>In article <344d2173.8993...
@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
>>Not in the last few months. His page is just a part of his effort to "be
>>a part of the team", to enhance the possibility of getting follow-ups to
>>usenet posts. He simply grabs up stuff from here and webs it. All he has
>>is also somewhere else. When I read him, I noticed that he truly doesn't
>>care a bit about scientology. He wants discussion for the purpose of
>>having a discussion. He posted threads with contents like "scientology
>>is a religion!", "RTC is right!", "Scientology is wrong!", "FACTNet is
>>wrong!", "I dance on CAN's grave!", "PGP is important", "Scientology is
>>wrong, sorry, but I was an alcoholic", "Germans are racist!" or
>>whatever, to generate follow-ups.
>I agree; he's a self-obsessed attention-craver. But then, so are
>many people - albeit not to such an extent. Still, his posts aren't
>his webpage - these are different things.
>>Yes it is impossible to prove that he is actually a troll - maybe it is
>>a part of a discussion that some people who would be ignored in real
>>life participate just to have the feeling that someone cares what they
>>say. That's why he changes his usenet address. I have now 8 different
>>killfile entry for him.
>Yes, I'm up to 4 myself:
>-600 From: teleport
>-600 From: gun_bunny
>-600 From: Gunbunny
>-600 From: Wyatt
>I wish he'd stick to one address for killfiling; it's annoying to
>have to re-add his new addresses every so often.
>I still say he isn't a troll, by definition, as he has actually
>gone into Scientology and had some services from them. Trolls are
>purely self-aggrandizing satirical rants based on no more than a
>pretence...he's talked to cult members and been swayed by them,
>influenced by them, which makes it more than a troll.
>>That he is a troll - his page could make a 180 degree turn next week. He
>>does not have an opinion about scientology. Sometimes he's pro,
>>sometimes he's against - his opinion depends of the opinion of others.
>He blows in the breeze, I agree. Still, that's not sufficient reason
>to censor his page. As his page stands right now, I'd have no problem
>recommending people go to it and read what's there. Information is
>not so dangerous, even if of dubious quality (I recommend people go
>to and read Scientology's own pages, and, recall, two invitations were
>sent to the Scientology webmaster for them to join the ring). No,
>Keith's as close to an official Scientology page as we're going to
>get. Apart from a goofy title, it's mostly critical material anyway.
>>What happens to people who accidentally find his page in a search
>>engine? Depending on what opinion he currently "runs", they might get a
>>completely different response to calls for help
>A risk I'm willing to take. What other option is there, really? Is
>our cause so weak and our arguments so effete that we must stoop
>to censorship of our few and meagre critics? Surely, if we are
>right, and reason is on our side, we can withstand some criticism.
>Scientology has a problem with criticism; I don't. I welcome it and
>encourage it. All I could ask is that it was stronger and better
>reasoned (and hopefully well-motivated).
>>>Nevertheless, if a *majority* of people on the webring agree that
>>>his page should be removed, I'd consider it; that means raising
>>>19 votes against his page from current webring members.
>>Well, all should send e-mail to Martin with "Xenu" in the subject line.
>So far, one vote: for.
>>I don't blackmail.
>I'm glad; I wish I could say the same for all critics, but blackmail
>has been used to persuade me to change my opinions in the past as a
>last resort in the face of someone in full posession of themselves. :-)
>>It would not be censorship. He would just not be in the pool. I wouldn't
>>mind having a scientology page in the index. Just not one of a
>Fair enough; I'll take the vote so far as: for: 1 against: 1. And it
>is a form of censorship; his page gets increased hits by being on the
>ring, and removing it cuts down on traffic. It's like pulling a story
>and claiming it's not censorship because the writer can go and get
>published elsewhere, maybe. It's the principle of the thing.
>>Well that's a new one. All I remember was that he once claimed that in
>>his initial months here, he got calls from scientologists thanking him.
>I'm aware this is not common knowledge, but I tend to believe my
>unnamed source for this information; Keith has indeed been to visit
>the clams, who tried to recruit him and who have influenced him. He
>does, as they say, blow in the breeze; I'm not defending him or his
>page as much as a principle. If 100 whackos with 100 weird pages
>that make an effort to discredit the rationality of the critical
>movement try to jump on the ring, that may be another matter, but
>removing one based on little more than personal bias against him (and,
>to be clear, I detest Keith, all his posts, and all he stands for),
>would be less than democratic.
>martin. [posted only]
viewpoint has clouded your thought process once again.