Dennis Erlich
Garry from Bev's
My terminal at FLAG wants to know if you will be
appearing at this year's picket. Please advise
so we will know whether to secure a TRO against
you. :-)
Very Kindly Yours,
Your friend,
Garry Scarff
Roland
Scarff showing his true colors at last.
Roland
--
Go to http://www.iol.ie/~mburkley/nfilter/nfilter.html
to download your free newsgroup despamming software.
See the note there on how to despam a.r.s.
Rob Clark
>Dear Dennis,
>My terminal at FLAG wants to know if you will be
>appearing at this year's picket. Please advise
>so we will know whether to secure a TRO against
>you. :-)
why, are you afraid of him?
that's the only legal reason to get a TRO. i hope your cult goes right ahead
and shows how terrified it is of an honest man.
rob
Alan Barclay
Bev,
Your posting of Garry's messages appears to be because he knows he's in
many people's killfiles.
Unfortunatly, if you continue to do this, the end result will be that
you're in people's killfiles too.
Richard
documentary, claiming that Scientologists had ordered him to murder, and
who was himself afraid of being silenced with force? Surely no. Can it
be?
Beverly Rice
> Wow, Bev is OSA too? What a strange world we live in.
Oh Jeff, don't be silly. Besides, Steve Fishman already beat
you to accusing me of being an OSA spy years before. :-)
What I am ~not~, is a lemming.
My agenda may not fit in with yours, or with anyone else's.
It fits only one place, and that is with my own desires.
If people on and/or off the NG choose to decide whether or
not I have a "stamp of official approval" means nothing to me,
individuals are responsible for their own opinions. Anybody
that really knows me knows that this type of attitude being
demonstrated is foolish.
Garry is not my child, he is free to post what he will, and
will take the benefits or consequences of doing so. My
relationship with Garry first of all is nobody's business,
and even if it was, it would take too long to explain :-)
I will be friends with whomever I please, and I owe not one
person any reasons or justifications for doing so. I do
understand people's distrust of Garry, and that also is fine
with me.
If you choose to pass that distrust to me also, then by all
means do so, because I will not be dictated to as to what
associations make me "acceptable" or not.
I have supported ~you~ through all the various attacks Co$
has put on a.r.s. against you, and will continue to do so,
even though you have been quick to make insinuations on
others who don't tow the line you do. I support you in
your efforts, but don't get carried away with paranoia.
And yes, I know that when it comes to the Co$, a healthy
dose of paranoia is a good thing, just make sure you know
where the line between healthy and unhealthy is.
You guys can all have fun with this thread now if you wish,
I am done with it, said what I care to say, and will move
on to posting about the Co$ rather than other critics.
Hoping you catch the drift.
Beverly
Richard
recently, I was curious enough to visit this NG when I learned of it. I
have heard outrageous rhetoric from both "sides," and I sincerely hope
that the most fanatical anti-CoS zealots stop and think for a moment. Is
this fight what makes you groove? Have you yourselves become dependent
on CoS, but in a different way? In the end, if you truly believe that
personal freedom is something worth fighting for, then you have to
respect the right of the other to believe what he will. Much of the
strong language used in this NG isn't directed towards the need for
justice to be served, but against beliefs held by the other side. In
your haste to stamp out what appears as a threat to freedom, you may be
trampling on the freedom of someone else. Lots of pain, here... I hope
you can all find a way out of your individual states of war and
emergency.
Richard
gerry armstrong wrote:
> Yep, same Scarff who conned Ford Greene into befriending him and
> letting him into his office, stole Ford's files, executed a false
> declaration against Ford, participated in plans to murder Ford,
> executed a declaration telling all this, then recanted, then recanted
> his recantation, then recanted his recantation recanting his
> recantation, then recanted his recantation recanting his recantation
> recanting his recantation recanting his recantation, then claimed he
> was actually pissed at Ford because Ford didn't pay for a phone call
> he made to Ford confessing to the murder plot. And Ford is just one of
> many people Scarff has betrayed, attacked and Dev-Ted.
>
> (c) Gerry Armstrong
>
> (c) Gerry Armstrong
gerry armstrong
wrote:
To say nothing of the loss of trust if you support or forward his
attacks on people of good will on this side of the cult's war.
(c) Gerry Armstrong
cul...@primenet.com
>Dear Dennis,
>My terminal at FLAG wants to know if you will be
>appearing at this year's picket. Please advise
>so we will know whether to secure a TRO against
>you. :-)
Wow, Bev is OSA too? What a strange world we live in.
>Very Kindly Yours,
>Your friend,
>Garry Scarff
*****
"The idea that one can 'push' Scientology
and get no penalty is a false one." Russell Shaw
"To punish to the fullest extent of my power anyone
misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends" (The
original Code of a Scientologist)
gerry armstrong
Deana Marie Holmes
wrote:
>Garry Scarff
Bev, I'd really really really hate to killfile you.
Tell Garry he can use your computer, but he needs to get a DejaNews
account. That's so I can pop him right back into my killfile.
Deana Marie Holmes
The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list)
$cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today?
mir...@xmission.com
roger gonnet
Roland wrote:
>
> Garry from Bev's wrote:
> >
> > Dear Dennis,
> >
> > My terminal at FLAG wants to know if you will be
> > appearing at this year's picket. Please advise
> > so we will know whether to secure a TRO against
> > you. :-)
> >
> > Very Kindly Yours,
Hep, they'd like perhaps to get a TRO in case you are no longer able
to... confront them with your TR 0 ? Unless they fear that your daughter
(perhaps is she in Flag now?) comes to see you and remains or witnesses
how they forced her to silence?
roger
JimDBB
>From: Beverly Rice <dbj...@iag.net>
>Date: 11/23/98 9:42 PM Central
>I will be friends with whomever I please, and I owe not one
>person any reasons or justifications for doing so. I do
>understand people's distrust of Garry, and that also is fine
>with me.
>If you choose to pass that distrust to me also, then by all
>means do so, because I will not be dictated to as to what
>associations make me "acceptable" or not.
>
>You guys can all have fun with this thread now if you wish,
>I am done with it, said what I care to say, and will move
>on to posting about the Co$ rather than other critics.
>Beverly
Well Said , Beverly. And I would like to offer an apology to Beverly. She
posted a light hearted comment on my exchanges with Gary Scarff and I responded
with a rather nasty mean spirited blast at Scarff. That was not to right thing
to do to you, Beverly, nor the right thing to do to Gary Scarff. I apologize
to you both for that.
JImdbb.
Fraud Buster
wrote:
>cul...@primenet.com wrote:
>
>> Wow, Bev is OSA too? What a strange world we live in.
>
>Oh Jeff, don't be silly. Besides, Steve Fishman already beat
>you to accusing me of being an OSA spy years before. :-)
>
>What I am ~not~, is a lemming.
>
>My agenda may not fit in with yours, or with anyone else's.
>It fits only one place, and that is with my own desires.
>
>If people on and/or off the NG choose to decide whether or
>not I have a "stamp of official approval" means nothing to me,
>individuals are responsible for their own opinions. Anybody
>that really knows me knows that this type of attitude being
>demonstrated is foolish.
>
>Garry is not my child, he is free to post what he will, and
>will take the benefits or consequences of doing so. My
>relationship with Garry first of all is nobody's business,
>and even if it was, it would take too long to explain :-)
Yes, but realize , that saying "Posted for Gary From Bevs" to many
is not much different than say Bob allowing "Dorian" to use his
account to post to the newsgroup. Just like Bob posting for Dorian,
you also assume some culpability for what Gary posts, and put your
own credibility and reputation into question as a reliable, mentally
stable person . Realize you allowed Garry to put *your* name into
the title of the thread, which he didn't have to do . He is LINKING
you subsequently to him and what he posts subsequently (with your name
in the title of the thread) . Don't expect people to not think it is
sort of strange, and in questionable form . *shrug* anyways do what
you want of course, but it is pretty unreasonable to expect people
to not judge you a little bit , like people judged Bob Minton. When
you allow some attention seeking lying lunatic to post under your
account, don't expect pats on the back . There is some saying about
people being defined by the company they keep .
<snip>
>
>I will be friends with whomever I please, and I owe not one
>person any reasons or justifications for doing so. I do
>understand people's distrust of Garry, and that also is fine
>with me.
>
<snip>
FB
Zane
What the hell is going on now?
I believe you were one of the ones who got on me for flaming that
lying sack of shit scarff. So finally I killfiled the bastard and now
you start posting his tripe?
Can't you see how Scarff is betraying and _using_ your friendship?
You will end up in lots of killfiles too if you keep posting for him,
and he knows it. He's using you for his demented and adolescent
little games Bev. Get a grip, or join him in the killfile.
Zane - KoX, SP4, Club Nine
Free meme innoculations!
Zane
wrote:
>You guys can all have fun with this thread now if you wish,
>I am done with it, said what I care to say, and will move
>on to posting about the Co$ rather than other critics.
>
>Hoping you catch the drift.
Yeah, I catch the drift:
You're willing to post Scarff's demented squeeling for him (so he can
avoid everyone's killfiles) and then when criticized you try to take
the high road. That dog won't hunt Bev - you posted an attack on
Dennis now you get to deal with it.
Deana Marie Holmes
wrote:
>Hoping you catch the drift.
With all due respect...I told Bob Minton to get a separate account for
the Dorian stuff, and I really do think Garry can get himself a
DejaNews account to post through while he's visiting you, Bev.
Tilman Hausherr
>Pardon me, but is this the same Scarff who appeared in a German
>documentary, claiming that Scientologists had ordered him to murder, and
>who was himself afraid of being silenced with force? Surely no. Can it
>be?
Yes it is him. He has told so much things to and about everyone that
even a speaking tomato would have more credibility.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Ron Newman
> Dear Dennis,
>
> My terminal at FLAG wants to know if you will be
> appearing at this year's picket. Please advise
> so we will know whether to secure a TRO against
> you. :-)
Dear Bev,
Please don't let Garry use your account to post this kind
of garbage.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
The Librarian
>Yeah, I catch the drift:
>You're willing to post Scarff's demented squeeling for him (so he can
>avoid everyone's killfiles) and then when criticized you try to take
>the high road. That dog won't hunt Bev - you posted an attack on
>Dennis now you get to deal with it.
>Zane - KoX, SP4, Club Nine
Oooo, Zane!!!!
I *love* it when a man takes a POSITION and presents HARD FACTS. Makes me feel *flush*
and *hot*!
--<The ARSCC Librarian>
----------------------------------------------
*The ARSCC, like its aching, tense, taut Librarian, does not exist. But could use a back-rub, anyway.
Dave Bird
<rotten...@yahoo.com> writes:
>Then I have seen enough. Because of Scientology's presence in the news
>recently, I was curious enough to visit this NG when I learned of it. I
>have heard outrageous rhetoric from both "sides," and I sincerely hope
>that the most fanatical anti-CoS zealots stop and think for a moment. Is
>this fight what makes you groove?
No, you're right. Locking somebody up for 17 days without proper
care until she dies of dehydration with cockroach bites on her
hands and having lost 1/3rd her body weight is no big deal.
I'll just slip off and start playing old computer games instead.
Not.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Dave Bird
>In <3659FC5C...@yahoo.com>, Richard <bluea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Pardon me, but is this the same Scarff who appeared in a German
>>documentary, claiming that Scientologists had ordered him to murder, and
>>who was himself afraid of being silenced with force? Surely no. Can it
>>be?
>
>Yes it is him. He has told so much things to and about everyone that
>even a speaking tomato would have more credibility.
/ \
(Thanks, mate)
\ /
'----+---'
__ | .\|/////..
||_.-' '. | /\\|// ----
// ; | | -----
--._// .\|/. .==== =====. --- -----------X*E*M*U-----------+
(( //(####) \d]>||<[d]>\ (~\ |
|| v '--'\\ . | \ | ''Auditting your Garden |
|| ; v . {_ \ : \/ Plants'' by L Ron Tubbard |
// .' : .'___' : ' Bridge Publications |
// ; '. ~===~ /\ $949.99 paperback |
// . .... o : /__\'''' / \ |
. \\\\~~~~|~~~~~~~|\\ / /\/,,, further details, ring |
. | .\''. |/''''/.|,,\\ //,,,,,,, 01 800 FOR TRUT |
'.|: O :|[ / ]|,,,,\/,,,,,,,,, |
----------------| '...' |[__O__]|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, --------------------------+
|_______|_______|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
©Anti-Cult®
In Message-ID: <365a326f...@enews.newsguy.com>
z_thomas#ars#@ix.netcom.com (Zane).
From: http://extra.newsguy.com.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Dennis Erlich:
>Bev,
>
>What the hell is going on now?
>
>I believe you were one of the ones who got on me for flaming that
>lying sack of shit scarff. So finally I killfiled the bastard and now
>you start posting his tripe?
>
>Can't you see how Scarff is betraying and _using_ your friendship?
>You will end up in lots of killfiles too if you keep posting for him,
>and he knows it. He's using you for his demented and adolescent
>little games Bev. Get a grip, or join him in the killfile.
>
>
>
>Zane - KoX, SP4, Club Nine
>
>Free meme innoculations!
Zane, don't be so sure that Bev posted what seems to be posted under her
name :-)
My guess is that it's Scarff again...
Scarff will use anyone, if he can.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the
orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
********* I'm so entheta I mock up *your* reactive mind too *********
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
***** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard
because their beliefs about faith-healing have resulted in the
unnecessary deaths of children. There are people in the very rural US
who still put their faith in folk remedies alone, and avoid modern
medical care. This, too, has resulted in unnecessary deaths.
Scientologists are not alone in this club.
So? So concerned citizens may want to look into ways to keep the CoS
from practicing medicine, and this would be a logical step for someone
moved to act by Lisa's death. However, there is a difference between
working to pass legislation or bring CoS to court to discourage this
kind of thing from happening again, and just knocking all the beliefs
held by Scientologists, regardless of their relevence to Lisa's case.
You don't agree with Scientology? Fine. I don't buy it, either. But you
will tolerate them, and respect their right to believe any nonsense they
wish as long as you truly believe in civil liberties.
If Scientology were really a fascist organization, wanting to bring
total order and control to a community, country, whatever - they would
do well to cultivate critical groups and feed the flames growing around
them. The Coup de Grace would be your success in passing legislation or
setting a dangerous legal precedent opening the door to further
incursions of the State into religious territories. Only you wouldn't
realize it until the celebration died down.
Work on something productive, and SPECIFIC - disallowing the practice of
medicine by non-qualified persons. Bashing them and criticizing their
beliefs in general is not healthy for a free society.
Zane
Librarian) wrote:
>I *love* it when a man takes a POSITION and presents HARD FACTS. Makes me feel *flush*
>and *hot*!
I have a position for every occasion, just thought you'd like to know.
Beverly Rice
> Scarff showing his true colors at last.
Hot Pink.
Martin Hunt
>Oh Jeff, don't be silly. Besides, Steve Fishman already beat
>you to accusing me of being an OSA spy years before. :-)
>
>What I am ~not~, is a lemming.
Implying that some people here *are* "lemmings"? Which people, Bev?
I like to know when I'm included in some special group or other.
>My agenda may not fit in with yours, or with anyone else's.
>It fits only one place, and that is with my own desires.
>
>If people on and/or off the NG choose to decide whether or
>not I have a "stamp of official approval" means nothing to me,
>individuals are responsible for their own opinions. Anybody
>that really knows me knows that this type of attitude being
>demonstrated is foolish.
What does "individuals are responsible for their own opinions"
mean, exactly? Physically, how would you describe this structure?
What would it look like?
>Garry is not my child, he is free to post what he will, and
>will take the benefits or consequences of doing so. My
>relationship with Garry first of all is nobody's business,
>and even if it was, it would take too long to explain :-)
We've got years, Bev.
>I will be friends with whomever I please, and I owe not one
>person any reasons or justifications for doing so. I do
>understand people's distrust of Garry, and that also is fine
>with me.
I don't think anyone has asked you for any "justifications"
for why you are a friend to Garry Scarff. However, I'd like
to know how this friendship might impact me, personally.
For example, if I had told you something in confidence on
the phone, could I expect this to be relaying to Scarff?
I note that Scarff has posted things on ars that, as far as
I can recall, I only told you via the phone - no one else.
Well, it made me think twice about saying anything to you
again.
>If you choose to pass that distrust to me also, then by all
>means do so, because I will not be dictated to as to what
>associations make me "acceptable" or not.
Of course not. But yes, I think I will pass on the distrust
I feel fo Scarff to you, as I don't know how much of what
I might say goes directly to him, and then on to Scientology's
Office of Special Affairs via Garry's contacts/handlers.
>I have supported ~you~ through all the various attacks Co$
>has put on a.r.s. against you, and will continue to do so,
>even though you have been quick to make insinuations on
>others who don't tow the line you do. I support you in
>your efforts, but don't get carried away with paranoia.
When it comes to Scarff, no amount of paranoia could be as
strange as the truth of the case.
>And yes, I know that when it comes to the Co$, a healthy
>dose of paranoia is a good thing, just make sure you know
>where the line between healthy and unhealthy is.
Well, whatever they find out about you, they use against
you. They try to turn good people, and use them against the
rest. They try to dig up whatever information they can about
people for their files - you know the song.
>You guys can all have fun with this thread now if you wish,
>I am done with it, said what I care to say, and will move
>on to posting about the Co$ rather than other critics.
Garry Scarff, by no stretch of the imagination, critical
of Scientology. He's a critic of people who criticize Scientology,
he's a critic of CAN, he's a critic of protests.
>Hoping you catch the drift.
>
>Beverly
Why is Scarff using your account? You've seen the consequences
of allowing any old random looney or agent or whatever use your
account in the case of Bob Dorian; it's a pity you can't learn
from the mistakes of others.
ttyl,
martin hunt. (Everything posted from this account is from Martin
Hunt; no exceptions. Forgeries will be cancelled on sight.)
(c) Martin Hunt
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
Martin Hunt
wrote a most bizarre an illogical reply to Gerry Armstrong talking
about Garry Scarff:
>Then I have seen enough. Because of Scientology's presence in the news
>recently, I was curious enough to visit this NG when I learned of it.
Are you sure?
>I have heard outrageous rhetoric from both "sides,"
There's more here than "two sides". Care to specify how you
define your "two sides"?
>and I sincerely hope
>that the most fanatical anti-CoS zealots
YM: "I (in)sincerely hope that the most fanatical pro-Co$ sealots"...
>stop and think for a moment.
Yes, you'd like the critics to stop. Well, I'm here to tell you
that it ain't gonna happen, bud. Come back in ten years and see
if we followed your advice, or if informed people are still
educating the ignorant about the cult of Scientology.
If, after reading about all the horrific things Scientology has
done over the past 50 years, the best you can do is whine about
so-called "fanatical anti-COS zealots", then you're quite barmy.
>Is this fight what makes you groove?
Does fucking your mother make you groove?
>Have you yourselves become dependent
>on CoS, but in a different way?
Heh, heh; yeah, we're "hooked". :-)
>In the end, if you truly believe that
>personal freedom is something worth fighting for, then you have to
>respect the right of the other to believe what he will.
Yeah? And, genius, how do you propose we protect people theorhetical
"right" to believe? Should we make certain that everyone wears their
tinfoil hats at all times so that no stray and dangerous thoughts
filter into their consciousness? Of all the fuzzy, half-baked ideas
I've ever come across, this concept of "protecting" the "right to
believe" is the fuzziest and most half-baked. People can believe
whatever the fuck they want. I, for instance, believe you to be
retarded. Tell me how much you respect my belief.
>Much of the
>strong language used in this NG isn't directed towards the need for
>justice to be served, but against beliefs held by the other side.
Yeah? Well, Xenu-believnig BT-fuckers need to be told they're nuts
occasionally. It's good for them; builds character.
>In your haste to stamp out what appears as a threat to freedom, you may be
>trampling on the freedom of someone else.
How, exactly? How can *my* expression of *my* ideas hurt someone
elses "freedom"? It's not like I've tied them down to a bed or
locked them up in a room or the basement of a hotel or something.
If their "freedom" can be "hurt" by my expression of constitutionally-
protected speech, then fuck 'em; obviously, their "freedom" isn't
a very robust creature in the first place, and doesn't deserve
the attention or effort.
>Lots of pain, here... I hope
>you can all find a way out of your individual states of war and
>emergency.
^^^^^^^^^^
Don't you mean "condition of emergency"? ;-)
Goodbye, "Richard"; don't let the door bang you in the ass on the
way out. Don't forget Elvis has left the building, and keep on with
the good fight to suppress free speech wherever you go. One day,
let us in on what cult you're a member of - obviously, this battle
cuts a bit close to home for ya.
>Richard
What Richard was "replying" to:
>> Yep, same Scarff who conned Ford Greene into befriending him and
>> letting him into his office, stole Ford's files, executed a false
>> declaration against Ford, participated in plans to murder Ford,
>> executed a declaration telling all this, then recanted, then recanted
>> his recantation, then recanted his recantation recanting his
>> recantation, then recanted his recantation recanting his recantation
>> recanting his recantation recanting his recantation, then claimed he
>> was actually pissed at Ford because Ford didn't pay for a phone call
>> he made to Ford confessing to the murder plot. And Ford is just one of
>> many people Scarff has betrayed, attacked and Dev-Ted.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Martin Hunt
Scarff <dbj...@iag.net> wrote:
...
>Garry said he's not going to picket scientology in CW, but that
>he is going to visit old acquaintances.
IOW, OSA.
>Yes, he does . . . he thinks the Ft. Harrison would be much more
>prettier painted ~hot pink~ rather than white!! :-)
Ha ha ha. That's so funny I almost lost my lunch. Do you do
nigger jokes, too?
Xapped
> Then I have seen enough. Because of Scientology's presence in the news
> recently, I was curious enough to visit this NG when I learned of it. I
> have heard outrageous rhetoric from both "sides," and I sincerely hope
> that the most fanatical anti-CoS zealots stop and think for a moment. Is
> this fight what makes you groove? Have you yourselves become dependent
> on CoS, but in a different way? In the end, if you truly believe that
> personal freedom is something worth fighting for, then you have to
> respect the right of the other to believe what he will.
When somebody who just "happened" along takes a zealot view, one way or
the other, that is reason enough for the old OSA volunteer lecture.
OSA is not "pro" Scientology. OSA is anti-critic. OSA will do whatever
it takes to stop critical communcation about Scientology, i.e. spamming,
rambo litigation tactics, and drive-by recriminations:
One of the most effective ways OSA has of disrupting critical
communications is to recruit a volunteer to do the above Richard-rant. It
is effective because there is no visible connection between the volunteer
and Scientology's secret police force.
It is even more effective if the volunteer is not a Scientologist. The
best anti-critic OSA volunteers are those who were disinclined towards
a.r.s. somewhat to begin with, and then maybe helped out a little by OSA.
There is no proof that "Richard" is connected with OSA.
However, try talking about Scientology or something similar outside of the
news group. Talk to a hundred people, or a thousand, if you can. How
many come up with a "you must be as bad as the people you disagree with"
line of thought? That is a very specialized line of attack which is used
by Bernie, Garry, Ronsamigo et al. It is natural to be a little careful,
but when somebody comes out and rantingly accuses others of ranting, that
is a Scientology OSA trademark, called the "criminal mind".
Another throwaway personnel pool OSA uses is Scientologists in the
condition of "doubt" or below but who still want to be Scientology super
humans.
Joe C.
My response to the Scientology attack on Germany is contained in the
documentation on Scientology in German-speaking countries at website:
http://cisar.org
Richard
> OSA is not "pro" Scientology. OSA is anti-critic. OSA will do whatever
> it takes to stop critical communcation about Scientology, i.e. >spamming, rambo litigation tactics, and drive-by recriminations:
>
>One of the most effective ways OSA has of disrupting critical
>communications is to recruit a volunteer to do the above Richard-rant. >It is effective because there is no visible connection between the >volunteer and Scientology's secret police force.
Xapped, there is a reason why there's no visible connection between me
and Scientology. There isn't one.
>It is even more effective if the volunteer is not a Scientologist. The
>best anti-critic OSA volunteers are those who were disinclined towards
>a.r.s. somewhat to begin with, and then maybe helped out a little by OSA.
>There is no proof that "Richard" is connected with OSA.
>
>However, try talking about Scientology or something similar outside of >the news group. Talk to a hundred people, or a thousand, if you can. >How many come up with a "you must be as bad as the people you disagree >with" line of thought? That is a very specialized line of attack which >is used by Bernie, Garry, Ronsamigo et al. It is natural to be a little >careful, but when somebody comes out and rantingly accuses others of >ranting, that is a Scientology OSA trademark, called the "criminal mind".
Criminal mind?? Jeez, louise, guy - lighten up. Re-read that passage you
wrote. You basically said that anyone who isn't a Scientologist, and who
shares my point of view, is an OSA "henchman." Because it's a very
"specialized" line of thought. What's so specialized about seeing the
warring attitude for what it is ON EITHER SIDE?? I'm not at war with you
or anyone else. When I read an opinion, I try to keep an open mind. You
should try it, instead of classifying things into "this" kind of
"persuasive" tactic or "that" kind of "line." Sometimes people just
think a thing, and then they say it, Xapped. Closing yourself off to
regular human interaction/communication will tie you in knots
eventually, perhaps as it did to Lisa.
LRonsScam
>I'm saying that Christian Scientists have come under fire in the past
>because their beliefs about faith-healing have resulted in the
>unnecessary deaths of children.
First of all Scientology believes it is a science and wants to replace
Psychiatry and all other medical sciences as the only way to heal thyself.
Lisa Mcpherson wasn't even on the fringe of death. She was mentally
incapacitated and Scientology let her roll in her own feces until death ensued.
Some 17 days after being taken out of a psyche ward, she died of a blood clot
to the lungs caused by dehydratation according to the medical examiner. I don't
call that faith healing I call that manslaughter and very close to murder.
Scientology cares about themselves and nothing else. There are hundreds of
Scientologists who go through what they term a 'psychotic break' because of the
kind of ritualistic social torture that the philosophy puts them through.
You obviously are hell bent on comparing Scientology to some other form of
though and you have no idea what you are talking about.
There are people in the very rural US
>who still put their faith in folk remedies alone, and avoid modern
>medical care. This, too, has resulted in unnecessary deaths.
>Scientologists are not alone in this club.
You are right except comparing Scientology to folk remedies. A Scientologist
may pick a folk remedy over a medical cure, but a Scientologits may not pick a
folk remedy for an incapacited person who hasn't the ability to choose for
themselves. At this time medical intervention is necessary.
<Snip>
>Work on something productive, and SPECIFIC - disallowing the practice of
>medicine by non-qualified persons. Bashing them and criticizing their
>beliefs in general is not healthy for a free society.
>
I have rarely questioned another's belief. I have rarely made fun of
Scientology's belief but what you are saying is that no matter the thought, as
long as someone claims it their faith then I have to accept it, is ludicrous.
How about if I worshiped tomatoes and believed that I had to bathe in them in
order to gain heaven? I would hope you would make fun of that.
>
******
Having two faiths is controversial. Scntlgy is one that claims compatibility
with all beliefs. You most certainly can be a faithful Scngist and a Christian
but you can not be a faithful Christian and a Scngist. Scngsts faith is rooted
in money.
Zane
wrote:
>I note that Scarff has posted things on ars that, as far as
>I can recall, I only told you via the phone - no one else.
>Well, it made me think twice about saying anything to you
>again.
That's pretty fucking serious. Even if Bev is going to associate with
such an obviously pathological liar you would at least hope she would
have the good sense not to pass information on to him.
Richard
>
> I have rarely questioned another's belief. I have rarely made fun of
> Scientology's belief but what you are saying is that no matter the thought, as
> long as someone claims it their faith then I have to accept it, is ludicrous.
>
> How about if I worshiped tomatoes and believed that I had to bathe in them in
> order to gain heaven? I would hope you would make fun of that.
>
clause in the Bill of Rights stipulating that this applies to everyone
but Scientologists. You believe you have body thetans you need to be
exorcised of? Cool. You want to bathe in Holy Tomato Juice? Neat. See?
It's just that easy. It doesn't bother me one way or another. And why
should it? Because I'm much smarter than that? If I'm rilly smart, I
will always work for increasing the possibilities of thought and action
- not decreasing them. Minds are like water, LRonScam. They can be led
but not pushed. You are pushing, and no matter how good your intentions
are, you will only cause the opposite reaction in the mind of a
hypothetical doubtful Scientologist than the one you intend. I am not
telling you what to do or how to do it, just exercising my fingers and
my constitutionally-protected right of speech.
Xapped
>
> > OSA is not "pro" Scientology. OSA is anti-critic. OSA will do whatever
> > it takes to stop critical communcation about Scientology, i.e. >spamming, rambo litigation tactics, and drive-by recriminations:
> >
> >One of the most effective ways OSA has of disrupting critical
> >communications is to recruit a volunteer to do the above Richard-rant. >It is effective because there is no visible connection between the >volunteer and Scientology's secret police force.
>
> Xapped, there is a reason why there's no visible connection between me
> and Scientology. There isn't one.
There is now. You post to this news group. :-)
>
> >It is even more effective if the volunteer is not a Scientologist. The
> >best anti-critic OSA volunteers are those who were disinclined towards
> >a.r.s. somewhat to begin with, and then maybe helped out a little by OSA.
> >There is no proof that "Richard" is connected with OSA.
> >
> >However, try talking about Scientology or something similar outside of >the news group. Talk to a hundred people, or a thousand, if you can. >How many come up with a "you must be as bad as the people you disagree >with" line of thought? That is a very specialized line of attack which >is used by Bernie, Garry, Ronsamigo et al. It is natural to be a little >careful, but when somebody comes out and rantingly accuses others of >ranting, that is a Scientology OSA trademark, called the "criminal mind".
>
> Criminal mind?? Jeez, louise, guy - lighten up. Re-read that passage you
> wrote. You basically said that anyone who isn't a Scientologist, and who
> shares my point of view, is an OSA "henchman." Because it's a very
> "specialized" line of thought. What's so specialized about seeing the
> warring attitude for what it is ON EITHER SIDE?? I'm not at war with you
> or anyone else. When I read an opinion, I try to keep an open mind. You
> should try it, instead of classifying things into "this" kind of
> "persuasive" tactic or "that" kind of "line." Sometimes people just
> think a thing, and then they say it, Xapped. Closing yourself off to
> regular human interaction/communication will tie you in knots
> eventually, perhaps as it did to Lisa.
I've responded to a number of OSA godsends such as yourself over the years
and have not found it necessary to adapt myself to fit your OSA-friendly
mold.
OSA is not just an information collection agency. It uses agents to
recruit and control people. You can find the documentary proof on the net
yourself. A good case study to follow is that of a person who frequently
posts to this newsgroup, called "Garry Scarff."
Tommy
>
> On 24 Nov 1998 19:15:22 +0100, libr...@arscc.chimerical.library (The
> Librarian) wrote:
>
> >I *love* it when a man takes a POSITION and presents HARD FACTS. Makes me feel *flush*
> >and *hot*!
>
> I have a position for every occasion, just thought you'd like to know.
>
Geez, you guys - get a room. :-) And don't forget to write down those
O/Ws afterward and submit them to me for a thorough going over....
:-P (my emoticon macro just asked for higher wages)
Tommy
--
'I'm drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.'
Hubbard, 1967 letter to his wife submitted to the court in the
Armstrong
case, authenticity unchallenged by LRH/CoS lawyers
Dave Bird
>
>:
>:
:
:> I sincerely hope
:> that the most fanatical anti-CoS zealots stop & think for a moment.
:> this fight what makes you groove?
:
: No, you're right. Locking somebody up for 17 days without proper
: care until she dies of dehydration with cockroach bites on her
: hands and having lost 1/3rd her body weight is no big deal.
: I'll just slip off and start playing old computer games instead.
: Not.
>:
>
>I'm saying that Christian Scientists have come under fire in the past
>because their beliefs about faith-healing have resulted in the
>who still put their faith in folk remedies alone, and avoid modern
>medical care. This, too, has resulted in unnecessary deaths.
>Scientologists are not alone in this club.
>
>from practicing medicine, and this would be a logical step for someone
>moved to act by Lisa's death. However, there is a difference between
>working to pass legislation or bring CoS to court to discourage this
>kind of thing from happening again, and just knocking all the beliefs
>held by Scientologists, regardless of their relevence to Lisa's case.
>You don't agree with Scientology? Fine. I don't buy it, either. But you
>will tolerate them, and respect their right to believe any nonsense they
>wish as long as you truly believe in civil liberties.
Sure; within slight limits which I'd willing accept on paralell
political or business groups. If they sell it, they must describe
fairly what's in it, display the price list, warn where there is
medical risk the chump can't be expected to see for himself.
One problem is that "Tech" (doctrine), the Introspection Rundown,
tells them they can lock up crazy people in isolation without
bothering conventional medicine. They have to be put under
permanent injunction not to keep doing that in future.
DavisS
>From: Richard <bluea...@yahoo.com>
>Date: 11/24/98 3:23 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <365B23CF...@yahoo.com>
>
>I'm saying that Christian Scientists have come under fire in the past
>because their beliefs about faith-healing have resulted in the
>unnecessary deaths of children. There are people in the very rural US
>who still put their faith in folk remedies alone, and avoid modern
>medical care. This, too, has resulted in unnecessary deaths.
>Scientologists are not alone in this club.
>
So, they're not alone in murdering people, especially children. Fine. I'll
leave them alone when they strap people to a bed and shove chloral hydrate into
them as the victims beg to be released.
Sure.
I despise the fact that Christian Scientists have a license to murder their
children. That fetid organization should never have been permited that
exemption. All the pious crap in the world shouldn't let one murder one's
children. Your beliefs should be violently ignored when your child is dying. If
a person sits and watches his child die, then that is no parent; that is a
psychotic whose mental constructs will permit him to murder. Killing by
neglect is murder as foul as plunging an ice pick into the brain pan.
>So? So concerned citizens may want to look into ways to keep the CoS
>from practicing medicine, and this would be a logical step for someone
>moved to act by Lisa's death. However, there is a difference between
>working to pass legislation or bring CoS to court to discourage this
>kind of thing from happening again, and just knocking all the beliefs
>held by Scientologists, regardless of their relevence to Lisa's case.
>You don't agree with Scientology? Fine. I don't buy it, either. But you
>will tolerate them, and respect their right to believe any nonsense they
>wish as long as you truly believe in civil liberties.
>
This is a STICKY one. I'm a member of the ACLU. I believe in civil liberities.
But I'd like to say one thing to the ACLU: Scientology is not a religion, never
was, never will be. Hubbard SAID so. It was a fraud from day one, when it was
a "New Mental Science!" that was anything but, and it stayed one when Hubbard
decided to take it to the religious storm cellar when the FDA was going to shut
down his money machine and put his ass into prison for practicing medicine and
psychotherapy without license.
And, in the vein of civil liberties, we can say anything we want about their
stupidity for believing Hubbard-- 1st amendment. Claiming to be a religion
doesn't entitle an organization to gag its critics.
>If Scientology were really a fascist organization, wanting to bring
>total order and control to a community, country, whatever - they would
>do well to cultivate critical groups and feed the flames growing around
>them. The Coup de Grace would be your success in passing legislation or
>setting a dangerous legal precedent opening the door to further
>incursions of the State into religious territories. Only you wouldn't
>realize it until the celebration died down.
>
I don't want to legislate them out of business. I want them to be held
accountable to laws on child care, medical treatments, fair business practices,
truth in advertising, fraudulent tort clamis, harrassment, blackmail,
extortion, pyramid schemes, lying under oath, false accusations, libel,
slander, copyright fraud, abuse of the legal system, shall I go on?
I don't CARE about Xenu and all the other Scientological lies, other than the
fact that they are kept secret from recruits and therefore represent fraud on a
colossal scale. Also, Scientology represents itself as a giver of powers on a
godlike scale, and charge hundreds of thousands of dollars a mark in coin and
labor for these powers, all of which are a demonstrable fraud.
Scientology recruits fraudulently. It is a business devoted to making as much
money as possible. What it is not is a religion.
Until we can legally take up the painful bit and decide as a society what a
religion is, this will go on and on.
>Work on something productive, and SPECIFIC - disallowing the practice of
>medicine by non-qualified persons.
It's already illegal. We need no new laws. But Scientology has demonstrated
again in the McPherson killing and subsequent charges that it is not subject to
criminal law. Do you see what I am saying? Their religious cloak and enormous
funds gained by fraud, in addtion to decades of tort abuse have made it
*impossible to enforce laws* when crimes are committed, even manslaughter,
which I truly think should be murder in Lisa's death. A large group of people
participated in her imprisonment and death. Three left the country upon her
death. And there are NO CHARGES filed against these people!
> Bashing them and criticizing their
>beliefs in general is not healthy for a free society.
Yes it is.
-Davis
>
>
>
>
>
>
Christopher Leithiser
Richard wrote:
"One man's theology is another man's belly-laugh." --Robert A. Heinlein.
My take on the religious-belief issue is that they're nearly all equivalent: I
wouldn't stack the Virgin Birth and the Assumption up against the Xenu/space cootie
story L-Ron put forth in OT-III. They're both risible.
So what we have to do is look at the help/harm ratio, and cost/benefit. Religions
obviously provide some societal benefits: charities, schools, and positive changes
in individual churchgoers. Church-going members tend to be healthier and live
longer. (I doubt this applies to $cientology, but it's a moot point since they kick
members out when they get old, and thus spoil the curve.)
IMHO, fundamentalist Christians do far more harm than good to the society, and to
the individual church members. They do some good, though, and I'm not inclined to
push it (unless, as in abortion debates, they push first.) $cientology's
cost/benefit ratio approaches infinity, because of the high cost (in money, time,
and the lives of its followers) divided by the near-zero of its benefits to
society. Even then, I'd leave it at that if they weren't after tax money, and using
character assassination to try to stifle dissent, and trying to promote lies about
psychiatric treatment to a public which really should know better.
I'm well aware that laughing at Xenu and the space cooties, and getting society in
general to laugh at them, cause a defensive reaction in individual $cientologists.
When the criminal cult is mouldering in the grave, we can afford to stop laughing.
For now, it's as effective a technique as we have for denying them fresh meat and
operating capital.
Tomato juice, anyone?
wgert
armstrong) wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 1998 19:22:52 -0500, Richard <bluea...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Pardon me, but is this the same Scarff who appeared in a German
>>documentary, claiming that Scientologists had ordered him to murder, and
>>who was himself afraid of being silenced with force? Surely no. Can it
>>be?
>
>Yep, same Scarff who conned Ford Greene into befriending him and
>letting him into his office, stole Ford's files, executed a false
>declaration against Ford, participated in plans to murder Ford,
>executed a declaration telling all this, then recanted, then recanted
>his recantation, then recanted his recantation recanting his
>recantation, then recanted his recantation recanting his recantation
>recanting his recantation recanting his recantation, then claimed he
>was actually pissed at Ford because Ford didn't pay for a phone call
>he made to Ford confessing to the murder plot. And Ford is just one of
>many people Scarff has betrayed, attacked and Dev-Ted.
>
>(c) Gerry Armstrong
Gerry Armstrong is the same Gerry Armstrong who
--- engaged in a campaign to destroy all money in the world. For
that occasion he had himself photographed naked, and embracing
a globe.
--- wrote a letter to Saddam Hussein, offering himself up to end
the war. "The writer of this letter hereby volunteers to replace all
your hostages... My only claim to fame my be that I am the least known
philosopher in America... If our side failed to perform any part of
the agreement reached with you I would be executed. I would be
available for torturde if you desired... such and execution might
provide sufficient satisfaction to make war uncessary. I have
plenty of lawyers to work out the details."
--- was recently ordered by a court to pay $650,000. After violating
a court order, he was held in contempt of court and sentenced
to jail. To avoid the jail, he fled the U.S. and is now in Canada.
Armstrong is expected to return to the U.S. in the near future to
then be put in jail.
wgert
Deana Marie Holmes
> because the preponderance of evidence was on his side?
> The Hare
The fact is that the clerics knew that Galileo was right. Remember that
most of the scholars and scientists of that day worked for the church.
Their only objection was that they wanted the scientific truth kept
secret, and he wanted to announce/publish his findings so that *everyone*
would know the truth.
In those days, the church was the official arbiter of "THE TRUTH", and
they didn't want anyone spreading scientific truth that disagreed with
the religious truth that they were pushing. So, Galileo was not censored
for being *wrong*, but rather for blabbing about what he had discovered.
Richard
Tommy
The wgert bot's thrown a rod again - it just keeps posting the same old
D.A. material over and over. Someone give it a jog so it'll jump to
its next program..one of the times I ever got a response to whoever is
I/C of reading/dictating posts was when I told he/she/it I was looking
forward to seeing he/sheit climbing into a squad car with a bag over
he/sheit's head. Maybe the wgert bot doesn't want its family to see it
being booked?
Tommy
--
BRAIN, 1. another part of the nervous system which receives and
sends impulses to the body parts. (SPB) 2. a neuro-shock
absorber. It has very little to do with thinking. (SH Spec 75,
6608C16)
Obviously.
Scully3428
>
>--- engaged in a campaign to destroy all money in the world. For
>that occasion he had himself photographed naked, and embracing
>a globe.
>
>--- wrote a letter to Saddam Hussein, offering himself up to end
>the war. "The writer of this letter hereby volunteers to replace all
>your hostages... My only claim to fame my be that I am the least known
>philosopher in America... If our side failed to perform any part of
>the agreement reached with you I would be executed. I would be
>available for torturde if you desired... such and execution might
>provide sufficient satisfaction to make war uncessary. I have
>plenty of lawyers to work out the details."
>
>--- was recently ordered by a court to pay $650,000. After violating
>a court order, he was held in contempt of court and sentenced
>to jail. To avoid the jail, he fled the U.S. and is now in Canada.
>
>Armstrong is expected to return to the U.S. in the near future to
>then be put in jail.
>
>wgert
And this is the same wgert who has specialized in DA attacks since the
beginning of this newsgroup that often have no basis in truth, and the ones
that are are grossly exaggerated.
Lori Ann Chauvette (SP4) *** Scul...@yahoo.com *** Lori Ann's Own Little Play
Place -- http://members.aol.com/scully3428/index.htm
With New Sections on "Scream", "South Park", and Movie Reviews!
Coming Eventually: SP Times
Tilman Hausherr
>--- engaged in a campaign to destroy all money in the world. For
>that occasion he had himself photographed naked, and embracing
>a globe.
He wasn't naked. You know it, because "Clean Gene" interviewed the
reporter.
This is just one example of "true is what's true for you".
Tilman
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Deana Marie Holmes
Beverly, PLEASE.
Please tell Garry to post through DejaNews.
I can't bear to read his Dead Agenting crap coming from your account.
Deana Marie Holmes
The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list)
$cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today?
mir...@xmission.com
Richard
>> But there is two of you out there in usenetland.
>
>I've gotta check this one out. I've been considering a promotion to
>bishop or cardinal or pope as of late. All I need is a good excuse.
Try doing a search for "Rev Chuck" (without the quotes)
at DejaNews. I remember seeing a post by a Rev Chuck
from Texas, but I did not take too much notice at the time.
cul...@primenet.com
>NENSLO wrote:
>
>> I have a deal with all vermin of every species - stay out of my space
>> and we'll get along.
>
>I'm right up in yer face, plowboy.
>
>deal with me.
>
>
> Giggles.....Mwahhhhhh XOXOXOXXXOXOXOXOXOXO
Perfect!!!!! Just damn perfect!!!!
>
>--
> That's nice. Timothy Sutter
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/2307
Zane
>Saifullah wrote:
>>
>> hello ppl,
>>
>> firstly, i'd wanna state that i'm not even a christian. i'm a muslim. i
>> was wondering if anyone in here knows of any good newsgroups which cater
to
>> inter-religious discussions?
>
>"Inter-religious discussions"? Umm, okay...
>
>> next, i wonder if i could ask any seriously not-too-christian
questions,
>> like "what's the deal with the trinity" and stuff.
>>
>> saifullah
>
>Try a psychology newsgroup, maybe something dedicated to MPD's or
>delusional beliefs.
>
>--
>Creationism -- because the words are easier to spell.
>Rev Chuck, Alt.Atheism #203, Ordained Reverend, ULC, 17 March, 1997.
>Remove -REMOVE_THIS- from address to respond.
i see that rev chuck has a *cute* sense of humour. i was being quite serious
about this thing.
ignorance is the root of all evil
saifullah
Richard
news:6793-36...@newsd-153.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Young JIN Kim wrote:
without GOD,
you are free !!
free to do wrong, evil, cuss, immoralities, do whatever your desire.
after your sorry end, physical death,~~~~~~~~ n o t h i n g ? ? ?
? (((((((((((((((((BUT)))))))))))))))))
you could be dead wrong !!!!!!
eternally wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=====================================
Jesus H. Christ wrote:
So says the followers of ALL the world's religions, and various factions
thereof. Everyone is convinced that everyone else is headed straight for
Hell. Well, everyone except those of us who realize why religions really
exist - and know that death is nothing more than a dirt nap.
=====================
YJK wrote:
There is One McCoy GOD.
===================================
===================================
(Rev Chuck) wrote:
Really, what's so bad about it? Everyone sleeps, but no one's terrified
of it.
=====================
YJK wrote:
""what's so bad about it?""?
How would you like to be at
the victim's end?!
=====================================
=====================================
(The Jackanape) wrote:
Why I look forward to spending eternity in a deep sleep. I love
sleeping! Nothing I hate worse than waking up. So when I die, why would
I want to screw it up listening to harps, and retching at all the happy
people. I pass, thank you.
======================
YJK wrote:
You folks should know about
this already.
whatever you do, there is,...
\\\\\\\Consequence!!!////////////
This is the Law of GOD.
((((sow)))) and <<<<<<< reap! >>>>>>>
Consequences for what??? Sowing what?
What exactly are you accusing me of, Young? I live my life in a way that
would delight the Jesus. I don't covet my neigbor's ass, I've never
murdered, stolen...fairly moral. I follow nor believe in this "God", but I
don't "do wrong, evil, cuss, immoralities, do whatever your desire" as you
say. BTW, the only place I think cussing is mentioned as a sin is in regards
to "his" name. So, you claim that bcause I choose free will, but live a
moral life, I will reap punishment? What a crock!
NoScieno
> Garff (through Beverly's computer)
>
<plonk for 8 days>
Richard
Fergus and I got on some Middle-Eastern and Eastern bit (Bhagavad-Gita, The Vedas,
The Tao Te Ching, The Avestas, The Dhammapada Et Al)--and we were primarily
goofing off-topic. The sacred elephant bit simply conjured up your 'conjectured'
reaction to such beasts entering your bookstore...it's then, as you are doing now,
you entered the post and said 'what's this all about?' Again, banter.
By the same token, I once put up Beowolf in the original old English, just one
stanza, and 3 or 4 posters added to it---from the original. It then went on from
there. Actually Joe, and 'side' aside in terms of actual newsgroup theme/issue and
speaking in general of 'all' folks so assembled in AR, there is a tremendous pool
of international savvy in this newsgroup on all manner of things when the posts
shift to often needed 'off' theme meanders for, let us say, welcomed diversions
as it were. And the banter can be simple fun to do because there are folks here
who can both handle the quill and have been around the block on a gray matter
range of multi-discipline savvy.
Example---quick Joe---what 'name' pops into your head--and how soon does it appear
in this clipped 'clip', ready, '......any man's death diminishes me
for.......well? Kind of a diversionary trivia for the masses if you will.
Doc Tony
;-)
Debunks wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Evil Nazis! (was: More on Irma Grese!)
> >From: "Dr. Anthony J. Lomenzo" <alom...@capital.net>
> >Date: 11/26/98 1:35 AM EST
> >Message-id: <365CF69A...@capital.net>
> >
> >
>
> >Remember Fergus the jocular bit with Joe
> >B. and the 'sacred elephants'----Joe had entered the post and wrote, 'what is
> >this all
> >about' commenting on my statement that, per Joe, all the sacred elephants
> >would have to
> >be 'parked' outside his bookshop with Joe saying, 'sacred my keester! The
> >beasts remain
> >outside by the curb, I mean I have an 'image' to keep up here!' Some of the
> >meanders
> >are pure printed word fun. Funny Fergus, after those exchanges, 'Raj' G.
> >never appeared
> >in AR again! Off topic but still fun. ;-)
> >
> >Doc Tony
> >
>
> What was this in reference to?
Richard
Is that "biblical" in the SubGenius sense?
--
(@ @)\DynaSoar\___, Doktor DynaSoar Iridium, Scienfictiontologist
ll ll Yetii Genetii Research InstiToot, Somedamnwhere, VA
Clench of The One True Pipe Dream, ElectroChurch of the SubGenius
Jukka Tapani Santala
: When somebody who just "happened" along takes a zealot view, one way or
: the other, that is reason enough for the old OSA volunteer lecture.
Perhaps, but don't assume _everybody_ who takes a Co$-sympathetic view
is neccessarily OSA, or for that matter, even affiliated with Co$. I
have seen that in many cases they're just people belonging in other
cults, sects or otherwise feeling like in a particularily repressed
minority. Which is odd, in a way, since in terms of the active
Scientology-critics, it's definitely a case where the critics are the
repressed minority... but wait.
Since you set forth the test of "bring it up anywhere else, and see...",
I'll be happy to note I have done it. With some other locals, we took
it once upon a time to one of the national, Finnish newsgroups. This is
a finnish-speaking group, and Co$ has never been strong in Finland to
my knowledge (Remember, this is the country that had the presidents
bodyguards who turned out Scientologists deported out of country).
Yet the imho rather informative and factual posts made on Church of
Scientology resulted in _very_ rabid response exactly along the lines
of being worse than what one attacks and picking on minority religions
etc. - from a newsgroup regular, jew if I remember right. He seemed to
be of the inclination that _anything_ with "Church" in it's name
couldn't possibly be conceived to do anything wrong, and it's opponents
were by definition anti-freedom.
I finally gave up as it turned out to be practically impossible to
say anything on Scientology without having a flame from him along the
lines of the message that started this thread. I tried another
approach, writing an essay about the bait & switch system used by
Scientology _without even referring or hinting to Scientology one
single time_ in the article, and posted that. I figured it would
innoculate people against similiar modus operandis, used by many
cults ... and sure enough, next time I checked the group there was
another flame for him waiting for "just that kind of sneaky, anti-
freedom behaviour" ;)
Which reminds me, couple of years back there was this another guy
doing the "Why attack Co$, they haven't done anything the government
doesn't embark on every day blahblahblah" routine... Everybody was
calling him OSA, having already decided it was a done deal. Except
me, because I had seen him on another newsgroup before, and knew him
to be just a harmless kook ;) After I pointed out he was not OSA
(Altough I'm not sure how many bought it), he actually took a look
at some of the Co$ facts, changed his mind and "joined the fight",
which I hope he's still doing wherever he may be.
In other words, without intent to put anyone down or anything,
altough that's always the inevitable effect... Don't attribute to
evil and big conspiracies what can adequately be explained by
plain stupidity and cluelessness ;)
-Donwulff
Richard
>From: Dr D E Michael <Dav...@cableinet.co.uk>
>Date: Sat, Nov 21, 1998 7:49 AM
>Message-id: <3656E124...@cableinet.co.uk>
>
>
>
>DeppityBob wrote:
>
>> Here's the weird thing: I tried to find any postings under "depttybob" on
>> Dejanews and couldn't, first trying under AOL4.0 (which I hate) and 3.0
>(which
>> I hate less ;D ). I couldn't find one post, not ONE,
>
>Dep, it's there. It's under the past archives but it doesn't come up
>immediately.
>Click on any of the author posts. Then click on 'view author profile'. That
>brings
>up the full list.
>
>clips of cuddle's pomposity
>
>
>As I say, it's up to you whether you remain or depart. As far as I'm concerned
>you
>have shown yourself to be insincere and dishonest and, as from tomorrow, you're
>number two in my killfile.
>
>CF:>>>>>This from the pompous liar, coward. coatholder, phony bastid.
>I hope, cuddles, you'll consider placing me in your killfile also. You are in
>mine, and I don't mean my el cheepo computer.
Blimey Chuck, another death threat from you. Hope Gord McFee doesn't
see it - cos his "side" don't do them.
>
>Cheers
>
>Chuck
>
>
>
>
>David
>
>Please visit these web sites:
>http://remember.org/index.html
>http://www2.3dresearch.com/~june/Vincent/Camps/CampsEngl.html
>Holocaust denial is not about history, but bigotry.
>Historical facts won't help when it comes to the deniers of the world.
>
>
>
Deana Marie Holmes
> .well if you e-mail me at jbel...@sprynet.com you can find out more about
>me i
> am a female."
>
> --YFE
>
yet another concession that Yale is unable to debate issues.
Tommy
> they weren't really twins.
Hunter S. Thompson was an American writer of the 18th century whose
most notable works are "Moby Dick" and "The Last of the Mohicans."
Both of these novels are about the conflict arising in a man's soul
when whe defies his Creator. In the case of "Moby Dick," this conflict
expresses itself when the main character, Captain Kangaroo, pursues a
moose which once dropped ping pong balls onto him all around the north
atlantic until Sean Connery wreaks his boat with a stolen soviet
Submarine. The central conflict in "Last of the Mohicans" involves
M*A*S*H's Hawkeye Pierce's efforts to woo admitted adulteress Hester
Prynne, played by Jennifer Love Hewitt. HTH.
--
(o_ v1.2a s BO@ 0/0/ FD - 0 OBC 2 0 75.5% <16oct98> .---.
//\ Hey, I have an album, and you can listen to it at my URL _/__~0_\_
V_/_ cut...@prysm.net -- http://www.prysm.net/~cuthulu/ (_________)
Zane
>>>>>seen many people use, people of the F.R.O.T.H. that is - and never
>>>>>seen you condemn them.<<
>>>>>
>>>>>F.R.O.T.H.--Fourth Reich of the Hitlerites?
>>>>
>>>>No: Friends Religiously Of The Holocaust.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Cool! Gosh, I hadn't thought of coming up with a neat anagram that
>effectively
>>>demonizes every individual into one neatly-packaged sneer.
>>
>>"Every" individual? Goodness me no. Just a small crowd in AR.
>>
>>
>>Maybe we can call
>>>revisionists members of RABID--Revisionists Are Butchers In Denial. Or,
>>>Revisionists Are Bullshit In Disguise. Perhaps we can go with NUTCASE (Nazis
>>>Undermine Truth {to} Create Anti-Semitic Evil) or NOBALLS (Nazis Only Believe
>>>Antisemitic Lies and Lurid Stories).
>>>
>>>Which do YOU like best?
>>
>>Ah, so all revisionists are Nazis?<<
>>
>>Just like all anti-revisionists are Nizkooks.
>
>There is a difference between being accused of being in tune with a
>website of the orthodox, and being accused of being a supporter of the
>principles attributed to Nazi-ism, or can't you see that, Deputed one?<<
>
>
>Not much of one. Enlighten me.
Goodness, you must be ignorant, or dishonest.
>
>Dep
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"Always tell the truth. It's the easiest thing to remember."
> --David Mamet
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deana Marie Holmes
>The reason is that B/F/D/T/B used another of his tired old lies. He said
>he already answered the questions. Yet, oddly enough, he has been unable
>to give me a DejaNews URL or message ID for this post and has been unable
>to duplicate his alledged answer. Funny that.
>
>allan
>--
Get off your fat lazy dupa and research it. stop whining like a little
girl..."Oh, Joe didn't give me the URL or Message ID...Wah, wah, Anthony! COme
change my diaper and clean up my doo doo!
stand on your own two feet like a man and go research the post under your own
headers, where you will find all the replies.
God, what a snivelling weakling!
Martin Hunt
Jukka Tapani Santala <e75...@ankkuri.uwasa.fi> wrote:
>In other words, without intent to put anyone down or anything,
>altough that's always the inevitable effect... Don't attribute to
>evil and big conspiracies what can adequately be explained by
>plain stupidity and cluelessness ;)
>
> -Donwulff
Good post. I've never had that experience, myself; I've raised
the Scientology issue on several newsgroups over the years,
and have uniformly been met with praise for taking a stand
against them. The only time someone criticized me on the
local newsgroups was when they mistook me for a Scientologist -
but another person piped up with "you're making a mistake;
this is one of those very special, brave folks who *oppose*
Scientology", which really made my day. :-) Same thing when
talking to friends, strangers, or acquaintances; uniform
disgust at Scientology, and no one questioning my motives
in exposing them. Again, with strangers, the only flak I
ever got was when someone mistook me for one of them, when
I wasn't forceful enough in my criticism of the cult (I
tend to keep an open mind about the issues, and even correct
people if they make a mistake in making Scn out to be worse
than they are; the facts speak for themselves, and no
hyperbole is needed to get across the idea that Scientology
is socially evil and to steer clear from it.)
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
Tommy
since the first time I came across the SubG site. If nothing else, it's
worth a visit to see their anti-"Monoposoft" page. They even explain the
uneasy feeling you get whenever you see one of those pesky little
"InternetExploiter" icons.
Check them out at http://www.nurwibsco.com/
--
Carl Miller
cmi...@trellis.net
Fight Spam! <http://spam.abuse.net/>
Rob Clark
> headers fool. SEE YA!
we always knew there were some people even aol wouldn't take - try web-TV
when next you seek to lower your standards.
--
sciathán leathair ~..~
"how do you make a bat sound like a dog?"
(thanks octroppi)
Tommy
>says...
>> Sure, you can get Slack and fellowship with the Kibo folks (of
>> which I happen to like SO MUCH I put a link to the K-man on my website),
>> but do the Kibologists offer SEX GODDESSES?!?!?!
...ESPECIALLY THE ONES WITH EXTRA MAYO AND PICKLE?!?!?!
>No, but next week it's my turn in the barrel.
The sounds of explosions and gunfire impacting against the
outside of his depleted uranium shielded barrel, distracted
Diogenes from his aim, and the dwarf that he had intended
to send down the lane towards the remaining pins sailed
high into the air. The dwarf's panicky flapping of his small
stubby arms, and rapid beard rotation, did little to transfrom
his mathematically perfect parabolic path from Diogenes' warm
live fingers to the open trapdoor leading to down into the
deeps of the hells, into powered flight.
The dwarf's echoing screams could be heard for several seconds
above the din of the armoured assault against the barrel, before
finally fading away due to the increasing vertical distance.
"Damn Pacheco," muttered the famous sage powering up the tubs
weapons systems, "Damn newfangled 'Turns in the barrel'. If
that dwarf's clan sues, I'm going to make sure they know who
was REALLY responsible. Hah!".
He then took out five of the first wave of approaching assault
shuttles with well aimed gravitic disruptor bolts, and graser
fire, grunted to himself in grim satisfaction, and prepared for
the next wave...
>-dp.
>UNSUBSCIRBE
QUIT
logout
BYE
^C
^C^C
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Richard
without GOD,
you are free !!
free to do wrong, evil, cuss, immoralities, do whatever your desire.
after your sorry end, physical death,~~~~~~~~ n o t h i n g ? ? ?
!!!!!!
eternally wrong !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
So says the followers of ALL the world's religions, and various factions
thereof. Everyone is convinced that everyone else is headed straight for
Hell. Well, everyone except those of us who realize why religions really
exist - and know that death is nothing more than a dirt nap.
:
There is One McCoy GOD.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Really, what's so bad about it? Everyone sleeps, but no one's terrified
JK wrote:
""what's so bad about it?""?
How would you like to be at
the victim's end?!
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D (The Jackanape) wrote:
Why I look forward to spending eternity in a deep sleep. I love
sleeping! Nothing I hate worse than waking up. So when I die, why would
I want to screw it up listening to harps, and retching at all the happy
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D YJK wrote:
You folks should know about
this already.
whatever you do, there is,...
\\\\\\\Consequence!!!////////////
This is the Law of GOD.
((((sow)))) and <<<<<<< reap! >>>>>>>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
(The=A0Jackanape) wrote:
Consequences for what??? Sowing what?
What exactly are you accusing me of, Young? I live my life in a way that
would delight the Jesus. I don't covet my neigbor's ass, I've never
murdered, stolen...fairly moral. I follow nor believe in this "God", but
I don't "do wrong, evil, cuss, immoralities, do whatever your desire" as
you say. BTW, the only place I think cussing is mentioned as a sin is in
regards to "his" name. So, you claim that bcause I choose free will, but
live a moral life, I will reap punishment? What a crock!
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
---YJK wrote:
GOD made 'salvation plan' for
human race as soon as Adam
and Eve fell into sin.
Through out the Old Testament
time period, GOD told that
"Messiah" is coming.
GOD gave Laws through Moses
and make us to realize that we
need "Savior Messiah".
folks who don't accept
"Messiah Jesus" because
they are good enough so
don't need GOD's 'salvation plan'.
. . . . .
. . .. . . ..
YJK ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Richard
Dan Parker wrote:
> Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
>
> > > hans-micael =?iso-8859-1?Q?s=F8ndergaard?= <han...@xcu.com> writes:
> > > Whats up doc do you want me to throw in my academic record as a historian from the
> > > University of Copenhagen!
> > > I have not conducted any research other than following the discussion in this group
> > > and other rascist (i.e. neonazi hate groups) The conclusions which I have drawn is
> > > based on the lack of real arguments to support any of the claims made by deniers are
> > > in no way connected with my research into rascism in Europe but solely based on my
> > > readings of the perversities and obscenities which oozes out from the dark seewers
> > > of the hate and spitefull 'smallminded people' who infests this and other hate
> > > groups!
> >
> > > The neonazis who lurks in the corners of the hate groups makes it really difficult to
> > > conduct any discussions whatsoever about research since they have no clues
> > regarding
> > > historical research but simply tries to bully people into silence if not submission
> > > to their perverse mentallity!
=============================================
Phillips
Bullying, indeed.
(1) Would you consider repeated vicious assaults on an elderly professor to be "bullying?"
(2) Would you consider acts of deliberate arson to be "bullying?"
(3) would you class as 'bullying" the calculated destruction of both the reputation and
livelihood of Fred Leuchter?
(4) Would you consider acts of acid-throwing to be bullying. (There have been several of these in
France.)
(5) Would you class as bullying the mobilization of just about the entire legal machinery of
Canada for the sole purpose of destroying one man - Ernst Zuendel. And as soon as one campgin
fails, they start a new one. They never give up.
===========================
> >
> > > more to follow in later replies........
> >
> > You might be interested in "The Racist Mind" (Penguin; 1995) by Ralph Ezekiel (of
> > Harvard's School of Public Health). He makes the point that the deniers of the
> > Holocaust basically not only believe in the Holocaust but are fascinated by it because
> > of the feeling of power it gives them. As he states, if it never happened they would not
> > be interested in it.
> >
> > --YFE
> >
>
> Interesting theory, Mr E. An event that (allegedly) occurred 50 years ago somehow gives a
> feeling of power to people in 1998 and . . . because of this feeling of power they state that
> the event never happened! The Establishment mind is indeed a remarkable thing.
>
> Was this theory based on speculation or empirical research? And if you're going to quote from
> anything . . . be warned -- I just might get a copy of whatever you quote from and check up
> on you given your past display of gross dishonesty involving quotations.
>
> My own theory, for the record, is that you get two categories of revisionists. There are the
> hardcore ones ('it never happened -- it's all a conspiracy'), and the softcore ('it hasn't
> been proven -- some elements are convincing, others less so, some not at all'). Motivations
> vary enormously and it is simplistic to attribute a single motive to all the cases. In my
> case, I am reluctant to simply accept the word of people who, inter alia, can't even discuss
> a dictionary definition without lying.
>
> David
Zane
>
>>
>>
>>or does it?
>>
>>
>>on with it
>
> This appears to be an empty group. I hereby claim it in the name of
>Thor the Destroyer. HAIL THOR!
welcome to it
Deana Marie Holmes
Jim Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 10:55:17 GMT, Ha...@FuckU.com (HarryTheHardHatSez)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 08:25:12 GMT, BlackPowerRanger!@Vapor'sGrave.Net
> >wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.emeagwali.com
> >>
> >>It will scare the tobacco out of them.
> >>
> >>
> >So you found one example of a nigger who claims to be a genius.
> >Big fucking deal!! If you care to notice. This one aint from the USA.
> >You won't find a nigger in the US who can think it's way through
> >anything but how to get some more crack to smoke!
> >
>
> But you force the crack down their throats, cave boy. You destroy the
> brothers minds with your drugs and then blame it on them. Why do you
> think blacks in other countries are so sucessful?
Podkayne
> In other words, without intent to put anyone down or anything,
> altough that's always the inevitable effect... Don't attribute to
> evil and big conspiracies what can adequately be explained by
> plain stupidity and cluelessness ;)
It's easy to forget that, when we're dealing with an evil conspiracy ;-)
Deana Marie Holmes
>>
>> In article <874srrp...@cuthulu.prysm.net>, cuthulu
>> <cut...@cuthulu.prysm.net> wrote:
>>
>> >p-...@ZubJenius.com (Popess Lilith von Fraumench) writes:
>> >
>> >> Whatever she says. Maybe.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The Prophet Lilith
>> >
>> >If I were you. I'd be hiding in shame after having won a BADGER AWARD
>> >(bronze class). You're marked for life now, Sister Cain.
>>
>> I have no idea what you're talking about and could care less. I WAS
>> FUCKING BORN MARKED. You just THOUGHT that was a new cooter I showed you
>> at Brushwood.
>>
>
>I just THOUGHT mammalian shrubery converges on TACO BELL'S PROLETARIAT.
Nonetheless, you were REAMS OF ABSORBENT BONANZA. Lucky you!
----------> Jim
Jukka Tapani Santala
Reverend Imposter Eliot wrote:
> kinda like protesting war by blowing up things and killing people
Isn't that what it's all about?
$aint Rev.CEO CJ Venture
Jukka Tapani Santala
: Good post. I've never had that experience, myself; I've raised
: the Scientology issue on several newsgroups over the years,
: and have uniformly been met with praise for taking a stand
: against them. The only time someone criticized me on the
Hmm... strangely enough, I seem to run into that more than my fair
share. Had it been just the newsgroup-case I presented, I might have
been willing to just shrug it off as having the "luck" of having
one of the rare(?) Finnish OSA agents been taking a vacation on
the newgroup or something equally weird... Of such force and zeal
was his insistence that practically even talking of the "Church"
was bad thing, and particularily the flames on my treatise that
didn't even mention Scientology...
Unfortunately, my experience on other avenues has indicated me
otherwise... Friends and colleagues are routinely telling me to
stop criticizing Scientology. I've been told it hurts my
reputation, by colleagues, that it's too dangerous (That was
a funny one, appears some relatives had somehow got it in their
heads I was "involved" with Scientology, and after I set them
straight on it, noting I was a critic, they retorted with
"But, but... that's even more dangerous!";), or that it's not
worth wasting one's time over.
A friend of mine runs a small-ish mailing-list on civil rights
issues, censorship and such. She would forward all sorts of
stuff people sent, political, sexual. But not after the first
Scientology-related news article I sent, she stopped forwarding
anti-Scientology stuff. I asked her why was that, and she said
basically the mailing-list recipients were getting offended,
and she didn't want that. I do very little "public speaking"
against Scientology anymore, because in each group there's at
least a couple of folks who ask why I want to limit others
right to exercise religion, mentions a bunch of organizations
deserving better to be criticized than some "Church" no matter
how bad, or goes ballistic insisting there must be at least
something good it if it gets so much opposition.
-Donwulff