I guess "Kat's" OSA handers told her to "pull back"

[Steve Layton]

She's such a puppet. :-)

You see, the person who posts under the name of "Kat" works for OSA, which is a department of the church of Scientology.

Since the church of Scientology probably thinks Aida is a squirrel auditor ( and if they do, I agree ) they ordered "Kat" to leave me alone to continue to expose Aida's fraudulent and underhanded nature.

This is why she suddenly stopped attacking me.

There can be no other explanation.

[John Dorsay]

On 8/22/2012 12:51 AM, Steve Layton wrote:
> She's such a puppet. :-)
>
> You see, the person who posts under the name of "Kat" works for
> OSA, which is a department of the church of Scientology.

Do you have any actual *evidence* that Kat works for OSA,
truthseeker? Please feel free to share it here.

> Since the church of Scientology probably thinks Aida is a
> squirrel auditor ( and if they do, I agree ) they ordered "Kat"
> to leave me alone to continue to expose Aida's fraudulent and
> underhanded nature.

Evidence, please.

> This is why she suddenly stopped attacking me.

Kat pointed out your ineptitude at concealing your identity when you
DA Aida Thomas. Is that what you are calling an "attack"? Or is
there something else?

> There can be no other explanation.

Only if you are dumber than a flaccid turd.

Here is an explanation you are obviously too stupid to identify on
your own. Kat is away from her computer for a while. She can't post
"attacks" or anything else while she is away from her computer.

When she comes back, she'll resume pointing out your faults. It's
not hard. You have many and they are obvious.


HTH, John

[Steve Layton]

>
> Do you have any actual *evidence* that Kat works for OSA,
>

The evidence is in the way she acts.

Notice that "John" responded to my post and not "Kat"?

Her OSA handlers told her to pull back.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

"Steve Layton" <stevela...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:02315416-d635-46fd...@googlegroups.com...

Her OSA ways and means expose her as an amateur operative.
I've been saying this same thing for years in one way or the other.
Kat's got a certain playbook she goes by and she never deviates
from it. It's OSA sleaze all the way.

I hope they tossed her into the "Freewinds" chain locker for a
couple of days.

--
Sir Gregory

[Steve Layton]

Yes, "Kat" is definitely running a script, one from the Office of Special Affairs.

[Kat]

Actually my husband asked me to back off so that you didn't show up Kat's house or our house with a gun. Seems he was worried for people's safety after reading some of the threats you sent to Aida via email.

Nice try tho, Truthseeker.

[Kat]

On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:02:28 AM UTC-4, John Dorsay wrote:

> Only if you are dumber than a flaccid turd.
>
>
>
> Here is an explanation you are obviously too stupid to identify on
>
> your own. Kat is away from her computer for a while. She can't post
>
> "attacks" or anything else while she is away from her computer.

That was the other reason for my absence. :P I'm a busy woman! Funny how these pathetic little trolls are so desperate to assume motive and make claims that have no basis in reality.

I wonder if this sad little duo will ever figure out that arguments based around intellectual fallacies make them look retarded.

[Steve Layton]

>
> Actually my husband asked me to back off so that you didn't show up Kat's house >or our house with a gun. Seems he was worried for people's safety after reading >some of the threats you sent to Aida via email.
>

Husband? Ha! Ha!

I bet your husband's name is spelled O - S - A.

How can I or anyone show up where you live when I don't know your name or where you're located?

Exactly how am I supposed to be able find out this information liar?


For God's sake, you're too afraid to even post under your real name.

It's just an excuse, not the real reason.

"Kat" was told to back off alright, she telling the truth on that part, but by her OSA up-lines not by her hubby.

Nice try "Kat" or whatever your real name is.

[Kat]

On Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:04:09 AM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
> >
>
> > Actually my husband asked me to back off so that you didn't show up Kat's house >or our house with a gun. Seems he was worried for people's safety after reading >some of the threats you sent to Aida via email.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Husband? Ha! Ha!

Yes. People have those. I understand you have a wife. Do you treat her as badly as you treat women on usenet? Do you bully her and then blame her for it, as you tried to do to Aida?

>
>
>
> I bet your husband's name is spelled O - S - A.

That would be a bet you would lose, sunshine. I've never been a scientologist, neither has he. How can either of us be OSA when we've never been "in". You, on the other hand....

>
>
>
> How can I or anyone show up where you live when I don't know your name or where you're located?
>
>
>
> Exactly how am I supposed to be able find out this information liar?

The same way OSA found other DC anons, moron. They just haven't found ME yet as I never carried personal ID on me, never paid for anything on protest days with anything other than cash and didn't use my personal name at protests.

I also never filed a police report for the assaults that I witnessed as there were "named" anons who were willing to file themselves. The police reports are how they outed quite a few DC anons- beating people up just to make them file a police report the cult would have access to fair game the critics. What a bunch of tools!

As for finding me via IP- are you telling me you aren't smart enough to do what a bunch of kids did, mr "computer pro"? lawwwwwwwwwl

>
>
>
>
>
> For God's sake, you're too afraid to even post under your real name.

LOL! This from Truthseeker, the sock puppet king! Oh the irony!

>
>
>
> It's just an excuse, not the real reason.

It is well within OSA's abilities to harass or harm my friends who are still scientologists or have family in the cult. By persisting with this asinine demand that I reveal my name, all you are doing is declaring that you don't care about their safety or mine.

Thank you for demonstrating what a selfish, reckless asshole you are.

>
> "Kat" was told to back off alright, she telling the truth on that part, but
> by her OSA up-lines not by her hubby.
>
>
>
> Nice try "Kat" or whatever your real name is.

Nice try, Truthseeker. There are critics who know who I am and that I have absolutely no personal history with the Church of Scientology. Beyond that, you have no evidence whatsoever that I am OSA. None. All this boils down to is false assumption and ad homs- more intellectual fallacies. Intellectual fallacies don't make you right, sunshine. They just make you stupid.

It's funny- I don't really even need to do anything to discredit you. You do it yourself every time you open your mouth.

[Steve Layton]

>
> Yes. People have those. I understand you have a wife.

Understand from what? or who?

>Do you treat her as badly as you treat women on usenet?

Treat who? What makes you think I have wife? Did I say I did?

As for women, I love women, real women that is.

I treat women accordingly to how they act and how they treat me.

>
> The same way OSA found other DC anons, moron. They just haven't found ME yet >as I never carried personal ID on me, never paid for anything on protest days >with anything other than cash and didn't use my personal name at protests.
>

Which way would that be?

Are you saying that you are with the DC Anons? Are you an Anonymous member?

>
>
> I also never filed a police report for the assaults that I witnessed as there >were "named" anons who were willing to file themselves. The police reports are >how they outed quite a few DC anons- beating people up just to make them file >a police report the cult would have access to fair game the critics. What a >bunch of tools!

Again, you haven't explained how I'm supposed to know

1. Who you are 2. Where you are?

Please explain.

>
>
>
> As for finding me via IP- are you telling me you aren't smart enough to do >what a bunch of kids did, mr "computer pro"? lawwwwwwwwwl

You can't find a person's exact location from IP addreses?

> > For God's sake, you're too afraid to even post under your real name.
>
>
>
> LOL! This from Truthseeker, the sock puppet king! Oh the irony!

Didn't the guy who posts under "Truthseeker" tell people on ESMB who his real name was?

When are you going to?

>
> It is well within OSA's abilities to harass or harm my friends who are still >scientologists or have family in the cult. By persisting with this asinine >demand that I reveal my name, all you are doing is declaring that you don't >care about their safety or mine.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, what's that have to do with me?

> Thank you for demonstrating what a selfish, reckless asshole you are.

Oh, I see, more name calling. And your proof?

>
> Nice try, Truthseeker. There are critics who know who I am and that I have absolutely no personal history with the Church of Scientology. Beyond that, you have no evidence whatsoever that I am OSA. None. All this boils down to is false assumption and ad homs- more intellectual fallacies. Intellectual fallacies don't make you right, sunshine. They just make you stupid.
>

Don't you agree that a person's actions or lack there of show's what's in their heart?

Be right? I'm not trying to win a rightness or wrongness battle with you. I'm just trying to warn the public about Aida Thomas's behavior unbecoming a scientologist.

>
> It's funny- I don't really even need to do anything to discredit you. You do >it yourself every time you open your mouth.

If that's really true, why do you write so many words, respond to my posts, put so much effort and energy into trying to discredit me?

[Kat]

On Thursday, August 23, 2012 1:13:29 AM UTC-4, Steve Layton wrote:
> >
>
> > Yes. People have those. I understand you have a wife.
>
>
>
> Understand from what? or who?

So you are denying that you are in fact Truthseeker, aka Neil Woods the Quack?

>
>
>
> >Do you treat her as badly as you treat women on usenet?
>
>
>
> Treat who? What makes you think I have wife? Did I say I did?

So you are denying that you are Truthseeker/Neil Woods?

>
>
>
> As for women, I love women, real women that is.

All women are "real women". By implying that some women are not "real", you are revealing that what you "love" is a theoretical, over-idealized concept of "women".

>
>
>
> I treat women accordingly to how they act and how they treat me.

Oh look, victim blaming! What a shocker from a BULLY lol

Also not a shocker considering you threatened Aida and blamed her for it.

>
> Which way would that be?

I pretty much spelled it out for you. This willfully ignorant act isn't making you look like less of a retard, sunshine.

> Are you saying that you are with the DC Anons? Are you an Anonymous member?

We've been through this before, dipshit.

> > I also never filed a police report for the assaults that I witnessed as there >were "named" anons who were willing to file themselves. The police reports are >how they outed quite a few DC anons- beating people up just to make them file >a police report the cult would have access to fair game the critics. What a >bunch of tools!
>
>
>
> Again, you haven't explained how I'm supposed to know
>
>
>
> 1. Who you are 2. Where you are?
>
>
>
> Please explain.
>
> > As for finding me via IP- are you telling me you aren't smart enough to do >what a bunch of kids did, mr "computer pro"? lawwwwwwwwwl
>
>
>
> You can't find a person's exact location from IP addreses?

There are other ways, sunshine. Are you telling me you aren't smart enough? I know next to nothing about computers and yet I can do it. We found you, after all.

> Didn't the guy who posts under "Truthseeker" tell people on ESMB who his real
> name was?

How "funny" that you would remember that. :) You share his personal IP, after all.

"He" did reveal his real name- after years of harassing people from sock puppets. "He" also only started using his "real" name after we figured out who he was and made no secret of the information.

>
> > It is well within OSA's abilities to harass or harm my friends who are still >scientologists or have family in the cult. By persisting with this asinine >demand that I reveal my name, all you are doing is declaring that you don't >care about their safety or mine.
>
>
>
> Maybe they do, maybe they don't, what's that have to do with me?

Case in point. If it doesn't affect you, you see no problem with throwing innocent people in harms way. You are a terrible person.

>
>
>
>
>
> > Thank you for demonstrating what a selfish, reckless asshole you are.
>
>
>
> Oh, I see, more name calling. And your proof?

Proof of what? That you are a selfish, reckless asshole? You just gave it to me when I said "I'm worried for their safety if my name gets out" and you asked what that had to do with you.

And yes, more name calling and don't try and play victim after you have done it yourself. At least I attack your intelligence, you are so retarded that you think an attack my attractiveness as a woman! looool

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Nice try, Truthseeker. There are critics who know who I am and that I have absolutely no personal history with the Church of Scientology. Beyond that, you have no evidence whatsoever that I am OSA. None. All this boils down to is false assumption and ad homs- more intellectual fallacies. Intellectual fallacies don't make you right, sunshine. They just make you stupid.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Don't you agree that a person's actions or lack there of show's what's in
> their heart?

Action yes, lack of action no. Unless the person explains their lack of action, you can only assume what their motives are. Assumptions aren't always accurate, moron. That's the point several people have made now- by assuming that I was "held back" by OSA without asking my motives, you demonstrate YOURS.

>
>
>
> Be right? I'm not trying to win a rightness or wrongness battle with you. I'm just trying to warn the public about Aida Thomas's behavior unbecoming a scientologist.

What a steaming load! You are the one who MADE it a "rightness" or "wrongness" battle by bringing it into the argument, moron lol

> If that's really true, why do you write so many words, respond to my posts

> put so much effort and energy into trying to discredit me?

I responded because you assumed my motives and declared me OSA, which was your intent. Now that you have me "back", you just try and discredit me with more ad homs and intellectual fallacies. You "need" to be right and "need" to bash this woman named "Kat" who embarrassed you so thoroughly or else you wouldn't be trying to drag me back in. :)

I write as many words as I do because I'm a fast typist and I like to be thorough in my response. If I make my stance clear, you cannot manipulate it. All you can do is make sad little ad homs like this in the hopes that it lets you save face. :)

You really are an idiot. Perhaps I'll remove your from my study after all. I don't want to pick on the clinically developmentally disabled.