has gotten stuck, emotionally. And she
should cease doing what she is doing, shift her focus
from ars, and get on with her life."
"She is another human being. Just like us. She'll
get over it. Then we'll be friends again."
Of course, Diane is stuck emotionally. That's why she *started*
to attack Dennis with questions for which she already had the
answers and aimed only to embarrass him, take a revenge, and
divert attention to the points he was making. That's obvious,
isn't it?
Argh, poor Diane, she is stuck in this terrible cult that ARS
is. Poor, poor, Diane. She must "move on" and "get over it".
Forget it all.
What does she do? What are the unmistakable signs of
this terrible situation?
She puts the hard questions on critics.
No?
Yes!!!
She *criticize* the unethical actions of *critics*? By
Jove! Now somebody do something for her, quick!
Bernie
Bernie
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote in article
<33ff7155...@news.snafu.de>:
>In <33e660bc...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>Correction, Tilman. What Dennis Erlich did was very, very, very, very
>>nasty.
>So what did he do? Child copyright abuse terrorism? Or did he ride past
>a stop sign while you were in his car?
Thick-as-a-brick Tilman is blind and doesn't get it, as usual.
Bernie
Diane Richardson
On 5 Aug 1997 04:01:58 -0700, mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
wrote:
[snip]
>Think about this: you need a break from ars. Please consider it, if
>for no other reason than all this anger and vituperation on your part
>cannot possibly be very good for you.
Martin, after reading your recent exchanges with Peter McDermott, I
can't help thinking that you're engaging in a little projection here.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
wgert
mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) wrote:
>In article <33e52a0e...@snews.zippo.com>,
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>>Then why did you ask if you expected an answer you didn't want to see?
>>Dennis, you are playing games of the worst sort here. If you fail to
>>see what you're doing, I can assure you many others can.
Very true.
>BWAHAHAHAHA! What "others", Diane? :-)
Me for one.
>Speak for yourself; you don't represent me, you don't represent
>anyone but yourself in this new level of vileness.
Get off it. She answered Dennis' questions - which he already knew
the answers to anyway. He can't now cry "foul".
>One true sign of desperation approaching utter loss in a debate is
>to haul in nebulous "others" to back up your collapsing position.
>But then, you know that as well as I do, Diane.
I don't see it this way at all. She has made very good, concise and
straightforward statements all along. When asked, she answered the
questions. Unlike many of the people posting on this newsgroup, she
does not seem to have any particular axe to grind and so doesn't have
to take the usual anti-Scientology position, just to get another dig
in.
>>By Priscilla Coates and by Cynthia Kisser's husband, to be specific.
>>I would not have revealed the names of these sources, Dennis, if you
>>it that were so unwilling to sign over your defense fund to Larry when
>>you had been able to transfer the funds to Larry, you made it quite
>>plain to me that you would never consider such an option because you
>>don't trust the guy.
>>As I have stated above. Priscilla Coates told me how she personally
>>Priscilla also told me about a meeting of anti-cult groups Wollersheim
>>Bill told me that the last correspondence Wollersheim had with CAN
This description of events sounds very much like Wollersheim. In fact
those who are really in the know, understand that Wollersheim is first
and foremost a salesman. Actually, he crosses over the line and falls
into the category of a "con" in that he inadvertently hypes the latest
gimmick or product to his customers. The problem is that every single
money making project that he has ever engaged in has resulted in
failure and people getting burned. It is the nature of the beast.
That is also exactly what is going on with FACTNet at the present
time. Wollerhseim has made promises he can't keep, has extended
himself and FACTNet financially, he has even sold shares in his
judgement. I am sure he has most of his lawyers and other FACTNet
members upset with him for promises that he couldn't keep.
>>I could go on. I think you get the picture.
>Oh, loud and clear. Does anyone need a translation? If so, here it
>is:
> "I am willing to backstab anyone and everyone and betray every
> confidence from Dennis Erlich to Rob Clark to all my erstwhile
> friends in pursuit of vengeance against anyone I ever get angry
> at."
This is only translation of someone who has no judgement.
> "Do not ever trust me again, or you may regret it one day."
Bull.
> - Signed, Diane Richardson.
>Thanks for letting me know, not that I ever did trust you,
>particularly. It's funny; some people I just quickly trust
>and they never seem to let me down, even when mightily tested
>in hot and angry exchanges. You know, as ugly as it once got
>between some critics and I in the past, certain lines were
>still never crossed. Certain lines you have just jumped clear
>over.
This is quite a vindictive statement in itself and is not meant to be
helpful at all but only to try and hurt Diane's feelings.
Peter McDermott
In article <341aac79...@snews.zippo.com>,
be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>Another ARS myth bites the dust? Like operation Freakout, the
>ARS bomb threat, and so many others. Oh, what a pity.
What was the deal with Operation Freakout? This is what's
led to Diane's status as being an SP hereabouts, I take it?
Peter McDermott
In article <33e7b7ec...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>> "Do not ever trust me again, or you may regret it one day."
>>
>> - Signed, Diane Richardson.
>
>Now you've even given up the fiction of pretending to read what I
>write -- you just invent whatever it is you would like to have me say
>and sign my name to it. I see you've become less coy about your
>misrepresentations lately.
Indeed. As Dave Bird did to one of my posts recently as well.
I have to say that it rings a bit hollow to have people complaining
about Scieno forgeries and Operation Freakout, and then engage
in exactly the same sort of tactics themselves.
Tilman Hausherr
(posted and e-mailed)
In <5DHa+RAc...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird---St Hippo of
Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I plonked the Wicked Witch of Zun! --MR.
> / /^(From|References):.*bway\.net/h
I don't use Turnip Version 3.03a but to me it seems you plonked not only
the "Witch of Zun" but also every person posting from bway.net. Because
this From: line is forged you won't see it on the usenet.
Bernie
Prignillius <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in article
<1997080516180...@nym.alias.net>:
>I also hope that anyone who has taken the risk of intimating
>confidences to Diane is watching closely at the manner in which she
>cherishes and reveres them.
I wouldn't call this type of CAN statement about Wollersheim
exactly a "confidence", except in Dennis manipulative way of
presenting things. It seems to me that these are things that are
being told regularly in the framework of a difficult and
confrontational area such as the cult/anticult one. All it says
is that CAN didn't regard Wollersheim as trustworthy, which is
nothing that will surprise any of us here who can see his many
frailties right here in the newsgroup. Was that such a big
secret that he wouldn't guess already himself on the part of CAN
(if he has a minimum of sense of observation)? Is this something
that they told *only* to Diane and to nobody else and that they
protect as a jealously held secret? Common!
You are a bit quick on the trigger, Prig, playing along with the
typical cult leader game of Dennis and his misrepresentations
and guilt games. You completely ignore the part Dennis played in
the story, as well as his motivations. This makes your analysis,
that are otherwise usually pretty thorough, rather incomplete
this time.
Bernie
Bernie
e...@address.at.bottom (ef) wrote in article
>In article <340b3443...@snews.zippo.com>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>> I am glad Diane reacted the way she did.
>ah yes. you would be. gives you some ammo, don't it.
Hardly.
Diane kept for a long time the Bast tapes for her, out of
courtesy. It must not be easy to keep this type of important
information, yet she did. When Rob Clark and Sister Clara
attacked her and Keith Spurgeon in the most vile and ugly manner
there was post after post in an attempt to silence her and
prevent her to bring that up, she did just that, she brought the
whole thing in full light, and she did well. They called for it
and the information of the Bast tapes really belong to this
newsgroup in the same way as any other information about LRH
that are gathered by ex-members, and other means.
She kept the information about Rob's bomb threat for her, I
don't know for how long. I don't know if *I* or anyone else
could keep such a vital piece of information for that long,
watching how this myth went on and on in the newsgroup, the CofS
being repeatedly "proved" criminal because of it. It is only
when Rob repeatedly insulted her, distorted everything, and
repeatedly misrepresented her dealings with the court where she
obtained the documents, after she had asked him to stop doing so
for post after post, that she came up with this information. And
she did well. Not only he certainly called for it, but it
corrected a serious wrong. Do you think it is something "good"
that a false information such as this one is repeatedly
circulated in the newsgroup? Now, frankly, ef, do you find that
right?
Diane spoke against FACTNet for as long as I can remember it.
She kept this particular piece of information for herself,
though. When Dennis challenged her and actually framed her in
the most manipulative and disgusting manner as he did to
challenge her to reveal this very information, then, yes, I
think that she did well to go ahead and answer the precise
questions he put to her, because that was a clear setup, a clear
manipulative tactic, something that you seem to disregard
completely, ef. *He* certainly has an important part of
responsibility in that, because he *knew* the answer, and he
deliberately pushed Diane's buttons, which he is certainly the
best placed to know. It's too easy to forget the whole context
and just accuse Diane of "breaking confidence" without any
reason.
Diane *proved* that it is not what she does unless she is pushed
to it, she *proved* that she can backup her claim and argue
logically and fairly. How many amongst the dozens claims she
did, did she not substantiate, ef? Yet, nothing of that is
acknowledged. She is putting us the same hard questions she put
the scieno, and for that alone she is a bitch, right? We applaud
when she does it to the CofS, and cry faul and "malevolence"
when we have to face the same questions. How dishonest! How
utterly dishonest. Now how about indulging in deliberate
manipulation, as Dennis did? I have hardly words for it.
As for Dennis, no one can accuse me of telling him for what he
is *now*, because I am not saying anything else than what I said
a few weeks/months ago, when I became aware of his manipulative
and abusive ways. I made posts after posts about that, nothing
new. If anything, he just proved once again the type of
manipulation he engage into. Diane confronted him with his own
words about involuntary conservatorship, something that
supposedly he is not supporting, and since then he didn't stop
trying to pull Diane in his embroiled, messed up, and twisted
state of mind.
Bernie
Roland
Fast wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 01:06:19 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
> wrote:
>
> > On 4 Aug 1997 16:04:31 -0700, Arnie Lerma wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > The idea comes from common law. When a highway is blocked, you
> > >may cross private property without consequence. And may not be enjoined from
> > >doing so..
> > >
> > >It is also the duty of a citizen to alert his fellow citizens to a threat to
> > >thier safety.
> >
> > There is no need to violate copyright in order to do that, Arnie.
> > Read Judge Brinkema's decision in your case again. Apparently, you
> > missed what she wrote about that. Or else you didn't understand it.
>
>
> Arnie posted *before* Judge Brinkema offered her ruling. You make it
> seem as though he read her order and then decided to post as he did.
>
>
> > >If a plague were coming, you'd certainly want to tell your neighbors to prepare.
> >
> > There is no need to violate copyright to warn your neighbors about a
> > coming plague.
You have bent judges in the US put there to protect big business. They
are political appointments. They are not earned through merit. What they
do they do because they were appointed to do it. They twist the law to
please their masters knowing they can never be held accountable. The
whole system stinks. "American justice" is an oxymoron.
What you are saying is complete crap anyway - as usual. We know the Co$
lies. It is all based on lies. So to warn people you have to provide the
proof. You have to provide something substantial. The NOTs, or whatever,
are like a photograph taken of the crime in action. Only it belongs to
them. It is proof - but it belongs to them rather than you. To produce
this proof you infringe copyright (not so in the UK). And yet in some
cases this is what you must do.
I put in the rider "not so in the UK". In the UK it is all decided by
the courts. There isn't even any "fair use" here. The courts will decide
each complaint on its own merits. For a start-off copyright is to do
with protecting the copyright holders entitlement to money from a
performance of their work. In the case described that doesn't apply.
Also if a person is acting in order to protect the public they can do
so, so long as they can convince the courts that that was the reason
they did it. If the courts decided that the Co$ were being immoral in
keeping their stuff hidden from the public then they would not even be
able to use the courts in any case. You are not allowed to use the legal
system to enforce immoral acts. For example, if you had a bet with
someone and they welched on their bet then there is no way you could
take them to court to recover that debt. Gambling is immoral and so you
cannot use the courts to assist you. That is the way it is over here.
That is why the Co$ are going to get crucified when a particular big
case gets to court over here.
> This analogy is getting a little thin, but can you really not think of
> a type of danger that should be publicized, and after you do somebody
> comes along and says "thanks for the warning, but the material you
> quoted is copyright and we don't think it is fair use"?
>
> > > You would have a moral obligation to do so....
> > >
> > > Thats exactly how it looked to me.
> >
> > But not how it looked to Judge Brinkema.
>
> Finally, the heart of the matter. Arnie did what he did believing it
> was right and proper. Later, the Cof$ brings it to court, and the
> Judge says he wasn't completely legal in how he publicized the danger,
> and here is a tiny, little, statutory minimum fine for your trouble.
>
> You know, Arnie was probably still *right* to act as he did. The
> point being that if we all failed to act or criticize when we are
> confronted with apparent wrongdoing. If we are self-censored into
> silence out of fear that a well-intended and apparently legal protest
> would turn to have unfortunate consequences for ourselves, then we
> fail in our duty as responsible human beings in a free society.
>
> We don't have Federal judges standing by to offer binding advice on
> the spur of the moment. We must, each of us, make a good faith effort
> to decide what is right and wrong, and how we are going to act in the
> face of perceived injustice.
>
> "When they came for the <....>, I did not complain, because I was not
> <....>. When they came for me, there was no one left to complain."
>
> > > When I hit send - to post the Fishman aff to ars.
> > >
> > > Was 2 years ago today and last few, that I did that.
> >
> > Diane Richardson
> > ref...@bway.net
*Plonk* the bitch!
Fast
> On 4 Aug 1997 16:04:31 -0700, Arnie Lerma wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The idea comes from common law. When a highway is blocked, you
> >may cross private property without consequence. And may not be enjoined from
> >doing so..
> >
> >It is also the duty of a citizen to alert his fellow citizens to a threat to
> >thier safety.
>
> There is no need to violate copyright in order to do that, Arnie.
> Read Judge Brinkema's decision in your case again. Apparently, you
> missed what she wrote about that. Or else you didn't understand it.
Diane -
Arnie posted *before* Judge Brinkema offered her ruling. You make it
seem as though he read her order and then decided to post as he did.
> >If a plague were coming, you'd certainly want to tell your neighbors to prepare.
>
> There is no need to violate copyright to warn your neighbors about a
> coming plague.
This analogy is getting a little thin, but can you really not think of
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <33e9aad5...@snews.zippo.com>,
>Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>what I concluded some time ago.
>
> No. That's not ~at all~ what I mean, Dave.
>doing what she is doing, shift her focus from ars, and get on with her
>life.
> She is another human being. Just like us. She'll get over it.
>Then we'll be friends again.
OK. I actually like Diane, a lot of the time. I don't like
what she's doing now -- it pisses me off. Substitute she's
ACTING LIKE a boil on the butt of humanity. So long as she keeps
doing it, I'm going to call her for it. If (ever) she packs in
acting like an asshole, we can be friends again: or at least I
will stop being hostile to her...how she reacts to me is up to her.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
Diane Richardson
On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 20:44:58 GMT, Fa...@anywhere.usa (Fast) wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 01:06:19 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>> On 4 Aug 1997 16:04:31 -0700, Arnie Lerma wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > The idea comes from common law. When a highway is blocked, you
>> >may cross private property without consequence. And may not be enjoined from
>> >doing so..
>> >
>> >It is also the duty of a citizen to alert his fellow citizens to a threat to
>> >thier safety.
>>
>> There is no need to violate copyright in order to do that, Arnie.
>> Read Judge Brinkema's decision in your case again. Apparently, you
>> missed what she wrote about that. Or else you didn't understand it.
>
>Diane -
>
>Arnie posted *before* Judge Brinkema offered her ruling. You make it
>seem as though he read her order and then decided to post as he did.
Of course he did. Brinkema would not have had any reason to reach a
decision if Arnie hadn't posted the material.
>> >If a plague were coming, you'd certainly want to tell your neighbors to prepare.
>>
>> There is no need to violate copyright to warn your neighbors about a
>> coming plague.
>
>This analogy is getting a little thin, but can you really not think of
>a type of danger that should be publicized, and after you do somebody
>comes along and says "thanks for the warning, but the material you
>quoted is copyright and we don't think it is fair use"?
No, I cannot think of any type of warning that would require wholesale
misappropriation of someone else's copyrighted material. I believe
that the Washington Post did an excellent job relaying the information
without engaging in copyright violation. I believe we would do well
to follow the Post's, rather than Lerma's, lead in such a situation.
>> > You would have a moral obligation to do so....
>> >
>> > Thats exactly how it looked to me.
>>
>> But not how it looked to Judge Brinkema.
>
>Finally, the heart of the matter. Arnie did what he did believing it
>was right and proper. Later, the Cof$ brings it to court, and the
>Judge says he wasn't completely legal in how he publicized the danger,
>and here is a tiny, little, statutory minimum fine for your trouble.
Arnie posted that material knowing full well the possible consequences
of his actions. He knew about the earlier raid. He knew RTC's
reputation for barratry. He was warned about what to expect from
friends and net acqaintances.
Arnie chose to violate the law to personally confront the cult. That
was his choice -- his decision. He certainly feels that what he did
was "right." All I am saying is that there are other ways of warning
the public against the dangers of the CoS, ways that do not violate
the law and ways that are equally, if not more, effective, than the
path Arnie Lerma chose.
>You know, Arnie was probably still *right* to act as he did. The
>point being that if we all failed to act or criticize when we are
>confronted with apparent wrongdoing. If we are self-censored into
>silence out of fear that a well-intended and apparently legal protest
>would turn to have unfortunate consequences for ourselves, then we
>fail in our duty as responsible human beings in a free society.
I do not believe that anyone should remain silent about the abuses of
the CoS. I certainly do not advocate self-censorship. What I am
saying is that it is not necessary to violate the law to criticize the
CoS. Utilizing these ways are far more intelligent and far more
effective than the path chosen by Arnie Lerma.
>We don't have Federal judges standing by to offer binding advice on
>the spur of the moment. We must, each of us, make a good faith effort
>to decide what is right and wrong, and how we are going to act in the
>face of perceived injustice.
No, but many of us, including Arnie Lerma himself, have attorneys we
can consult before we act. They are quite capable of providing us
with advice about the wisdom of our plans, if we provide them with all
the circumstances involving our plans.
>"When they came for the <....>, I did not complain, because I was not
><....>. When they came for me, there was no one left to complain."
You misread me entirely if you believe I am advocating silence about
the abuses of the CoS. I have spent years as an advocate of
intellectual freedom and will continue doing so long after this little
fracas is forgotten. All I point out is that those who choose their
weapons wisely are those who will prevail.
The fair use section of the copyright statute is a potent weapon.
Use it.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Number 3
In article <3436b9c6....@snews.zippo.com>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
[clip]
>
> You are a bit quick on the trigger, Prig, playing along with the
> typical cult leader game of Dennis and his misrepresentations
> and guilt games. You completely ignore the part Dennis played in
> the story, as well as his motivations. This makes your analysis,
> that are otherwise usually pretty thorough, rather incomplete
> this time.
>
well bernie, since you obviously know *all* the inside
details, perhaps you will fill us in?
Number 3
In article <3438baed....@snews.zippo.com>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
> jbwebb <jbw...@gramercy.ios.com> wrote in article
> <33E80B...@gramercy.ios.com>:
>
[clip]
>
> Which is such an obvious setup and manipulative tactics that I
> wonder how it can escape you. I know you are a Dennis crony,
> jbwebb, so I don't expect you to see any kind of manipulation
> and ill-intend in Dennis behavior anyway, but go ahead tell the
> cult members you can close your eyes but they can't.
>
look up the word 'crony', barney. i suspect that jbwebb
doesn't even know dennis, except here on the net.
then you can try to hide your animus behind a language
difficulty, again.
ef
> I am glad Diane reacted the way she did.
ah yes. you would be. gives you some ammo, don't it.
oh sigh-of-sighs. here i go finding you despicable again. oh well
<shrug>
ef
--
Bernie
ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote in article
<B00E3DEE...@0.0.0.0>:
>In article <341aac79...@snews.zippo.com>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>>Another ARS myth bites the dust? Like operation Freakout, the
>>ARS bomb threat, and so many others. Oh, what a pity.
>What was the deal with Operation Freakout?
During the Cooper threads, it came out that Operation Freakout,
that was such a favorite ARS ranting subject, never started
never happened, never was implemented. The papers about this
operation were seized by the FBI in 1976, and it was just a
project planned for 1977. People argued that the forged bomb
threat on Cooper was a proof it was implemented, but this bomb
threat happened in 1973, and so could not be part of operation
freakout that was written in 1976. They then argued that charges
were dropped on Cooper because the paper on operation Freakout
proved that the bomb threat was of the making of the CofS, but
this wasn't the case either. The Federal prosecutor agreed to
drop the charges after Cooper agreed to undergo one year of
psychiatric counseling. The charges were dropped only after she
completed the year of counseling, and this was long time before
the FBI raid.
So, the many dirty tricks attributed to the CofS under Operation
Freakout never were enacted in this particular framework. This
of course, doesn't mean that the CofS didn't harass its critics
and engaged in dirty tricks. It only means that what was
attributed to Operation Freakout was just a myth that critics
bashed the CofS over the head time after time. They assumed it
was correct, but it was just a myth they accepted without
questions.
>This is what's led to Diane's status as being an SP hereabouts, I take it?
The Operation Freakout bit was only a tiny part involved in the
Paulette Cooper/Bast thread. Hard to summarize (and probably
impossible without generating new resentments). Probably one of
the most significant event of ARS, and a most fascinating one in
regard to reactions of critics when they themselves are
questionned and not the CofS. Dozens of people were involved in
an ugly and nasty flame war that went on for about two months. I
think that quite a few posters didn't survived it (virtually
speaking of course), and some only started to recover from it
around now.
[Snipped my own evaluation about it to avoid a new flame war]
If you want to have a glimpse into these events, create a filter
in DejaNews on alt.religion.scientology between 1996, Oct 1 and
1996, Nov 30, and search for "Cooper" - and good luck to dig
into the 1735 hits!
Bernie
Peter McDermott
In article <33ef9d88...@snews.zippo.com>,
inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>What was the deal with Operation Freakout? This is what's
>>led to Diane's status as being an SP hereabouts, I take it?
>
> You're doubly clueless here, Peter.
So clue me in.
> First off, you clearly missed Diane's vindictive jihad against
>Paulette.
Of course I missed it. I haven't read ARS for two years. Sadly,
it seems that Rod's Week in Review doesn't contain all of the
really interesting stuff.
> And "B", on ars they don't have Espees.
Ah. ARSCC stopped issuing declares then? I don't believe it.
I think this is akin to what the nutkult says about fair
game.
"Oh, we don't do that any more. That was just the results of
a few misguided souls, but we've sent them off to ARSCC RPF now,
and besides, they were never really members anyway."
Rod Keller
Peter McDermott (ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Of course I missed it. I haven't read ARS for two years. Sadly,
: it seems that Rod's Week in Review doesn't contain all of the
: really interesting stuff.
That sort of bickering is exactly the kind of thing many of the
subscribers are trying to avoid. I get frequent emails about how nice it
is to be able to read the new stuff without wallowing in all the personal
in-fighting.
I listened to the realaudios, and I can't say I remember any really
interesting stuff.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go
Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
kEvin
In article <B00F65E8...@0.0.0.0>,
Peter McDermott <ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What are the Bast tapes? What information did they reveal?
The Bast tapes are a collection of audio tapes that were made by
either Paulette Cooper or her employer at the time, Richard Bast.
Bast was a PI hired by Scientology[tm] to investigate a judge who
was giving them some grief (I think it was Richey, but am doing this
as a quick summary off the top of my head and am unsure.) Bast, posing
as an employee of some fictitious, wealthy parents who'd lost a child
to Scientology[tm], hired Paulette Cooper as an investigator. Her
instructions were to surreptitiously tape phone calls and meetings with
her contacts and, unknown to her, Bast taped his phone calls and meetings
with her. The tapes are archived at a federal records center near Boston
because they're considered to have historical value. I haven't listened
to the tapes, but they're apparently somewhat embarrassing to Paulette Cooper
as Bast leads conversations into salty language and speculation about doing
dirty tricks on the cult.
>Can someone get me up to speed on how Diane knew that henry was
>lying, what she revealed about Paulette Cooper, and how she knew
>this as well?
henri told some people that he was the actual author of the "Blow up
your church of scientology today" post and word got back to Diane.
What Diane revealed about Paulette Cooper is a bit more controversial.
The first point is that the campaign of harassment against PC was not
Operation Freakout. If I'm quoting Diane accurately, she maintains that
Operation Freakout was an unimplemented plan of harassment to be used
against PC if PC didn't accept and abide by a new settlement. The harassment
directed at PC that's bandied about the group, including the forged
bomb threat frame up, were apparently not done under the name Operation
Freakout.
The second point Diane made is that PC had a break in her fight with
Scientology[tm]. After signing one settlement, PC spent two years
relatively free of harassment (this is my assessment of what Diane has
said, I haven't done any research and PC doesn't want to risk breaking
her gag agreement by speaking freely on these matters.) After her break,
PC went back into litigation against the cult and got tangled up in Bast's
investigation of (I think) Judge Richey. This discussion was very heated,
and I don't think Diane and PC like each other so I didn't follow that
particular thread very closely. I think Diane was trying to refute someone
who'd claimed that PC was harassed continuously for x years when it looked
to Diane like PC had settled once then jumped into the fight again on her
own knowing what it entailed. The Bast tapes compromised PC enough that
she did sign and abide by a settlement with Scientology[tm].
That settlement was itself an issue on ars, since PC signed an affidavit
that was used against Michael Flynn and some of his clients. (PC was a
former client of Flynn.) The affidavit was signed several months after
the settlement and Diane maintains that PC signed it for an additional
sum of money. Others believe that the settlement was not finalized when
PC signed the affidavit and that it was signed under pressure. PC did not
feel that her gag order allowed her to discuss the issue.
There's a tremendous amount of flamage around the Bast/PC/DR threads,
and I'm not sure that the matter can be reopened without generating
more heat and flame. With PC feeling at risk for cult retaliation if she
speaks, some people in the group feel a need to take her side against
perceived attacks and then other people take issue with the attacks
from the defenders and then both sides claim the moral high ground and
start lobbing grenades while the snipers fire randomly at anyone who
goes too far from cover. If anyone wishes to add more to this, *please*
*please* *please* don't point fingers or throw accusations.
kEvin
m...@primenet.com
Martin Hunt
In article <5s9dep$qn9$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>, wg...@loop.com (wgert) wrote:
>Me for one.
Diane speaks for you?
>Get off it. She answered Dennis' questions - which he already knew
>the answers to anyway. He can't now cry "foul".
OK; here's my question for you, then. Why did Lisa McPherson die?
>I don't see it this way at all. She has made very good, concise and
>straightforward statements all along. When asked, she answered the
>questions. Unlike many of the people posting on this newsgroup, she
>does not seem to have any particular axe to grind and so doesn't have
>to take the usual anti-Scientology position, just to get another dig
>in.
No "axe to grind", eh? Sorry; I think she has an entire armoury
to grind. But then, she's going easy and soft on Scientology, so
I guess that's the only real reason you take issue with her. What's
your opinion of someone like Martin P., who answers questions and
gives straight, honest answers and does not appear to have any
axe to grind? You should love his posts, right? I mean, logically.
>This description of events sounds very much like Wollersheim. In fact
>those who are really in the know, understand that Wollersheim is first
>and foremost a salesman.
I thought his claim to fame wasn't so much in sales as in winning
a US Supreme Court decision against Scientology in which your cult
was commanded to pay him millions of dollars?
What's your opinion about that? Was the Supreme Court wrong? If
so, how? In what way? And is "wog justice" ever naturally right
in opposition to Scientology, or is it only right when it comes
down on Scientology's side, and wrong in all other cases?
>Actually, he crosses over the line and falls
>into the category of a "con" in that he inadvertently hypes the latest
>gimmick or product to his customers.
L. Ron Hubbard was an accomplished con man who said that making Scientology
out to be a religion is "merely a matter for tax accountants".
>The problem is that every single
>money making project that he has ever engaged in has resulted in
>failure and people getting burned.
Unlike L. Ron Hubbard, who said that the "best way to make a million
dollars is to start a religion", and spent the last years of his life
raking in millions and millions of dollars from his con game, spending
them on ships and oppulent ranches.
>It is the nature of the beast.
The "Beast 666", Aleister Crowley, L. Ron Hubbard's "very good friend"?
>That is also exactly what is going on with FACTNet at the present
>time. Wollerhseim has made promises he can't keep, has extended
>himself and FACTNet financially, he has even sold shares in his
>judgement.
That's the multi-million dollar judgment the US Supreme Court upheld
against Scientology something like ten years ago? Say, when is Scientology
going to pay up, anyway?
Pay your bills, culties.
>I am sure he has most of his lawyers and other FACTNet
>members upset with him for promises that he couldn't keep.
Not nearly as many people as Scientology has pissed off over the
years through its constellation of nefarious activities.
>This is only translation of someone who has no judgement.
I thought you said he had a judgment? Is David Miscavige still
chanting ritualistically "not one thin dime for Wollersheim,
not one thin dime for Wollersheim, there's no place like home..."?
Didn't he just pay Wollersheim $400,000 on that huge judgment?
So much for postulates. Scientology paid good money to Larry W.
Why is that, Walter?
>Bull.
You trust her all you like. Trust DM, too. And trust Hubbard. Trust
the GO 11. Trust your boss. Trust your Body Thetans. Trust yourself
to become more transparent as you blow the Body Thetans off.
>This is quite a vindictive statement in itself and is not meant to be
>helpful at all but only to try and hurt Diane's feelings.
Third partying? Heh; won't work, Walter. Welcome, my son; welcome to
the machine.
Scientology is a dead organization. Get out and join the freezone or
something, pal. How much money did you lose last year? The year
before? How much longer can you stand there hemorrhaging cash all
over the planet before you go bankrupt?
Wgert, why don't you tell us how much money Scientology has and
current annual losses so we can calculate when the beast will fall?
Scientology will be very different in another ten years. Look at
the media attention now. No publicity is bad publicity? I think
that's being proved wrong. Had any good recruits lately? Or is it
just the usual stream of blows?
kEvin
In article <1997080718252...@nym.alias.net>,
Prignillius <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>>Diane, you are trading gold and diamonds for cheap, glittery
>>>tin-foil. You are actually the loser here. I hope someday you
>>>will be able to realize what a bad trade you have made.
Hunh? With tin foil you can make a hat to ward off body thetans
and evil intention beads. Can't do that with gold and diamonds.
kEvin
m...@primenet.com
Diane Richardson
On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 03:59:20 -0700, jbwebb <jbw...@gramercy.ios.com>
wrote:
>Diane Richardson wrote:
>>
>>
>> No, I cannot think of any type of warning that would require wholesale
>> misappropriation of someone else's copyrighted material. I believe
>> that the Washington Post did an excellent job relaying the information
>> without engaging in copyright violation. I believe we would do well
>> to follow the Post's, rather than Lerma's, lead in such a situation.
>
>Am I wrong or did Arnie not use any fair use comment at all - is that
>right?
He posted no commentary whatever.
>I agree, how hard is it to post 5 lines and then add five lines
>of comment?
Not hard at all.
>Unless, of course, he was making a point of saying "fuck you
>COS. I don't care what happens to me, this is what I'm going to do." In
>that case, he's a martyr and should accept his punishment with pride and
>wear it like a badge of honor.
Rather than accepting Brinkema's decision with pride, Lerma went back
to court demanding that the CoS not be allowed to claim they had
prevailed in the lawsuit. Judge Brinkema was not moved by Lerma's
whining.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Bernie
mre...@rmi.nospam.net (Michael Reuss) wrote in article
<33f15cf0...@news.frii.com>:
>>be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>>the way he presents the CofS as "locking people in basements
>>and torturing them in RPFs"
>The word torture is your own addition to Dennis' description of what
>happened, Bernie. What a spin-meister. Were you still in the cult, I'll
>just bet you could have waltzed right into Coreen Brennan's old job.
Are you claiming that Dennis didn't use the word torture in his
sentence?
Bernie
Bernie
>Who's the cult member here, Bernie?
You are. You prove once more that you are blind to your guru's
failings and will go to all kinds of stupid rationalizations to
explain them.
Bernie
Bernie
see...@spamtrap.ix.netcom.com (Number 3) wrote in article
<seekon-0608...@utc-ny1-13.ix.netcom.com>:
>In article <B00E3DEE...@0.0.0.0>, ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
>> In article <341aac79...@snews.zippo.com>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>> >Another ARS myth bites the dust? Like operation Freakout, the
>> >ARS bomb threat, and so many others. Oh, what a pity.
>> What was the deal with Operation Freakout? This is what's
>> led to Diane's status as being an SP hereabouts, I take it?
> diane went to a federal records center, dug up some
> information on paulette cooper from the so-called bast tapes
> (bast was a private investigator pretending to be after scn, but
> really working for thme), and after some exchanges concerning
> her opinion of paulette cooper, posted them. the whole affair
> was highly controversial, and turned many against diane, despite
> the fact that the actual harm to paulette's reputation was
> largely untouched.
Which is of course, as usual with you, a very "personal" account
of events, to say the very least. And because Mr. Number 3 said
it all to be so, it must be so, right?
Bernie
Tom Klemesrud
Roland (rola...@netcomuk.co.uk) wrote:
[...]
: You have bent judges in the US put there to protect big business. They
: are political appointments. They are not earned through merit. What they
: do they do because they were appointed to do it. They twist the law to
: please their masters knowing they can never be held accountable. The
: whole system stinks. "American justice" is an oxymoron.
A point clearly made in the ABC News documentary, "The Trouble with
Lawyers" with John Stossel, tonight 10/9c. It's great. A probable Emmy
winner. "A must see." - TV Dude.