Question and Suggestion for T Padgett
J Galt
You claim to know how nasty the Church of Scientology is. (I"m basing
this on your letter to Judge Schaffer, among other things.)
You know that Tigger has very good reason to NOT go by her name on
ars. (I'm basing this on the fact that she's asked this publically,
and you apparently follow her postings sort of eerily closely.)
Why then, with your understanding of CoS do you persist in using
Tigger's real name?
It simply makes you look like a Bad Guy. It isn't sporting. It's
mean.
Is it some "tactic"? Or is it just a petty Padgettism?
You're a spiteful person Tom. That'd be about the clearest way to
describe you, based on the crap you post. Petty would work too, but
Spiteful is the best. Are you Petty and Spiteful and Mean all the
time, or just on ars?
Maybe working on eliminating those things from your life would help
you with a lot of the troubles you're having with your family. Just a
thought.
JG
Magoo
I'd just like to say he isn't spiteful, or mean, or petty.
Tom has been ROYALLY F'ed by Scientology and his X-Wife,
with Miss Chigger (I refuse to call her the other. I just saw the real T on
TV today, and that's an insult to the original) making numerous
NON- "Sporting" posts re many of us....esp Tom. He is fighting a very real
battle for his family. Have you read his web site?
In fact, I could call her many names she's been, but I don't want to
stir up her tiny fan club too much.
But let's just say, the words you use for Tom, are EXACTLY the correct words
for starters....for CHigger, the ever- less- bigger, hag.
Tory/Magoo!
"J Galt" <ips...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:5a9fba1e.02071...@posting.google.com...
Diane Richardson
wrote:
>As a friend of Tom's....
You'd be wise to tell him to stop acting like a Scientologist.
>I'd just like to say he isn't spiteful, or mean, or petty.
He's all three of those things to Tigger. But since you
hate Tigger, it's okay with you that he's that way.
>Tom has been ROYALLY F'ed by Scientology and his X-Wife,
That doesn't give Tom the right to ROYALLY F other people
Tory.
>with Miss Chigger (I refuse to call her the other. I just saw the real T on
>TV today, and that's an insult to the original)
If that's how you feel, then you'll understand why I begin calling
you Maggot (I seen the real M on TV, and you're a true insult to
the original, Maggot).
>making numerous
>NON- "Sporting" posts re many of us....esp Tom. He is fighting a very real
>battle for his family. Have you read his web site?
Sorry, Maggot, but just because the Scientologists have given Tom
a rough time doesn't mean Tom has the right to give others a rough
time -- especially not others who have put in time and effort in
helping him. But Maggots have a hard time understanding that,
don't they?
>In fact, I could call her many names she's been, but I don't want to
>stir up her tiny fan club too much.
Nah ... as long as you call Tigger Chigger, I'll call you Maggot.
That's a much, much more appropriate nick for you.
>But let's just say, the words you use for Tom, are EXACTLY the correct words
>for starters....for CHigger, the ever- less- bigger, hag.
The correct word for MAGGOT is Tory, a pasty-looking white slug
that lives by feeding on offal.
I hope you like your new nick, Maggot.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Magoo
Tory/Magoo!
"Diane Richardson" <ref...@bway.net> wrote in message
news:3c69412...@news.giganews.com...
Diane Richardson
wrote:
>Happy to see you still have the non-touch, Icepick.
Delighted to see you're still as dumb as a Maggot. Once you
stop the namecalling, maybe others won't do the same to you.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Zinj
says...
Pretty funny to see such an obsessive example of 'pot/kettle/black'
irony Di :)
What I find most amazing however is that, while I have never
considered your skills as a 'debator' or 'logician' any more advanced
than a reject from a high school forensics team, apparently you have
managed to join forces with your 'former' enemies who did respect your
abilities in that arena (for god-unknown reasons) to *their*
detriment.
The fact that ptsc has now become a 'strange bedfellow' with you has
not harmed your own debating skills (practically impossible, unless
one includes acid tossing as a 'debating skill', but, it has reduced
ptsc to your level. Poor guy. At least he now agrees with you. :)
Big win.
Zinj
--
When in Danger, or in Doubt; Run in Circles, Scream and Shout -
ARS/Post Bobocalypse
BasicQuestions
Tory was stupid to refer to "Tigger" as "Chigger."
You were also stupid to to refer to "Magoo" as "Maggot."
You're both rude and stupid because you don't realize the cesspool
you're being sucked into.
(DAMN, I feel really self-righteous here :-).
You both have great information to share that can help derail the CoS,
but what do you do? You get involved in a stupid pissing match.
WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTIVE? Is it to be right or just to appear right on a
NG? Derail the COS or look good in the latest post? Take the higher
ground and you might look a lot more right.
Seriously, think about it.
P.S.: I'd hate this place if it wasn't so much fun :-).
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote in message news:<3c69412...@news.giganews.com>...
Diane Richardson
>In article <3c699b6...@news.giganews.com>, ref...@bway.net
>says...
>> On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:10:48 -0700, "Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Happy to see you still have the non-touch, Icepick.
>>
>> Delighted to see you're still as dumb as a Maggot. Once you
>> stop the namecalling, maybe others won't do the same to you.
>>
>>
>> Diane Richardson
>> ref...@bway.net
>
>Pretty funny to see such an obsessive example of 'pot/kettle/black'
>irony Di :)
Yeah, I've got pretty tired of reading Maggot's pleas about how
"we should all get along," interspersed among her vicious personal
attacks against critics.
>What I find most amazing however is that, while I have never
>considered your skills as a 'debator' or 'logician' any more advanced
>than a reject from a high school forensics team, apparently you have
>managed to join forces with your 'former' enemies who did respect your
>abilities in that arena (for god-unknown reasons) to *their*
>detriment.
I have no idea what you're talking about, Zinjifar. Why don't you
come up with yet another conspiracy theory about how Rob Clark
orders Charlie to send Judge Schaeffer anonymous information on
the cult? That one was a real laugh riot.
>The fact that ptsc has now become a 'strange bedfellow' with you has
>not harmed your own debating skills (practically impossible, unless
>one includes acid tossing as a 'debating skill', but, it has reduced
>ptsc to your level. Poor guy. At least he now agrees with you. :)
>Big win.
Your biggest win was convincing a 15-year-old that she wanted
to have sex with an unemployed, alcoholic failure who was older
than her own father.
I'm glad the FBI straightened Elisabeth C-Bear's family out before
you got your chance, Zinj.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
J Galt
> As a friend of Tom's....
Hi,
As a friend of Tom's, you have the luxury (?) of knowing him by more
than his posts on ars. I "know" him only from his posts, and from his
website. Yes, I've looked at his website---but I now look at it in
light of the way he treats people on ars, and he doesn't seem so
Wonderful.
>
> I'd just like to say he isn't spiteful, or mean, or petty.
I don't "know" you either, and frankly, you might drink a lotta cream
soda and dance in the moonlight, but you don't seem like such a Good
Guy either. Just callin' 'em as I read 'em...maybe you're a really
nice chick and that just isn't coming thru in your posts.
> Tom has been ROYALLY F'ed by Scientology and his X-Wife,
> with Miss Chigger (I refuse to call her the other. I just saw the real T on
> TV today, and that's an insult to the original) making numerous
> NON- "Sporting" posts re many of us....esp Tom. He is fighting a very real
> battle for his family. Have you read his web site?
As I said, I"ve read his site. I've also seen his posts. They don't
exist seperately or in a vaccum.
Since when does getting F'ed by someone---ex-wife, Scientology, the
local green grocer---make it ok for you to F somebody? That's just
not cool.
>
> In fact, I could call her many names she's been, but I don't want to
> stir up her tiny fan club too much.
The name game is really, really silly. Why go there? It actually
makes the name caller look way worse than any name you come up with.
My question was, why does Tom Padgett insist on using Tigger's given
name on ars when he claims to know that CoS is "bad" and when Tigger
has requested that she not be called by her given name? That was my
question.
I guess it'd be best if Tom answered himself, altho I'm sure he
appreciates your jumping in and getting some licks in on the Tigger.
>
> But let's just say, the words you use for Tom, are EXACTLY the correct words
> for starters....for CHigger, the ever- less- bigger, hag.
Again, the name game doesn't work with most thinking people--and there
are some of us here on ars.
JG
J Galt
> As a friend of Tom's....
>
Hi,
As a friend of Tom's, you have the luxury (?) of knowing him by more
than his posts on ars. I "know" him only from his posts, and from his
website. Yes, I've looked at his website---but I now look at it in
light of the way he treats people on ars, and he doesn't seem so
Wonderful.
> I'd just like to say he isn't spiteful, or mean, or petty.
> Tom has been ROYALLY F'ed by Scientology and his X-Wife,
> with Miss Chigger (I refuse to call her the other. I just saw the real T on
> TV today, and that's an insult to the original) making numerous
> NON- "Sporting" posts re many of us....esp Tom. He is fighting a very real
> battle for his family. Have you read his web site?
I don't "know" you either, and frankly, you might drink a lotta cream
soda and dance in the moonlight, but you don't seem like such a Good
Guy either. Just callin' 'em as I read 'em...maybe you're a really
nice chick and that just isn't coming thru in your posts.
>
> In fact, I could call her many names she's been, but I don't want to
> stir up her tiny fan club too much.
>
As I said, I"ve read his site. I've also seen his posts. They don't
exist seperately or in a vaccum.
Since when does getting F'ed by someone---ex-wife, Scientology, the
local green grocer---make it ok for you to F somebody? That's just
not cool.
> But let's just say, the words you use for Tom, are EXACTLY the correct words
> for starters....for CHigger, the ever- less- bigger, hag.
>
The name game is really, really silly. Why go there? It actually
makes the name caller look way worse than any name you come up with.
My question was, why does Tom Padgett insist on using Tigger's given
name on ars when he claims to know that CoS is "bad" and when Tigger
has requested that she not be called by her given name? That was my
question.
I guess it'd be best if Tom answered himself, altho I'm sure he
appreciates your jumping in and getting some licks in on the Tigger.
Again, the name game doesn't work with most thinking people--and there
are some of us here on ars.
JG
>
>
>
>
GarryS
> Diane,
>
> Tory was stupid to refer to "Tigger" as "Chigger."
>
> You were also stupid to to refer to "Magoo" as "Maggot."
>
> You're both rude and stupid because you don't realize the cesspool
> you're being sucked into.
>
> (DAMN, I feel really self-righteous here :-).
>
> You both have great information to share that can help derail the CoS,
> but what do you do? You get involved in a stupid pissing match.
>
> WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTIVE? Is it to be right or just to appear right on a
> NG? Derail the COS or look good in the latest post? Take the higher
> ground and you might look a lot more right.
>
> Seriously, think about it.
A bigger question is why you post in anonymity, a practice widely used
by Scientology staffers.
becuzitduz
Hey JG??
WHo you calling spiteful?/ Tom?/ Hardly DO you KNOW what his troubles
with his family are?? They are simple really - and it is NOTHING he
has done really
except this:
He wants to be a father to his children without Scientology. This is
his great and horrendous crime. For this crime he has been imprisoned
(falsely) falsely accused of a miriad of things, kept from his
children (whom he loves) lost jobs, and so on.
I suggest you keep your mouth shut about things you obviously do not
understand.
As for Tigger she is real good at dishing it out to anyone and
everyone but God forbid anyone call her on it - she is after all
TIgger.
I for one am sick to death of the vilifcation of anyone who dares to
raise a voice of reason and refuses to crucify Bob and Stacy because
of the choices they have made. Until the ENTIRE story (yeah I read
the transcripts people)
is told from ALL sides I refuse to do that. Of course I am an idiot
and lost in space and who knows what all but quite honestly - this
whole NG has become a whining cesspool of illogic, cruelty, ad hominem
attacks, and just plain stupidity. Time to get back to the business
at hand.
COS practices cruel and abuisive policies which hurt people, families,
and children. How about we stop that altogether.
Kim p
Kaeli
J Galt wrote:
Uhhh I think his main point is that the CoS harasses people and uses the
legal system to do so. I'm sorry that you can't see it that way, either.
BTW... are you a Randite? John Galt was the main character in Ayn Rand's
Atlas Shrugged. Too bad she wasn't the most realistic writer around.
Kaeli A.
Pts 2
your concerns re: first names in another thread re: Ken vs. Mr. Dandar:)
Never in my life have I been called a name of "spiteful" nor ever have I
been characterize as such. So YOU are the first. Take a win! :) But
since you come here as a newbie and alleged to have some kinda new found
insight of me personally, I will add this new name to the list of HOST
of derogatory attacks by $cienos, $cieno lawyers, faux critics, and the
newly formed Butternut Squash gang.
You mention that I have "family problems."
How's that JG? If you can't answer that intelligently or from first
hand knowledge, here's a suggestion.... write or e-mail my brother
(family) and inquire of any "family" issues that
you suggest is problematic w/ me.
John F. Padgett, Esq.
5 South Orleans Road.
P.O. Box 424
Orleans, MA 02653
fax # (508) 255-4616
e-mail # jpad...@onebox.com
He call fill you in on any "family problems" as
"family." Oh and you can address him as "John" as he's not into the
formal BS that you are trying to twist this NG into believing Ken Dandar
is.
Lastly, if you are sincere about this post, you can ALWAYS e-mail me
directly at pad...@taxexemptchildabuse.net and engage
in a healthy one-on-one chat. You will notice,
$cienos, faux critics, and the Butternut squash
gang is not into such (normal) communication exchange....for the most
part. So if I don't here
back from you, I will KNOW you're motives are insincere J. Galt.....just
silly trolling and sockpuppetry coming from north of the boarder.
Btw, that's not spiteful - just observing and application of logic.
Tom
<><><><><><><><><><><>
www.WhyAreTheyDead.net
----------------------------------------------------------------
If I ever trust an ex-scientologist again, I need my head examined.
TIGGER
Mike G
attempted,in vain, to
become full time paid Quasi Anti-Cult experts.
Thats pretty dificult to do with zero charisma, dull mental and writing
skills. Tom has betrayed
any friendships he ever had. He has no honor.
Tigger waved hs flag, handed out flyers etc for him for a year.
Tory so hystericly needs attention,its pathetic.
She comes to ars not unlike a Retarded Cheerleader rooting for the home
team,unable to recall what shes posted yesterday. Its almost painful to
watch.
BasicQuestions
Tom had every right to send what he did. Was it helpful? I have no
idea. Frankly, I think probably not.
Nonetheless, Tigger's name is already public knowledge. So Tom gets
his jollies by reposting it. It's not a great practice IMO but so
what?
> Spiteful is the best. Are you Petty and Spiteful and Mean all the
> time, or just on ars?
>
> Maybe working on eliminating those things from your life would help
> you with a lot of the troubles you're having with your family. Just a
> thought.
That's way below the belt. Do you have a family? Have you ever had a
family ripped apart by something? Do you know how it feels? I'll
guarantee you wouldn't have the guts to say something like that to
anyone face-to-face.
You're, of course, free to say what you want. But don't think other
people aren't free to think/say "you're an irresponsible asshole" for
posting that. In my book, Tom gets free license to verbally beat you
to a pulp.
I hope Tom will rise above this and let it go.
But, if your position is so solid, can't you avoid employing
deliberately emotionally charged and upsetting arguments?
ips...@yahoo.ca (J Galt) wrote in message news:<5a9fba1e.02071...@posting.google.com>...
barb
Mike (ultra bin moron) Greenberg, on the other hand, didn't even bother
to pretend to include Scientology in this rabid post against two of its
more effective critics. You see, he came on the newsgroup full of
bluster and boast, and rapidly revealed himself as a not-too-bright
fella who, although too cowardly to stand with a picket sign, has no
problem criticising those who actually do.
Despite the fact that he has two pit bulls and "isn't afraid of
anything," and the fact that "street gangs respect him," the loosely
knit critic community has failed to render unto him the attention he
thinks is his due, and he has reacted to this rejection in a childish
stream of attacks on people who actually DO something to expose
Scientology's abuses and criminal behavior.
But, don't take my word for it! Do a Google search for posts by
"ultramichael" and find out for yourself! Persons who drink milk at
their computers might want to take care, sometimes laughter makes it
come out of your nose onto your keyboard.
This is not good for keyboards.
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC
http://members.cox.net/bwarr1/index.htm
"$cientology sees the world this way: One man with a picket sign:
terrorism. Five thousand people dead in a deliberate inferno: business
opportunity.
$cientology oozes _under_ terrorists to hide."
-Chris Leithiser
Pts 2
the CoS." <snip all the other Palm Springs, CA desert heat induced
confusion>
++++++++++++++++++++++
Gosh, U-Mike is back (again) with his thilly wabbit posts. Not
surprised one bit. BUT, since HE brought up "problems with CoS," that
would give me license to again support Tilman Hausherr's original (and
sincere) request of U-mike Greenberg to produce documents of his alleged
court victories against the cult in the late 1970s correct?
Accordingly, Mike Greenberg, where IS the proof that you skunked the
cult in the CA courts
way back then? Your pals Deana, Tigger, Diane Richardson, and
Starshadow will also want this evidence too to prove their association
w/ you as justifiable and more.
Mark Bunker
>"Magoo" <mag...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3d30...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>
>> As a friend of Tom's....
>>
>Hi,
>As a friend of Tom's, you have the luxury (?) of knowing him by more
>than his posts on ars. I "know" him only from his posts, and from his
>website. Yes, I've looked at his website---but I now look at it in
>light of the way he treats people on ars, and he doesn't seem so
>Wonderful.
Tom has always been a decent person and you can see for yourself in
this video from the 2000 Leo J. Ryan Conference:
http://www.xenutv.com/panels/leoryan.htm
>> I'd just like to say he isn't spiteful, or mean, or petty.
>> Tom has been ROYALLY F'ed by Scientology and his X-Wife,
>> with Miss Chigger (I refuse to call her the other. I just saw the real T on
>> TV today, and that's an insult to the original) making numerous
>> NON- "Sporting" posts re many of us....esp Tom. He is fighting a very real
>> battle for his family. Have you read his web site?
>
>I don't "know" you either, and frankly, you might drink a lotta cream
>soda and dance in the moonlight, but you don't seem like such a Good
>Guy either. Just callin' 'em as I read 'em...maybe you're a really
>nice chick and that just isn't coming thru in your posts.
Here's your chance to see and hear Tory on video. I met her while she
was in Scientology and liked her then. I know her better now and am
happy to call her friend:
http://www.xenutv.com/interviews/tory-videos.htm
-------------------------------------------------
"As for credibility, mine disappeared a long time ago..."
---- Tigger
"Call me Technically Clueless and Gullible."
---- Tigger
"In fact, I suspect (hell, I KNOW) Mark is being used as a tool by Scientology"
---- Deana M. Holmes
-------------------------------------------------
Mehn O'Paws
>
> You claim to know how nasty the Church of Scientology is. (I"m basing
> this on your letter to Judge Schaffer, among other things.)
>
> You know that Tigger has very good reason to NOT go by her name on
> ars. (I'm basing this on the fact that she's asked this publically,
> and you apparently follow her postings sort of eerily closely.)
omg, the the needle on the irony and hypocrisy meters just flew off
the gauge on this one. lol
tom calls tiger "shirley wilson" and that makes him a bad guy.
tiger calls tom "a deadbeat dad, creep, coward, psychological bully, a
vampire, a liar, a jerk, and faux friend" and that's fine and dandy in
the j. galt
handbook of netiquette. obviously this slippery slug is hit man for
the buttersquash bunch.
> Why then, with your understanding of CoS do you persist in using
> Tigger's real name?
with your and tiger's understanding of the hubbard cult's osa div.,
why do you and she call padget derogatory names?
> It simply makes you look like a Bad Guy. It isn't sporting. It's
> mean.
tom a bad guy? yes i suppose he is in the eyes of the cult and the
deanna-tiger-starshadow-diane r crowd.
> Is it some "tactic"? Or is it just a petty Padgettism?
no a gaultism!! :)
>
> You're a spiteful person Tom. That'd be about the clearest way to
> describe you, based on the crap you post.
you're a clueless newbie galt. that would be the best
way to describe you, base on your buttersqaush sillyness.
>petty would work too, but
> Spiteful is the best. Are you Petty and Spiteful and Mean all the
> time, or just on ars?
about a year ago i exchanged e-mail with tom, tiger, and that ultra
bin moron doofus. Out of the 3, tom
always a calm and polite. tiger was irritated because i wasn't buying
into her slant on ars life, and the u-mike guy was very spiteful and
mean. and threatening too.
> Maybe working on eliminating those things from your life would help
> you with a lot of the troubles you're having with your family.
you're a complete idiot. family troubles? it's cult troubles fool.
his family are victims. cripes lisa mcpherson has the ultimate family
troubles as result of the cult. keith hensen is separated from his
family
as result of the cult's assaults on him. open your eyes galt.
Just a
> thought.
>
> JG
M.O.
J Galt
> To John, JG, J. Galt, Mr. Galt (whatever... given that you've expressed
> your concerns re: first names in another thread re: Ken vs. Mr. Dandar:)
I'll try this again.
Whoa Tom. I just asked in my post why you're trying to get Tigger in
trouble with CoS, especially given that you yourself are privvy to
some bad stuff they can do.
If you want to respond to another post of mine, then by all means do
so, but please go to that post. Don't muddy up this simple question.
Just answer it.
>
> Never in my life have I been called a name of "spiteful" nor ever have I
> been characterize as such. So YOU are the first. Take a win! :) But
> since you come here as a newbie and alleged to have some kinda new found
> insight of me personally, I will add this new name to the list of HOST
> of derogatory attacks by $cienos, $cieno lawyers, faux critics, and the
> newly formed Butternut Squash gang.
I read your posts. I googled your posts. I read your attacks, your
lists, and then I read about the UNWANTED letter you wrote to the
judge. The letter was just stupid, and only written to SPITE Tigger
and Deanna. I commented on that fact, and *ping* I'm on your "list"
also. That, along with many of your other posts, was spiteful. It's
not like I just pulled the word out of the air Tom.
>
> You mention that I have "family problems."
> How's that JG? If you can't answer that intelligently or from first
> hand knowledge, here's a suggestion.... write or e-mail my brother
> (family) and inquire of any "family" issues that
> you suggest is problematic w/ me.
>
> John F. Padgett, Esq.
> 5 South Orleans Road.
> P.O. Box 424
> Orleans, MA 02653
> fax # (508) 255-4616
> e-mail # jpad...@onebox.com
Really no need to contact your brother Tom. Cool that he's a lawyer.
I read your website. And, all the folks who wrote back on this post
have reminded me that CoS has been nasty to you. So, I ask again, why
do you wish such a thing upon Tigger, even if you don't like her? It
seems...not too far a stretch Tom....Spiteful.
>
> He call fill you in on any "family problems" as
> "family." Oh and you can address him as "John" as he's not into the
> formal BS that you are trying to twist this NG into believing Ken Dandar
> is.
>
> Lastly, if you are sincere about this post, you can ALWAYS e-mail me
> directly at pad...@taxexemptchildabuse.net and engage
> in a healthy one-on-one chat. You will notice,
> $cienos, faux critics, and the Butternut squash
> gang is not into such (normal) communication exchange....for the most
> part. So if I don't here
> back from you, I will KNOW you're motives are insincere J. Galt.....just
> silly trolling and sockpuppetry coming from north of the boarder.
No Tom, I won't contact you. I am Very Choosy about who I contact.
You are not anywhere near the list. Of course, you may infer whatever
you want, incorrectly, from my decision to NOT contact you. That's
your deal.
> Btw, that's not spiteful - just observing and application of logic.
You're right Tom. That's not Spiteful. But it's not an application
of any Logic either. It's just a threat. Whatever.
John
J Galt
>
> Tom had every right to send what he did. Was it helpful? I have no
> idea. Frankly, I think probably not.
My thought was, that the judge doesn't WANT unsolicited letters. And,
did you read Tom's letter? It was not a pro-case letter. It was a
badly written, fluffy "I'm not gonna say anything" piece of crap that
he wrote to Spite Deana and Tigger. He said that himself.
>
> Nonetheless, Tigger's name is already public knowledge. So Tom gets
> his jollies by reposting it. It's not a great practice IMO but so
> what?
C'mon. Doesn't make a difference. And if he's so up on how bad CoS
is, why would he wish such a fate on anyone? Even someone he
obviously doesn't like, such as Tigger.
>
> > Spiteful is the best. Are you Petty and Spiteful and Mean all the
> > time, or just on ars?
> >
> > Maybe working on eliminating those things from your life would help
> > you with a lot of the troubles you're having with your family. Just a
> > thought.
>
> That's way below the belt. Do you have a family? Have you ever had a
> family ripped apart by something? Do you know how it feels? I'll
> guarantee you wouldn't have the guts to say something like that to
> anyone face-to-face.
Hey Basic, you know NOTHING about me, so don't guarantee anything. Do
not dare to presume that you have any idea of my life, or what I would
or would not do. Ditto for my family. End of story.
>
> You're, of course, free to say what you want. But don't think other
> people aren't free to think/say "you're an irresponsible asshole" for
> posting that. In my book, Tom gets free license to verbally beat you
> to a pulp.
Er, Tom isn't really able to do that. I don't know how you get
"asshole" out of my post. Unless it's to realise that Tom is being
one by using someone's name after being asked not to. (I expect
nothing less from Mark Bunker.)
>
> I hope Tom will rise above this and let it go.
>
> But, if your position is so solid, can't you avoid employing
> deliberately emotionally charged and upsetting arguments?
Dude! I just asked a question! And the suggestion is strictly
straightforward! Tom's family problems are common knowledge---he
posts about them himself!
Really, just read my post again. It's a simple question, and a
suggestion. tom is a "public figure" here on ars, so I didn't think
that asking a question (which needed to be asked) and offering a
suggestion would be out of line.
In the course of researching Tom, I googled a bunch of his posts.
Many are spiteful, many are mean, and most are petty. Goggle 'em
yourself.
John
Pts 2
You are starting to develop a pattern of usenet conduct of making
statements, and thinking that they are actually questions.
I'm trying to help you do your homework so that you can be more informed
and make intelligent choices when you assert your opinions here.
I gave you the address of family so you could write or e-mail to quench
your thirst of alleging "family" problems, but you declined.
I suggested you contact Dr. Steve Kent there in Canada to learn more
about the abusive social behavior of the $cn cult, but you declined.
I've given you some questions to answer, but you decline.
Apparently you are one of these people who thinks answers in life and
solutions to real world problems are found only on Google Search - a
flawed cyber-notion IMO.
But you keep focusing back on one narrowed theme, that is your concern
for the "nasty" reputation the Co$ has towards it's perceived enemies
and the ensuing dirty tricks they employ. I share those deep concerns
with you. In your rightful fearfulness, I assume J. Galt is not your
real name wanting to remain anonymous?! But it appears that your
concern for victims of cult attacks is just limited to Tigger. Do you
have concerns for others who HAVE BEEN or could be harassed, assaulted,
extorted, blackmailed, threatened, or sued to death by the cult? Or is
it just Tigger?
My theory is, as long as Tigger has adopted the Mirele / Diane R. /
Starshadow OSA-like style of "attack first, ask questions later," the
cult won't touch her. Why? Because they would be thrilled that this NG
has become so caustic and acidic, that serious new folks will leave
ASAP never to discover the REAL Co$. That's just my opinion though. I
could be wrong.
Be good Johnny G. and I hope this helps satisfy your narrowed curiosity?
J Galt
> Hey John:
> You are starting to develop a pattern of usenet conduct of making
> statements, and thinking that they are actually questions.
No Tom. I asked you questions. I included the reasoning for my
questions in statement form. The questions are the ones that end with
the little symbol "?"
>
> I'm trying to help you do your homework so that you can be more informed
> and make intelligent choices when you assert your opinions here.
Thank you Tom, but I"m quite informed and more than fairly
intelligent. I also do my homework all by myself. You can go back to
your own work now.
>
> I gave you the address of family so you could write or e-mail to quench
> your thirst of alleging "family" problems, but you declined.
Quench my thirst? You flatter yourself, or you don't read very well.
You post a lot about your family problems, and you have a website. Is
there add'l info I need? I really only asked you a very simple
question. You needn't expend all this energy dancing around it.
>
> I suggested you contact Dr. Steve Kent there in Canada to learn more
> about the abusive social behavior of the $cn cult, but you declined.
Tom, the little I know of you I dn't really like and I certainly don't
respect. Perhaps there's more to you, but I don't see it dude. Why
then, would I take a suggestion from you?
>
> I've given you some questions to answer, but you decline.
No Tom, I answered 'em. 'cept for the one about "what do I believe
in". I did explain tho, that you just don't get to know that.
>
> Apparently you are one of these people who thinks answers in life and
> solutions to real world problems are found only on Google Search - a
> flawed cyber-notion IMO.
You forgot the H in IMHO. And you make a very false assumption as
well.
>
> But you keep focusing back on one narrowed theme, that is your concern
> for the "nasty" reputation the Co$ has towards it's perceived enemies
> and the ensuing dirty tricks they employ.
Wrong Tom. Go back and read it again. My concern is not for the
Nastiness of CoS. It is for the person you don't like and upon whom
you are actively trying to thrust the goons you purport to be
victimised by.
It's not the dirty tricks of Cos. It's the backstabbing by YOU, Tom
Padgett.
I share those deep concerns
> with you. In your rightful fearfulness,
No Tom. No Fear.
I assume J. Galt is not your
> real name wanting to remain anonymous?!
Let's see, is this the part where I "admit" that you're "right" then I
prove that I'm not fearful by telling you my "real" name, and then you
start to use it all over ars? Then I get really nervous and I leave
ars?
Sorry Tom. No Fear.
And don't assume things.
But it appears that your
> concern for victims of cult attacks is just limited to Tigger. Do you
> have concerns for others who HAVE BEEN or could be harassed, assaulted,
> extorted, blackmailed, threatened, or sued to death by the cult? Or is
> it just Tigger?
>
No Tom, I just asked you a very simple question about Tigger. I don't
even know Tigger. If there are other people you're harassing and
putting in the line of fire I'll try to get you to stop that too. Are
there others?
> My theory is, as long as Tigger has adopted the Mirele / Diane R. /
> Starshadow OSA-like style of "attack first, ask questions later," the
> cult won't touch her. Why? Because they would be thrilled that this NG
> has become so caustic and acidic, that serious new folks will leave
> ASAP never to discover the REAL Co$. That's just my opinion though. I
> could be wrong.
Ah. Your "theory", like you "assumptions" and your "suggestions" are
lame.
>
> Be good Johnny G. and I hope this helps satisfy your narrowed curiosity?
Is that a question Tom? Ask again if it is, and I'll answer.
Why did my question to you piss you off so much?
JG
Mike G
friends.
Is he still soliciting for donations? I suspect that last years
donations went towards fighting his Drunk Driving charge, which he was
convicted of.
He had no money because he claimed he couldnt work due to Post Traumatic
Stress Syndrome. (from scientolgy of course)
Pts 2
you piss you off so much?"
JG:
Pissed off? Where'd ya get that from? Naw, on the contrary, I'm amused
with your keyboardings. Again you wrote opinionated statements - not
any succinct fact-finding questions. Sorry try again! :)
But hey look on the bright side, you picked up a friend to join you in
your attacks of me. Ultra-Mike Greenberg from Palm Springs,
Califorinia. That's good cuz he's kinda lonely and needs some usenet
buddies! He can teach you how to worship Diane Richardson! :-))
Pts 2
newsgroup. We were friends. Is he still soliciting for donations? I
suspect last year's donations went towards fighting his Drunk Driving
charge, which he was convicted of." <snip>
-------------------------------------------
Hey glad you 2 guys are buddies now. :)
1. Nope! Wrong! T'was NOT I who 1st revealed Michael Greenberg on ARS.
2. Nope! Wrong! Not one thin dime from donations went to defend any DUI
charges.
3. Nope! Wrong! I was not "convicted" of any driving offenses -
drinking related or otherwise.
3 swings & 3 misses = 3 strikes = YOU'RE OUT thilly wabbit! Go back to
the dugout and work on your huge M/U's on the word "friend/s."
Mike G
failure to pass sobriety test, breathalizer-Flunk. post the report,
Bucko.
J Galt
Because Mike responds to my post without telling me how horrible the
Church has been to Tom Padgett, Mike and I are "buddies" in your book.
Will you now go off for a while on my writing church instead of cult?
You delight in putting people's names in the hands of Scientology.
Why is that Tom? If you answer the question maybe, (just maybe) I'll
go away and stop picking on you.
JG
pt...@webtv.net (Pts 2) wrote in message news:<22478-3D3...@storefull-2277.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
J Galt
> J. Galt wrote: <angry spiteful drivel snipped> "Why did my question to
> you piss you off so much?"
>
> JG:
> Pissed off? Where'd ya get that from? Naw, on the contrary, I'm amused
> with your keyboardings. Again you wrote opinionated statements - not
> any succinct fact-finding questions. Sorry try again! :)
Ok. You seem pissed off to me. At any rate, you're certainly
expending a LOT of energy and time NOT answering a VERY simple
question.
I find that strange.
>
> But hey look on the bright side, you picked up a friend to join you in
> your attacks of me. Ultra-Mike Greenberg from Palm Springs,
> Califorinia. That's good cuz he's kinda lonely and needs some usenet
> buddies! He can teach you how to worship Diane Richardson! :-))
You are a very weird guy Tom. I've picked up no friends here. Just
pulled some like-thinkers out of the woodwork. Perhaps they too
wonder why you get your ya-yas broadcasting people's names to get CoS
to go after them.
And Tom? I worship no one.
You play a lot of games don't you?
John
barb
No, no no! He's not from Palm Springs, that's a tony address. Ultra bin
Moron is from, appropriately enough, "Moron-Go Valley!"
barb
Oh, for pete's sake. Drop this feeble DA, Mike. I heard that the Morongo
Valley cops are quite familiar with YOUR name! What are your crimes?
Kaeli
Pts 2 wrote:
>
(snipped)
>
>
> But you keep focusing back on one narrowed theme, that is your concern
> for the "nasty" reputation the Co$ has towards it's perceived enemies
> and the ensuing dirty tricks they employ. I share those deep concerns
> with you. In your rightful fearfulness, I assume J. Galt is not your
> real name wanting to remain anonymous?! But it appears that your
> concern for victims of cult attacks is just limited to Tigger. Do you
> have concerns for others who HAVE BEEN or could be harassed, assaulted,
> extorted, blackmailed, threatened, or sued to death by the cult? Or is
> it just Tigger?
John Galt is from a character in the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. I
used to read Ayn Rand when I was younger.. ugh.. but not now. My personal
opinion is that Ayn Rand was not realistic.
Kaeli A.
J Galt
KNOW to be true?
Dog my cats...I've always wondered why I was so attracted to
librarians, and you've gone and figgered it right out for me! Where
have you been all my life!?!?
Kaeli, guess what? I know a guy named Thomas Sawyer, AND a guy named
Jack Frost. Is there something I should pass along to them from you?
John Galt
(no middle initial...whad'ya think of that!!!?)
Kaeli <tal.r...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D376AFE...@rogers.com>...
yduzitmatter
J Galt wrote:
> So, Kaeli, I exist only on the pages of a book? This is something you
> KNOW to be true?
>
> Dog my cats...I've always wondered why I was so attracted to
> librarians, and you've gone and figgered it right out for me! Where
> have you been all my life!?!?
>
> Kaeli, guess what? I know a guy named Thomas Sawyer, AND a guy named
> Jack Frost. Is there something I should pass along to them from you?
>
> John Galt
> (no middle initial...whad'ya think of that!!!?)
>
Yo Johnny Boy:
You are so sadly mistaken. Please re-read Kaeli's post.
She did NOT say you are a character out of a book - she
did say she recognizes the name as a character out of a
book.
As for your constant ragging on Tom Padgett - well that is
so scientological and makes you look bad.
What have you done to expose the abuses of the cult? What
do you think of Disconnection? the Purification Rundown (that is
a nasty one IMHP) or what about the totalitarian nature of
the COS??
Just wondering becasue you seem rather stuck on bashing
Tom for just wanting to be a father without Scientology.
Kim P
Pts 2
Sawyer, AND a guy named Jack Frost. Is there something I should pass
along to them from you?"
Hey! Johnny Be Good has a sense of humor.
That's cool! :)
JG:
I know guys named Ben Dover, Tom Cruise,
and John Travolta. Is there something that you want passed along to
them? :-))
Mike G
Ill let you in on a little secret Barb; The drinking
posts about Tom have an origin.
Spring 2001 Tom, Tigger and myself used to have frequent Instant
Messenger real time chats courtesy of our mutant boxe(s) This went on
for about 2 months or so. On a number of occasions tom began babbling
and unable to
even use his keyboard. Tigger plonked him on couple occasions. it was
getting obvious he was a little nuts and drinking like a fish. After a
while, Tigger and I discused it on several occasions. It was decided one
of us needed to have a 'heart to heart" talk with our friend. I got the
job reluctantly.
The guy denies it all. whatever.
THEN-The DUI report surfaces courtesy of you know who. At this point,
its all to clear.
But, I drop the issue, and him as a friend.
I suppose he didnt like that.
Then after a few flareups on the newsgroup, the guy officially blows my
anonymity and my location.Thats pretty much it.
barb
Yeah, so what?
What does any of that have to do with the fact that Tom is being
persecuted in court "the purpose of a lawsuit," remember? What does that
have to do with the fact that the cult is playing games with his kids to
attack him?
He drinks? So fucking what? G.W. Bush has had a DUI as well. So do a lot
of other prominent folks, I'd imagine.
As for you whining about betrayal, it seems to me that you'd squall over
anything, if your former complaints are anything to go by. As for your
anonymity being stripped away, I'd say that's a good thing. Given your
tendency to threaten people on the newsgroup, having your real name
known must be a real bitch for you, since you can't hide any more.
Kaeli
J Galt wrote:
> So, Kaeli, I exist only on the pages of a book? This is something you
> KNOW to be true?
You have trouble with reading I see. I said John Galt is a character in a book... unless
John Galt is your actual name, I am saying that you have picked out your nickname out of
that book.
> Dog my cats...I've always wondered why I was so attracted to
> librarians, and you've gone and figgered it right out for me! Where
> have you been all my life!?!?
>
I'm a computer technician, not a librarian. Do a tracert to figure out where I am.
>
> Kaeli, guess what? I know a guy named Thomas Sawyer, AND a guy named
> Jack Frost. Is there something I should pass along to them from you?
>
Whatever you want to pass along, I really don't care less at this point.
Kaeli A.
Pts 2
little secret...." <Greenberg DA babble sniped>
Naughty boy Mike!
Your re-cap of being on "webtv" instant message chat for a brief
duration with Tigger is correct. That was back when I assumed
(incorrectly albeit) that you were a legit critic of the Co$'s lethal
conduct. But from there, your accounts of actual events turns to
science fiction.
The subject of booze NEVER came up UNTIL the "LMTer Arrested" posts by
the cotse.com goons squads put them on ARS. Your time table is flip
flopped. But you bought into the cult DA schtick lock, stock, and
barrel. You e-mailed me with this "help" front that you were a
recovering alcoholic and drug user and had gone through re-hab. This
was all starting to smell very FISHY to me. Vaughn Young's post on
Agent Provocateurs helped crystallize my understanding of your growing
suspicious behavior. The differences between us, or "flair ups" as you
refer to, started when ptsc was doing his anti-webtv rants. You wanted
to FLAME him in response. And you did. I wanted to approach Rob with
logic and rationale. From there it went down hill. The rest is
history.
But Mike, not to change the subject, but here's a couple of compelling
questions for you.
1) What have you done recently to expose and or to try to STOP $cn's
abusive conduct?
2) Where's the documents of this alleged victory against the cult in the
Calif. courts you claimed happened decades ago? Post the dang judgement
docs....this is the PERFECT
opportunity since you are in the "letting people in on little secrets"
mood as you just wrote to Barb.
Your choices are: a) be a man and answer the questions, or b) don't
answer them and continue to be a thilly wabbit. :)
These would be more germain and of interest to this NG.....thats IF YOU
ARE NOT into DA'ing people as you are attempting to have others to
imagine now.
Susan
> J Galt wrote:
>
> > So, Kaeli, I exist only on the pages of a book? This is something you
> > KNOW to be true?
> >
> > Dog my cats...I've always wondered why I was so attracted to
> > librarians, and you've gone and figgered it right out for me! Where
> > have you been all my life!?!?
> >
> > Kaeli, guess what? I know a guy named Thomas Sawyer, AND a guy named
> > Jack Frost. Is there something I should pass along to them from you?
> >
> > John Galt
> > (no middle initial...whad'ya think of that!!!?)
> >
> Yo Johnny Boy:
>
>
> You are so sadly mistaken. Please re-read Kaeli's post.
> She did NOT say you are a character out of a book - she
> did say she recognizes the name as a character out of a
> book.
>
> As for your constant ragging on Tom Padgett - well that is
>
> so scientological and makes you look bad.
>
>
> What have you done to expose the abuses of the cult? What
> do you think of Disconnection? the Purification Rundown (that is
> a nasty one IMHP) or what about the totalitarian nature of
> the COS??
>
> Just wondering becasue you seem rather stuck on bashing
> Tom for just wanting to be a father without Scientology.
>
> Kim P
>
To say the least- he's got a lot of galt....
Susan
Mike G
Well Barb, If you buy into all that, Im not going to try and change your
mind. The only two people that know if he is a deadbeat dad is those two
kids. The guy lied so much its IMPOSSIBLE to separate truth from lies.
In all likelyhood the whole mess could have been resolved amiably. Tom
chose a different path. I beleive that Barb. You ask Tom a series of
critical questions about the case. Know what you get? Long pauses.
excuses. half truths hyperbole. He was never strong enough to take them
on. He began to "spin" the story and manufacture events. IMO manufature
"crimes".
Like the grafitti spraying scientologist that defaced his property for
years following him around the country.-If we are to beleive he didnt
set these things up. Tom told me himself he was aware people were saying
he staged the vandalism. I beleive he wanted the publicity. The are out
to make an example of him. Read the police reports Barb.
I've never threatened anyone. You are
confusing me with some of your friends.
barb
>
> "Barb' : '...cult playing games with his kids to attack him"
>
> Well Barb, If you buy into all that, Im not going to try and change your
> mind. The only two people that know if he is a deadbeat dad is those two
> kids. The guy lied so much its IMPOSSIBLE to separate truth from lies.
> In all likelyhood the whole mess could have been resolved amiably. Tom
> chose a different path. I beleive that Barb. You ask Tom a series of
> critical questions about the case. Know what you get? Long pauses.
> excuses. half truths hyperbole. He was never strong enough to take them
> on. He began to "spin" the story and manufacture events. IMO manufature
> "crimes".
Nope, you're wrong. Perhaps it's your reputation as a gullible, vicious
twit that restrains him from answering any questions posed by you.
> Like the grafitti spraying scientologist that defaced his property for
> years following him around the country.-If we are to beleive he didnt
> set these things up. Tom told me himself he was aware people were saying
> he staged the vandalism. I beleive he wanted the publicity. The are out
> to make an example of him. Read the police reports Barb.
>
> I've never threatened anyone. You are
> confusing me with some of your friends.
Wrong-O. You know, the really handy thing about the internet is the way
one can save things. I have a whole subdirectory with your name on it,
which contains posts of yours that you'd be hard pressed to deny were
threats if they were ever brought to law enforcement's attention.
I imagine you've indulged in rewriting your history your whole life.
It's a different ballgame on the web, bucko!
Mehn O'Paws
> You werent (ultra's spew agreeing with j. galt cut out)
ok, kind of feed up with this da'ing of padget and henson by galt and
greenberg.
history: j. galt comes on starts ragging keith and tom about writing
to court officers in the mcpherson case.
but he focuses more on tigger issues with padget, and hasn't let up.
ultra bin moron comes on right behind like a contrived tag team duel
and complains that henson harassed his family or brother. then he
starts in on tom with his old twisted vindictive vengeance - same old
same old black pr crud.
all i see is 2 unknowns against 2 guys wanted by the law here in the
united states. what am i missing here?
can't help but to ask >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
does anybody know or have personally met john galt?
does anybody know or has ever met mike greenberg?
does anybody know or has ever met keith hensen?
does anybody know or has ever met tom padget?
let's hear it from the horses' mouths, rather than the
the other end under the tail!
of course who the hell am is a valid question. the answer is just a
nobody who wandered over here about a year ago from the clambake
message board from following
tiger's cross posts.
M.O.
barb
I have met Keith Henson. We ate crottles together once at Ida's house.
Great fellah, smart as a whip and not impressed by it one bit. Always
willing to explain things you don't understand, and always gets my
jokes!
yduzitmatter
Mike G wrote:
> "Barb' : '...cult playing games with his kids to attack him"
>
> Well Barb, If you buy into all that, Im not going to try and change your
> mind. The only two people that know if he is a deadbeat dad is those two
> kids. The guy lied so much its IMPOSSIBLE to separate truth from lies.
> In all likelyhood the whole mess could have been resolved amiably.
You Mikey!!
Resolved amicably??? Are you that naive?? We are talking about
the COS here -= there is no amicable when it comes to disconnection
but you do not believe that becasue Tom is horrible, dead-beat dad
who drinks, and is looking for attention.
You make me ill. Your preumsumptious postering is rather sickening.
Your whole entire history of posting here is only to stir up
trouble and wreak havoc. What fun for you.
You are without compassion or empathy and you know what? You
are not worth reading anymore.
Plonk
Kim P
Mike G
refunded. Last I was told (1995) by the IJC in hollywood my records
were lost in the earthquake. I have no idea if thats true. Nor do I
care.
If you want to interpret my remarks as threatening -TFB Barb. You have
the nerve to call me vicious? You are the queen of personal attacks. Im
not going to get ino a flame war with a woman.You lost the war Barb. You
became worse than OSA. Thats why I never got involved with your little
hate group.
Have fun.
Boudewijn van Ingen
G) wrote:
>Barb: <snip unfunny posing> "Drop this feeble DA MIke"
>
>Ill let you in on a little secret Barb; The drinking
>posts about Tom have an origin.
>Spring 2001 Tom, Tigger and myself used to have frequent Instant
>Messenger real time chats courtesy of our mutant boxe(s) This went on
>for about 2 months or so. On a number of occasions tom began babbling
>and unable to
>even use his keyboard. Tigger plonked him on couple occasions. it was
>getting obvious he was a little nuts and drinking like a fish. After a
>while, Tigger and I discused it on several occasions. It was decided one
>of us needed to have a 'heart to heart" talk with our friend. I got the
>job reluctantly.
> The guy denies it all. whatever.
>THEN-The DUI report surfaces courtesy of you know who. At this point,
>its all to clear.
>But, I drop the issue, and him as a friend.
That's $cientology for you: dropping a 'friend' is more easy as
dropping a hat...
Boudewijn van Ingen
wrote:
>Ultra...@webtv.net (Mike G) wrote in message news:<3557-3D3...@storefull-2258.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
>> You werent (ultra's spew agreeing with j. galt cut out)
>
>ok, kind of feed up with this da'ing of padget and henson by galt and
>greenberg.
>
>history: j. galt comes on starts ragging keith and tom about writing
>to court officers in the mcpherson case.
>but he focuses more on tigger issues with padget, and hasn't let up.
>
>ultra bin moron comes on right behind like a contrived tag team duel
>and complains that henson harassed his family or brother. then he
>starts in on tom with his old twisted vindictive vengeance - same old
>same old black pr crud.
>
>all i see is 2 unknowns against 2 guys wanted by the law here in the
>united states. what am i missing here?
>
>can't help but to ask >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>does anybody know or have personally met john galt?
Not me, that I'm aware.
>does anybody know or has ever met mike greenberg?
Not me, that I'm aware.
>does anybody know or has ever met keith hensen?
The spelling is Keith Henson. I met him last December in Toronto. I
had exchanged e-mails with him before.
>does anybody know or has ever met tom padget?
I have exchanged e-mail with Tom.
>let's hear it from the horses' mouths, rather than the
>the other end under the tail!
>
>of course who the hell am is a valid question. the answer is just a
>nobody who wandered over here about a year ago from the clambake
>message board from following
>tiger's cross posts.
>
>M.O.
Of course, if all critics start publicly speaking about all the other
critics they ever met, we would reveal the 'network' that OSA wants to
know more about. So, since most of my history in this area is supposed
to be well-ducumented already, I'll leave it as an excercise to the
reader to find out who I am. ;-)
barb
Hehehe...no, of course you're not. You'd hate having your ass kicked by
a woman. I won this particular war, cuz you're scuttling off with your
tail between your legs, hurling insults over your shoulder as you go!
Nice try at scoring points, but, as usual, no banana for you.
Keith Henson
snip
>
>I have met Keith Henson. We ate crottles together once at Ida's house.
Those forks are something else!
>Great fellah, smart as a whip and not impressed by it one bit.
There is a reason. Since the mid 70s I spent a lot of time with
people like Eric Drexler, Ralph Merkle, Hans Moravec, and Marvin
Minksy. I don't even come up to average in such company!
>Always
>willing to explain things you don't understand, and always gets my
>jokes!
Or at least I fake it. :-)
Keith Henson
Mike G
Padgett were correct.
Youve done a lot more than eat cereal with Henson, Barb. Must be a bitch
waiting for the Feds to knock on your door.
B' Bye ;-)
Pts 2
First your spelling of my name needs to be with 2 T's. While your
quest is noble, YOU need to be aware to NOT lump us critics / activists
into a pile or group. $cienos don't like that. It gives them a target
go after as "conspiracy" thingie legally.
But to address your questions of: who has ever met whom, here's my reply
in due respect:
J. Galt, nope never.
M. Greenberg, nope never.
K. Henson, yup, met him several times. He's a benign individual and NO
threat to the Co$ as charged by the CA courts. He's a very bright
fellow, but very encenstric too - not the kinda of guy you'd find on the
golf course or tennis court for aggressive physical sports. In 1998, I
and my girlfriend helped Keith with this esoteric baloon sculpture in
front of the Ft. Homicide Hotel during CW pickets and protests of the
cult. I do NOT doubt for a moment that his motives are sincere and
genuine re: the Co$. Though, older than myself, in real life, he's a
quiet un-demonstrative person, and for the life of me can't figure out
why the USA is so blind to his travails - the home of the free and the
brave. On second thought I can. Read the transcripts of the Casey Hill
Case in Toronto from years back.
T. Padget, add a 2nd "T" and I'll respond. :) NO not really, spelling
errors aside, I take the 5th. M.O., have you read Tigger's "self
serving idiot" posts?
barb
Cereal? Where in the world did you get THAT?
Well, anyways, when the Feds come to my door, they usually stay for
dinner. I see them several times a year.
You'd know more about the dreaded knock on the door than I do.
J Galt
> Ultra...@webtv.net (Mike G) wrote in message news:<3557-3D3...@storefull-2258.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> > You werent (ultra's spew agreeing with j. galt cut out)
>
> ok, kind of feed up with this da'ing of padget and henson by galt and
> greenberg.
>
> history: j. galt comes on starts ragging keith and tom about writing
> to court officers in the mcpherson case.
> but he focuses more on tigger issues with padget, and hasn't let up.
No. You have this story all wrong Paws.
John Galt, a character out of an Ayn Rand novel (per Kaeli and Dave
Bird) has been hanging out on ars for years. He decided to post. He
asked Tom Padgett why Tom continued to use Tigger's name when she had
damn good reason to ask that it not be used. See, John didn't expect
that Tom, who apparently has suffered at the hands of CoS himself,
would wish that on any other person. So he asked Tom.
Tom has still not answered the question.
But that's ok! Hey---to Tom and Barb and Kaeli and anyone else out in
ars land who doesn't see Tom's behaviour as a hypocritical and rotton
thing to do---may all of you have many "friends" just like yourselves.
May your life be filled with Like.
Anyway. I digress. John also spoke up about the unwanted letters to
the judge and also about Tom's letter to Ken Dandar, which Tom said he
was writing because Tigger and Deana had "driven him to it". He was
pissed at them. John saw that "reason" as Spiteful, and wrote a post
about it. John explained why Tom's letter was a bad letter, in a
number of ways. Tom then added John to the list of "people who made
him write it."
John found that rather....well, Spiteful. And Petty. (John had
already written about Tom's Spiteful and Petty nature, as seen in
Tom's posting history.)
Tom and company got pissed at John.
Instead of just thinking about the questions, Tom and Barb went to
great lengths to attack John. Tom labeled him an "agent provocateur".
Tom claimed that John used words like "coursework" which just showed
that John was a "clam". Barb got even more descriptive--John was a
follower of a madman conman on drugs. John should report to his
"masters".
I just pinched myself, and it hurt. So I think that does mean that
I'm alive. I don't know about these other guys tho...
John Galt
GarryS
>
> Of course, if all critics start publicly speaking about all the other
> critics they ever met, we would reveal the 'network' that OSA wants to
> know more about. So, since most of my history in this area is supposed
> to be well-ducumented already, I'll leave it as an excercise to the
> reader to find out who I am. ;-)
No one cares who you are..except, you.
GarryS
> greenberg.
>
> history: j. galt comes on starts ragging keith and tom about writing
> to court officers in the mcpherson case.
> but he focuses more on tigger issues with padget, and hasn't let up.
>
> ultra bin moron comes on right behind like a contrived tag team duel
> and complains that henson harassed his family or brother. then he
> starts in on tom with his old twisted vindictive vengeance - same old
> same old black pr crud.
>
> all i see is 2 unknowns against 2 guys wanted by the law here in the
> united states. what am i missing here?
>
> can't help but to ask >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> does anybody know or have personally met john galt?
>
yduzitmatter
J Galt wrote:
Oh grow up. Tom can write to anyone he damn well pleases he
does not need anyone's permission to do so.
But Deana and tigger et al took exception to that why?? who knows
or really who cares. It is my opinion that what Tom and Keith
have to say relates very well to the case at hand.
The whole thing is just plain stupidity on the part of those
who feel they "own" the case and God forbid any one do any thing
without their prior approval. Heavens to betsy the jusdge does
not even have to read the damn things but if she choses to
that is certainly her right just as it is their right to present
the briefs.
As to the rest well Kaeli did NOT say you are a character in a
book - she said she recognized the name from a book.
As to Tom using Tigger's name - I don't think it was necessary
either but honestly - her name has been KNOWN for some time.
Like many others I am not going to BASH Bob and Stacy first
because there is much more to this story and we do not know
everything and secondly because they are still human beings
who deserve compassion. I refuse to just totally trash
someone just because they made choices that I do not agree
with - that is not what I want to be like.
I am not a bobist or whatever - I am just waiting to hear
everything - and even then I think that what Bob and Stacy
attempted to do in CW was on th eright track but do not
agree with all of the things that they did. That does not
negate the good that was done.
So call me a hypocrit or a Bobist or an idiot you are most
certainly welcome to your opinion it is irrelevent to me.
I have enough troubles in my life right now to worry if
Tigger and Deana and the rest think I am sane or not.
KimP
Mehn O'Paws
> Points were scored in original post. Galt is aware his suspicions about
> Padgett were correct.
who said they were correct ultra bin moron? you?
galt's an unknown nobody like you...and like me. ;)
how are the bi-polar symptoms coming along with the new meds? see ya
later ultra bin illogical!
> Youve done a lot more than eat cereal with Henson, Barb. Must be a bitch
> waiting for the Feds to knock on your door.
>
> B' Bye ;-)
M.O.
Mehn O'Paws
> Yes, Its true my brother and I won and the cult folded. Money was
> refunded. Last I was told (1995) by the IJC in hollywood my records
> were lost in the earthquake.
oh this is tooooo funny. reminds me of when children don't do their
homework assignments, but they tell the teacher they did, and..."but
the dog ate it!"
I have no idea if thats true. Nor do I
> care.
another glaring outpoint. this greenberg guy doesn't care. who needs
uncaring people in the fight against the hubbard cult abuses?
>
> If you want to interpret my remarks as threatening -TFB Barb. You have
> the nerve to call me vicious? You are the queen of personal attacks. Im
> not going to get ino a flame war with a woman.You lost the war Barb. You
> became worse than OSA. Thats why I never got involved with your little
> hate group.
>
>
> Have fun.
M.O.
Mehn O'Paws
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 08:22:59 -0700 (PDT), Ultra...@webtv.net (Mike
> G) wrote:
>
> >Barb: <snip unfunny posing> "Drop this feeble DA MIke"
> >
> >Ill let you in on a little secret Barb; The drinking
> >posts about Tom have an origin.
> >Spring 2001 Tom, Tigger and myself used to have frequent Instant
> >Messenger real time chats courtesy of our mutant boxe(s) This went on
> >for about 2 months or so. On a number of occasions tom began babbling
> >and unable to
> >even use his keyboard. Tigger plonked him on couple occasions. it was
> >getting obvious he was a little nuts and drinking like a fish. After a
> >while, Tigger and I discused it on several occasions. It was decided one
> >of us needed to have a 'heart to heart" talk with our friend. I got the
> >job reluctantly.
> > The guy denies it all. whatever.
> >THEN-The DUI report surfaces courtesy of you know who. At this point,
> >its all to clear.
> >But, I drop the issue, and him as a friend.
>
> That's $cientology for you: dropping a 'friend' is more easy as
> dropping a hat...
good point bogie. "friends" in the cult mind think is
watered downed to the point of being tasteless. in this case having
actually exchanged e-mail with greenberg a few times, i would he was
NEVER a friend to padgett - just a set up.
> >I suppose he didnt like that.
> >Then after a few flareups on the newsgroup, the guy officially blows my
> >anonymity and my location.Thats pretty much it.
M.O.
Mehn O'Paws
> M.O.:
> First your spelling of my name needs to be with 2 T's.
ok ttom, sorry i keep forgetting you have 2 t's in your name! :)
While your
> quest is noble, YOU need to be aware to NOT lump us critics / activists
> into a pile or group. $cienos don't like that. It gives them a target
> go after as "conspiracy" thingie legally.
well, F'em if they can't take a joke. :)
> But to address your questions of: who has ever met whom, here's my reply
> in due respect:
>
> J. Galt, nope never.
>
> M. Greenberg, nope never.
i had e-mail exchange with ultra about a year ago. very unpleasant.
had to warn him of a complaint to his
isp if he did not stop with the threatening attitude.
> K. Henson, yup, met him several times. He's a benign individual and NO
> threat to the Co$ as charged by the CA courts. He's a very bright
> fellow, but very encenstric too - not the kinda of guy you'd find on the
> golf course or tennis court for aggressive physical sports. In 1998, I
> and my girlfriend helped Keith with this esoteric baloon sculpture in
> front of the Ft. Homicide Hotel during CW pickets and protests of the
> cult. I do NOT doubt for a moment that his motives are sincere and
> genuine re: the Co$. Though, older than myself, in real life, he's a
> quiet un-demonstrative person, and for the life of me can't figure out
> why the USA is so blind to his travails - the home of the free and the
> brave. On second thought I can. Read the transcripts of the Casey Hill
> Case in Toronto from years back.
>
> T. Padget, add a 2nd "T" and I'll respond. :) NO not really, spelling
> errors aside, I take the 5th. M.O., have you read Tigger's "self
> serving idiot" posts?
>
> Tom
> <><><><><><><><><><><>
> www.WhyAreTheyDead.net
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> If I ever trust an ex-scientologist again, I need my head examined.
> TIGGER
M.O.
barb
>
> pt...@webtv.net (Pts 2) wrote in message news:<4625-3D3...@storefull-2275.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> > M.O.:
> > First your spelling of my name needs to be with 2 T's.
>
> ok ttom, sorry i keep forgetting you have 2 t's in your name! :)
>
> While your
> > quest is noble, YOU need to be aware to NOT lump us critics / activists
> > into a pile or group. $cienos don't like that. It gives them a target
> > go after as "conspiracy" thingie legally.
>
> well, F'em if they can't take a joke. :)
>
> > But to address your questions of: who has ever met whom, here's my reply
> > in due respect:
> >
> > J. Galt, nope never.
> >
> > M. Greenberg, nope never.
>
> i had e-mail exchange with ultra about a year ago. very unpleasant.
> had to warn him of a complaint to his
> isp if he did not stop with the threatening attitude.
What? But..but...he just stated that he's NEVER threatened anyone! Just
a big, sloppy puppydog, is ultra bin!
Of course, he doesn't seem to realize that there's a complete record of
all his posts on the web, which makes it difficult for him to rewrite
history...
> > K. Henson, yup, met him several times. He's a benign individual and NO
> > threat to the Co$ as charged by the CA courts. He's a very bright
> > fellow, but very encenstric too - not the kinda of guy you'd find on the
> > golf course or tennis court for aggressive physical sports. In 1998, I
> > and my girlfriend helped Keith with this esoteric baloon sculpture in
> > front of the Ft. Homicide Hotel during CW pickets and protests of the
> > cult. I do NOT doubt for a moment that his motives are sincere and
> > genuine re: the Co$. Though, older than myself, in real life, he's a
> > quiet un-demonstrative person, and for the life of me can't figure out
> > why the USA is so blind to his travails - the home of the free and the
> > brave. On second thought I can. Read the transcripts of the Casey Hill
> > Case in Toronto from years back.
> >
> > T. Padget, add a 2nd "T" and I'll respond. :) NO not really, spelling
> > errors aside, I take the 5th. M.O., have you read Tigger's "self
> > serving idiot" posts?
> >
> > Tom
> > <><><><><><><><><><><>
> > www.WhyAreTheyDead.net
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > If I ever trust an ex-scientologist again, I need my head examined.
> > TIGGER
>
> M.O.
Fluffygirl
"yduzitmatter" <yduzit...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D382988...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> J Galt wrote:
>
> > So, Kaeli, I exist only on the pages of a book? This is something you
> > KNOW to be true?
> >
> > Dog my cats...I've always wondered why I was so attracted to
> > librarians, and you've gone and figgered it right out for me! Where
> > have you been all my life!?!?
> >
> > Kaeli, guess what? I know a guy named Thomas Sawyer, AND a guy named
> > Jack Frost. Is there something I should pass along to them from you?
> >
> > John Galt
> > (no middle initial...whad'ya think of that!!!?)
> >
> Yo Johnny Boy:
>
>
> You are so sadly mistaken. Please re-read Kaeli's post.
> She did NOT say you are a character out of a book - she
> did say she recognizes the name as a character out of a
> book.
Yes, he was maybe a bit quick to jump on that.
He probably thought Kaeli was just one more person trying to hammer him
about his 'nym. She wasn't doing that as far as I can see, but it is very
easy to spot the reasons for J. Galt's exasperation here. Exasperated people
sometimes jump to conclusions.
>
> As for your constant ragging on Tom Padgett - well that is
>
> so scientological
Oh fuck that. Do you know how many people here go rag rag rag every two
seconds and have never darkened the door of a Scn center in their lives?
It's happened to me. It's happened to dozens of critics here. It's happened
to various Scn'ists posting here.
It is ~not~ Scientological.
News flash, Kim- most church members would simply just not talk to you- upon
finding out you were a critic. Yeah, it's ostrichy, but it's far from
constant ragging.
No, constant ragging is more the province of critics.
And I am seeing some constant ragging here- but it ain't from Galt.
> and makes you look bad.
No, actually, it doesn't. It makes him look like he's trying to stick up for
himself. He's being fairly polite while he does so, in fact. Far more than
some others I've seen posting here in various flame wars over the years.
>
>
> What have you done to expose the abuses of the cult? What
> do you think of Disconnection?
I've actually seen ethics officers in CofS try very hard to keep families
together rather than have some disconnection scenario occur.
I have written about a specific case where a lady was encouraged to go back
to law school and put her "bridge" on hold because her father was upset at
her discontinuing her schooling and was blaming Scn.
It IS a fact that ~enforced~ disconnection (you need to have that other word
in there, IMO) IS practiced when one of the parties is expelled. And,
lately, when one of the parties is not himself expelled but is him or
herself in touch with someone who has been, the church has taken to tromping
in like some 600 pound gorilla and enforcing disconnection from THAT
person.And it's also true that this is not right at all and it does point to
the totalitarian nature of the organization. (Although there are very few
churches that are not totalitarian, but still it's when this allows abuses
to creep in that this becomes an issue. Also Hubbard implied -early on-that
this wasn't going to BE any sort of totalitarian organization- so in effect,
he broke a promise. A mighty big one.This is an issue for me.)
But it is utterly untrue to suggest that it's all disconnection and all
these other things and they never do anything good.
Effective criticism includes recognition of the good with the bad and it
includes being a whole helluva lot more precise about when the practices are
abusive and when they are not.
You'd still have lots of material with which to have fun, don't you worry
about that. Sadly, there's no shortage of things to criticize and to
critique there.
But when imprecise and slanted things are written it just plays right into
the church's hands because they can jump in and show that it's not always
that way and THEN they will inevitably play the "bigot" card.
I wouldn't think that this is what anyone interested in addressing these
problems would want.
> the Purification Rundown (that is
> a nasty one IMHP)
It's no biggie. It's just Hubbard's ideas about purifying the body. Some of
those ideas are correct and some are incorrect. People are monitored closely
and sent to the doctor if they start to not do so well. I have seen some
interesting things happen on the Purif that indicate that the person may
actually be getting rid of some toxins, but even if that's not the case,
even if it does NOTHING- it's really just something Hubbard thought would
work and would assist.
It's not in the same category as ~enforced~ disconnection or the RPF.
Even on those cases where it's unhelpful.And, no, I personally was not
impressed with the Purif. Although I think it does do some things as
advertised, I don't have any interest in doing it again.
And I know you're thinking of the vitamins and liver damage. All I can say
there is that people about to embark on the Purif and who are already on it-
as well as people who are about to start any auditing program- are
encouraged- sometimes told- to see their doctors.If they did this, the
physician could address these things.
> or what about the totalitarian nature of
> the COS??
>
> Just wondering becasue you seem rather stuck on bashing
> Tom for just wanting to be a father without Scientology.
I think Galt doesn't like having his words twisted or his identity
constantly questioned.
It always cracks me up when critics here bitch and whine about people who
are Scn'ists- or who they ~think~ are Scn'ists- using 'nyms and anon
accounts, since critics who do that aren't even called on it.
Nor should they be. But then again, neither should anyone else.
C
yduzitmatter
Fluffygirl wrote:
News Flash Claire
It was me being exasperated. Still waiting for John Glat to talk about
anything else except how bad is Tom and blah blah.
> No, constant ragging is more the province of critics.
>
> And I am seeing some constant ragging here- but it ain't from Galt.
>
>
>
>>and makes you look bad.
>>
>
> No, actually, it doesn't. It makes him look like he's trying to stick up for
> himself. He's being fairly polite while he does so, in fact. Far more than
> some others I've seen posting here in various flame wars over the years.
Oh so it is OK for him to stick up for himself but not for me to
stick up formy friends?? OK
>>
>>What have you done to expose the abuses of the cult? What
>>do you think of Disconnection?
>>
>
> I've actually seen ethics officers in CofS try very hard to keep families
> together rather than have some disconnection scenario occur.
That is nice Claire but that is not the NORM - enforced disconnection
not only exists it is POLICY and that SUCKS period.
> I have written about a specific case where a lady was encouraged to go back
> to law school and put her "bridge" on hold because her father was upset at
> her discontinuing her schooling and was blaming Scn.
>
> It IS a fact that ~enforced~ disconnection (you need to have that other word
> in there, IMO) IS practiced when one of the parties is expelled. And,
> lately, when one of the parties is not himself expelled but is him or
> herself in touch with someone who has been, the church has taken to tromping
> in like some 600 pound gorilla and enforcing disconnection from THAT
> person.And it's also true that this is not right at all and it does point to
> the totalitarian nature of the organization. (Although there are very few
> churches that are not totalitarian, but still it's when this allows abuses
> to creep in that this becomes an issue. Also Hubbard implied -early on-that
> this wasn't going to BE any sort of totalitarian organization- so in effect,
> he broke a promise. A mighty big one.This is an issue for me.)
>
Yeah well it is a totalitarioan cult IMHO and that comes directly
from SOURCE. SOrry Claire I can not buy that Hubbard never meant
it to be totalitarioa - he is the one who began overboarding and
other horrendous punishments on the Apollo (irrc). He is also the
first one to come up with punishing children by putting them
in a chain locker for some small real or imagined sin. Sorry
you are aelling but I am not buying.
> But it is utterly untrue to suggest that it's all disconnection and all
> these other things and they never do anything good.
Hmm - like the Volunteer Minsiters?? Or offering themselves as a
Mental Health Service after 9/11? Or the Drug Free Marshalls which
are used, at least in TO, as PR to show the public that us big
bad picketers ahte children. Or for PR generally to PROVE that
they are wonderful. BAH
> Effective criticism includes recognition of the good with the bad and it
> includes being a whole helluva lot more precise about when the practices are
> abusive and when they are not.
So Claire - since I feel that Hubbard was a fraud and a con man and
his "theories" and practices are bunk and having read much about
it and talked to many ex-members and read much I MUST find something
good about it?? Hmmm I wil keep looking.
I will continue to protest because there is little there that is one
cannot get elsewhere in the world that costs far less. The same way
I will continue to protest against fundamentalists who are so completely
blind to their particular brand of bigotry and hatred.
> You'd still have lots of material with which to have fun, don't you worry
> about that. Sadly, there's no shortage of things to criticize and to
> critique there.
Imprecise?? hmmm lets see the Purification Rundown is dangerous and
has no value (medically speaking). Saunas are great when taken
in short doses. Vitamins are fine when taken in proper dosages.
Maega anything is not good for you - that is a fact. LArge doses
of Vitamin A for example has been linked to birth defects, large
doses of Niacin can ( I said CAN) cause liver damage and anyone
such as drug addicts or alcoholics whose livers are already
compromised are putting themselves in serious jeopardy doing this
program.
As for auditing - talk therapy is cheaper and just as effective
when handled by a professional well trained therapist. The whole
e-meter thing is a HUGE question in my mind - it can be easily
manipulated IMHO.
Let see - OH yeah - the cost, Scientology claims it is a "church"
and I see it offering "services" bu not much of anything that is
"free" and heaven forbid anyone put anything on the web or elsewhere
that is "secret" or whatever. I hate the fundies and other so-called
Christian churches who DEMAND that people pay more pay more and pay
more yet to be "saved" - to buy thier salvation since that is NOT
what is taught in scripture - unless you take a few isolated verses here
and there - no one should have to suffer to be "saved" by their church.
> But when imprecise and slanted things are written it just plays right into
> the church's hands because they can jump in and show that it's not always
> that way and THEN they will inevitably play the "bigot" card.
> I wouldn't think that this is what anyone interested in addressing these
> problems would want.
>
>
>>the Purification Rundown (that is
>>a nasty one IMHP)
>>
>
> It's no biggie. It's just Hubbard's ideas about purifying the body. Some of
> those ideas are correct and some are incorrect. People are monitored closely
> and sent to the doctor if they start to not do so well. I have seen some
> interesting things happen on the Purif that indicate that the person may
> actually be getting rid of some toxins, but even if that's not the case,
> even if it does NOTHING- it's really just something Hubbard thought would
> work and would assist.
See above - the whole thing is quackery - like Hulda Clarks' liver
flukes and her loverly zapper - quckery. Sorry but medical science
disagrees with Hubbard - who did NO research and had no idea
what he was talking about.
> It's not in the same category as ~enforced~ disconnection or the RPF.
>
> Even on those cases where it's unhelpful.And, no, I personally was not
> impressed with the Purif. Although I think it does do some things as
> advertised, I don't have any interest in doing it again.
>
> And I know you're thinking of the vitamins and liver damage. All I can say
> there is that people about to embark on the Purif and who are already on it-
> as well as people who are about to start any auditing program- are
> encouraged- sometimes told- to see their doctors.If they did this, the
> physician could address these things.
If the physician in question is not involved in scientology and has
real knowledge of the purif s/he would not recommend it. I showed
a doctor once the Purifcation rundown and he was horrified and told
me that NO ONE should be doing that for any length - EVER. The
potential for damage and serious side effects is too high. Sorry Claire
but the purif IS dangerous.
>
>>or what about the totalitarian nature of
>>the COS??
>>
>>Just wondering becasue you seem rather stuck on bashing
>>Tom for just wanting to be a father without Scientology.
>>
>
> I think Galt doesn't like having his words twisted or his identity
> constantly questioned.
Hey I am constantly seeing my words twisted and my intentions
misinterpreted. This Galt character comes along and starts in
on Tom for no apparent reason - but I may have missed the origional.
> It always cracks me up when critics here bitch and whine about people who
> are Scn'ists- or who they ~think~ are Scn'ists- using 'nyms and anon
> accounts, since critics who do that aren't even called on it.
If I have done that I apoligize but I am sick to death of the
crew who thinks that anyone who has NOT jumped on the bandwagon
Bob and Stacy bad bad is a Bobist or Stacyist and their assertion
that NO ONE has the right to do anything re: the Lisa McPherson
case without their specific prior knowledge and approval.
Whatever happens is going to happen. Fatalist that I am I expect
it to be somewhat of an anti-climax. And I for one do not think
that people wil ever know the entire story. Bob and Stacy have
made mistakes but guess what?/ they are human and like all people
have limits to what they can endure. I am just sick to death of
the whole thing actually.
> Nor should they be. But then again, neither should anyone else.
>
> C
Claire, this may come as shock to you - I am not sitting here at my
computer for fun. I take my criticism seriously - and try to
address issues to the best of my feeble ability. Right now I
am dealing with some serious health issues which makes me a little
strident and I apoligize for that. If you think about it you
will see that usually I try to be reasonable and think my answers
through even if sometimes I go overboard.
Kim P
J Galt
Of course he can. But did you read his letter to Ken Dandar? Do that
before you post back to me, ok? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if
you read the letter maybe you'll get why I posted in the first place.
All I said about that one was that it was Spiteful. And Petty. And I
also pointed out that it was a technique to eat up Dandar's time and
that it would cost the case time and money.
As to writing to the judge, it's quite well documented, by the judge,
that she doesn't want to have to look at extraneous bs from people
with agendas other than the Lisa case. That makes sense.
>
> But Deana and tigger et al took exception to that why?? who knows
> or really who cares. It is my opinion that what Tom and Keith
> have to say relates very well to the case at hand.
Ok. But you're not the judge, who asked not to be bothered with Tom
and Keith's opinions. Keith and Tom have their own cases, and it is
MY opinion that their interjection of their issues and their agendas
is time and cost consuming to the case at hand. And I think you would
agree that I have the "right" to post whatever I want as well.
>
> The whole thing is just plain stupidity on the part of those
> who feel they "own" the case and God forbid any one do any thing
> without their prior approval. Heavens to betsy the jusdge does
> not even have to read the damn things but if she choses to
> that is certainly her right just as it is their right to present
> the briefs.
But did you read her words asking that she not be sent unsolicited
"information"?
>
> As to the rest well Kaeli did NOT say you are a character in a
> book - she said she recognized the name from a book.
And she did so in answer to a question of "who I was". If I inferred
something she did not intend, then I apologise, I really do. However,
in the context of her post, it seemed clear that she was claiming that
since my name was out of a novel, it was not MY name. Perhaps I'm a
little sensitive about this and took it too much serious. But I don't
think so.
>
>
> As to Tom using Tigger's name - I don't think it was necessary
> either but honestly - her name has been KNOWN for some time.
And Tom's contuation of using it is either hypocritical, or cruel. I
was giving him the benefit of the doubt by labelling it hypocritical.
I've since decided he's cruel, and I'm backing off from getting an
answer from him.
He's a hypocrite if he uses her name (after her asking that he not)
and doesn't think that Cos might go after her. (Because after all, he
claims to KNOW what that can do to a person.)
He's just plain cruel if he uses her name in a knowing and deliberate
way to attract the attention of CoS to her. Because again, after all,
he claims to KNOW what that can do to a person.
Hey--I've let it go. May Tom and his pals surround themselves with
themselves. And may the rest of us stay far away, and anonymous.
>
> Like many others I am not going to BASH Bob and Stacy first
> because there is much more to this story and we do not know
> everything and secondly because they are still human beings
> who deserve compassion. I refuse to just totally trash
> someone just because they made choices that I do not agree
> with - that is not what I want to be like.
I guess you weren't around ars when Bob and Co. were doing just that
to any and every one who didn't agree with what they did.
And that alone isn't reason to "bash" them. What they're doing to the
anti-cult movement is reason to "Bash" them. Or at least let people
know what the hell they're up to.
Read the transcripts.
>
> I am not a bobist or whatever - I am just waiting to hear
> everything - and even then I think that what Bob and Stacy
> attempted to do in CW was on th eright track but do not
> agree with all of the things that they did. That does not
> negate the good that was done.
The good they've done (which they did on their own terms and of their
own volition) also does not give them a "free Pass" to do what they're
doing now.
Read the transcripts.
>
> So call me a hypocrit or a Bobist or an idiot you are most
> certainly welcome to your opinion it is irrelevent to me.
I have no reason to call you anything. Your opinion is actually
irrelevent to me as well, and I don't mean that in a nasty way. My
goal on all this was just to point out some things I saw as Wrong. I
did that. I think there are some people in the ether of a.r.s. who
heard what I said. What they do with it is their thing.
>
> I have enough troubles in my life right now to worry if
> Tigger and Deana and the rest think I am sane or not.
Your sanity isn't at issue. Sucks to have troubles in your life---I
hope you can resolve them. I sure don't want or intend to add to
them, k?
JG
>
> KimP
BasicQuestions
You've made your points. Tom's made his.
Let me score this one for you: Tom has never replied to your question
about why he posted Tigger's name repeatedly (at least that I could
see). That's about it.
You're up 1-0... the final buzzer sounds... YOU BEAT TOM!!! THIS GAME
IS HISTORY FOLKS!
Swell. Can't you see everyone already has their mind made up about
this issue. Why continue to beat it to death?
ips...@yahoo.ca (J Galt) wrote in message news:<5a9fba1e.02072...@posting.google.com>...
yduzitmatter
J Galt wrote:
I have read the transcripts - still waiting for the rest of
the info which may or not may come out but oh well. Right
now it siucks to be me but I will survive as I always have.
As to the rest well all I can say is whatever. I am just
sick to death of this whole load of codswhallop. Whaterver
happens is gonna happen and whether or not the bash Bob
contingent is right or not is actually in the sum total of
the universe just nothingness. Bye for now
Kim P
Rev Norle Enturbulata
"J Galt" <ips...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:5a9fba1e.0207...@posting.google.com...
Philsie, is that you? [snork]
--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
"Scientology...is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion."
- LRH's "Creation of Human Ability" p251
J Galt
> "yduzitmatter" <yduzit...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3D382988...@sympatico.ca...
> >
> >
> > J Galt wrote:
> >
> > > So, Kaeli, I exist only on the pages of a book? This is something you
> > > KNOW to be true?
> > >
> > > Dog my cats...I've always wondered why I was so attracted to
> > > librarians, and you've gone and figgered it right out for me! Where
> > > have you been all my life!?!?
> > >
> > > Kaeli, guess what? I know a guy named Thomas Sawyer, AND a guy named
> > > Jack Frost. Is there something I should pass along to them from you?
> > >
> > > John Galt
> > > (no middle initial...whad'ya think of that!!!?)
> > >
> > Yo Johnny Boy:
> >
> >
> > You are so sadly mistaken. Please re-read Kaeli's post.
> > She did NOT say you are a character out of a book - she
> > did say she recognizes the name as a character out of a
> > book.
>
> Yes, he was maybe a bit quick to jump on that.
>
> He probably thought Kaeli was just one more person trying to hammer him
> about his 'nym. She wasn't doing that as far as I can see, but it is very
> easy to spot the reasons for J. Galt's exasperation here. Exasperated people
> sometimes jump to conclusions.
>
Thanks Claire--yeah, I'm often exasperated when I read the answers to
posts that I make.
I just posted to someone else that I'm a little sensitive about the
name thing. And I'll apologise to Kaeli if I inferred something that
wasn';t there, but in the context of her answer to Padgett's post, I
think I "jumped" to the correct conclusion.
> >
> > As for your constant ragging on Tom Padgett - well that is
> >
> > so scientological
>
> Oh fuck that. Do you know how many people here go rag rag rag every two
> seconds and have never darkened the door of a Scn center in their lives?
> It's happened to me. It's happened to dozens of critics here. It's happened
> to various Scn'ists posting here.
>
> It is ~not~ Scientological.
>
> News flash, Kim- most church members would simply just not talk to you- upon
> finding out you were a critic. Yeah, it's ostrichy, but it's far from
> constant ragging.
>
I like "ostrichy". Can I borrow it? I just looked it up and it's not
a real word, but I totally dig it!
> No, constant ragging is more the province of critics.
>
> And I am seeing some constant ragging here- but it ain't from Galt.
>
>
> > and makes you look bad.
>
> No, actually, it doesn't. It makes him look like he's trying to stick up for
> himself. He's being fairly polite while he does so, in fact. Far more than
> some others I've seen posting here in various flame wars over the years.
I try...but quite often my sort of dry sense of humour edges over to
cynical, and there...sometimes and unfortuneately to bitter. I don't
like bitter, but it happens. Makes me less effective. I need to
remember to insert the dang smileys!!!
Really, all I wanted to do was post about some stuff that I see as
Wrong.
Excellent point, 'bout the physician. Elements of the Purif, like a
lot of "cleansing" regimines and toxin elimination programs, can be
helpful. The recent results on research on Niacin/Niacinamide needs
to be included when implementing the program.
I'm sure I'll get it from all sides for writing that. Oh well.
>
> > or what about the totalitarian nature of
> > the COS??
> >
> > Just wondering becasue you seem rather stuck on bashing
> > Tom for just wanting to be a father without Scientology.
>
> I think Galt doesn't like having his words twisted or his identity
> constantly questioned.
>
> It always cracks me up when critics here bitch and whine about people who
> are Scn'ists- or who they ~think~ are Scn'ists- using 'nyms and anon
> accounts, since critics who do that aren't even called on it.
>
> Nor should they be. But then again, neither should anyone else.
And really folks, I'm not bashing Tom. I asked him a question. I
called him Spiteful and Petty and I explained exactly why I thought of
him as such. At this point, I just wanna stay away from him and
anyone else who sees nothing wrong with his use of people's names when
they ask him not to. I've stopped thinking of him as
hypocritical---it's pretty obvious that he's just cruel.
I don't need that.
John
>
> C
Pts 2
up 1-0.....the buzzer sounds - YOU BEAT TOM. THIS GAME IS HISTORY
FOLKS!" <snip> "Why continue to beat it to death?"
hmmmmm....
And the answer is? <drum roll> Because Ron wrote in HCO PL 2/25/66,
"Make it rough.... ...rough all the way." Always go back to the source!
:-))
Seriously, Basic Q, you're right, John Galt "won" here! ....who ever
the #%&!? he (or she) is! Can we call him (or her,) Obie 'Won' Kanobie
now! :-)
Pts 2
stopped thinking of him as hypocritical....it's pretty obvious that he's
just cruel."
JG:
Thanks for not bashing me John, and thanks for acknowledging that I am
not a hypocrite. Your honesty is appreciated. :-))
Cruelly yours,
Tom
P.S. Now if you and Claire ever want to have an un-cruel chit chat re:
the Purif. Rundown, let me know. I (and my liver,) did ours at the
Sandcastle in Clearwater, FL in 1981. :)
J Galt
> JG,
>
> You've made your points. Tom's made his.
>
> Let me score this one for you: Tom has never replied to your question
> about why he posted Tigger's name repeatedly (at least that I could
> see). That's about it.
>
> You're up 1-0... the final buzzer sounds... YOU BEAT TOM!!! THIS GAME
> IS HISTORY FOLKS!
>
> Swell. Can't you see everyone already has their mind made up about
> this issue. Why continue to beat it to death?
Hey--I put this one to bed. Thanks for acknowledging my "win" tho ;o)
I realised yesterday that Tom just couldn't answer the question in
any way that was "good" for him, so he was just going to keep doing
his thing. I think maybe some people on ars got the message, and
that's cool. Those that didn't--well, the world needs those guys too.
I'm way ready to play a different game.
As for shutting up about something that 'everyone already has their
mind made up about" tho, those are the most fun really, and often the
most important dialogues to get going. Sometimes its just a matter of
getting information out there for people to think about.
JG
J Galt
Sucks to be you? Hey, there's gotta be some people it sucks worse to
be--I can think of a couple. ;o)
Hope it gets better for you, I really do.
John
yduzitmatter <yduzit...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<3D3AE958...@sympatico.ca>...
J Galt
Ipsemoi is my "nickname". Yahoo or Google puts my name as the sender.
You can clear up your mistake anytime, ok?
Thanks,
John Galt
Kaeli <tal.r...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D383BAC...@rogers.com>...
> J Galt wrote:
>
> > So, Kaeli, I exist only on the pages of a book? This is something you
> > KNOW to be true?
>
> You have trouble with reading I see. I said John Galt is a character in a book... unless
> John Galt is your actual name, I am saying that you have picked out your nickname out of
> that book.
>
> > Dog my cats...I've always wondered why I was so attracted to
> > librarians, and you've gone and figgered it right out for me! Where
> > have you been all my life!?!?
> >
>
> I'm a computer technician, not a librarian. Do a tracert to figure out where I am.
>
> >
> > Kaeli, guess what? I know a guy named Thomas Sawyer, AND a guy named
> > Jack Frost. Is there something I should pass along to them from you?
> >
>
> Whatever you want to pass along, I really don't care less at this point.
>
>
> Kaeli A.
>
> >
> > John Galt
> > (no middle initial...whad'ya think of that!!!?)
> >
>
>
>
> >
> > Kaeli <tal.r...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<3D376AFE...@rogers.com>...
> > > Pts 2 wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > (snipped)
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But you keep focusing back on one narrowed theme, that is your concern
> > > > for the "nasty" reputation the Co$ has towards it's perceived enemies
> > > > and the ensuing dirty tricks they employ. I share those deep concerns
> > > > with you. In your rightful fearfulness, I assume J. Galt is not your
> > > > real name wanting to remain anonymous?! But it appears that your
> > > > concern for victims of cult attacks is just limited to Tigger. Do you
> > > > have concerns for others who HAVE BEEN or could be harassed, assaulted,
> > > > extorted, blackmailed, threatened, or sued to death by the cult? Or is
> > > > it just Tigger?
> > >
> > > John Galt is from a character in the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. I
> > > used to read Ayn Rand when I was younger.. ugh.. but not now. My personal
> > > opinion is that Ayn Rand was not realistic.
> > >
> > > Kaeli A.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My theory is, as long as Tigger has adopted the Mirele / Diane R. /
> > > > Starshadow OSA-like style of "attack first, ask questions later," the
> > > > cult won't touch her. Why? Because they would be thrilled that this NG
> > > > has become so caustic and acidic, that serious new folks will leave
> > > > ASAP never to discover the REAL Co$. That's just my opinion though. I
> > > > could be wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Be good Johnny G. and I hope this helps satisfy your narrowed curiosity?
Fluffygirl
"yduzitmatter" <yduzit...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D3AE655...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> Fluffygirl wrote:
>
<snip>
> >
> >>As for your constant ragging on Tom Padgett - well that is
> >>
> >>so scientological
> >>
> >
> > Oh fuck that. Do you know how many people here go rag rag rag every two
> > seconds and have never darkened the door of a Scn center in their lives?
> > It's happened to me. It's happened to dozens of critics here. It's
happened
> > to various Scn'ists posting here.
> >
> > It is ~not~ Scientological.
> >
> > News flash, Kim- most church members would simply just not talk to you-
upon
> > finding out you were a critic. Yeah, it's ostrichy, but it's far from
> > constant ragging.
>
>
> News Flash Claire
>
> It was me being exasperated. Still waiting for John Glat to talk about
> anything else except how bad is Tom and blah blah.
>
Then perhaps we can see a cessation or at least a moratorium on
generalizations about Scn'ists.
>
>
> >>
> >>What have you done to expose the abuses of the cult? What
> >>do you think of Disconnection?
> >>
> >
> > I've actually seen ethics officers in CofS try very hard to keep
families
> > together rather than have some disconnection scenario occur.
>
>
> That is nice Claire but that is not the NORM - enforced disconnection
> not only exists it is POLICY and that SUCKS period.
See below.
I never said he didn't. It doesn't happen to be what I think.
I have already said it was totalitarian.
I talk about Hubbard all the time here, actually.
> - he is the one who began overboarding and
> other horrendous punishments on the Apollo (irrc). He is also the
> first one to come up with punishing children by putting them
> in a chain locker for some small real or imagined sin. Sorry
> you are aelling but I am not buying.
I'm not selling anything. I've said what I said and anything I didn't say
was not said because it doesn't happen to be what I thought.
I'm saying that criticizing a group or individual or practices includes not
generalizing about it and about recognizing the situations where the
particular abuses and problems occur and where they do not occur.
>
>
> > But it is utterly untrue to suggest that it's all disconnection and all
> > these other things and they never do anything good.
>
>
> Hmm - like the Volunteer Minsiters?? Or offering themselves as a
> Mental Health Service after 9/11?
The fiends!
>Or the Drug Free Marshalls which
> are used, at least in TO, as PR to show the public that us big
> bad picketers ahte children. Or for PR generally to PROVE that
> they are wonderful. BAH
Gee that's really awful of the church to go in and do stuff for the
community like that. It's also awful when a lot of fortune 500 companies-
such as ones I've worked for- have also made a big deal about the charitable
efforts of their employees, to the point of taking out full page ads about
the efforts of, say, BellSouth employees in charitable work.
With places like BellSouth as with CofS- there's very much a PR angle. And
there's also some assistance that gets rendered at the same time.
Just like those upper middle class and wealthy ladies who have their pet
charities and their junior league and so on. Well, so what. People are still
helped.
And what you might not be looking at is that the rank and file church
members- (by the way, that's most church members) are sincere in their
efforts to help. Their church leaders may consider this to be good PR or
whatnot, but the people actually doing these things really do care.
I see you writing about abuses of the church that affect MEMBERS- enforced
disconnection and so on. Very real problems.
And then I see you dismiss some of the actions and intentions of those same
members about whom you've indicated concern. And I have no reason to believe
you are insincere when you express concern, either. It's just that I think
dismissing their efforts to assist the community can be seen as a bit
contradictory.
>
>
> > Effective criticism includes recognition of the good with the bad and it
> > includes being a whole helluva lot more precise about when the practices
are
> > abusive and when they are not.
>
>
> So Claire - since I feel that Hubbard was a fraud and a con man and
> his "theories" and practices are bunk and having read much about
> it and talked to many ex-members and read much I MUST find something
> good about it?? Hmmm I wil keep looking.
Right here in your reply you named some efforts of some earnest church
members to be of assistance to the community- regardless of what the master
plan was that their senior management may or may not have had in mind.
Situations such as the one I described with the lady who wanted to go to law
school are not uncommon. Of course, in that situation, no one was expelled
or declared. Had anyone been, then there would have been enforced
disconnection and that's a bad thing. But that still does not change the
fact that in certain circumstances familial fences are mended, and in still
other circumstances church members help other church members.
We had a lady in our Org whose child was severely disabled. He was on one of
those mobile life support things where he was hooked up to oxygen in the
wheelchair and there was some kind of computer in the chair and so forth. He
was not learning disabled but he was physically very limited. A lot of
people in our Org helped him and his Mom. Doing odd jobs around her home,
etc.
I myself used to pitch in and provide credit counselling to other members.
The church is made up of people. The fact that there are a number of abusive
policies and practices in the church and the fact that the church management
tends to see everyone as a herd of cattle does not negate that.
Therefore when criticizing we should stick to the things we know are harmful
and not represent things as occurring all the time if they do not. Believe
me, we will have no shortage of things to challenge, critique and to
criticize with that as our standard.
Now, of course, if one is trying to present an organization as being too
problematic to be worth joining or staying in, one would naturally soft
pedal any positive aspects as they could lessen the punch of the point one
wants to get across about the problems and abuses. And that's a given.
But to say , on other occasions, that there's never anything good,etc, will
just alienate church members because they flat out won't want to talk to
you. They will know that you are incorrect.
Whereas people who stick to the facts and who don't belittle or dismiss the
efforts and actions of individual Scn'ists may be listened to.
>
> I will continue to protest because there is little there that is one
> cannot get elsewhere in the world that costs far less.
Well, I've not said you shouldn't.
I myself protest constantly.
<snip>
>
> As for auditing - talk therapy is cheaper
Actually, most therapists charge quite a bit of money. Not that I begrudge
it to 'em. I don't.
CofS may be- and is- charging hundreds per hour- but non CofS Scn'ists are
not. Far from it.
>and just as effective
> when handled by a professional well trained therapist. The whole
> e-meter thing is a HUGE question in my mind - it can be easily
> manipulated IMHO.
It's just a guide. Scn "scripture" indicates that if the person you are
counselling says one thing and the meter says another, you go with what the
person actually says.
We don't think the emeter's such a big deal. The only people who do are non
Scn'ists who seem in awe of it. We know it's just a machine and it's only
meant as a guide.
>
> Let see - OH yeah - the cost, Scientology claims it is a "church"
> and I see it offering "services" bu not much of anything that is
> "free" and heaven forbid anyone put anything on the web or elsewhere
> that is "secret" or whatever.
The above statement does not pertain to Scientology. It pertains to CofS.
CofS charges an ass-load of money for most of the stuff. Other Scn'ists do
not.
> I hate the fundies and other so-called
> Christian churches who DEMAND that people pay more pay more and pay
> more yet to be "saved" - to buy thier salvation since that is NOT
> what is taught in scripture - unless you take a few isolated verses here
> and there - no one should have to suffer to be "saved" by their church.
It's just as easy to disagree strongly without hating. Easier, in fact. And
a whole lot easier on the stomach lining. :-)
> > But when imprecise and slanted things are written it just plays right
into
> > the church's hands because they can jump in and show that it's not
always
> > that way and THEN they will inevitably play the "bigot" card.
> > I wouldn't think that this is what anyone interested in addressing these
> > problems would want.
> >
> >
> >>the Purification Rundown (that is
> >>a nasty one IMHP)
> >>
> >
> > It's no biggie. It's just Hubbard's ideas about purifying the body. Some
of
> > those ideas are correct and some are incorrect. People are monitored
closely
> > and sent to the doctor if they start to not do so well. I have seen some
> > interesting things happen on the Purif that indicate that the person may
> > actually be getting rid of some toxins, but even if that's not the case,
> > even if it does NOTHING- it's really just something Hubbard thought
would
> > work and would assist.
>
>
>
> See above - the whole thing is quackery - like Hulda Clarks' liver
> flukes and her loverly zapper - quckery. Sorry but medical science
> disagrees with Hubbard - who did NO research and had no idea
> what he was talking about.
I already said I wasn't impressed with it.
My point was it's hardly in the realm of an RPF or whatnot.
It's a belief that has some bugs in it.
Whereas RPF, enforced disconnection, my being expelled just for posting
here, etc,- those are indicative of an organization that promises freedom
then turns around and treats it's members like cattle.
>
>
> > It's not in the same category as ~enforced~ disconnection or the RPF.
> >
> > Even on those cases where it's unhelpful.And, no, I personally was not
> > impressed with the Purif. Although I think it does do some things as
> > advertised, I don't have any interest in doing it again.
> >
> > And I know you're thinking of the vitamins and liver damage. All I can
say
> > there is that people about to embark on the Purif and who are already on
it-
> > as well as people who are about to start any auditing program- are
> > encouraged- sometimes told- to see their doctors.If they did this, the
> > physician could address these things.
>
>
> If the physician in question is not involved in scientology and has
> real knowledge of the purif s/he would not recommend it.
Yes, I indicated as much.
> I showed
> a doctor once the Purifcation rundown and he was horrified and told
> me that NO ONE should be doing that for any length - EVER.
Good thing the church recommends that people consult their physicians.
Unfortunately, members tend to blow this off.
> >
> > I think Galt doesn't like having his words twisted or his identity
> > constantly questioned.
>
>
> Hey I am constantly seeing my words twisted and my intentions
> misinterpreted. This Galt character comes along and starts in
> on Tom for no apparent reason - but I may have missed the origional.
I think Galt was fairly polite to Tom. Yeah, you could tell he was getting
pretty annoyed, but on the whole what I saw was Tom badgering him. I'm not
sure who started it but I think sticking up for himself in as civilized a
manner as he did was far from out of line, IMO.
If one looks at what Tom said to him, dragging in all kinds of people and
extraneous comments, I think it's entirely understandable that Galt would
have responded as he did.
I've seen far stronger slanging matches on this ng than that, to be sure.
Ah well.
>
>
> > It always cracks me up when critics here bitch and whine about people
who
> > are Scn'ists- or who they ~think~ are Scn'ists- using 'nyms and anon
> > accounts, since critics who do that aren't even called on it.
>
>
> If I have done that I apoligize
It wasn't you who did it.
> but I am sick to death of the
> crew who thinks that anyone who has NOT jumped on the bandwagon
> Bob and Stacy bad bad is a Bobist or Stacyist and their assertion
> that NO ONE has the right to do anything re: the Lisa McPherson
> case without their specific prior knowledge and approval.
Yes, I hear you there. I agree!
>
> Whatever happens is going to happen. Fatalist that I am I expect
> it to be somewhat of an anti-climax. And I for one do not think
> that people wil ever know the entire story. Bob and Stacy have
> made mistakes but guess what?/ they are human and like all people
> have limits to what they can endure.
Well, I think what happened was that Bob was tired of the harassment by the
church and wanted it to stop. I think that when he contacted them, in
whatever way that he must have done so, that they got some hooks into him
and started to push him into doing more than just ceasing the critical
activities.
I think that when a person's under a lot of pressure that they may do things
they wouldn't ordinarily do. I know that's the case.
But I am displeased with the fact that Bob and Stacy are going the extra
mile, so to speak, in their testimony.
It's their life and it's their decision but I really think there is a big
difference between dropping the critical endeavors and in utterly
capitulating and while doing so vilifying the people they used to be in
friendly association with.
I am concerned that, given Stacy's 180 degree turn, that she may betray some
confidences told to her in previous months and years.
>
> Claire, this may come as shock to you - I am not sitting here at my
> computer for fun. I take my criticism seriously - and try to
> address issues to the best of my feeble ability. Right now I
> am dealing with some serious health issues which makes me a little
> strident and I apoligize for that. If you think about it you
> will see that usually I try to be reasonable and think my answers
> through even if sometimes I go overboard.
I know.
You know what- I still have a lot of friends in CofS and others with whom
I've not in communication but about whom I still care.
I don't like to see them generalized.
I also know that sometimes the church does some good because it has good
people in it.
This does not mean I would ever go back there or that I'd steer someone into
going there. I sure wouldn't. I seriously question the viability and the
validity of this organization.
But I would like to see critics looking at the other side once in a while as
I think it would give criticism an added and valuable dimension.
I also would like to see CofS members doing that, too.
I was on another forum (Beliefnet) that had a lot of church members on it
(most of whom have left the forum because of the critics, I guess) and some
were very nice but some of them didn't want to listen and were pretty nasty
about it. They sounded a lot like some of the people posting here at times-
and, no, this does NOT pertain to you.
What it is, is this:
People need to be open to the views and actions of "the other side". This
does not mean condoning things that are wrong and it doesn't mean
compromising. But it does mean fostering some mutual understanding and
communication.
I found that very valuable and in my case it led to my seriously
questioning- and even ditching- some things I'd been told.
C
Zinj
ips...@yahoo.ca says...
> Kaeli,
>
> Ipsemoi is my "nickname". Yahoo or Google puts my name as the sender.
>
> You can clear up your mistake anytime, ok?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Galt
There's nothing *illegal* about being a Rayndian after the age of
13... but, it's unusual.
Zinj
--
When in Danger, or in Doubt; Run in Circles, Scream and Shout -
ARS/Post Bobocalypse
Pts 2
or at least a moratorium on generalizations about Scn'ists.
I am not sure sure who started it......"
Oh dear Claire:
Do you recognize how "reasonable" you sound and appear here in the LRH
mindthink? Has $cn stole "ALL" of your critical thinking skills ...at
least to the extent to "who/whom" starts "what?"
I have previously posted that I thought YOU needed some expert exit
counselling. That evaluation still stands. Listen, I was in your shoes
of leaving the cult over a decade ago. I had the SAME BS confusion you
are going through now.
Claire, seriously, are open to getting some help?
a) YES____
b) NO____
c) MAYBE (I like ARS ambiguous schtuff and am content)____
Claire, people are dying, going to jail, and forced to leave the USA
because of the abuses of the $cn cult. So how can YOU use the word
badgering?
Consult your Seattle Wiccan friend (and ARS chaplain) Star-S for advice
if your caught short here.
barb
>
> "yduzitmatter" <yduzit...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3D3AE655...@sympatico.ca...
> >
> >
> > Fluffygirl wrote:
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> > >
> > >>As for your constant ragging on Tom Padgett - well that is
> > >>
> > >>so scientological
> > >>
> > >
> > > Oh fuck that. Do you know how many people here go rag rag rag every two
> > > seconds and have never darkened the door of a Scn center in their lives?
> > > It's happened to me. It's happened to dozens of critics here. It's
> happened
> > > to various Scn'ists posting here.
> > >
> > > It is ~not~ Scientological.
> > >
> > > News flash, Kim- most church members would simply just not talk to you-
> upon
> > > finding out you were a critic. Yeah, it's ostrichy, but it's far from
> > > constant ragging.
> >
> >
> > News Flash Claire
> >
> > It was me being exasperated. Still waiting for John Glat to talk about
> > anything else except how bad is Tom and blah blah.
> >
>
> Then perhaps we can see a cessation or at least a moratorium on
> generalizations about Scn'ists.
Sure. When you all (and I mean you ALL) quit running Hubbo's program and
quit acting like brainwashed tools, we'll quit with the generalizations.
You're a cut above the rest, but the mindwash still shines through.
Fluffygirl
"barb" <bwa...@cox.net> wrote in message news:3D3B8A96...@cox.net...
Oh golly gosh. How very tempting. And what do I get if I eat all my spinach?
Maybe you guys should just stop acting like a bunch of fucking lunatics. Non
Scn'ists are very critical of those of you who sound like that.
You alienate your two target audiences. (the one being church members who -
some of you allege- you'd like to see out of the church) and you alienate
the non Scn'ists, too. I've been personally told by some very bright savvy
non Scn'ists that they think some of you sound plain fucking nuts.
So you accomplish nothing.
Saying you'll stop generalizing if I get with YOUR program is just plain
idiotic.
I'm very sure that if someone were to come on here and generalize about all
critics, that you'd be all over that like white on rice.
Just more hypocrisy, one assumes.
No skin off my back but it certainly is a problem for YOU.
> You're a cut above the rest,
Ah yes, your accumen is legendary.
> but the mindwash still shines through.
According to your standards.
However, everything I've said about members of CofS is true. And since you
folks mostly purport that you care about them, then obviously, well...guess
it was a lie and your true nature shines through over and over again.
I know what's right with the organization and the religion and I know what's
wrong with it.I also know a lot of church members and how they feel.
I have a far more balanced perspective than you'll ever have.
You are neither fit nor capable of discerning or determining whether I'm a
cut above "the rest" (one wonders what this"rest" is supposed to be. I'm
unaware of anyone else who does precisely what I do.) or, apparently, of
much else.
But, hey, have a nice day!
C
barb
Yes, I'm sure you think so. However, your problem appears to lie with
"what's right" about the organization.
>
> You are neither fit nor capable of discerning or determining whether I'm a
> cut above "the rest" (one wonders what this"rest" is supposed to be. I'm
> unaware of anyone else who does precisely what I do.) or, apparently, of
> much else.
Of course I am! I can read! Your posts, on the surface, seem more
"reasonable" than those of, say, Nelson or Phil C, but when you strip
away everything but the message, what's left is obviously tainted by
Hubbard just as strongly.
>
> But, hey, have a nice day!
Francis Gary Powers...
Kaeli
(snipped)
>
> I just posted to someone else that I'm a little sensitive about the
> name thing. And I'll apologise to Kaeli if I inferred something that
> wasn';t there, but in the context of her answer to Padgett's post, I
> think I "jumped" to the correct conclusion.
Thanks for your apology, but I had no idea that John Galt was your
actual name :)
Jumping to conclusions is never a good thing, John. How do you think
that you jumped to the correct conclusion, and how?
Your jumping to conclusions is like saying that people from Toronto are
all either weird, or the city itself is like an American city; which it
isn't.. excuse me, but I tend to be sensitive about my home town.
(snipped again---bandwidth)
>
> And really folks, I'm not bashing Tom. I asked him a question. I
> called him Spiteful and Petty and I explained exactly why I thought of
> him as such. At this point, I just wanna stay away from him and
> anyone else who sees nothing wrong with his use of people's names when
> they ask him not to. I've stopped thinking of him as
> hypocritical---it's pretty obvious that he's just cruel.
It is? Frankly, I don't think it's easy being harassed by the CoS,
through his ex-wife.. and worse yet, having others on this NG telling
him that he deserves to be harasssed by the CoS.
I apologize in advance if you aren't exactly saying that, however, it
sounds like many people are saying that Tom deserves to be harassed and
abused by the CoS.
Kaeli A.
Rev Norle Enturbulata
I suspect such sentiments may in some folks be backwash from
HubbardWare(tm)'s YouPulledItIn setting, which is ALWAYS set to True/On.
--
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
* Insert Xenu pamphlets into $cientology
* books being sold everywhere! It's fun!
Pts 2
some where? It was about a year ago that he posted it to this NG.
And if it is URL'd somewhere, could someone C&P it here?
Thanks,
Mehn O'Paws
> basicqu...@yahoo.com (BasicQuestions) wrote in message news:<43a650b2.02072...@posting.google.com>...
> > JG,
> >
> > You've made your points. Tom's made his.
> >
> > Let me score this one for you: Tom has never replied to your question
> > about why he posted Tigger's name repeatedly (at least that I could
> > see). That's about it.
> >
> > You're up 1-0... the final buzzer sounds... YOU BEAT TOM!!! THIS GAME
> > IS HISTORY FOLKS!
> >
> > Swell. Can't you see everyone already has their mind made up about
> > this issue. Why continue to beat it to death?
>
> Hey--I put this one to bed. Thanks for acknowledging my "win" tho ;o)
yoo hoo, basic question was kidding galt. you did not win anything.
you simply have should this newsgroup how frothing and twisting you
scnt'gsts are.
> I realised yesterday that Tom just couldn't answer the question in
> any way that was "good" for him, so he was just going to keep doing
> his thing. I think maybe some people on ars got the message,
yup, you got claire and ultra bin morons' attention.
great feat! rotfl
and
> that's cool. Those that didn't--well, the world needs those guys too.
>
> I'm way ready to play a different game.
great, here's a new game. is tiger spiteful and petty for calling tom
a creep, dead beat dad, psychological bully, a liar, an untrustworthy
ex-scnt'lgst, and a self-serving idiot?
you are after all an expert on spiteful and petty behavour right?
>
> As for shutting up about something that 'everyone already has their
> mind made up about" tho, those are the most fun really, and often the
> most important dialogues to get going. Sometimes its just a matter of
> getting information out there for people to think about.
yeah, hubbard cult members call it black pr and dead agenting, as we
know YOU know. :)
>
> JG
>
>
>
>
> >
> > ips...@yahoo.ca (J Galt) wrote in message news:<5a9fba1e.02072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > hotfla...@hotmail.com (Mehn O'Paws) wrote in message news:<c60251d6.02071...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Ultra...@webtv.net (Mike G) wrote in message news:<3557-3D3...@storefull-2258.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> > > > > You werent (ultra's spew agreeing with j. galt cut out)
> > > >
> > > > ok, kind of feed up with this da'ing of padget and henson by galt and
> > > > greenberg.
> > > >
> > > > history: j. galt comes on starts ragging keith and tom about writing
> > > > to court officers in the mcpherson case.
> > > > but YOU GALT focuses more on tigger issues with padget, and hasn't let up.
> > >
> > > No. You have this story all wrong Paws.
> > >
> > > John Galt, a character out of an Ayn Rand novel (per Kaeli and Dave
> > > Bird) has been hanging out on ars for years. He decided to post. He
> > > asked Tom Padgett why Tom continued to use Tigger's name when she had
> > > damn good reason to ask that it not be used. See, John didn't expect
> > > that Tom, who apparently has suffered at the hands of CoS himself,
> > > would wish that on any other person. So he asked Tom.
> > >
> > > Tom has still not answered the question.
you didn't ask a question? you made a statement. tom tried at lengths
to get you to re-phrase your statements as questions. you have
refused.
M.O.
Mehn O'Paws
>
> You've made your points. Tom's made his.
>
> Let me score this one for you: Tom has never replied to your question
> about why he posted Tigger's name repeatedly (at least that I could
> see).
i saw things much differently. tom replied in many ways. jg didn't
like his response so therefor treated as a non-response.
>That's about it.
>
> You're up 1-0... the final buzzer sounds... YOU BEAT TOM!!! THIS GAME
> IS HISTORY FOLKS!
i asked galt why is it ok for tiger to call tom a whole list of
demeaning and libellous names. he never answered. bell rings. I
BEAT YOU. score me 6 - galt zero. a good for the goose vs. gander
thing. this is hstorical now.
M.O.
Mehn O'Paws
>
> > >
> > > As for your constant ragging on Tom Padgett - well that is
> > >
> > > so scientological
> >
> > Oh fuck that. Do you know how many people here go rag rag rag every two
> > seconds and have never darkened the door of a Scn center in their lives?
> > It's happened to me. It's happened to dozens of critics here. It's happened
> > to various Scn'ists posting here.
> >
> > It is ~not~ Scientological.
> >
> > News flash, Kim- most church members would simply just not talk to you- upon
> > finding out you were a critic. Yeah, it's ostrichy, but it's far from
> > constant ragging.
> >
>
> I like "ostrichy". Can I borrow it? I just looked it up and it's not
> a real word, but I totally dig it!
>
>
> > No, constant ragging is more the province of critics.
> >
> > And I am seeing some constant ragging here- but it ain't from Galt.
> >
> >
> > > and makes you look bad.
> >
> > No, actually, it doesn't. It makes him look like he's trying to stick up for
> > himself. He's being fairly polite while he does so, in fact. Far more than
> > some others I've seen posting here in various flame wars over the years.
>
> I try...but quite often my sort of dry sense of humour edges over to
you're bone dry jg! :)
yeah, like joan woods tried to explain regarding lisa mcpherson, and
your cult's psycho goonybird squads stalking her in to "silence."
doctors should also address the introspection rundown too huh john?
> Excellent point, 'bout the physician. Elements of the Purif, like a
> lot of "cleansing" regimines and toxin elimination programs, can be
> helpful. The recent results on research on Niacin/Niacinamide needs
> to be included when implementing the program.
>
> I'm sure I'll get it from all sides for writing that.
ah, galt's a scnt'lgst! why is that not a surprise.
>
> >
> > > or what about the totalitarian nature of
> > > the COS??
> > >
> > > Just wondering becasue you seem rather stuck on bashing
> > > Tom for just wanting to be a father without Scientology.
> >
> > I think Galt doesn't like having his words twisted or his identity
> > constantly questioned.
> >
> > It always cracks me up when critics here bitch and whine about people who
> > are Scn'ists- or who they ~think~ are Scn'ists- using 'nyms and anon
> > accounts, since critics who do that aren't even called on it.
> >
> > Nor should they be. But then again, neither should anyone else.
>
>
> And really folks, I'm not bashing Tom. I asked him a question.
it was a statement, not a question. you didn't even read tom's reply.
I
> called him Spiteful and Petty and I explained exactly why I thought of
> him as such. At this point, I just wanna stay away from him and
> anyone else who sees nothing wrong with his use of people's names when
> they ask him not to. I've stopped thinking of him as
> hypocritical---it's pretty obvious that he's just cruel.
the guy and his friends open up a halfway house for victims leaving
cults. that's really a cruel thng to do.
> I don't need that.
>
> John
>
> >
> > C
M.O.
Mike G
Actually,as I recall Tom went to work for this outfit, and in reality it
is an organization with fundamentalist Christian teachings. A cultish
compound in itself.
BTW, John Galt never identified as a scientologist.
Your Welcome.
Hartley Patterson
> Does anybody know if RVY's treatise on the AGENT PROVOCATEUR is archived
> some where? It was about a year ago that he posted it to this NG.
>
> And if it is URL'd somewhere, could someone C&P it here?
1) Go to google.com
2) Click on the 'Groups' tab.
3) I tried '"agent provocateur" young scientology', and got the post you
want in less than a minute!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22agent+provocateur%22
+young+scientology&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3B857E14.2EC7C15%
40phoenix5.org&rnum=8
is the URL.
--
"I think of my beautiful city in flames"
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
A medieval spreadsheet, enturbulating entheta and how to outrun
Thread.
Pts 2
for this outfit, and in reality it was an organization with Fundamental
Christian teachings. A cultic compound in itself.
BTW, John Galt never identified as a scientologist."
U-mike:
Yes, your OT "recall" powers are awe inspiring.
It's true,I joined another cult. We all sit around and go "hip hip
hooray, hip hoo ray" 3 dozen times staring robotically at a picture of
Jerry Fallwell in an ascot and captain's hat.
Btw, J. Galt never identified himself as a WOG, SP, or PTS! :)
Was hoping a bit of R&R Thailand would have un-fried your mine. Sorry
it didn't.
Also remember U-mike to the cereal commercial....."Trix are for kids!"
Human Rights Defense (ShyDavid)
wrote:
> Does anybody know if RVY's treatise on the AGENT PROVOCATEUR is archived
> some where? It was about a year ago that he posted it to this NG.
>
> And if it is URL'd somewhere, could someone C&P it here?
http://holysmoke.org/rvy/rvy.htm
> Thanks,
>
> Tom
> <><><><><><><><><><><>
> www.WhyAreTheyDead.net
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> If I ever trust an ex-scientologist again, I need my head examined.
> TIGGER
>
----
http://desertphile.org
Buffy: "Amy! How have you been?"
Amy: "Rat. How have YOU been?"
Buffy: "Dead."
Mike G
was delightful as usual.
Thanks.
Pts 2
for this outfit, and in reality it was an organization with Fundamental
BTW, John Galt never identified as a scientologist."
U-mike:
Yes, your OT "recall" powers are awe inspiring.
It's true,I joined another cult. We all sit around and go "hip hip
hooray, hip hoo ray" 3 dozen times staring robotically at a picture of
Jerry Fallwell in an ascot and captain's hat.
Now, you have attacked my Protestant upbringing. Feel good? Did you
want to talk about your Jewish upbringing. I think I'll call your
brother and ask him if it's OK first.
Btw, J. Galt never identified himself as a WOG, SP, or PTS! :)
Was hoping a bit of R&R in Thailand would have un-fried your mine.
Sorry it didn't.
Also remember U-mike to that old cereal commercial....."Trix are for
kids!" :-))
Birgitta
wrote:
>Does anybody know if RVY's treatise on the AGENT PROVOCATEUR is archived
>some where? It was about a year ago that he posted it to this NG.
Below is the post:
pasted by Bid
"An update from RVY"
Message-ID: <3B857E14...@phoenix5.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:05:08 -0400
From: Robert Young <rob...@phoenix5.org>
Organization: Phoenix5
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
CC: wri...@eskimo.com
Subject: An update from RVY (and some parting comments about ARS)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------AD113C9461C9E3B959A741D1"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.6.108.236
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.6.108.236
X-Trace: 23 Aug 2001 18:01:40 -0400, 64.6.108.236
X-Original-Trace: 23 Aug 2001 18:01:40 -0400, 64.6.108.236
Lines: 1316
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1362873
Hi, Guys.
It appears that I haven't written anything since February 2000, with
my
"Hello & Goodbye" when I told y'all about my cancer diagnosis. Time
flies when you're having fun, eh? (laugh)
Somewhere back there, I know I promised to give you an update, so this
is it. Plus I want to make some last, final, parting comments about
ARS
and the cult.
You’ll notice a slight change of address but I am cc-ing my old
account,
just for verification. I wanted to use this one because the other is a
shell account and I can bold the sub-heads here. (Vanity, thy name is
RVY!)
SO WHO IS HE?
I've learned that "cybertime" is quite accelerated, compared to
calendar
or ordinary time. Being gone from ARS for 18 or so months is somewhat
like 40-50 years. Generations have come and gone and talking about my
role is like talking about the First World War.
If any one really wants to find out who I am, I've found that a lot of
my posts are archived at http://www.holysmoke.org/rvy/rvy.htm and my
initial "coming out" (an article I wrote) is at
http://www.entheta.net/entheta/go/quill.html
Nuff ancient history.
SO HERE'S THE UPDATE
Although I was diagnosed with terminal cancer on 11/23/99, I'm still
alive and well past what is called "median mortality" for my condition
(meaning I should have died some months ago) which I know irritates
David Miscavige to no end. Sorry, David. I never was too good
following
orders, was I?
Since I "retired" from my post-cult lifestyle 18 months ago, I've been
devoting myself to cancer education, as I said I would. Most of it is
through a Web site that I put on line somewhere around June 2000 that
is
now up to 1200 pages. Although it's all about prostate cancer, the
full
site is occasionally downloaded by someone. Gee, I wonder who? Nothing
like a little perl script/search to just make sure that RVY isn't
doing
something else there. Oh, the paranoia of it all. (laugh) I'll try to
give you the URL later as it is certainly no secret.
Basically, I'm doing better than I should. I've already been told that
I'm beating the odds and I kind of like that. Maybe my experience with
one cancer helped me to fight another. (smile)
It is taking all of my time. No, I don't keep up with ARS. More on
that
later. My time is spent helping men who have been diagnosed (and their
companions) and it really is a wonderful life. I may have sounded
flippant saying one cancer helped me with another but there is a truth
to it. In some strange way, everything I've done to this point has
really enabled me to take on this new task and I can say proudly that
I
really have made a difference in a lot of lives and THAT is quite
rewarding.
AN IMPORTANT POINT
This may not make sense to many people but I am having the best time
of
my life.
I went through hell for about 10 months. Cancer and the treatments can
do that to a person. But then - by whatever dint of fate or luck or
sheer stubbornness - I came through it and found a wonderful life that
I
wouldn't trade for anything.
There are people with terminal illnesses who manage to gain this
perspective and it is something that can only be shared amongst us, so
I
won't try to explain it here. Just leave it to say, that I am
incredibly
happy and whatever the cancer bodes for me is not a crisis or a worry.
To the contrary, it has become incredibly liberating. Living on the
edge
of death can provide a clarity not afforded at any other time and, as
I
said, is known only to those who can accept it.
I say this merely to assuage any concern for me or worry. No, please.
I
am having more fun than I ever have, and that includes my OT sections.
(a little humor there.)
CAN YOU REACH ME?
As before, I'll say that I am not responding to email. I know that is
a
bit one-sided, but please grant me at least one irregularity. (smile)
When I said that I was "retiring" from this lifestyle, I meant it. I
don't advise, give interviews, talk to media or take OSA/RTC/PI email
baits. I simply don't respond to email about the cult.
I don't do it for fear of the cult. Good grief! I lived in their gun
sights for years. I just want to get on with my other work. One cancer
at a time. (smile)
JUST TO BE CLEAR
First, let me say that when I say "the cult" (I prefer to avoid the S
word), I am referring to OSA/RTC. Although my language may have
slipped
in some posts, I also tried to make it VERY clear that I was never
against "Scientologists." The focus of my remarks was always intended
to
be the OSA/RTC, which is where the moral corruption - unbeknownst to
nearly all Scientologists - resides.
This distinction drew the ire of some on ARS, which I will take up
shortly. I really don't care if it is popular. Nor do I care to hear
the
arguments against it, and you can throw that in with the rest of your
complaints. This is my nickel (as we used to say before it was 35
cents)
and so I get to talk.
THE CULT & THE NET
Several years ago, I made the remark (picked up by WIRED mag, I think)
that the Internet would prove to be to the cult what Viet Nam was to
the
US.
I was wrong.
The early tactics of OSA/RTC against ARS were as stupid as they come.
(I
am sure there are some around who remember Kobrin's attempt to
rm/close
the NG, as if that can be done.) RTC/OSA demonstrated as they usually
do
a complete failure to grok the situation as they tried one stupid pet
trick after another. (Oh, the good ole days.) They killed posts. They
spammed like mad. They treated it like someone who had never heard of
the Net, making fools of themselves time and again.
And then it began to change.
I didn't notice it at first. In fact, it took me quite awhile to
appreciate it. But the cult was adapting, something that I had said
they
couldn't do. They were learning (and I have to give Miscavige credit
for
this one - catch that one, DM? - since nothing transpires without his
approval and direction) by disregarding what didn't work and trying
something else.
HIRING PROS: step 1
LRH is very clear about not hiring "outside professionals" which I
always thought was a stupid rule and Miscavige apparently took the
same
view.
It started with attorneys but PIs were the turning point. Rather than
rely on the "Information Bureau" (gag) Miscavige was running PIs
(private investigators - sorry) under "contract" to attorneys rather
than the Info Bureau. We saw this very early on. Hell, it was
happening
while I was in the organization.
PIs under an attorney had (at least in theory as I don't think it has
been legally tested) the protection of "attorney-client work." A
contract would be signed but DM ran the PIs, who reported to him. Gene
Ingram was the first one.
The idea was that if they get subpoenaed, they could claim
"attorney-client privilege" even though the attorney wasn't running
them. To prove that would require more than any adversary could
manage.
It really was brilliant. It was undertaken to avoid the mistake that
led
to the 1977 FBI raid and the conviction of a host of cult leaders. The
Info Bureau was left to be in support of the PIs but when it came to
actual "dirty work," they went to DM directly and did it verbally, a
really brilliant maneuver.
HIRING PROS: step 2
I didn't see it but there were some rumors years ago that some
professional geeks were being hired for the Net. Rumor also had it
that
they were used in the assault on penet.fi (how's that for an oldie but
goodie?) that closed that ISP.
But it really started to appear later on ARS.
David Miscavige has one clear talent: he will find what works,
regardless of "policy." I have to hand him that. He may quote LRH to
the
faithful, but when push comes to shove, ain’t nothing like some good
Wog
tech!
It started actually with the attorneys. LRH said to not hire outside
attorneys but he went for them in 1982 and that began to turn things
around.
Right behind that were the PIs and Ingram was the first.
Originally, Ingram operated from a really tacky office on Western
Avenue, about a half-mile from the complex. But Ingram saw the
potential. DM wanted results and was willing to pay for them. Ingram
had
the connections and the bond was made. Ingram subsequently had better
access to DM than his staff. When LRH died, guess who went with us to
the ranch? Ingram. That was what he meant to DM.
The hiring of some techno-geeks wasn't done while I was there but the
fingerprints of the organization are quite clear.
DM had learned that the only way to really succeed in the "real world"
was to forgo LRH policy and hire pros at any expense.
Can you say, DC lobbyists-attorneys? (laugh)
But I digress. (smile)
HIRING PROS: Techno-Geeks
The techno-geeks were the next big step. When Kobrin's childish
attempt
at an RM (a command given to delete a newsgroup) was a complete bust
the
techno-geeks were called in. (Can you imagine anyone who knew the Net
recommending to RM a newsgroup?)
I think it was back in the "Miss Bloody-Butt" era (way before most
here
- laugh) that some names started to be tossed around, names of
techno-geeks who knew how to work the Net. Hackers, to be blunt.
One of the main reasons - besides ARS - was Lawrence Wollersheim,
another name from the 18th century. Wollersheim had decided to use the
Web and that was something OSA/RTC had NO knowledge of, hence Kobrin.
Knowing how the organization works, it is easy to know that FACTNet
was
a target not only for legal assault but hacking. DM would not have
stood
by and left it to the attorneys. This is where I give him the credit.
Someone would have briefed him what FACTNet meant (as far as
technology)
and DM would have asked for someone to tell him more. That’s where he
excels. He learned that with the attorneys and then the PIs, to teach
him what he needs to know, since LRH policy was clearly lacking.
Enter the techno-geek as a hired gun.
It was somewhere in the FACTNet/penet.fi/Erlich era that the change
occurred.
Dennis Erlich used the Net but only as email. He didn’t have a Web
site.
If you will recall, he was raided for copyright violations. Same with
Lerma.
HIRING PROS: ARS
The raids on Erlich and Lerma didn't work. They were effective in
tying
up those people (and grabbing some hard drives) but they didn't handle
the larger picture. That required more skill.
Welcome to ARS!
ARS, of course, was the "meeting ground" of these commie, faggot,
drug-selling, baby-killing SPs. Erlich, Wollersheim, Lerma etc were
using ARS so it had to be killed. Kobrin's childish RM maneuver was as
effective as wiping your ass with waxed paper but DM now had some
resources.
He turned them onto ARS!
One can well imagine the problem: how do you stop a newsgroup (NG)?
I am sure a few techno-geeks laughed at Kobrin's RM move but to make
their pay, they had to do more than laugh. (DM doesn't have much
humor.)
They had to advise how to shut down the NG.
Those who are old enough to remember (meaning more than 3 calendar
years) will recall the various attempts, from spamming to canceled
messages. Each came and went and came back and along the way some mags
like WIRED took note about their assault on the Net.
Now that is not good. It isn't good to get publicity to be positioned
as
a group that raids people for posting to the Net.
So it was back to the drawing boards to find another way to stop ARS.
HIRING PROS: the agent provocateur & 3P
LRH has a policy (one of the few that is followed, by those who grasp
it) that says to learn what the "enemy" does that is successful and do
that but “do it better.”
For DECADES, the cult has studied the agent provocateur. We even
published booklets on it. Omar Garrison wrote about it. It was
originally out of defense because it was thought the FBI/CIA were
running them into the organization. There were PILES of documents
about
their use by government agencies against the organization.
An agent provocateur is, in effect, a double agent. He/she is sent in
to
befriend the organization and then create upset.
And now we come to one of the most important policies LRH wrote: The
Third Party Law.
Basically it says that for an upset to exist in a group, there has to
be
a "third party" (3P) who is creating the argument between the others.
Until the 1980s, it was used internally to find people creating
conflict, but it was always minor, like in marriage counseling. DM
brought it to another level. He realized that it could be used not
merely to find and resolve conflicts, but TO CREATE THEM.
HIRING AMATUERS: the agent provocateur (AP)
The beauty of the agent provocateur is that you don't need to send one
of your own agents in to do the work. You can tap into existing
resources.
And let me remind you, that agent provocateurs were HEAVILY studied
when
the organization was trying to find them in the organization. And APs
were heavily used against what were called "squirrel groups." These
were/are groups of people who use or rely on Hubbard's methods but
outside the "authority" of the organization. They are to be, per the
Fair Game law, destroyed.
David Mayo was perhaps the most notable. He set up an organization in
Santa Barbara in the 1980s that became a heavy target for agent
provocateurs. It wasn't difficult. The "Information Bureau" would
simply
recruit and send in a person who had the technical skills. That person
would pretend to be disaffected with the organization and would seek
to
join Mayo's group. If taken in, they would settle in and become not
only
a spy (reporting back) but would seek to create dissension by joining
in
and fanning the flames of any disagreements.
That didn’t replace legal actions, per the “never sue to win but to
harass.” It was used to supplement the pressure.
USING A CUT OUT
DM realized that he could apply the policy to "do what the enemy does
but do it better."
All you really need for the perfect AP is someone who is already
disaffected. Just approach them as an "understanding friend" and tap
into it. The safest way requires a "cut out."
An example of a cut out: Person A wants to give some money to person C
and don't want to be connected to the transfer. Person A gives the
money
to person B who gives it to person C. So person B is the CUT OUT. It
is
standard in intelligence, meaning spy work.
If I want to "recruit" Bill, who works for ABC Corp because I want to
sabotage ABC Corp (and this is actually done without Bill's
knowledge),
I get Bill to talk to Joe. Bill hears the gripes. (It is called
"natter"
in the cult.) Bill is sympathetic and he decides to help Joe, since
Joe
has a grudge. How it is done depends on what Joe can do. Maybe Bill
will
feed Joe information. Maybe he will give him money. It is all very
flexible.
The point is that if anyone tags Joe, all they find is someone with a
"real gripe." They won't find anyone hired to do the dirty work.
ON TO ARS!
Somewhere along the line, the AP's began to appear in ARS. Some were
clearly being directed by OSA/RTC/PIs. But a number were also being
clearly recruited to cause upset, having no idea they were being so
used.
It doesn't take much to find someone on ARS who is upset. (laugh) In
fact, it is one of the best recruitment areas I can think of since
opinions fly around easily. All I would have to do is contact them by
email and strike up a friendship. It might take a month but it is
worth
the investment. All I have to do is agree with their upset (at
whomever)
and then flame it.
I remember some time back when people on ARS were trying to decide if
a
particular person was really a Scientologist. It was so funny that one
of the main criteria was if they would use the "Xenu" word. If the
person did, they were considered okay, which was about as clueless or
as
naive as they come. So if the person said, "This Xenu idea is really
stupid but not as stupid as Arnie Lerma," then the person couldn't be
working for the organization, and that is how the "critics" could be
infiltrated with agent provocateurs pretending to be one of them.
And I remember very well the plight of “Magoo” (Tory) who endured the
worst possible assault one can imagine from “critics’ who challenged
her
left and right with some of the most abusive language I have seen. I
don’t remember who said exactly what but it was the sort of assault
that
I would expect from agent provocateurs, making her an example to
ensure
that NO one does that again.
Unfortunately, a lot of others joined in the blood fest. To Tory’s
credit, she hung in there. Few would.
Is she REALLY working for OSA/RTC? You know what, folks? I don’t give
a
shit.
In the “old west” there was a rule that you never asked a man where he
was from and you accepted his story of who he was until he proves
otherwise. There should be more of that, if you ever expect or hope
that
another Scientologist will leave. It is the agent provocateur who
wants
to make defection feared.
FINDING THE WHO
Until Minton's appearance (or until they found his presence), the main
targets were people like me, Stacy, Lerma, Wollersheim, etc. It had
the
appearance of a random group of dissidents. But Minton changed the
game.
This was not a guy who just posted to ARS. He was SUPPORTING people
who
posted to ARS.
I wrote about this once before, how Minton became the WHO.
http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/rvy/1997-048.html
http://www.skeptictank.org/gen2/gen00073.htm
You have to know cult-think to really appreciate what a WHO means. But
to keep it brief, it means if you can remove the WHO, you remove
everything. As LRH said, the skies open, the birds sing and all is
well.
In short, everything reverses from Hell on Earth to Heaven on Earth.
With Minton, OSA/RTC had their WHO. It "explained" to them why there
was
a Lerma, an RVY, blah blah blah.
One of Minton's prime resources was ARS. That clearly brought it all
together. OSA/RTC had been unable to handle ARS and now they had their
reason: The WHO. If they could remove Minton (and the LMT), they could
neutralize ARS and all of the main critics.
THE EARLIER SIMILAR
Hubbard's methods rely not only on the WHO but also in a belief of
tight-knit conspiracies. He constructed them for decades. It ranged
from
the World Federation of Mental Health to the FBI and then finally he
brought them together under the umbrella of Interpol. That was when he
created the Snow White program, where I worked until raided by the FBI
in 1977.
The organization works by these models set by Hubbard. Interpol became
the model in 1972. It was close to the central core. But Interpol was
merely the conduit, he said. There was still another conspiracy that
was
funding them and it was a pro-psych unit. They were behind not only
Interpol but also all crime on the planet, right down to rock and
roll.
(Yeah, even rock and roll which was a psychiatric conspiracy brought
to
Earth from a galactic empire. Hubbard was the master of a Unified
Field
of Conspiracies.)
He used to call this invisible cabal SMERSH, from the James Bond
novels.
SMERSH could be found only by finding its outlets. By infiltrating
these
outlets, one can trace the influence back to find the actual SMERSH
headquarters, the WHO.
Minton and the LMT was clearly the best chance they had to find SMERSH
since he was connected to so many dissidents. The rest of us - me,
Lerma, Wollersheim etc - would be seen as people who had been
recruited
by Minton so by tracing his connections, they would find SMERSH.
THE BEAUTY OF ARS
The great thing about ARS is that one doesn't have to be exposed.
Walking into David Mayo's place gave a face. It made the agent
vulnerable as he could be followed when he left. But ARS allowed
anonymity. All one had to do was use the Xenu password, offer some
criticism of the organization and one was in. Then just with some
private emails, strike up some friendships.
One could even have multiple personalities through multiple accounts,
an
agent provocateur's dream. Personality X could then support and verify
Personality Y and Z who would all be the same person. They could then
all be in touch with ARS Critic Sally. If she needed verification,
they
would refer to each other.
And with the massive computer facilities that the organization has, it
is nothing but a touch of the button to bring up all of Sally's posts.
Then they just call on their little drones to do summaries, giving
Sally's buttons, as to what she praised and what she criticized. And
if
Sally posts a lot, chances are she plain ole forgot a lot of the
little
facts but the APs have them on a list and it is no contest.
So with a little, “Hi, Sally, I see you like to collect sea shells
when
you are not on ARS. Well, guess what? I like them too.” blah blah blah
Some people don't appreciate how APs work. They can take their time.
They can chat with you about anything for months as they build the
friendship. They aren't exactly "sleepers" but that technology is well
known inside the organization. A "sleeper" is an agent who establishes
residence and work and does nothing for years but just becomes a
member
of the community. Later, the "sleeper" is activated.
But in cybertime, a "sleeper" only needs a month, maybe only weeks of
idle chit chat to convince a critic that they really are okay, that
they
really don't work for the organization and so they can be trusted. It
is
very simple.
AN INTERESTING STATISTIC
At one time when Deja News was on line, I happened to do a search. I
found that when Minton was made their target, there were more
messages
about Minton than Hubbard.
At the time, I really didn't realize the import of this. Yes, I
thought
it a bit odd that a newsgroup that was about Scientology would be
talking about Minton more than Hubbard but I hadn't pieced it together
as to why the change.
Until then, the talk was mainly about the organization, its tactics,
Hubbard and the bantering was pretty harmless, with some disagreements
but the focus stayed on the topic of ARS. But Minton's arrival soon
changed that and more "critics" began to appear who were suddenly
talking about Minton.
Yeah, you say, that's because Minton is such a ...and you can fill in
the blank.
Exactly my point, darling. Exactly my point.
The topic of ARS began to switch from Hubbard, Scientology, OSA/RTC
etc., to the CRITICS. Some - like Diane Richardson - really led the
way.
No, I'm not saying she is an AP. Diane can make keen observations and
she was able to pick apart a lot of people. But she - joined by
several
others - began to make the critics the topic. Of course, the actual
critics didn't like it so they took on Diane. Supporters of Diane came
in to defend her and attack her critics. Threads ensued that seemed to
go on forever and there is no doubt that Miscavige and Company had a
ball. All they had to do was run THEIR statistics to see the balance
sheet and it began to run in their favor. Hubbard and they were
dropping
out of the picture and Minton and the critics began to move into the
picture as the subject matter of ARS.
Meanwhile, the usual spam occurred, although what OSA/RTC did would
wax
and wane. Sometimes it was pro-organization. Sometimes it was
anti-psych. Sometimes it was just plain ole spam.
The point was to merely dilute ARS and to turn it AWAY from the topic
of
ARS: alt.religion.scientology.
BACK TO MY POINT
I started this by saying how I had once remarked that the Net would
prove to be to the organization what Viet Nam was to the US. The US,
of
course, became completely lost in Viet Nam and had to withdraw. I had
actually believed that it would happen to the organization, that their
ineptness with the Net would be as bad as the US strategy in Viet Nam.
I was wrong and the preceding points address that.
Miscavige and Company were able to adjust and IMHO they have
succeeded.
ARS used to be a forum where one could exchange ideas and information
or
go to for information. It was where media went to learn about the
organization. But it long ago changed. It became a forum not where
Scientology was discussed but where Scientology critics were
discussed.
Before I retired, I was finding myself in that group. It was very
cleverly done, under the guise of doing a "chronology" and analyzing
the
influences in the organization. Certainly sounds like a worthwhile
enterprise and certainly not anything a pro-organization person would
do.
And there I was, this mysterious person who moved in mysterious ways,
always in the right place etc. I was expecting at any moment to find
that I was on the Grassy Knoll. (laugh)
Actually, I thought it was quite skillfully done since any
"refutation"
of the material would require more time and words. But that, of
course,
would take me away from the actual topics that I wanted to discuss. So
I
really didn't take the bait. (Which proves that I really was a double
agent, of course.)
But others jumped on these presentations and there were analyses of
analyses and questions as to who was working for whom and ARS became
this big forum for the discovery of The Truth About Critics. Who was
who?
It wasn't until much later did I realize how wrong I had been that the
organization wouldn't be capable of adjusting to the Net. They not
only
adjusted, they succeeded.
For that, I give David Miscavige a tip of the hat, a gesture he was
never capable of doing regarding others. (I remember so well after my
first TV encounter with Boston attorney Michael Flynn - what's with
Boston? I tried to tell DM that Flynn was quite skilled in a TV
encounter and he went over the edge, screaming it was impossible for
an
SP to have any skills. Oh well.)
LEARNING FROM HISTORY
If there are agent provocateurs everywhere, what does one do? The
first
temptation is to compound the problem by going looking for them and on
ARS that would just play into Miscavige's hands. But I am sure the
accusations and such will continue. Besides, who am I to say
otherwise?
But there is no better way to tear an area apart than to go looking
for
the traitors and ARS is so ripe for that.
My best experience in the subject was back in the civil rights and
anti-war movement. We didn't know until years later how much we had
been
infiltrated. The FBI's COINTELPRO program was directed at us.
(COINTELPRO is another subject well studied in good ole Department 20,
no matter what you call the department.)
There is a difference in that that we didn't have a clue we were so
infiltrated and that government agencies were working to sabotage the
movements, to the point of manufacturing evidence against people. It's
all part of history now but, as Santayana said, those who don't
remember
history will be forced to relive it.
Those movements finally succeeded because the amount of attention put
on
the abuses we sought to rectify far outweighed any internal strife or
finger pointing. The agent provocateurs (and some well-meaning people)
would argue about the effectiveness of Joe or Tom or Sally and
sometimes
they even tried to get us to do illegal actions, which came out later
as
mere setups to get people arrested so the movements could be
discredited. (Hi, Jesse!) We each had to simply decide what to do and
we
kept focused on the abuses we protested against.
Frankly, I think that the old COINTELPRO boys would have been
impressed
with what RTC/OSA has been able to do. I know after the FBI raid of
1977, one of the Assistant Directors said he was thoroughly impressed
with the spy network that Dept 20 had established, infiltrating
government offices and the like. He compared it to the some of the
best
spy bureaus of national governments.
Meanwhile, I've had double-agents run in on me and as much as I pride
myself on knowing how it works, I was stung a couple of times. It is
properly humbling. Only later did I realize the signs were there but I
didn't pay attention.
What sort of signs? Nope, sorry. If the double agents each wore red
hats
and I were to say this, they would change. I used to think they
couldn't
do it that well and I've been proven wrong. It's a good lesson. I like
it.
SO WHAT DOES ONE DO?
There's no easy solution. Only the cult thinks there are easy
solutions.
All I can say is what I did in my years on ARS. Mainly I never bought
into the off-line gossip. I don't think you will find one criticism I
offered against any of the "critics," no matter what I privately
thought
of them. I kept my attention on the cult and tried to advise people
how
it worked. I'm not sure how good that worked, given the advances the
cult has made into ARS, but it was as good as I could offer.
But it wasn't unlike ye olde anti-war/civil rights days. Back then,
some
of us didn't take well to certain tactics but we didn't make it a
cause
of them either. The liberals didn't like the ones who felt we should
merely write letters to Congress. The conservatives in our ranks
didn't
like the mass protests, just to cite the more temperate examples.
In the end, it was the combination of expressions that did it. It
wasn't
important how a person protested the abuse but that he/she protested.
That attitude caused a lot of criticism for we were then blamed for
not
stopping people who went over the line, like breaking into a draft
office and pouring blood on records. It was only years later that we
could begin to sort which were actually inspired and implemented by
agent provocateurs so the movement could be blamed. That's why it is
not
easy.
The best rule was merely to stay focused on the abuse one wants to
change and that every minute or hour spent on something else was time
not spent on the abuse.
That's how ARS used to be, back when Hubbard was the topic of research
and discussion. Yes, there was research into him back then. Now the
research is into who is doing what at the LMT, as it was FACTNet a bit
earlier and me a bit later.
For me, I'm glad I've retired from all of this. And more than ever, I
am
SOOOO glad that I don't have the responsibility of defending the cult
as
I did for decades. I see some of the stuff that goes down - like the
Battlefield Earth fiasco - and try to imagine what the poor PRs are
going through and I think, there but for the grace of SMERSH, go I.
(little joke there, folks)
Speaking of their bad PR, I suppose some others caught that remark on
HBO’s now top rated show “Six Feet Under.” A girl was with a counselor
and when he asked her what she did for “fun” she said sometimes she
goes
on the Net and pretends “to be some whacko, like a Scientologist.”
Ouch.
A lot of millions heard that line. Good luck to their PRs on getting
THAT corrected. I am sure they are now looking for the psych
connections
to creator Alan Ball. Maybe he is in the pay of Minton! Yes!
It never ends. Fortunately, they are their own greatest enemy and THAT
is something they will never be able to understand.
SO WHY DID I WRITE THIS?
If I'm out of all of this, why did I write this? As I said, after I
retired to take on my own personal cancer, I dropped back in and what
I
saw nagged at me and I wanted to write about it but (1) my own
condition
and work was taking my time and (2) it seemed like a useless exercise.
But then recently, it nagged me again and I finally decided to do it
for
MY sake. Living with a terminal disease changes one's perspectives in
major and small ways. One of them (for me) is that I don't like things
to just be left hanging any more, especially something I really need
to
say to some friends. I feel better when I "get it off my chest." I
also
see that with other cancer patients and so we serve that function with
each other, listening to a guy or gal who just has to "get it off
their
chest." We know what it means.
So this ain't advice. It was written as such because that was the way
I
had to say it. Maybe it is the last tiny vestiges/remnants that I had
to
"clean out" before I could go back to my new lifestyle, sort of some
personal therapy. I didn’t like what ARS had become and I never had a
chance to express it all. Well, now I have.
And now I can get back to my real work.
HELLOS & GOODBYE (again)
There are friends out there who shared some times with me. I know you
and wish you well. There are some that can't wait for the cancer to
take
its toll. That's fine. Doesn't bother me. I'm just sorry one has to
have
such an attitude. I hope you are free of the disease and never have to
see what it means.
There are people who haven't a clue who I am but they won't get down
this far. (Laugh - who will?) But I wish them well too.
There is no one in the cult who knew me who would DARE to express
anything but disdain because I am this Big Bad SP who kills babies for
fun. Having been in there for 21 years, I know that feeling. I hope
they
get a chance to know what it is like to be truly free.
So goodbye again. I might show up in another 18 months. If I am the
equivalent of a WWI vet now, that will make me from the US Civil War.
My, how time flies when you are having fun.
I wish you all well in this debate. There seems to be a new, growing
social awareness in your people that we haven't seen around for a few
decades. I've always had a faith in the next generations. May they
accomplish what we only dreamed.
Take care.
Love, RVY
Webmaster Phoenix5
http://www.phoenix5.org
Kaeli
J Galt wrote:
> Kaeli,
>
> Ipsemoi is my "nickname". Yahoo or Google puts my name as the sender.
>
> You can clear up your mistake anytime, ok?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Galt
Heh, I didn't realize John Galt was your actual name.. my apologies.
Now I have a question for you.. doesn't direcpc.com provide an email for you? Just wondering
because you don't necessarily have to use google or yahoo unless you do like using google or
yahoo.
Kaeli A.
>
>
>
(snipped)
Pts 2
you wouldn't mind."
Sure Ultra, no problem, here it is:
http://www.petitiononline.com/falwell/
Now, kindly in exchange, please post the URL where copies of the
documents of the court case where you beat the Co$?
Thanks,
Mike G
Formed by Rev. Pardon of the New England
Institute of Religious Research. NEIRR.
I think you will do just fine with them Tom,sincerely.
My main problem with the NEIRR is they are against the B'HAI' and
Zoroaster faiths,to the be best of my recollection.
Truthfully, I dont see any harm in meadowhaven. Certainly no more than
taking scientology courses. My only question is: How can they dissuade
people from cults when their very foundation is (by their own words) a
religious one. What am I missing here?
I wish them all the best.
Im sure Rev. Pardon means well but the fact is
some would call him a Fundamentalist Christian.
Financially speaking I think they may lose their ass with only 8 or so
beds. whatever.
Last Time l'lll address this: All my and my brothers Scientology records
were alledgedly lost in the early 90s earthquake. Which would mean my PC
folders were lost as well. Thats a good thing. If you really want to
track it down
ask Cheryl Sola. She may know where the Scientology Franchise Records
(Los Angeles missions) were taken after Hubbard shut Carl Barney down.
Carl owned 5? franchises (missions). I also helped build the Scientology
mission in Santa Barbara. (Original one on De La Guerra St.) with 7
other guys.
And So It Goes....
Grouchomatic
Pts 2 wrote:
> U-mike Greenberg wrote: <snip> "Actually, as I recall Tom, went to work
> for this outfit, and in reality it was an organization with Fundamental
> Christian teachings. A cultic compound in itself.
> BTW, John Galt never identified as a scientologist."
>
> U-mike:
> Yes, your OT "recall" powers are awe inspiring.
> It's true,I joined another cult. We all sit around and go "hip hip
> hooray, hip hoo ray" 3 dozen times staring robotically at a picture of
> Jerry Fallwell in an ascot and captain's hat.
>
> Now, you have attacked my Protestant upbringing. Feel good? Did you
> want to talk about your Jewish upbringing. I think I'll call your
> brother and ask him if it's OK first.
>
> Btw, J. Galt never identified himself as a WOG, SP, or PTS! :)
>
> Was hoping a bit of R&R in Thailand would have un-fried your mine.
> Sorry it didn't.
Thailand is famous for it's brothels, the most infamous of which is in
Phuket were one caters to pedophiles. Wonder what he was doing their?
Pts 2
Sola. She may know..."
U-mike, great idea. DO IT!
Go ahead and ask her. Here's her website:
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/Scientology.
You can fill her in, and tell your newest efforts to exposed the cult is
to "follow" Diane Richardson unquestionably as the true and goddess-like
ultimate source of wisdom.
Read up on what Cheryl's been doing to expose the abuses of the cult.
And on that site is an e-mail address to contact her. Get back to us
with your findings.
Tom
=================================
"ARS is bad for your mental health." By Michael W. Greenberg
Kaeli
J Galt wrote:
> hotfla...@hotmail.com (Mehn O'Paws) wrote in message news:<c60251d6.02071...@posting.google.com>...
> > Ultra...@webtv.net (Mike G) wrote in message news:<3557-3D3...@storefull-2258.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> > > You werent (ultra's spew agreeing with j. galt cut out)
> >
> > ok, kind of feed up with this da'ing of padget and henson by galt and
> > greenberg.
> >
> > history: j. galt comes on starts ragging keith and tom about writing
> > to court officers in the mcpherson case.
> > but he focuses more on tigger issues with padget, and hasn't let up.
>
> No. You have this story all wrong Paws.
>
> John Galt, a character out of an Ayn Rand novel (per Kaeli and Dave
> Bird) has been hanging out on ars for years. He decided to post. He
> asked Tom Padgett why Tom continued to use Tigger's name when she had
> damn good reason to ask that it not be used. See, John didn't expect
> that Tom, who apparently has suffered at the hands of CoS himself,
> would wish that on any other person. So he asked Tom.
Uhhh I think you have it wrong. I said I recognized the name out of a book. If it's your real name.. ok, whatever. I
never said you were a character of a book, rather I thought you picked out the name from a book.
>
>
> Tom has still not answered the question.
>
> But that's ok! Hey---to Tom and Barb and Kaeli and anyone else out in
> ars land who doesn't see Tom's behaviour as a hypocritical and rotton
> thing to do---may all of you have many "friends" just like yourselves.
> May your life be filled with Like.
>
Did any of what Tom did personally happen to you? Or you don't subscribe to the theory of there are two sides to every
story?
>
> Anyway. I digress. John also spoke up about the unwanted letters to
> the judge and also about Tom's letter to Ken Dandar, which Tom said he
> was writing because Tigger and Deana had "driven him to it". He was
> pissed at them. John saw that "reason" as Spiteful, and wrote a post
> about it. John explained why Tom's letter was a bad letter, in a
> number of ways. Tom then added John to the list of "people who made
> him write it."
>
Actually, from what I saw of your post, it sounded like you picked a side to be on. My feeling is that people have a
right to write to any public official they see fit. And the public official has a right to dispose or not dispose of it
as they see fit.
However, perhaps you can word your post in such a way that is more constructive rather than demeaning. Perhaps you
weren't meaning to sound that way, however, my feeling is that people tend to forget that there are people behind the
screens?
>
> John found that rather....well, Spiteful. And Petty. (John had
> already written about Tom's Spiteful and Petty nature, as seen in
> Tom's posting history.)
>
> Tom and company got pissed at John.
>
> Instead of just thinking about the questions, Tom and Barb went to
> great lengths to attack John. Tom labeled him an "agent provocateur".
> Tom claimed that John used words like "coursework" which just showed
> that John was a "clam". Barb got even more descriptive--John was a
> follower of a madman conman on drugs. John should report to his
> "masters".
>
> I just pinched myself, and it hurt. So I think that does mean that
> I'm alive. I don't know about these other guys tho...
>
Which other guys are you referring to?
Kaeli A.