Nan's Stupid Honesty
Diane Richardson
Information from the Bast tapes is corroborated by the sworn testimony
of others. Nan McLean was repeatedly placed in the painful position
of being forced to choose whether to tell the truth under oath or lie
to cover for a friend. Nan's "stupid honesty" prevailed.
__________________________________________
Deposition of Nancy McLean, May 18, 1982
Paulette Cooper, Plaintiff, vs. Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc.,
et al., Defendants
Civil Action No. 81-681-Mc
page 137
Q. (Roger Geller, Counsel for Defendant) And how much did it cost
when you -- when a copy was made available to copy each individual
page?
A. (Nan McLean, Deponent) Twenty-five Cents.
Q. And do you recall approximately how much money you spent in total
copying documents?
A. An awful lot.
Q. A Thousand Dollars?
A. Easily.
p. 138
Q. Two Thousand Dollars?
A. Maybe.
Q. Three Thousand Dollars?
A. I doubt it.
Q. Somewhere between -- somewhere in the neighborhood of
$2,000?
A. It would be a guesstimate.
Q. And did you put a quarter in each time you --
A. No.
Q. -- made a copy?
A. No.
Q. What was the procedure?
Mr. Logan (McLean's attorney). Counsel, what's this got to do with
your lawsuit?
Mr. Geller. Give me three more questions and I'll show you.
A. The procedure was that a photocopier was available in Mr. Lyons'
outer office, and when we moved elsewhere, a photocopier went with us.
Q. How did you -- the procedure for paying for it is what I'm asking
you.
A. I took my copies -- I counted them each day, and I wrote them down
each day, and submitted my --
Q. The total number to --
A. -- to Mr. Lyons.
page 139
Q. To Mr. Lyons. And then he would present you with a bill, or you
would just give him the money?
A. No. I went over to -- oh, no. I went over to the cashier with it
and paid at the cashier's office.
Q. You know where I'm going with this line of questioning, don't you,
Mrs. McLean?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Did Miss Cooper pay for her documents?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Did she pay for every document she copied?
A. It's my recollection that -- that it may be possible that --
Q. Please, Mrs. McLean. Did she pay you for every copy?
Mr. Logan. Tell him, if you know.
A. I don't think she did.
Q. (By Mr. Geller) Didn't you in fact tell Mr. Lyons that at one
point Miss Cooper wasn't paying for every copy she was making?
The Witness. Do I have to answer this line of questioning,
since it's coming from --
Mr. Logan. I don't see the relevancy or humor of it, but go
ahead and humor him with an answer.
The Witness. It's information obtained from -- from --
Mr. Logan. Tell him. You mean from those Bast tapes?
The Witness. Yes.
Mr. Logan. Tell him as best you recall what you told Bast.
That's what he wants to hear.
The Witness. Well, he can refer to the Bast tapes himself.
Mr. Logan. Tell him what you remember.
Q. (By Mr. Geller) I want to know, did you tell Mr. Lyons at one
point that Miss Cooper wasn't paying for her, for every copy she was
making?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And didn't Miss Cooper tell you that she wasn't paying for all of
her copies?
A. I don't recall that she told me initially.
Q. Didn't you have some conversation about the morality --
A. Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
Q. -- of not paying the copies with her?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. And what did she -- what did she say to you during that
conversation?
A. I really don't recall.
Q. Didn't she say that she felt it was moral for her not to pay for
these copies; it was morally correct?
A. If she thought it was morally correct, then that's up to Paulette.
page 141
Q. I know, but did she tell you that?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Do you think it's morally correct not to pay for the copies?
A. You know what I think.
Mr. Logan. Tell him.
A. No.
Q. (By Mr. Geller). Did you think Paulette was doing something
wrong, in not paying for the copies?
A. I feel that Paulette was doing something that Paulette felt was
morally right within herself, and I have no control over Paulete.
Q. Certainly I agree with that.
A. I feel that Paulette has been abused very badly by your client.
And I don't think there's any -- any question of how I feel about
that, and I -- I do not want to be in a position where I abuse
Paulette, because -- because Paulette is a friend. And I resent being
in this position.
Q. Paulette is a good friend, isn't she?
A. She is a -- a -- a good friend. She has --
Q. She's someone who you care very, very much for?
A. Where did you get that letter?
Q. She is someone who you care very much about, isn't she?
page 142
A. Yes.
Diane Richardson
When Paulette Cooper was faced with the possibility of being indicted
for the manufactured bomb threats in 1973, she learned of a woman in
Canada who was engaged in her own legal battles with the CoS -- Nan
McLean.
Cooper telephoned Nan McLean, then flew up to Toronto to meet her.
Thence began a very close friendship between the two women.
When documents seized by the FBI from Scientology[tm] headquarters
were unsealed by Judge Richie in the U.S. District Court for the
District of D.C. in November 1979, Cooper and McLean began a
months-long project of going through the material and photocopying
the damning records.
During this time, Cooper became a contractual employee of Richard
Bast, the private investigator. While McLean was paying for her
living expenses and photocopying costs out of her own pocket, Cooper's
bills were being reimbursed by Bast as business expenses.
_______________________________________
Tape RC-47
March 15, 1980 -- Cooper, Bast
COOPER: You know, getting back to Nan and her stupid honesty.
Do you know what I managed to cheat down my photocopy bill down to?
Get this . . .
BAST: What's that?
COOPER: $89.50.
BAST: Really?
COOPER: Now, Nan and I photocopied, I did three-quarters of what she
did. Okay? That's the way it generally went. . .
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: She's paying an $800 bill.
BAST: Yeah, that's what she mentioned to me - $800 or something like
that.
COOPER: She started in on me yesterday.
BAST: Yeah?
COOPER: She said, "What was your photocopy bill?"
BAST: Do you think Nan might turn you in? I wonder if it's a good
idea . . .
COOPER: I didn't tell her.
BAST: . . . not to pay uh . . .
COOPER: I didn't tell her.
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: You know what I said?
BAST: Yeah?
COOPER: I said, "It makes me sick to think about it, let's not discuss
it . . . .
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: So, she said again, you know. . .
BAST: I know but she, what if she. . . what if she finds out from
them how much you paid? I wonder if it's, it's. . .
COOPER: She can't. It's a court record. Hey, there's no way she's
gonna find out.
BAST: Oh, she's not?
COOPER: In fact, I made a point, on Friday. . .
BAST: 'Cause see, she'd, she'd turn you in, you know, for defrauding
the government or something. . .
COOPER: I made a point last Friday. I said, "I'm going up to the
press room. . ."
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: . . .um to talk to Ken privately. . .
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: And then I went and paid. I didn't want her next to me when
she saw me writing out a check for $89.50. . . (garbled)
BAST: Oh, I see. . . I see. . . 'cause she knew how much you, how
much you got there. . .
COOPER: But she was watching very carefully yesterday. So I made
uh. . .
BAST: . . . because you see that's, that'd be considered a fraud on
the government.
COOPER: I know. But I made a point yesterday of being completely
honest about it. You know why? It's only fifty pages.
BAST: Oh, I see. So you paid them for the fifty pages.
COOPER: Sure. I said, "Why not?" You know?
BAST: Yeah, that's right. Yeah, well, you know, that's picayune
stuff there, you know. I'd. . . I'd, I, I would ju. . . . you
know. . . .
COOPER: Well, why should we pay $800?
BAST: Well, yeah.
COOPER: See, if we can pay $89.50. Right?
BAST: Well, yeah, that kinda makes sense.
COOPER: Well, if they (garbled) it's because they trust me.
BAST: But, I mean, but with Nan, I, I'd just as soon pay the full
amount and not have, you know, not be worried about her.
COOPER: Yeah. Don't fool around with Nan. Don't , uh, everything has
to be completely. . .
BAST: Oh no, I know that, that's why I'm saying, I mean she's down
there with you, and you know, she says she's friendly with those
Court Clerks down there. She might ask them how much you paid.
That's why I would just as soon. . .
COOPER: No. She's friendly with the. . . you see, I didn't pay to the
Clerk. I paid to the Finance Department. There's no way she would
know.
BAST: Does she know the Finan. . . who does she pay to?
COOPER: No, the Finance Department. The same place. You ring a bell,
and hand them your bill and hand them your check.
BAST: Oh, I see.
COOPER: And furthermore, I can say something ...
BAST: I mean really, those kind of expenses, I would suggest you not
chisel on. You do whatever you want to do, but uh. . .
COOPER: Don't worry. She's not gonna, she's not gonna turn me in on
something like that.
BAST: Damn, she turned in Ted Patrick.
COOPER: Yeah, but that's not uh. . .
BAST: She said she'd turn in her own son.
COOPER: I know. Now let me tell you though, what I did yesterday. . .
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: Periodically, we need this guy named Bob Lyons. . .
BAST: Who's he again, now?
COOPER: He's the Court Clerk.
BAST: Oh yeah. Okay.
COOPER: It's like when the press comes down and we need to have the
paper filled in. . .
BAST: Maybe you ought to take him out to dinner, you know, or lunch
or something. . .
COOPER: No. . . no, you know what I did? And he almost fell over. . .
BAST: What?
COOPER: In fact, Nan. . . it allegedly came from both of us.
BAST: Yeah?
COOPER: Uh, a bottle of Chivas Regal, thanking him...
BAST: Oh, really?
COOPER: . . . he'd been so nice. So I bought it at the train coming
out.
BAST: Yeah? No kidding.
COOPER: And I got him a bottle, he was, he said...
BAST: How much did that cost us?
COOPER: Sixteen dollars. Cheap at half the price.
BAST: Yeah, yeah. That's right. Yeah, that's cheaper than a
dinner.
COOPER: Exactly, and he said, "Oh, I can't accept a gift like this."
No one's around. Now the important thing is that I wasn't coming
back, so it didn't look like any kind of a bribe. . .
BAST: Yeah, yeah. . .
COOPER: . . . and I said, Nan and I are so grateful.
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: . . . that you've gone out of your way on so many occasions
that we absolute. . . uh ...
BAST: Did Nan pay for half of it?
COOPER: No, but she's going to.
BAST: Oh, I see. It only costs our client eight dollars then.
COOPER: Well, if we can collect from Nan.
BAST: Yeah. Right.
COOPER: So, she. . . . To collect money from her isn't hard,
incidentally.
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: With all her honesty.
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: As to getting, uh, getting a document from her. . .
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: . . . you know, which you can ask her. If you give her
anything, it's, you might as well flush it down the toilet. (2-3
words unintelligible)
BAST: So, Bob Lyons was happy with the uh . .. Chivas Regal?
COOPER: Ecstatic . . . I could call him up at any point and get
anything. . .
BAST: Oh, beautiful.
COOPER: . . . for sixteen dollars.
BAST: Oh, beautiful.
COOPER: So that was a good move.
BAST: How old a guy is this Bob Lyons? Is he a younger man. . .
COOPER: No.
BAST: . . . or older man?
COOPER: Like fifty-five. Married, kids, blah . . .
BAST: Oh, I see, yeah.
COOPER: . . . I rememb. . . you know, I mean, I don't care for the
man, but I can get; never can tell when we need him, and he, he. . .
BAST: That's right. Hey, he's a good contact there.
COOPER: . . . he works at the. . .
BAST: . . . a good contact.
COOPER: You know it, so that was um. . .
BAST: But he wasn't going to take it at first, until you said. . .
COOPER: No.
BAST: Look it's only your. . .
COOPER: He's not allowed to. . .
BAST: Was Nan with you?
COOPER: Yeah.
BAST: Oh, so, you said look, it's just the three of us, nobody
knows,
take it.
COOPER: That's the point, nobody's here. . .
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: . . . and I said, if you don't like Chivas Regal, uh . . .
BAST: We'll get you whatever you want.
COOPER: I said, no, I got it at the train station, so that he would
know that I was the one in back of this whole thing. . .
BAST: Oh, I see that you're the. . . that Nan wouldn't take the. . .
COOPER: I . . I carried it.
BAST: . . . credit, you took all of the credit.
COOPER: But I said I got it at the train station.
BAST: Yeah.
COOPER: So I said you go and exchange it for whatever you like. He
says "Oh, I love this." You know. . .
BAST: Beautiful.
COOPER: He was ecstatic. So, it turned out to be for sixteen dollars
and we may have made a life-long friend.
BAST: Oh, beautiful.
Ron Newman
This transcript is the product of a fraudulent, deceptive entrapment:
Richard Bast's misrepresentation of himself to Paulette Cooper when
he hired her as a "contractor".
I see absolutely no earthly reason to post this stuff now, except
as character assassination.
Diane Richardson
Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
Here are a few reasons. I will gladly supply you with more.
_________________________________________
Path:
szdc!zdc!super.zippo.com!zdc-e!news-out.microserve.net!news-in.microserve..net!news..sgi..com!howland..erols..net!cam-news-hub1..bbnplanet..com!das-news2..harvard..edu!casaba..srv..cs..cmu..edu!cocorico..speech..cs..cmu..edu!drb
From: d...@cs.cmu.edu (Dean Benjamin)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
Date: 03 Oct 1996 01:59:50 GMT
Organization: Guest of, not affiliated with, CMU, Pittsburgh PA USA
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <DRB.96Oc...@cs.cmu.edu>
References: <m0v6YVs...@uctmail.uct.ac.za>
<52jp20$bn0...@bbs38.erie.net>
<deirdre-2909...@pm0a22.new.sover.net>
<52mov2$2...@clark.zippo.com>
Reply-To: Dean_B...@cs.cmu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: cocorico.speech.cs.cmu.edu
To: ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson)
In-reply-to: ref...@neont.com's message of Sun, 29 Sep 1996 21:03:38
GMT
> I have a great deal more information regarding her litigation and
> activities than I've posted here. If someone insists on dragging this
> entire issue back onto the newsgroup, I'm prepared, but not eager to
> submerse myself in this divisive issue again.
I insist.
Post it, or send me copies, and I will scan, proofread, and post it
myself.
Posted & mailed.
______________________________________________________
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer..sprintlink..net!howland..erols..net!newsfeed..internetmci..com!in1..uu..net!noc..nyx..net!nyx10..cs..du..edu!not-for-mail
From: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
Date: 19 Oct 1996 14:26:54 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <54bdie$g...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References: <52mov2$2...@clark.zippo.com>
<53rgsv$mqo...@DIAL.NET.NYU.EDU> <69112...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
<544brm$p8o...@DIAL.NET.NYU.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.nyx.net
X-SigEd: SigEd V1.3.1, Add .sig and PGP flexibility to posts.
X-SigEd-URL: http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <544brm$p8o...@DIAL.NET.NYU.EDU>,
Keith Spurgeon <Spur...@is2.nyu.edu> wrote:
you have been repeatedly asked to produce this entire
document to allow a fair chance at rebuttal.
diane claimed she would gladly provide it--was
that just an outright lie? or is it OK when diane
lies and reneges on her promises?
no more out-of-context bullshit.
h
____________________________________________________
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet..com!nntp..primenet..com!howland..erols..net!EU..net!uunet!in3..uu..net!noc..nyx..net!nyx10..cs..du..edu!not-for-mail
From: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
Date: 12 Oct 1996 22:02:07 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <53ppjv$e...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References: <42dd7...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
<53ivhp$4...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
<2b29f...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.nyx.net
X-SigEd: SigEd V1.3.1, Add .sig and PGP flexibility to posts.
X-SigEd-URL: http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
[snip]
frankly, my opinion is that i won't be satisfied if
these bast things are published, unless they are
published simultaneously with the entire documentation
of the whole trial. it is obvious that everyone
urging the reckless publication of a slanted out-of-context
misrepresentation are people desperate to smear
paulette cooper--and in fact are limited solely
to three people, all of whom harbor an obvious
hatred of paulette cooper that borders on
obsession.
________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland..erols..net!netcom..com!elvis
From: el...@netcom.com (kEvin)
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
Message-ID: <elvisDz...@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700
guest)
References: <42dd7...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
<53ivhp$4...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
<2b29f...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> <53ppjv$e...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 1996 11:18:58 GMT
Lines: 40
Sender: el...@netcom9.netcom.com
[snip]
h, I think the flames from the fall flamefest are blocking your
view. I don't have any illwill towards Paulette Cooper, but I'd
like to see the Bast documents.
Also, I think that flaming someone for posting what they consider
relevant rather than what you consider relevant is a bit egocentric.
If you don't think enough material is posted, you should post the
missing information yourself, not whine about someone else not doing
your legwork.
______________________________________________________
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland..erols..net!newsfeed..internetmci..com!news-in2..uu..net!noc..nyx..net!nyx10..cs..du..edu!not-for-mail
From: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
Date: 20 Oct 1996 11:17:06 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <54dmqi$b...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References: <ccf12...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
<53uonv$d...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.nyx.net
X-SigEd: SigEd V1.3.1, Add .sig and PGP flexibility to posts.
X-SigEd-URL: http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <53uonv$d...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
Judith Bradford <asp...@nyc.pipeline.com> wrote:
[snip]
this is why someone who is obviously demonstrated to harbor
a strong personal dislike of a person is obviously not suitable
to be the sole arbiter of what is presented to the rest of
us as the "truth" about that person.
which is why diane should live up to her promise to make
this material public, and quit the smear job.
i'm sick of her shadowy cabal act where *she*
makes dictatorial decisions with keith about
what he'll "bother to transcribe."
>judith
h
________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!enews.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet..com!howland..erols..net!news..sprintlink..net!news-peer..sprintlink..net!uunet!in1..uu..net!hearst..acc..Virginia..EDU!murdoch!faraday..clas..Virginia..EDU!dc7v
From: dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Damon Chetson)
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: faraday.clas.virginia.edu
Message-ID: <DznKy...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: use...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <ccf12...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
<53uonv$d...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <54dmqi$b...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
<326d8997...@204.245.3.50>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 01:18:13 GMT
Lines: 18
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) wrote:
: Diane feels that I am responsible for this, so I must insist on taking
: the blame for the material not being posted.
Umm why?
In any case, the posting or non-posting of the material is the point,
at least as I see it. The quarrel is over the 4-5 month-long period
in which Diane, instead of posting the material, referred to it in a
threatening manner, implying that the material was so damaging that it
would ruin Paulette's credibility.
If she didn't want to post it (maybe because you urged her not to),
that would be fine, as long as she didn't make constant reference to
it. But to not post AND yet use innuendo to refer to it is callous
and mean.
___________________________________________________________
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news..erols..com!uunet!news-in2..uu..net!noc..nyx..net!nyx10..cs..du..edu!not-for-mail
From: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
Date: 20 Oct 1996 11:55:45 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 316
Message-ID: <54dp31$d...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References: <53k605$l...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
<32645577...@204.245.3.50> <54bjtr$n...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
<326f9392...@204.245.3.50>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.nyx.net
X-SigEd: SigEd V1.3.1, Add .sig and PGP flexibility to posts.
X-SigEd-URL: http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[i may snip heavily, or cut my response into parts.
or i may have my say briefly.]
> Try to be slightly more specific than 'sleazy behavior'.
i think the manner in which she has withheld and alluded
to these documents constitutes sleazy behavior. i think
the manner in which she left Her Man holding the bag for
her is atrociously sleazy behavior. i think the manner
in which she manufactured attacks against herself in
other people's email she had no right to be looking at
is sleazy behavior. i also think it's hypocritical,
because she's accusing paulette cooper of the same
things fifteen years ago and in the present. i also
think it's unethical to present a personal vendetta
as objective research.
[snip]
i can compare the volume of diane's opinion of paulette, in
wordage, as compaerd with the volume of her research material
that she has posted since she spent her vacation at waltham.
[snip]
no, but they left me with no choice--i'm not going to
stand by idly while they steamroller paulette cooper.
i want them to resolve this by doing what they said
they'd do all along. supposedly, if diane's on a
"quest for truth" of some bogus nature, now that
she spent her vacation in waltham and found the truth,
she should reveal its naked hairy ass already and
STFU.
____________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!enews.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet..com!feed1..news..erols..com!uunet!in3..uu..net!hearst..acc..Virginia..EDU!murdoch!faraday..clas..Virginia..EDU!dc7v
From: dc...@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Damon Chetson)
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: faraday.clas.virginia.edu
Message-ID: <DzDJr...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: use...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <53esuj$4...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
<53hpcu$gvg...@bbs33.erie.net> <53kr08$h...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
<53mbnd$cdg...@bbs63.erie.net> <53ra90$l...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
<32635089...@204.245.3.50>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 15:16:18 GMT
Lines: 37
[snip]
It is relevant if her hatred of Paulette motivated her to engage in a
6-month-campaign replete with innuendo and threats to post the Bast
documents.
Are critiques of Scn motives relevant when they post DA packs? Of
course.
Motives are always relevant because they reveal something about the
integrity of the evidence; that is, are we getting the full context
when Diane posts her evidence, or are we getting editted versions
designed to make Paulette look bad. Is Diane placing the material
within the proper context, i.e. 15 years of relentless harrassment at
the hands of the CoS?
Or, instead, do we get aspasia offering condescending and silly
justifications for what was an attempt to smear Paulette?
: Perhaps, but only after we know what the underlying facts she dug up
: are.
So post the facts, but don't threaten and talk in innuendo for 6
months.
: And this gets us closer to what truth about the scienos?
DA packs on critics get us closer to the truth about scienos, too.
_______________________________________________________
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight..uoregon..edu!news..sprintlink..net!news-peer..sprintlink..net!uunet!in3..uu..net!noc..nyx..net!nyx10..cs..du..edu!not-for-mail
From: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
Date: 19 Oct 1996 16:11:15 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <54bjm3$m...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References: <DzDJr...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
<5432r6$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <3266c0d2...@news.ping.be>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.nyx.net
X-SigEd: SigEd V1.3.1, Add .sig and PGP flexibility to posts.
X-SigEd-URL: http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[snip]
once again, you confound what i actually said with what
you wish i had said. i am objecting precisely to the
discrepancy between the amount of time diane has spread
gathering and spreading innuendo about the material to
the time she has spent making it public.
it probably took a half hour at most to type in four
pages by a reasonably fast typist, and diane is quite
fast. this is assuming she didn't OCR it, in which
case it was ten.
she has spent literal man-weeks gossiping about and
alluding to this material, though.
>bind! "You're not doing it fast enough!" "You're spending too much effort
she's not making it public fast enough. she is deliberately
obfuscating, backpedalling on her offer to make this material
available, and spending too much effort insinuating rather
than publishing.
>at it! Obviously you have bad motivations, otherwise you would be sitting
>home typing at a keyboard, fact-free, like everyone else!"
so far, the only fact posted is that paulette cooper had
an employment contract with richard bast and that she
signed an affidavit against michael flynn.
>It's not fair from you to confuse Clara with facts.
all four pages of them--that's almost a page a month.
[snip]
__________________________________________________Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-peer..sprintlink..net!uunet!in1..uu..net!noc..nyx..net!nyx10..cs..du..edu!not-for-mail
From: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
Date: 12 Oct 1996 13:29:15 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <53orib$9...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References: <53esuj$4...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
<53hpcu$gvg...@bbs33.erie.net> <53kr08$h...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
<53nv6p$k...@ionews.ionet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.nyx.net
X-SigEd: SigEd V1.3.1, Add .sig and PGP flexibility to posts.
X-SigEd-URL: http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <53nv6p$k...@ionews.ionet.net>, TarlaStar <bmy...@ionet.net>
wrote:
>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>>>Who exactly are you saying is being blackmailed here,Clara...If you're saying
>>>that Diane is holding the facts of Paulette's past actions over her head,
>>>you're sadly mistaken.
>>oh, bullcocksuckingshit. what the fuck do you call diane's
>>constant threats to post supposed 'evidence' every time anyone
>>disagrees with her? exactly what the fuck do you call that?
>I call it offering to provide support for her claims.
oh, my ass. if you have support for your claims you
just damn well post it. you don't spend your vacation
digging it up and then just occasionally threaten
to post it whenever anyone disagrees with you,
while providing snippets to certain Special People,
but only if they agree with you already.
that may be 'offering' to provide support for
your claims in your book, but it's sleazy
weaselling in mine.
[snip]
______________________________________________________________
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland..erols..net!newsfeed..internetmci..com!news..webspan..net!ix..netcom..com!sjx-ca18-21..ix..netcom..com!user
From: see...@ix.netcom.com (h3)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Bast documents?
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 07:18:22 -0800
Organization: KoX
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <seekon-2010...@sjx-ca18-21.ix.netcom.com>
References: <53qik1$l...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
<53r46a$n...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com> <53v080$dv4...@bbs39.erie.net>
<53vtir$p...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> <3263f1e8...@news.ping.be>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sjx-ca18-21.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Oct 20 9:15:36 AM CDT 1996
In article <3263f1e8...@news.ping.be>, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie)
wrote:
> pign...@ix.netcom.com(Monica Pignotti) wrote:
>
[clip]
>
> All you have to do is not to engage in dishonest and treacherous
> actions, that's all. Then you don't have to get on yourself such an
> non-existent dilemma.
we still don't actually know if paulette actually did any
thing wrong. a concern being expressed is that what
she did say was edited or taken so out of context as to
be unrelated to her actual comments or actions. to suggest
that she has done anything dishonest or treacherous while being
taped by bast is unsupported by actual evidence, at least
that i have seen.
____________________________________________________________
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!enews.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet..com!dispatch..news..demon..net!demon!nyx10..nyx..net!not-for-mail
From: anon...@nyx.net (henry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Bast documents?
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 01:51:11 GMT
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <84560347...@nyx10.nyx.net>
References: <53vtir$p...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
<54132r$r...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
<542gjt$s...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.nyx.net
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.nyx.net
X-SigEd: SigEd V1.3.1, Add .sig and PGP flexibility to posts.
X-SigEd-URL: http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Monica Pignotti (pign...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
[judith goes on about all the new dirt that she and
a few Special People have already seen, that will
be withheld as long as necessary, with teasers such
as this to let us know what's coming, so that it can
be portrayed in advance as the worst kind of sleaziness
on the part of paulette cooper. poisoning the well,
i believe it's called, and found in any decent
manual of rhetorical dirty tricks.]
: Undoubtedly, the transcript is going to be posted. I just hope it gets
: posted in its entirety and not out of context. Since it has not been
the whole transcript will *not* be posted, because it
was not entered into testimony. there should be some
unusually gross invasions of privacy in there, but
perpetuating an invasion of privacy doesn't seem to be
a problem for diane--as long as she manages to hide
as far in the background as possible with Her Man
guarding her fortress while it happens.
: posted publicly yet we cannot discuss it. My point is people are
: hurling accusations at Paulette about something that isn't posted yet.
precisely the same modus operandi used the last few
months--while refusing to provide copies or any information
about the dirt, and then lying about whether the
requests had been received, despite the fact that
people had been Bcc:ed on it. that or a hell of an
unlikely series of email snafus.
in any case, such lies will be impossible now that
the requests are fully public--now they'll have to
come up with another excuse not to provide the
information.
: All that has been posted so far is the agreement she made with Bast and
: I see nothing wrong with the agreement she made which was made under
: Bast's false representations. And yes, I have more to say about what
: she said on the tapes, but I will await the actual documents to
: comment.
what is said on the tapes is the whole point of this--
the bast stuff was just posted to whip the crowd
into a fevered frenzy for even more. i doubt this
shit will play long to an ars audience, but even
fishman got a fair hearing, so i'm sure diane can
manage to spin this into a months-long nightmare.
____________________________________________Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!arclight.uoregon.edu!nntp.primenet.com!feed1.news..erols..com!uunet!news-in2..uu..net!noc..nyx..net!nyx..cs..du..edu!not-for-mail
From: anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Hoyos)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
Date: 11 Oct 1996 10:51:15 -0600
Organization: Nyx.net, free public access to the Internet
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <53ltu3$g...@nyx.cs.du.edu>
References: <53esuj$4...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
<53gavl$7...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx.nyx.net
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
Judith Bradford (asp...@nyc.pipeline.com) wrote:
: I personally want the archives posted. There's too much heat and not enough
: light being generated here. If those documents don't support what Diane
: thinks they do, let everyone see them. If they do, let everyone see them.
Post them if they are relevant to the question of Scientology and if
they
aren't simply ad hominem attacks masquerading as court documents. You
seem to be suffering from the delusion that court documents
necessarily
must be the truth since, after all, they are court documents. Post
them
in their full context, with a full story about how they were found by
Diane and how they were collected by Scientology and ONLY if they are
relevant to the question of Scientology.
Don't just post them to win a flamewar over the motives and
credibility
of your leader.
________________________________________________________
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!enews.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet..com!news..mindspring..com!uunet!news-in2..uu..net!noc..nyx..net!nyx10..cs..du..edu!not-for-mail
From: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
Date: 11 Oct 1996 22:53:16 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 157
Message-ID: <53n87s$s...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References: <53esuj$4...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
<53gavl$7...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.nyx.net
X-SigEd: SigEd V1.3.1, Add .sig and PGP flexibility to posts.
X-SigEd-URL: http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[snip]
>Get real, Clara. Since when is posting documents to show the reasons that
>you reached your opinion "blackmail"??? Are you implying that Diane was
since never. posting a few news clippings tangential
to the issue of whether paulette cooper is a scum and
a sleaze who sold out and shafted everyone, personally
destroying the anti-scientology cause, as diane would
have us believe, is not blackmail, but rumor and
innuendo. right now we're on the blackmail--that's
when diane spends her vacation in boston digging up
dirt on paulette, and first thing she does in a
supposed 'mediation' most of ars was at is to threaten
paulette with it and gloat about her dirt.
did she meet ron newman in boston, or even let him
know she was there? did she have any other reason for
being there?
no. none at all. there was no purpose to that
trip except digging up dirt, which she has milked
for all it's worth by threatening to post it
every couple weeks while insisting she *really*
doesn't want to. what a CROCK!
why'd she go to all that effort to dig it up and
just sit on it for months while hinting darkly
about it any time anyone called HER on HER
bullshit?
[snip]
________________________________________________________
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland..erols..net!newsfeed..internetmci..com!uuneo..neosoft..com!Starbase..NeoSoft..COM!not-for-mail
From: wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: My view on the Bast affair (was Re: Tying up loose ends)
Date: 19 Oct 1996 11:10:19 -0500
Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. +1 713 968 5800
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <54auhb$s...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
References: <52mov2$2...@clark.zippo.com>
<seekon-1210...@sjx-ca58-04.ix.netcom.com>
<53tt4o$f...@shell1.cybercom.net> <53u2nv$a...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.109.7.129
[snip]
Ditto. As long as it is ALL. All or nothing.
Everything or shut up. No cherry picking, no slow leaks of bits
and pieces, no dragging it out, no refusals to post some parts,
no handwaving.
Get it all out in the open and then let's see what we have, if
it is going to be done at all.
But no more games.
Get all the cards on the table.
No clam type games. No hidden data lines.
No death of a thousand leaks type games.
And woe be unto Keith and Diane if they don't do this on the up and
up.
You all started it. Finish it clean and quick.
Shit or get off the pot.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
___________________________________________________________
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!zdc!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland..erols..net!newsfeed..internetmci..com!uuneo..neosoft..com!Starbase..NeoSoft..COM!not-for-mail
From: wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (William Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: My view on the Bast affair (was Re: Tying up loose ends)
Date: 19 Oct 1996 11:14:20 -0500
Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. +1 713 968 5800
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <54auos$s...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
References: <52mov2$2...@clark.zippo.com>
<seekon-1210...@sjx-ca58-04.ix.netcom.com>
<53tt4o$f...@shell1.cybercom.net>
<deirdre-1410...@pm0a0.new.sover.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.109.7.129
In article <deirdre-1410...@pm0a0.new.sover.net>,
Deirdre <dei...@sover.net> wrote:
>In article <53tt4o$f...@shell1.cybercom.net>, rne...@shell1.cybercom.net
>(Ron Newman) wrote:
>
>> I'll probably anger everyone in sight by stating that I'd like
>> all the details of the relationship between Richard Bast and
>> Paulette Cooper to be posted here.
>
>Now that the egg has cracked, I don't want to miss the yolk, y'know? This
>is a decidedly underhanded tactic of Bast's (and certainly in
>contradiction to Diane's claim that the harassment had stopped at that
>time). I'd also rather see all than feel that only selected stuff has been
>posted, considering the agenda under which it was posted.
My feelings exactly. Post all or shut up.
If they are going to do this, we should all have access to all raw
data
than being fed a select diet of what a faction who obviously has
certain biases and outlooks, decides is relevant.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
______________________________________________________________
Margaret Huffstickler
Ron Newman (rne...@cybercom.net) wrote:
: This transcript is the product of a fraudulent, deceptive entrapment:
: Richard Bast's misrepresentation of himself to Paulette Cooper when
: he hired her as a "contractor".
: I see absolutely no earthly reason to post this stuff now, except
: as character assassination
Agreed.
I think Nan's next to the last sentence, "Where did you get that letter?"
gives us the picture.
Aagh--it's the LaBrea (sp?) Tarpit Phenomenon again!
MH
Sister Clara
In article <54t6cd$8...@clark.zippo.com>
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
> When Paulette Cooper was faced with the possibility of being indicted
> for the manufactured bomb threats in 1973, she learned of a woman in
> Canada who was engaged in her own legal battles with the CoS -- Nan
> McLean.
>
> Cooper telephoned Nan McLean, then flew up to Toronto to meet her.
> Thence began a very close friendship between the two women.
>
> When documents seized by the FBI from Scientology[tm] headquarters
> were unsealed by Judge Richie in the U.S. District Court for the
> District of D.C. in November 1979, Cooper and McLean began a
> months-long project of going through the material and photocopying
> the damning records.
>
> During this time, Cooper became a contractual employee of Richard
> Bast, the private investigator. While McLean was paying for her
> living expenses and photocopying costs out of her own pocket, Cooper's
> bills were being reimbursed by Bast as business expenses.
> _______________________________________
>
> Tape RC-47
> <snip of tape extract>
Would you mind telling us, Diane, what on earth this extract has to do with
Scientology or, indeed, the current cases involving Scientology?
Glad to see you back to accept the responsibility that is rightfully yours. I
guess you just could not leave things in the hands of others, huh? Still, I
like to see people enjoying themselves.......
--
Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX - OSA Orchid - potential DA subject
Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
http://www.magpie.co.uk/
alt.religion.scientology - Open for all the usual business
Sister Clara
In article <54t6u9$8...@clark.zippo.com>
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
> Information from the Bast tapes is corroborated by the sworn testimony
> of others. Nan McLean was repeatedly placed in the painful position
> of being forced to choose whether to tell the truth under oath or lie
> to cover for a friend. Nan's "stupid honesty" prevailed.
Tell me, Diane. Is this alt.religion.scientology or alt.paulette.cooper?
What a sad, bitter person you have become.
William Bardwell
Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> writes:
> This transcript is the product of a fraudulent, deceptive entrapment:
> Richard Bast's misrepresentation of himself to Paulette Cooper when
> he hired her as a "contractor".
It was misrepresentation used to get the recording, it was not
entrapment for her to cheat on her zerox fees...(Nor some of the
things that were said by her...) Entrapment means inducing someone to
do things they wouldn't have otherwise done...(and telling someone you
are working to get dirt on the CoS even if it isn't true isn't
inducment to illegal/immoral activity in my book.)
> I see absolutely no earthly reason to post this stuff now, except
> as character assassination.
I think it is only marginally relevant, given that she isn't really
involved in dealing with the CoS anymore, but for historical interest,
it is totally relevant, it tells a great deal about her character, but
that is her (Cooper's) fault.
That all said, Bast used a very slimy technique, and I would have very
seriously considered sueing him had this been me (even if I wasn't all
that uncomfortable with whatever was recorded.)
William Bardwell
wbardwel+@[cs.]cmu.edu
Diane Richardson
Deposition of Nan McLean
18 May 1982
Paulette Cooper, Plaintiff
v.
Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., et al.,
Defendant
Civil Action No. 81-681-Mc
p. 107
Geller: (Counsel for Defendant) I see. And when was it that
you went to California?
McLean: I don't remember the year. Either '78 or '79.
Q And the purpose of the trip?
A A deposition of Paulette Cooper.
Q And did you attend that deposition of Paulette
p. 108
Cooper?
A Yes. Yes.
Q And did you stay for the entire deposition with Paulette
Cooper?
A I was out for, I believe, a half-a-day.
Q Half a day? Did you walk out in the middle part of the
deposition?
A No. I was ordered to stay out until they got permission.
Q I see. And during that deposition, did Miss Cooper make
some reference to her lawyers in Toronto?
A This information that you are questioning me about came
from a tape, I believe, which you have of Mr. Bast's, and I have not
-- Mr. Bast taped these things unbeknownst to me, and I choose not
to answer. You can -- you have the tapes.
Q Well, I'm not asking you what you said to Mr. Bast. I'm
asking you if Miss Cooper during that deposition made some
testimony relative to her lawyers in Toronto?
A You got the information from Mr. Bast.
Q Are you refusing to answer the question?
A Yes.
Q Would you like to speak to your counsel before you --
p. 109
A Sure. I'll speak with my counsel.
MR. GELLER: Okay.
Off the record.
VIDEOTAPE OPERATOR: Off the record?
MR. GELLER: Yeah.
(Brief recess in deposition proceedings at 2:00 p.m.)
MR. GELLER: Back on the record.
THE WITNESS: What was the question, again?
Q (by Mr. Geller) The question was, during the deposition
that you attended in Los Angeles with Miss Cooper, did she make
some reference to her attorneys in Toronto?
A Yes, she did.
Q Did she say that her attorneys were from the "Werinfold" firm?
W-e-r-i-n-f-o-l-d, is that how you spell it?
A No. Weir and Foulds, two separate names. W-e-i-r and
Foulds, F-o-u-l-d-s.
Q Did she say that they had been her attorneys?
A Yes.
Q Did she say that some Scientologists had been arrested while
trying to break into that office?
A Yes.
Q Did she say that Weir and Foulds were her attorneys at the
time that the Scientologists were arrested trying to get into that
office?
page 110
A Yes.
Q Was that true?
A As far as Paulette Cooper's viewpoint is concerned, yes,
it was --
Q From your perspective, was that true?
A I have a different perspective, but I have a right to a
perspective, as does Paulette Cooper.
Q Do you recall that this attempted entry into the lawyers'
office occurred during the evening of April 16?
A I do. Because it was my trial or hearing the next day.
Q In fact, they were your attorneys, also, weren't they?
A Yes, I recommended the attorneys to Paulette Cooper
when she needed an attorney.
Q And in fact Paulette Cooper didn't retain that firm until
April the 29th, isn't that right?
A I -- I am not positive of the date.
Q Is that your best recollection?
A I have not checked --
Q Is that your best recollection?
MR. LOGAN: If you have a recollection.
A I have not checked the date. I have a different reality from
Miss Cooper, and Miss Cooper has a right to her reality, as I have
to mine.
p. 111
Q Well, what is your reality about that situation?
A I have already indicated that.
Q Well, I'm sorry.
A I've already answered that question. I said that my reality
was that -- that they were my lawyers at that time, that --
Q Were they her lawyers at that time? That's the question.
A My reality is that they were not. But her reality is that
they
were.
Q I see. And --
A She feels that she had contacted them before that.
Q Have you ever heard Miss Cooper present a -- a alternate
version of reality at any other deposition testimony?
A I have never been at another deposition testimony.
Q Have you ever heard Miss Cooper express another --
strike that. Did you ever have conversation with Miss Cooper about
her training or preparing on how to answer questions at depositions?
A If I have had a conversation with Miss Cooper --
p. 112
I don't think so.
Q Well, isn't it a fact, Mrs. McLean, that Paulette Cooper told
you
that John Seffrin has given her instructions on how to answer
questions at depositions?
A I don't recall Paulette saying that in that -- in that manner.
I
don't recall --
Q Do you recall her saying --
A See, there's a problem here, because I happen to know of
this situation.
Q Know of?
A What you're describing, and I can't recall whether I know of
it
from Paulette or whether I -- whether I know of it from other sources.
Q What other sources might you know of this from?
A Tape recordings -- Dick Bast.
Q You heard tape recordings in which Miss Cooper indicate- --
A No. No. No. Not tape recordings of Miss Cooper. Strike
tape recordings in that. Mr. Bast implied that.
Q Well, didn't you and Miss Cooper have some conversation
about how you would answer questions at a deposition?
A Explain that to me, what you mean.
Q Well, did you at some point in the last five years have a
conversation with Miss Cooper about how to answer
p. 113
questions at a deposition?
A No. Miss Cooper has a -- has at times said how she answers
questions. I have also said all I do is go into a deposition and tell
the truth.
Q Good.
A And I have no problem.
Q I would like you to tell me the truth as to what Miss Cooper
said, how, the manner in which she answers questions at depositions.
A I haven't any idea. I only attended the one deposition with
Paulette Cooper.
Q You just said that you had had a conversation with her in
which she said how she answers questions at depositions.
A She simply says that either she remembers or she doesn't
remember.
Q Does she -- did she ever tell you that she has a convenient
memory while she was at a deposition?
A No, she has not told me she had a convenient memory.
Q Has she ever told you anything to the effect that she has a
convenient memory?
A Not to my recollection. Mr. Bast has suggested it. So I'm
having problems knowing where it came from.
Q As far as you're concerned, it's important to tell the truth;
is
that right?
A Absolutely.
p. 114
Q And have you ever had a conversation with Miss Cooper about
how important it is for you to tell the truth?
A Yes.
Q And did Miss Cooper, what did Miss Cooper say when you told
her that?
A I don't recall what her responses were.
Q Did she say anything to you to prompt that discussion?
A No. I don't think so. I think what -- what -- what happens,
as far
as I know, is that Miss Cooper does read her depositions, her prior
depositions or Interrogatories or what-have-you beforehand, and in
order to refresh her memory, and I simply remarked that I don't have
to go through all that rigamarole because I -- 'cause I don't have to
refresh my memory.
Q Did she tell you that she had said so many different things at
various depositions that she can't remember what she said from one to
the next?
A No, not to my recollection.
Q She never had any conversation like that with you at all?
A Not to my recollection.
Q Well, isn't it true that she told you that she has committed
perjury at depositions?
A No.
p. 115
Q Well, is it true that you told Richard Bast that Paulette
Cooper
has committed perjury at depositions?
A It's true, based on my viewpoint, that I indicated that to Mr.
Bast.
I was angry with Paulette and Paulette was angry with me, because I
was going to testify at Ted Patrick's trial. And I was very angry
with Paulette because she didn't want me to. Therefore, we had a
difference of opinion, and I did volunteer that to Mr. Bast. I am
subsequently indicating to you that it was my reality that that was
the case. And I was speaking from my reality and I had no right to do
it.
Q You had no right to speak from your own reality?
A Oh, no. I had no right to volunteer such information.
Diane Richardson
Tape RC-28, recorded 20 February 1980 -- Cooper, Bast
Cooper: Yeah, this is where Nan and I fight so badly. She refuses to
have lapses of memory. The one thing we have compromised
on is that on some things, during depositions, she says "I don't
know. You'll have to ask Paulette. That's all Paulette told me."
Bast: Who says that? Nan does?
Cooper: Right. We've agreed to a semi-lie. If she won't totally lie
then she's to say . . .
Bast: Then at least lie halfway.
Cooper: . . . then she is to say, ". . . mmm," for example, "Am I in
touch with Mike Meisner?"
Bast: Yeah.
Cooper: "mmm, mmm . . . . No, but Paulette is."
Bast: Yeah.
Cooper: In other words, so that she can then pass the buck, and then
I say "I'm not in touch with him," because as far as I'm
concerned . . . I have a very . . . I have a lawyer friend who's
extremely dishonest, and he, on the side, has trained me
that when you are in touch with someone, put up your finger,
then we are in touch. If we write letters, we're not in touch.
I mean, in other words, he says you can take every single
thing and comfortably lie about it.
Bast: Yeah.
Cooper: Mmmm, you know?
Bast: Yeah. Sure.
Diane Richardson
Paulette Cooper claimed that the "Church" of Scientology[tm] had
harassed her by "stealing data pertaining to her from offices of her
lawyer." This claim was made in Cooper's 1978 lawsuit against the
CoS New York, her 1978 counterclaim to the CoS lawsuit against her
for breach of contract, and Cooper's 1982 lawsuit against
the CoS Boston.
When questioned about this cause of action in deposition on
7 December 1978, Cooper made the following statements:
____________________________________________________________
ISAACS: What about data allegedly stolen from the office of
your lawyer? Which lawyer are you referring to?
COOPER: The law firm of Wier and Folds.
ISAACS: How did it come to your attention that such data
had been stolen from the offices of your lawyer?
COOPER: Two Scientologists were arrested.
ISAACS: Which two Scientologists are you referring to?
COOPER: Coulson and Chopornsky.
ISAACS: And when were they arrested?
COOPER: I don't know. Did you ask when they were arrested
or when I learned about it?
ISAACS: How did the arrest of these two men lead you to the
conclusion that this data had been stolen from the
office of your lawyer?
COOPER: It was an attempted burglary on which they were
caught.
ISAACS: I prefer for you to give me your best recollection.
If you have any notes you can refer to them afterward.
Were these two men arrested in the course of
burglarizing your lawyer's office?
COOPER: That's correct.
ISAACS: At the time of their arrest, did they have in their
possession records pertaining to you?
COOPER: No.
ISAACS: Then specifically what happened that led you to
believe that they were attemping to steal records
with respect to you?
COOPER: It was my attorney, and they admitted they were
going after that.
ISAACS: They admitted they were going after the law firm of
Wier and Folds, did they specify that they were
interested in you in any way?
COOPER: No.
ISAACS: What led you to the conclusion that they were
attempting to steal the records with respect to you?
COOPER: I believe they were attempting to steal records with
respect to me and Nan McLean.
________________________________________________________________
The problem with Cooper's claim of harassment was that the attempted
burglary by the Scientologists[tm] occurred before Paulette Cooper
retained Wier and Foulds as her Toronto attorneys, and Nan McLean
knew this.
BAST: Yeah, Paulette says she gives these Scientology
lawyers a fit. They can't keep up with her, because
she knows how to lie so well. They can't catch her.
McLEAN: I heard her lie in that deposition.
BAST: What? You were at that deposition?
McLEAN: Yes.
BAST: Oh. You went with her?
McLEAN: Yes.
BAST: Oh! So, she, how did so do? Did she lie effectively?
McLEAN: No.
BAST: Oh. They caught her in a lie?
McLEAN: No. But she doesn't do it very well.
BAST: Oh, I see.
McLEAN: One thing that she told me she was going to do,
which I wrote her a letter at the time, I have a copy
of the letter, and she did it under that deposition.
And I wanted to leave the room I was so upset.
BAST: You know she was lying. But they didn't know
she was lying, though.
McLEAN: She was lying about something she had absolutely
nothing to do with.
BAST: Like what, what was it she was lying about?
McLEAN: Two men, Michael Churnepski and Alan Coulson. I
don't know if you've heard of them or not.
BAST: No.
McLEAN: They were Canadians that were caught breaking and
entering or attempting to break and enter my lawyer's
office, Wier and Foulds, in Toronto. They were caught
in an elevator shaft and behind a locked door with
lock-picking tools. And they had mentioned Scientology.
And then they shut up. It turned out, I know both of them.
I had audited one of them. I knew they were there on a
mission. They were caught. They were convicted,
but as first-time offenders. . . .
BAST: What did Paulette have to do with them?
McLEAN: Well, that's what I'm getting to now. She, when she was
sued in Toronto, asked me for a lawyer. I referred her
to my lawyer, Wier and Foulds.
BAST: Who?
McLEAN: Wier and Foulds. Prestigious law firm, but very
conservative. I'm no longer with them. She joined that
firm on the 29th, she had her first conversation with my
lawyer on the 29th of April. This business occurred on
the 17th of April. The night of the 16th of April. She is
claiming that this law firm was her law firm at the same
time and that they were trying to break in for her.
BAST: She wan't even a client of theirs?
McLEAN: She wasn't even a client of theirs at that time, and I said,
"Paulette, I will never back you on that. This is my lawyer's
firm, they were attempting to get my documents. You have
nothing of your own, you are nothing.
BAST: Why was she trying to claim that they were her lawyers?
McLEAN: Because it's one of the only incidents.
clar...@super.zippo.com
In article , ref...@bway.net says... > >Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net>
wrote: > >>This transcript is the product of a fraudulent, deceptive
entrapment: >>Richard Bast's misrepresentation of himself to Paulette Cooper
when >>he hired her as a "contractor". > >>I see absolutely no earthly reason
to post this stuff now, except >>as character assassination. > >Here are a
few reasons. I will gladly supply you with more.
I am quite simply staggered that you could go to all this trouble, collecting
all these references, in order to try and justify your shabby behaviour.
Why don't you come clean on all this Diane? Why the stupid smokescreen that
you are digging up all this stuff from 20 years ago in order to cast further
light on Scientology excesses and help the current litigants? Have you sent
your evidence to Dennis, Arnie, Keith, Grady et al yet? If not, why not? It
is supposed to be relevant directly to their situation, is it not?
You are using your past reputation and this public forum to try and destroy
the reputation and good name of a fellow critic to satisfy your own personal
agenda.
And, at the same time, regardless of whatever behaviour Paulette may, or may
not, have been guilty of in the past, you are footbulleting yourself to a
degree that quite takes my breath away. Has it not dawned on you yet, that
the more you throw stones at Paulette, the more you ruin your own reputation
for honesty and dispassionate integrity? Seldom have I ever seen a
personality clash exploited to such an extent.
If, in the warped hatred that you so clearly bear towards Paulette, you ever
fondly imagined that her reputation would be irreperably damaged by these
revelations, I have to say that it is my view that no matter how much more
you publish, no matter how much more you attempt to bring her down, she can
only emerge from this with more dignity than you can ever muster.
Why don't you take your squalid little hatefest back to the backchannels/AOL
where it truly belongs and where the whole damned thing originated.
Yours, disgusted,
Sister Clara
posting through zippo as Demon's newsservers are screwed again!
clar...@super.zippo.com
In article , ref...@bway.net says... > >Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net>
wrote: > >>This transcript is the product of a fraudulent, deceptive
entrapment: >>Richard Bast's misrepresentation of himself to Paulette Cooper
when >>he hired her as a "contractor". > >>I see absolutely no earthly reason
to post this stuff now, except >>as character assassination. > >Here are a
few reasons. I will gladly supply you with more.
I am quite simply staggered that you could go to all this trouble, collecting
Yours, disgusted,
Sister Clara
(posting through zippo as Demon's newsservers are screwed again!)
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <54t6u9$8...@clark.zippo.com>
> ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>> Information from the Bast tapes is corroborated by the sworn testimony
>> of others. Nan McLean was repeatedly placed in the painful position
>> of being forced to choose whether to tell the truth under oath or lie
>> to cover for a friend. Nan's "stupid honesty" prevailed.
>
>Tell me, Diane. Is this alt.religion.scientology or alt.paulette.cooper?
>
>What a sad, bitter person you have become.
I agree.
Every time Keith, and now Diane, has posted some of this "Bast shit" (for
shit it is), I have asked myself, what on earth does this have to do with
Scientology? I can see that it has some sort of tangential connection.
It shows how really sleazy the Church <spit> of $cientology can be
towards those it considers its enemies.
However, and this is a huge however, I do believe that Diane Richardson
is not motivated by exposing the Co$ for the slimeballs that they are but
rather by her own personal hatreds and animosities. In other words, she
wants to make Paulette Cooper look terrible. And she found the perfect
weapon in the Bast shit.
The problem is that we will *never* know what was originally said. After
all, the tapes were edited first by Bast, then by the Co$, and finally by
Keith and Diane. Given Diane's history of animosity towards Paulette
Cooper, it makes sense to me that Diane would be looking for any shit she
could on Paulette, so she could make Paulette look bad.
Despite all her posturing, Diane knows very well that Paulette is
constrained by the terms of her agreements with the Co$. Diane *knows*
that if Paulette were to say too much, the Co$ would have Paulette's
keister back in court faster than you can say "breach of contract."
Diane is not stupid. Diane has picked out an opponent who basically
cannot answer because she's been blocked by court agreement. And Diane
thinks that she can just run roughshod over her.
Well, I for one am calling it for what it is: extremely shitty,
cretinous and sleazy behaviour, motivated by jealousy for Paulette. It
has nothing to do with the Co$ (except tangentially, as I've noted
above). It has everything to do with personal jealousy and hatred.
And I think it should stop. NOW.
Deana
(who thinks this thread should actually be "Diane's Stupid Jealousy")
Deana M. Holmes
alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
April 1996 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness
mir...@xmission.com
Bernie
Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>This transcript is the product of a fraudulent, deceptive entrapment:
>Richard Bast's misrepresentation of himself to Paulette Cooper when
>he hired her as a "contractor".
>I see absolutely no earthly reason to post this stuff now, except
>as character assassination.
Disagreed.
Leave it to us to decide if what they reveal is influenced or not by
Bast misrepresentation.
I personally support their full disclosure.
---------
Bernie
When you chose to fight the cult, and do so with less then complete
integrity, you will get bit in the ass.
(Neil Woods)
kEvin
In article <32739861...@news.xmission.com>,
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series) <mir...@xmission.com> wrote:
>The problem is that we will *never* know what was originally said. After
>all, the tapes were edited first by Bast, then by the Co$, and finally by
>Keith and Diane. Given Diane's history of animosity towards Paulette
>Cooper, it makes sense to me that Diane would be looking for any shit she
>could on Paulette, so she could make Paulette look bad.
Were the tapes edited by Bast and the Co$? I know that in recent cases
(Malcolm X's daughter's being the most recent) the courts have rejected
edited tapes as evidence. I haven't seen any papers showing how these
tapes were used in court yet, so this isn't rhetorical.
And as for editing by Diane, anyone can go and listen to the tapes with
ars transcripts in hand and point out inaccuracies.
>Despite all her posturing, Diane knows very well that Paulette is
>constrained by the terms of her agreements with the Co$. Diane *knows*
>that if Paulette were to say too much, the Co$ would have Paulette's
>keister back in court faster than you can say "breach of contract."
>Diane is not stupid. Diane has picked out an opponent who basically
>cannot answer because she's been blocked by court agreement. And Diane
>thinks that she can just run roughshod over her.
Paulette has many defenders. I think Diane has taken a lot of flak
over this issue, and that's without Paulette doing anything. I'm still
mulling over the privacy issue, but since the tapes are already publically
available, I've decided that whatever I do decide for myself will not
necessarily be the one true decision. If I do decide it's inappropriate
for the material to be posted, I won't read it, but I won't tell people
not to post it either. Too much flaming has gone on over that question.
>Well, I for one am calling it for what it is: extremely shitty,
>cretinous and sleazy behaviour, motivated by jealousy for Paulette. It
>has nothing to do with the Co$ (except tangentially, as I've noted
>above). It has everything to do with personal jealousy and hatred.
I don't think it's wise to guess at people's motivations. I've seen
nothing from Diane to indicate that, and I know that I personally have
formed vehement personal opinions about people from biographical material.
(I would have a great deal of difficulty being polite to Alphonse
D'Amato if I were to meet him.) While you might be correct, you could
be wildly wrong. What if Diane formed her opinion of Paulette from
her research? What if Diane has honest reasons for thinking ill of
Paulette? (I have friends who think ill of other of my friends. It's
painful, but unavoidable. People don't always like each other. People
don't use the same scales for making judgements. We are not clams.)
And regardless of the issues, it's not necessary or productive to
phrase your objections using terms like "cretinous and sleazy
behaviour." People respond better to more tactly worded rebukes.
>And I think it should stop. NOW.
You have a killfile and you know how to use it. You can stop it there.
kEvin
el...@netcom.com
Bill Stewart-Cole
> This transcript is the product of a fraudulent, deceptive entrapment:
> Richard Bast's misrepresentation of himself to Paulette Cooper when
> he hired her as a "contractor".
>
> I see absolutely no earthly reason to post this stuff now, except
> as character assassination.
I think a cogent and calm justification was already made by the esteemed
poster quoted below.
In article <53tt4o$f...@shell1.cybercom.net>, rne...@shell1.cybercom.net
(Ron Newman) wrote:
> I'll probably anger everyone in sight by stating that I'd like
> all the details of the relationship between Richard Bast and
> Paulette Cooper to be posted here.
>
> I certainly don't want this done to hurt Paulette. And I don't
> think it *will* hurt Paulette. It will simply show the extreme
> measures that the CoS was willing to go to to entrap and discredit
> one of its most effective critics.
>
> And that's a lesson that all critics can benefit from, now
> and in the future.
I find the whole matter of focusing on critics is destructive. The CoS
loves it I'm sure. Does it matter that Kim or Paulette or ANYONE happens
to be gullible enough to have fallen for CoS traps? I don't think so.
Anyone who has ever been in the CoS by definition has a particular set of
character flaws that include gullibility (perhaps biddability is more
precise) and a certain ethical malleability. My own religion happens to be
founded on the principle that character flaws such as gullibility and
ethical malleability do not and cannot define a person as bad. The CoS
loves a focus on imprefections, because behind the corruption is a core
philosophy that argues that everyone who is not perfect is evil but that
Scientology can perfect people by nbattering them into perfecting
themselves. It is a vicious mindset and unfortunately one that critics,
especially those with Scientology backgorunds, easily fall into.
I doubt that I will read all the Bast documents simply because they are
tedious and arcane. I can already write a one sentence abstract: Paulette
Cooper is human and has done things that in retrospect were wrong. Big
Deal. Me Too. I think anyone taking an objective and holistic view of her
dealings with the CoS has to come to the conclusion that she was viciously
treated, held up fairly well, AND provided a revealing glimpse at how the
CoS operates. Demanding unalloyed saintly heroism of anyone is falling for
the basic fallacy promoted by the CoS that there are or can be perfect
people.
Anima
clar...@super.zippo.com writes:
>If, in the warped hatred that you so clearly bear towards Paulette, you ever
>fondly imagined that her reputation would be irreperably damaged by these
>revelations, I have to say that it is my view that no matter how much more
>you publish, no matter how much more you attempt to bring her down, she can
>only emerge from this with more dignity than you can ever muster.
>Why don't you take your squalid little hatefest back to the backchannels/AOL
>where it truly belongs and where the whole damned thing originated.
>Yours, disgusted,
Sometimes word communicate superbly. Words like "warped hatred" and
"squalid" and "disgusted" seem to me to be very aptly chosen. All Paulette
has to do to make Some People look like scum would be an evolutionary step
upward of major proportions is to let those alleged humans continue to
exhibit their thoroughly debased moral fiber, or whatever ooze is current
substituting for it. Squalid indeed.
--
an...@io.com When making public policy decisions about new technologies
for the Government, I think one should ask oneself which technologies would
best strengthen the hand of a police state. Then, do not allow the Government
to deploy those technologies. --Philip Zimmermann
GEMMAMP1
Tilman wrote:
>All this proves is that PC got some stains on her white dress while the
>one of Nan McLean is very white. But PC still has her wings. Thru
>scientology she lost some of her innocence. She wanted revenge. And thru
>getting in contact with scum like Bast she contacted a character
>deterioration. I hope that McLean and PC are still friends.
They are still friends.
Monica Pignotti
************************************************
"My cult can lick your cult any day of the week"
--------the late Robert Kaufman, Ex-Scientologist,
Author of Inside Scientology and the first to reveal OT III
Marina Chong
On Sat, 26 Oct 1996 13:58:20 GMT ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote in
article <54t6cd$8...@clark.zippo.com>:
[snip]
>
>During this time, Cooper became a contractual employee of Richard
>Bast, the private investigator. While McLean was paying for her
>living expenses and photocopying costs out of her own pocket, Cooper's
>bills were being reimbursed by Bast as business expenses.
[snip]
Hmm. I though all this stuff was supposed to be oh so useful to the current
litigants -- at least according to Diane and Keith.
But it *still* looks like an extended personal attack on Paulette to me -- the
tapes, edited by Bast, edited by Co$, presented by Co$ -- and now edited further
by Richardson and Spurgeon to show how eeeeeeevil Paulette Cooper is! In dribs
and drabs at that.
This careful selectivity implies not a "search for the truth" but the desire to
demolish completely the reputation of an individual.
Please explain how it is supposed to be useful to the current litigants again.
On the other hand, I think Neil Woods's recent post actually tells us --
inadvertently, mind you -- the truth of the matter, that the whole exercise was
designed from the beginning (which was at least five months ago) to *discredit*
Paulette Cooper.
>From: wwo...@aol.com (WWOODSS)
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
>Date: 23 Oct 1996 11:37:41 -0400
>Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
>Lines: 43
>Sender: ro...@newsbf02.news.aol.com
>Message-ID: <54le45$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
[snip]
>To be completely honest, Paulette's credibility was ruined long before the
>subject of any documents came up. The point of this whole mess is IMO, to
>point out the obvious lack of credibility that PC possesses. To point out
>that the sacred cow was not so glorious in the first place. To show to
>what lengths PC would have gone to try to destroy the cult, set up or not.
[snip]
M
--
Marina Chong SP4(*), KoX, GGBC#13, KBM#5, Joker/Degrader
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientology is an abusive cult that responds to criticism with harassment,
barratrous lawsuits, home invasions, intimidation and conspiracy to murder.
Usenet: alt.religion.scientology
World Wide Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Marina's Manor: http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/index.html
IN MEMORIAM: Noah Lottick Richard Collins Albert Jaquier John Buchanan
Patrice Vic anon.penet.fi utopia.hacktic.nl
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mar...@singnet.com.sg mar...@pacific.net.sg mar...@super.zippo.com
Nico Garcia
People: discounting Diane's claims on the basis of "you just hate Paulette"
does not work. Diane has done extensive and rigorous work ripping apart
*anyone* who misrepresents their sterling character and innocence.
Unfortunately, there are not enough $cientologists with the balls to face
her or to come out here and face the blinding laser-glare of the Internet's
critics: this is not because they do not have *far* worse ills to expose,
but they are now fairly understood and exposed.
So Diane has the time to examine the foibles of $cientology critics
now, and make sure that *they* have no skeletons in the closet, especially
if they are being held out or lauded as icons of virtue. Paulette took
on a major cult, and got ground to a fine powder to it, to write a book.
I am unsurprised if she screwed up some minor financial dealings:
nor ami I concerned about it.
Diane? Could you devote that sort of attention to, say, Clear Baby?
Paulette no longer seems active in this field: I'd be fascinated if
you can find similar in-depth tidbits about the only active $cientologist
posting on this group, as a matter of curiousity.
--
Nico Garcia
ra...@tiac.net
<PGP is obviously a good idea: look at who objects to it.>
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <54tsa9$f...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
Ron Newman wrote:
>>I see absolutely no earthly reason to post this stuff now, except
>>as character assassination.
>Here are a few reasons. I will gladly supply you with more.
[diane posts the "demands" for the material that she cynically
manufactured in the most disgusting manipulation of this group
i've ever seen, and which makes steven fishman's similar
manipulations look crude by comparison.
i am amused, as sister clara predicted about a month ago that
diane would do precisely this. i reproduce sister clara's
post, which was completely right then, and completely right
now, as diane gladly confesses by her actions to the vilest
of motives.]
- ---
[Previous] [Next] [Hitlist] [Get Thread] [Author Profile] [Post]
[Post] [Reply]
_________________________________________________________________
[LINK][LINK]
Article 20 of 22
Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
From: Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
Date: 1996/09/30
Message-Id: <1d13a...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: holsoft.demon.co.uk
References: <m0v6YVs...@uctmail.uct.ac.za> <52jp20$bn0...@bbs38.erie.ne
t> <deirdre-2909...@pm0a22.new.sover.net> <52mov2$2...@clark.zippo.com>
X-Posting-Agent: RISC OS Newsbase 0.56a
Organization: None
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
[posted and e-mailed]
In article <52mov2$2...@clark.zippo.com>
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson) wrote:
> dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
>
> >This is true as far as it goes. Diane has also aimed ad hominem attacks at
> >people such as Paulette Cooper (this is the most widely documented example
> >but it isn't the only one). Because Kim and Paulette are friends, Kim was
> >angry about this.
>
> I have not aimed ad hominem attacks at Paulette Cooper.
See below......
> What I posted
> and commented upon were public records. While posting this material
> to a.r.s. might not be *nice*, according to her definition, it is not
> an "attack". The comments I made upon these records were the same
> sort of thing I would say if I encountered such documentation about
> anyone.
How does that prevent such action being described as an "attack"? And to
describe the tracing of the documentation as some kind of accidental
discovery (what else can be meant by the use of the word "encountered"?) is
rather misleading, I think. It tends to detract from the painstaking
research that led up to the "encounter".
>
> Because of the uproar surrounding any negative commentary on Paulette
> Cooper's past actions, I haven't posted anything on this for months.
> I have a great deal more information regarding her litigation and
> activities than I've posted here. If someone insists on dragging this
> entire issue back onto the newsgroup, I'm prepared, but not eager to
> submerse myself in this divisive issue again.
"Not eager", Diane? You have made similar comments before on this forum and
on IRC whenever Paulette's name has arisen. Tell us the truth, now. You are
*dying* to share the information you so tantalisingly keep from us. But you
do not wish to take responsibility for its posting. You desperately want one
of us to ask you for evidence to back up your claims so that you can absolve
yourself of the ethical responsibility for posting it.
Nobody has "insisted on dragging this entire issue back onto the newsgroup".
Your actions in more than one instance have been questioned, that is all. I
am getting heartily tired of the blackmail that you have been carrying out
in the last two to three months. The threat has been a constant theme - "ask
me for proof and I will post what I have and damn the consequences. Do you
*really* want me to post it? Do you?"
If you are going to do it, then damned well do it and stop seeking to
pretend that you do so only reluctantly and only as a result of having
"encountered" the information. Perhaps then we can bring out the
circumstances of your "encounter" and explore the lengths to which you will
go to gather dirt when you regard a conflict as deeply personal. Hey, this
blackmail thing is catching!
Oh, and by the way, don't forget to tell us, as you, with great glee, make
the post/s, that you are only posting because we have insisted that you do
so and you are only an honest seeker after truth. Should go down a storm
with the regulars.......
The question is not whether you are OSA or not. That charge is patently
ridiculous and always has been. Nor is there any question in my mind as to
whether or not you have been valuable to the newsgroup in particular and the
fight against Scientology in general. I have the highest respect for the
contributions you have made (and I hope will continue to make). But your
personal hatred for Paulette Cooper (I do not believe I exaggerate here) is
now overshadowing all your past triumphs and contributions. Who are you
going to "investigate" next, Diane? Me? Deirdre? Monica? I am sure that we
all have our little secrets from the past. I wonder what documents you might
"encounter" during such researches?
And then you can drop tantalising little hints to this newsgroup until
someone eventually asks you to furnish proof to back up your innuendo. "I do
this with great reluctance but I have been challenged to post some
evidence....."
Knock it off, Diane. We've seen it before and it is beginning to get boring.
And no, Diane. I am not asking you to post anything further on Paulette's
perfidious actions of the past. So don't try and use me as your excuse! You
can keep your grubby little file shut for just a little longer.
>
> Paulette Cooper, OTOH, has done great disservice to the people
> involved on a.r.s. Her primary role has been to spread gossip via
> email among her "friends" on the newsgroup. The gossip is neither
> relevant to the newsgroup nor factual -- although this is quite in
> keeping with the "reportage" of someone who was a stringer for the
> _National Enquirer_ for at least a decade.
But......
You said at the head of your post "I have not aimed ad hominem attacks at
Paulette Cooper"........
So what the hell is that little reference to Paulette's work for the
National Enquirer doing in that paragraph? You allege that she spreads
gossip and that comment is *not* ad hominem? And what does it matter whether
her e-mail correspondence has any relevance to the newsgroup or not? If it
had relevance, I am sure it would be posted. Are we to have our private
e-mail vetted now for relevance and accuracy? And anyway, how the hell do
you know what is said in any private correspondence? Does Paulette now have
to keep her eyes open for Diane moles as well as OSA ones? Have you a little
string of informers feeding you tantalising bits of tittle-tattle on a
regular basis?
"Hey Diane, I just thought you ought to know. Paulette mentioned dogs in her
last e-mail. Oh, and in the one before that, she wished someone a happy
birthday.....here, I'll mail you a copy."
Sheesh.
>
> If you need evidence of this hidden role, the most recent appearance
> of Paulette Cooper on this newsgroup was as one addressee on Kim
> Baker's "Diane is OSA" mail that Fishman posted.
Oh that does it! She was the *recipient* of an unsolicited e-mail message?
"Guilty as charged, m'lud! I admit that I was indeed a recipient of the
e-mail in question and therefore should be arraigned on the basis of its
content."
I have lost count of the number of e-mail messages I have received where I
disagreed with the contents. Sometimes I said so, other times I did not. So
bloody what? I do not solicit e-mails to my mailbox, nor do I have any
control over the sender of an e-mail message or its contents. Paulette is
friendly towards Kim (as am I) and I could just as easily have been sent
that e-mail. As it happens, I disagree with much of its contents but that is
largely irrelevant. The fact that you offer Paulette's receipt of that
e-mail as some kind of evidence to show that Paulette has a "hidden role" is
pathetic beyond words.
But I fear that reasonable judgement has been clouded by personality issues
recently. And I am sure that this thread is now destined to run and
run....Ah well. I feel as pained writing this post (I care about Diane both
personally and as a fellow-critic) as Deirdre felt about writing her
response to Kim.
But sometimes there seems no other choice.
- --
Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX - OSA Orchid - potential DA subject
Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
http://www.magpie.co.uk/
alt.religion.scientology - Open for all the usual business
[LINK][LINK]
_________________________________________________________________
[Previous] [Next] [Hitlist] [Get Thread] [Author Profile] [Post]
[Post] [Reply]
_________________________________________________________________
Home Power Search Post to Usenet Ask DN Wizard Help
Why use DN? | Advertising Info | New Features! | Policy
Stuff
Copyright Š 1996 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMnPFCXZ/m2/Pgo35AQGJLgIAgIR0X4liiUSQ3iY+t67X9aKAEzlODSc2
AipoN+G5Ubl08k4Qm9h6s7wmydgrcfxTHhpuN1tH4FFE/Q7vzRnUKg==
=IUG7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tilman Hausherr
All this proves is that PC got some stains on her white dress while the
one of Nan McLean is very white. But PC still has her wings. Thru
scientology she lost some of her innocence. She wanted revenge. And thru
getting in contact with scum like Bast she contacted a character
deterioration. I hope that McLean and PC are still friends.
--- Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Rebecca Hartong
In article <anima.8...@xanadu.io.com>, an...@io.com (Anima) wrote:
>I have now read two more snippets of out-of-context tape, about
>remembering and testimony and Toronto lawyers. What on earth could
>conceivably be the point? Are the posters so void of pettiness,
>pennypinching, and occasionl misperception or even misrepresentation as to
>claim the are so far about the merely mortal fray as to be able to sneer
>at such human weaknesses? Pfaugh.
I recently had an experience that taught be something about many of the people
I've known whom I'd assumed were much like me. An out-of-town employee of the
company that I work for was here training a small group of us on a new
procedure. While we were all chatting about his visit to our town, he
mentioned that he'd been padding his expense accounts. "I go across the
street to the restaurant and order a $2.00 bowl of oatmeal. They give me a
blank receipt and I fill in that my breakfast actually cost $7.00. I'm making
out like a bandit on this trip!" Several of us mentioned this
conversation (and other more damning things) to our manager and the guy was
fired. Later, one of the people who'd been in the training class with me
remarked, "What a jerk that guy was! I mean.. *Everyone* does it (pad their
expense accounts), but you sure don't *talk* about it!!!"
The thing that shocked me is... *Everyone* does NOT do it! But, apparently,
lying and cheating have become so common-place that to many people, the only
time it's really wrong to do it is if you're going to get caught.
There's been a lot of talk about the damage this information might do to
Paulette's reputation. I've got to wonder: What is that reputation built on?
Is it *all* built upon the truth? Or is some of it built upon lies? And if
it *is* at least in part built upon lies, isn't that worth knowing? I think
it is.
Rebecca Hartong
************************************************************
"One unerring mark of the love of truth is not entertaining
any proposition with greater assurance than the proofs it is
built upon will warrant." --John Locke
Diane Richardson
mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)) wrote:
[snip]
>The problem is that we will *never* know what was originally said. After
>all, the tapes were edited first by Bast, then by the Co$, and finally by
>Keith and Diane. Given Diane's history of animosity towards Paulette
>Cooper, it makes sense to me that Diane would be looking for any shit she
>could on Paulette, so she could make Paulette look bad.
What evidence do you have that the tapes have been "edited first by
Bast"? What evidence do you have that they were further edited "by
the Co$"? What evidence do you have that the RealAudio files have
been edited "finally by Keith and Diane"?
It is obvious that you have not read the court documentation regarding
this case, or you would know that a full chain of accountability was
maintained to insure that the tapes were not tampered with before
being entered as evidence. Cooper's attorneys were given complete
access to the original reel-to-reel tapes. They were given the
opportunity to examine the tapes themselves and produce their own
transcripts of their contents.
What information do you have to refute the sworn testimony regarding
this, Deana? Or are you merely stating an unsupported opinion as if
it were a documented fact?
The tapes may not be considered evidence enough for some people
on this newsgroup, but they were found to be acceptable enough by a
federal judge to compel the testimony of John Seffern regarding his
coaching of Paulette Cooper.
>Despite all her posturing, Diane knows very well that Paulette is
>constrained by the terms of her agreements with the Co$. Diane *knows*
>that if Paulette were to say too much, the Co$ would have Paulette's
>keister back in court faster than you can say "breach of contract."
>Diane is not stupid. Diane has picked out an opponent who basically
>cannot answer because she's been blocked by court agreement. And Diane
>thinks that she can just run roughshod over her.
Does this mean that you do not believe Ron Newman's statement that
Cooper's agreement did not include a gag order for anything but the
terms of the settlement agreement? Cooper made the same statement
during an AOL chat in my presence. Upon what information do you base
your statement that Cooper is "constrained by the terms of her
agreements"? Or do you have no information but only personal opinion?
Whatever the case, are you making a general argument that *no* case
settled with a gag order clause should be discussed on this newsgroup?
Do you believe that Gerry Armstrong's case should never be commented
upon, for instance?
Or are you stating that if someone is perceived not to "like" someone,
they should not be permitted to post to a.r.s. about that person? If
that's your stance, then you certainly shouldn't be posting about me.
>Well, I for one am calling it for what it is: extremely shitty,
>cretinous and sleazy behaviour, motivated by jealousy for Paulette. It
>has nothing to do with the Co$ (except tangentially, as I've noted
>above). It has everything to do with personal jealousy and hatred.
That, of course, is your opinion.
>And I think it should stop. NOW.
If you don't like the thread, don't read it.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Rebecca Hartong
(snipped and edited.. where ever I felt like it!)
>And now every last
>piece of bubblegum chewed and stuck clandestinely under a desk is going to
>be dragged out and used by jackals to tear the hide of a woman they are
>not fit to have piss on them.
Take it to alt.sex.watersports, Anima... But seriously, since part of PC's
reputation as an enemy of Scn is based upon reports of how financially
destroyed she was by her dealings with them, don't you think it's relevent
that she would lie about how much it was actually costing her?
I think what we've got here is a classic example of the idol with feet of
clay.
>Salieri is known today only because of association with his better.
Probably only by people who's only exposure to him was through the movie
"Amadeus." Most people with any education in classical music, though, know of
him through his own work. But anyway...
>So this is the depths of depravity Paulette can be accused of? Or are the
>jackals saving their biggest pieces of well-financed carrion for later
>use? God if there is justice in the world, let this black horror rebound
>upon the would-be hellounds who are perpetrating this wretched spew so
>that they may one day truly experience the absolutely pitiful triviality
>to which their soul's aspirations have been reduced.
"Black horror"?!? LOL!!!!
>And THIS is what the once-awesome and terrifying cult of greed and power
>has come down to? Even to spit on such a bunch of losers and weeaklings is
>to give their pustulent puling more credibility than its morally bankrupt
>appearance in public could ever dream of. Those who touch pitch are
>defiled by it, and Diane is rapidly becoming the Pitch Mistress of a.r.s.
>
>Is it possible to sink lower than this? If so, I'm sure the Pitch Mistress
>will attempt it. Our own little Salieri wannabe. It makes me ashamed
>vicariously just from thinking about it.
I'd give that post a 9.2
There was some good imagery, but I thought there was a little more
alliteration than was necessary. ("Pustulent puling"?!)
Oh, okay.... a 9.3
But not a point more!
Yep, you heard it here first, folks: Diane Richardson - Spawn of Satan! ;-)
This is just the start. I heard that she's just warming up for infant
sacrifice and fornication with goats.
cul...@primenet.com
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>Information from the Bast tapes is corroborated by the sworn testimony
>of others. Nan McLean was repeatedly placed in the painful position
>of being forced to choose whether to tell the truth under oath or lie
>to cover for a friend. Nan's "stupid honesty" prevailed.
This makes me think of someone being at war, and spending all their
time attacking one of their own retired officers. Makes little sense
to me. Wouldn't it make more sense to go after Scientology rather
than someone who was horribly harmed by them and has mostly put that
behind her now? I just don't get it.
Diane Richardson
mar...@super.zippo.com (Marina Chong) wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Oct 1996 13:58:20 GMT ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote in
>article <54t6cd$8...@clark.zippo.com>:
>[snip]
>>
>>During this time, Cooper became a contractual employee of Richard
>>Bast, the private investigator. While McLean was paying for her
>>living expenses and photocopying costs out of her own pocket, Cooper's
>>bills were being reimbursed by Bast as business expenses.
>[snip]
>Hmm. I though all this stuff was supposed to be oh so useful to the current
>litigants -- at least according to Diane and Keith.
>But it *still* looks like an extended personal attack on Paulette to me -- the
>tapes, edited by Bast, edited by Co$, presented by Co$ -- and now edited further
>by Richardson and Spurgeon to show how eeeeeeevil Paulette Cooper is! In dribs
>and drabs at that.
Upon what evidence do you base your claim that the tapes were "edited
by Bast"? It's obvious that you have not read the sworn testimony in
the case, as your claim is directly refuted by it.
Of course, issuing statements of opinion as if they were fact and
without having any evidence whatever upon which to base such
claims is not unusual on this newsgroup.
>This careful selectivity implies not a "search for the truth" but the desire to
>demolish completely the reputation of an individual.
You are free to draw whatever implications you like. As in the case
of your opinion stated as fact above, however, your implications are
very likely thoroughly false since they are based upon nothing more
than personal likes and dislikes.
>Please explain how it is supposed to be useful to the current litigants again.
As self-appointed "keeper of the #scientology logs," Marina, you might
care to search out statements made by Arnie Lerma, in which he
justifies the use of incorrect, inaccurate, and/or downright false
information when battling the "Church."
You might also consider such events as the remarkable appearance of
Margaret Huffstickler on the newsgroup as the close confidante and
defender of such anti-Scientology litigants as Arnie Lerma and Steven
Fishman.
Might Margaret Huffstickler be the Richard Bast of the '90s? I have
no idea. I wonder if Arnie Lerma and Steven Fishman have any more
of an idea about that than I have.
>On the other hand, I think Neil Woods's recent post actually tells us --
>inadvertently, mind you -- the truth of the matter, that the whole exercise was
>designed from the beginning (which was at least five months ago) to *discredit*
>Paulette Cooper.
You are free to think whatever you like. Of course, that does not
mean that what you think is either an accurate or honest assessment
of my intentions.
I find it fascinating that so many of you refuse to examine the
information I present while doing your utmost to turn this into an
examination of my inner psyche.
>>From: wwo...@aol.com (WWOODSS)
>>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>>Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
>>Date: 23 Oct 1996 11:37:41 -0400
>>Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
>>Lines: 43
>>Sender: ro...@newsbf02.news.aol.com
>>Message-ID: <54le45$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>[snip]
>>To be completely honest, Paulette's credibility was ruined long before the
>>subject of any documents came up. The point of this whole mess is IMO, to
>>point out the obvious lack of credibility that PC possesses. To point out
>>that the sacred cow was not so glorious in the first place. To show to
>>what lengths PC would have gone to try to destroy the cult, set up or not.
>[snip]
Oh, I see! You are now capable of devining my inner motivations based
upon statements made by another person? Fascinating!
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Judith Bradford
On Oct 27, 1996 19:18:23 in article <Re: Nan's Stupid Honesty>,
'el...@netcom.com (kEvin)' wrote:
>Were the tapes edited by Bast and the Co$? I know that in recent cases
>(Malcolm X's daughter's being the most recent) the courts have rejected
>edited tapes as evidence. I haven't seen any papers showing how these
>tapes were used in court yet, so this isn't rhetorical.
judith
-------------------------------------------------------------
don't mistake the map for the territory.
Diane Richardson
mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)) wrote:
>ra...@tiac.net (Nico Garcia) wrote:
>>People: discounting Diane's claims on the basis of "you just hate Paulette"
>>does not work. Diane has done extensive and rigorous work ripping apart
>>*anyone* who misrepresents their sterling character and innocence.
>Since when did we elect Paulette Cooper to sainthood? Not only that,
>since when has Diane Richardson been chosen by us to monitor "sterling
>character and innocence"? Why does Paulette have to live up to some sort
>of standard set by Diane Richardson? I didn't elect Diane Richardson
>moral monitor, thank you very much.
No one has elected me monitor of anyone's morals, Deana,
particularly not yours.
I am posting information I obtained from publicly available court
records. Do you object to that?
>Is Diane Richardson prepared to have *her* life put under the microscope,
>the way she's doing to Paulette Cooper? Does Diane want people to come
>out and talk about the hatred and vitriol that she has spread about
>Paulette in various places over the past months, *not to mention*
>everything that has gone on in Diane's life in the past 49 years?
I notice that you are refusing to deal with the evidence I have
presented here at all.
>I don't see that any of this SHIT has anything to do with Scientology,
>but everything to do with the hatred that Diane bears in her heart for
>Paulette Cooper. That's all. And that's all I'm seeing. I *do* *not*
>see Diane Richardson examining the lives of other critics with the same
>sort of fanaticism that she has applied to Paulette's life. In fact, she
>isn't examining *any* other critic's life that I know of. Perhaps that's
>because none of those people have crossed her in the way that Diane has
>perceived that Paulette has crossed her.
You just posted earlier today that this material *did* have
bearing on Scientology[tm]. Have you changed your mind?
>No, Nico. This has nothing to do with sterling character and innocence.
>This has *everything* to do with trying to destroy someone's character.
>And that's *all* Diane is about with this Bast shit. Believe me, if
>Diane had been honourable about her actions, she and Keith wouldn't have
>had to sneak off to Waltham, MA, to rummage through court documents, and
>not telling people in Boston that they were there. Really. That's what
>we're dealing with here.
Deana, I have made *numerous* trips during the past two years to
obtain information about the "Church" of Scientology[tm]. I did not
announce these trips in advance, nor did I necessarily contact other
a.r.s. participants when I was in the vicinity. Was that "sneaking,"
too?
Am I required to report my travel plans in advance to the ARSCC?
The only way I have ever been able to obtain the information I've
posted to this newsgroup over the past two years was to get off
my chair and travel to the places that have the information I need.
Is that a crime? A breach of a.r.s. netiquette? Get real.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Hoyos
Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
: No one has elected me monitor of anyone's morals, Deana,
: particularly not yours.
:
: I am posting information I obtained from publicly available court
: records. Do you object to that?
Ahh she's back and she hasn't changed her rhetoric one iota.
The familiar refrains:
"Do you object to that?"
"Are you trying to censor me"
"I'm only after the truth"
: I notice that you are refusing to deal with the evidence I have
: presented here at all.
What evidence? That she didn't pay her full copying bill? Took you 5
months to come out with it, now that's just terrible.
: Am I required to report my travel plans in advance to the ARSCC?
Oh can we please stop with the "woe is me, people are out to silence
me" refrain?
You traveled to Boston to dig up info on someone you hate during your
vacation.
: Is that a crime? A breach of a.r.s. netiquette? Get real.
What is a breach of netiquette is how you've conducted yourself for the
past 5 months.
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
ra...@tiac.net (Nico Garcia) wrote:
>People: discounting Diane's claims on the basis of "you just hate Paulette"
>does not work. Diane has done extensive and rigorous work ripping apart
>*anyone* who misrepresents their sterling character and innocence.
Since when did we elect Paulette Cooper to sainthood? Not only that,
since when has Diane Richardson been chosen by us to monitor "sterling
character and innocence"? Why does Paulette have to live up to some sort
of standard set by Diane Richardson? I didn't elect Diane Richardson
moral monitor, thank you very much.
Is Diane Richardson prepared to have *her* life put under the microscope,
the way she's doing to Paulette Cooper? Does Diane want people to come
out and talk about the hatred and vitriol that she has spread about
Paulette in various places over the past months, *not to mention*
everything that has gone on in Diane's life in the past 49 years?
I don't see that any of this SHIT has anything to do with Scientology,
but everything to do with the hatred that Diane bears in her heart for
Paulette Cooper. That's all. And that's all I'm seeing. I *do* *not*
see Diane Richardson examining the lives of other critics with the same
sort of fanaticism that she has applied to Paulette's life. In fact, she
isn't examining *any* other critic's life that I know of. Perhaps that's
because none of those people have crossed her in the way that Diane has
perceived that Paulette has crossed her.
No, Nico. This has nothing to do with sterling character and innocence.
This has *everything* to do with trying to destroy someone's character.
And that's *all* Diane is about with this Bast shit. Believe me, if
Diane had been honourable about her actions, she and Keith wouldn't have
had to sneak off to Waltham, MA, to rummage through court documents, and
not telling people in Boston that they were there. Really. That's what
we're dealing with here.
Deana
Deana M. Holmes
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)) wrote:
>
>>ra...@tiac.net (Nico Garcia) wrote:
>
>>>People: discounting Diane's claims on the basis of "you just hate Paulette"
>>>does not work. Diane has done extensive and rigorous work ripping apart
>>>*anyone* who misrepresents their sterling character and innocence.
>
>>Since when did we elect Paulette Cooper to sainthood? Not only that,
>>since when has Diane Richardson been chosen by us to monitor "sterling
>>character and innocence"? Why does Paulette have to live up to some sort
>>of standard set by Diane Richardson? I didn't elect Diane Richardson
>>moral monitor, thank you very much.
>
>No one has elected me monitor of anyone's morals, Deana,
>particularly not yours.
Oooh. Insinuating I have rotten morals? Well, I've never claimed to be
a saint, Diane.
>I am posting information I obtained from publicly available court
>records. Do you object to that?
Ok. I understand that. But what you have *NOT* told us is:
1) How the original material was gathered
2) Whether it was edited before it went into the record
3) Who did the editing...and their motivations
Not to mention what you and Keith have left out of your editing of the
records.
>>Is Diane Richardson prepared to have *her* life put under the microscope,
>>the way she's doing to Paulette Cooper? Does Diane want people to come
>>out and talk about the hatred and vitriol that she has spread about
>>Paulette in various places over the past months, *not to mention*
>>everything that has gone on in Diane's life in the past 49 years?
>
>I notice that you are refusing to deal with the evidence I have
>presented here at all.
No, Diane. I don't think the evidence is *worth* dealing with until
you've answered some basic questions about the provenance of the records.
Until you do, it's just "Bast shit" to me.
>>I don't see that any of this SHIT has anything to do with Scientology,
>>but everything to do with the hatred that Diane bears in her heart for
>>Paulette Cooper. That's all. And that's all I'm seeing. I *do* *not*
>>see Diane Richardson examining the lives of other critics with the same
>>sort of fanaticism that she has applied to Paulette's life. In fact, she
>>isn't examining *any* other critic's life that I know of. Perhaps that's
>>because none of those people have crossed her in the way that Diane has
>>perceived that Paulette has crossed her.
>
>You just posted earlier today that this material *did* have
>bearing on Scientology[tm]. Have you changed your mind?
Yes. Why? Because we both know that $cientology is a crock of lies and
a rat's nest full of liars. I don't need to know about Bast and his
tapes (edited and re-edited) to know this.
>>No, Nico. This has nothing to do with sterling character and innocence.
>>This has *everything* to do with trying to destroy someone's character.
>>And that's *all* Diane is about with this Bast shit. Believe me, if
>>Diane had been honourable about her actions, she and Keith wouldn't have
>>had to sneak off to Waltham, MA, to rummage through court documents, and
>>not telling people in Boston that they were there. Really. That's what
>>we're dealing with here.
>
>Deana, I have made *numerous* trips during the past two years to
>obtain information about the "Church" of Scientology[tm]. I did not
>announce these trips in advance, nor did I necessarily contact other
>a.r.s. participants when I was in the vicinity. Was that "sneaking,"
>too?
Well, Diane, if you weren't sneaking around, you would have let people
like Ron Newman and Modemac know that you were in Boston. But you
didn't. Why? Because you knew that your mission would be looked upon
with extreme disfavour. Your mission to Waltham had little to do with
$cientology and everything to do with your desire to destroy Paulette
Cooper.
>Am I required to report my travel plans in advance to the ARSCC?
No, especially since the ARSCC doesn't exist.
You see, Diane, the fact that you didn't tell notables in Boston about
your trip to Waltham shows that you didn't want people to know what you
were up to. You knew that if people knew, they would disagree with you.
Frankly, I think your trip was a huge waste of time. You would have
served us all better by going to a law library and making a master list
of cases involving $cientology since 1950. That would have been of much
better use to us than this Bast shit.
>The only way I have ever been able to obtain the information I've
>posted to this newsgroup over the past two years was to get off
>my chair and travel to the places that have the information I need.
>Is that a crime? A breach of a.r.s. netiquette? Get real.
Nope. Not a crime. The crime is that you're so deluded as to believe
that the Bast shit actually shows anything about $cientology. It
doesn't. What it does show is your sheer desperation in trying to
destroy Paulette Cooper, a woman that I know you hate with all your
being.
I've suggested a research project that would have been of more benefit to
a.r.s above. If you want to spend your time and considerable talents on
something, I'd suggest this. But this Bast shit is beneath you, Diane.
All it does is show that you're a bitter woman, angry at Paulette Cooper
for real or imagined sins.
Deirdre
In article <550n3o$f...@krypto.zippo.com>, har...@netins.net (Rebecca
Hartong) wrote:
> The thing that shocked me is... *Everyone* does NOT do it! But,
> apparently, lying and cheating have become so common-place
> that to many people, the only time it's really wrong to do it is if
> you're going to get caught.
I remember a few years ago when my $13 in groceries was rung up for $6
something because the cashier had forgotten the one expensive item. I
pointed it out. The clerk thanked me, but I was disturbed that the person
behind me had commented on how honest I was. And there's been other times
since then that haven't stuck out so well.
I'm the sort of person who will say how I feel even when I know it'll hurt
someone's feelings.
But even *I* will lie about some things -- like if my life were threatened
unless I revealed the whereabouts of loved ones. I'd lie. Like when I was
told that if I didn't lie, I'd be denied the OT levels. Of course, I think
that's silly now, but I did lie at the time.
I think ALL of us, under at least one circumstance, would lie. It's just
that the boundaries are different. And some are "wrong" times to lie, some
are "right" and some may not be so easy to categorize.
I can't fault Paulette for wanting vindictive retaliation against the CofS
after her suffering. Nor do I think a blow-by-blow chronicle is useful.
_Deirdre
Hoyos
Nico Garcia (ra...@tiac.net) wrote:
: People: discounting Diane's claims on the basis of "you just hate Paulette"
: does not work. Diane has done extensive and rigorous work ripping apart
: *anyone* who misrepresents their sterling character and innocence.
Excuse me, but when did Paulette Cooper ever misrepresent herself as a woman
of sterling character and innocence? Please show me that post.
I don't expect Paulette Cooper to come onto this newsgroup and lay out
her crimes for judgment by YOU. And I don't expect you to come onto this
newsgroup and lay out your crimes for judgment by ME.
You at least have one point - the "ripping apart" point.
Moreover, YOU are losing sight of the context of the situation. YOu may
be so naive to think that motivations don't matter, but I'm not. When I
say that Diane hates Paulette, I don't mean that everything Diane says
must therefore be a lie. I do mean, however, that Diane has culled
through the material she's collected to present those parts that reflect
negatively on Paulette. She may have done this deliberately. But even
if she did not, her biases affect her research (as do my biases when I do
my research).
: Unfortunately, there are not enough $cientologists with the balls to face
: her or to come out here and face the blinding laser-glare of the Internet's
: critics: this is not because they do not have *far* worse ills to expose,
: but they are now fairly understood and exposed.
So where do we stop? What parts of Paulette's life are off limits? Or
does the "laser-glare" extend to all parts of her life documented on
Court files?
: So Diane has the time to examine the foibles of $cientology critics
: now, and make sure that *they* have no skeletons in the closet, especially
Well, I hope she turns to your foibles next. Let's make sure there are
no skeletons in your closet, huh?
: if they are being held out or lauded as icons of virtue. Paulette took
: on a major cult, and got ground to a fine powder to it, to write a book.
: I am unsurprised if she screwed up some minor financial dealings:
: nor ami I concerned about it.
Good for you. I'd be unsurprised if we found something on you.
: Diane? Could you devote that sort of attention to, say, Clear Baby?
: Paulette no longer seems active in this field: I'd be fascinated if
: you can find similar in-depth tidbits about the only active $cientologist
: posting on this group, as a matter of curiousity.
Indeed you would. Wouldn't it be nice if we could find out if Clear Baby
violates scoff laws or is a cheats the Austrian welfare system or doesn't
put quarters in the damn parking meter?
Yeah, let's collect some "tidbits" on you! and then post them for the
several thousand people on here to satisfy their curiosity. After all,
we have to ensure that everyone on this newsgroup meets your standards.
James J. Lippard
In article <32730B...@azstarnet.com>, <lrh...@azstarnet.com> wrote:
>William Bardwell wrote:
> > ...it is totally relevant, it tells a great deal about
> > her character, but that is her (Cooper's) fault.
>
>It doesn't tell a great deal about her character. It is merely one
>small piece of information. Diane is posting it only to make you see
>Paulette in the same way she does.
>
>Those of us who know Paulette see it as character assassination.
>
>I think 25 cents per copy is a ripoff.
>
>Why does the courthouse make it so easy for people to get free copies?
>Because they think 25 cents is a ripoff too.
That is no justification whatsoever for theft. I am probably more
saddened by Paulette Cooper's remarks about Nan McLean--the fact that this
unethical behavior is coming back to haunt her shows that Nan McLean's
honesty wasn't so stupid after all, was it?
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04
Deirdre
> Salieri is known today only because of association with his better. Is
> this how Diane & Co. hope to achieve immortality? By forever being linked
> to the Co$ campaign against its enemies, and in this contemptible fashion?
Yes, but it does mean that Salieri is still paid some attention to.
> Is it possible to sink lower than this? If so, I'm sure the Pitch Mistress
> will attempt it. Our own little Salieri wannabe. It makes me ashamed
> vicariously just from thinking about it.
Why? What else has the wannabe shown other than mediocrity?
_Deirdre
Master Ted
Diane Richardson writes:
>>>The going rate is now 50 cents per copy at courthouses, lrhoover.
Do you advocate having others subsidize your photocopying bills?<<<
Diane,
Can you offer any reasonable explanation why you would spend your
vacation, time and money digging up this ridiculous stuff? I mean, sure,
it's not the most honest thing in the world to do, but if you want to
devote yourself to truth and justice, why not spend your time against Co$?
This is ridiculous. From the way you've carried on, I expected that
somehow you had proof that PC was behind the JFK assassination or
something important. Not copies.
What happened to you, girl?
Regards,
Ted
James J. Lippard
In article <552ouv$7...@nyx.cs.du.edu>, Hoyos <anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>Moreover, YOU are losing sight of the context of the situation. YOu may
>be so naive to think that motivations don't matter, but I'm not. When I
>say that Diane hates Paulette, I don't mean that everything Diane says
>must therefore be a lie. I do mean, however, that Diane has culled
>through the material she's collected to present those parts that reflect
>negatively on Paulette. She may have done this deliberately. But even
>if she did not, her biases affect her research (as do my biases when I do
>my research).
Hmmm. Diane, when you were going through the Bast tapes, did you
find anything which you felt reflected particularly *well* on Paulette
Cooper, which demonstrated some moral fiber? If so, would you mind
posting such an excerpt or two?
James J. Lippard
It does make sense to me, if the retired officer was a hero with
skeletons in his closet and the person doing the attacking was a
historian. I think that whistleblowing and internal criticism should
be valued.
On the other hand, there is some evidence that fooling ourselves about
various things can be mentally and socially healthy. Personally, I am
somewhat torn between the view that we should never be afraid to face
the truth about anything and the view that we'd all be unhappy, cynical,
and bitter if we were to do so.
Deirdre
In article <551aed$b...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:
> No one has elected me monitor of anyone's morals, Deana,
> particularly not yours.
Probably just as well since it takes soemone with morals to be a monitor.
> I am posting information I obtained from publicly available court
> records. Do you object to that?
When you're posting excerpts of excerpts of wiretaps obtained by fraud,
you betcha.
> >Is Diane Richardson prepared to have *her* life put under the microscope,
> >the way she's doing to Paulette Cooper? Does Diane want people to come
> >out and talk about the hatred and vitriol that she has spread about
> >Paulette in various places over the past months, *not to mention*
> >everything that has gone on in Diane's life in the past 49 years?
I think it's high time to do a full invest and post everything on Diane.
> I notice that you are refusing to deal with the evidence I have
> presented here at all.
The only evidence is that of your hatred and vendetta.
> Deana, I have made *numerous* trips during the past two years to
> obtain information about the "Church" of Scientology[tm]. I did not
> announce these trips in advance, nor did I necessarily contact other
> a.r.s. participants when I was in the vicinity. Was that "sneaking,"
> too?
Yes, when it took you into areas where other newsgroup members reside,
it's generally considered polite to say hello.
> Am I required to report my travel plans in advance to the ARSCC?
Yes. This is in the bylaws.
> The only way I have ever been able to obtain the information I've
> posted to this newsgroup over the past two years was to get off
> my chair and travel to the places that have the information I need.
> Is that a crime? A breach of a.r.s. netiquette? Get real.
No, but it's a stupid waste of time.
_Deirdre
James J. Lippard
In article <3274f5d1...@news.xmission.com>,
Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series) <mir...@xmission.com> wrote:
>ra...@tiac.net (Nico Garcia) wrote:
>
>>People: discounting Diane's claims on the basis of "you just hate Paulette"
>>does not work. Diane has done extensive and rigorous work ripping apart
>>*anyone* who misrepresents their sterling character and innocence.
>
Sociologically speaking, Paulette Cooper is a saint or hero in the
critics' pantheon. By virtue of her past, she has attained high status.
I am sure that were a group of a.r.s critics meeting in person and she
were present, she would be surrounded by interested persons seeking
her autograph, offering her congratulations for the good she has done,
and engaging her in conversation. This is undeniable.
>since when has Diane Richardson been chosen by us to monitor "sterling
>character and innocence"? Why does Paulette have to live up to some sort
She hasn't been. Whistleblowers are always self-motivated, and resistant
to groupthink. They are also always subject to unwarranted criticisms
from within the group.
>of standard set by Diane Richardson? I didn't elect Diane Richardson
>moral monitor, thank you very much.
>
>Is Diane Richardson prepared to have *her* life put under the microscope,
>the way she's doing to Paulette Cooper? Does Diane want people to come
She may well be--people who engage in whistleblowing tend to be pretty
clean, and to expect others to live up to the same standards.
>out and talk about the hatred and vitriol that she has spread about
>Paulette in various places over the past months, *not to mention*
>everything that has gone on in Diane's life in the past 49 years?
I don't think Diane sees what she is doing as hatred, though it
certainly looks that way to most everyone else.
>I don't see that any of this SHIT has anything to do with Scientology,
>but everything to do with the hatred that Diane bears in her heart for
>Paulette Cooper. That's all. And that's all I'm seeing. I *do* *not*
>see Diane Richardson examining the lives of other critics with the same
>sort of fanaticism that she has applied to Paulette's life. In fact, she
This is just a guess, but I'd guess that personal factors started
the ball rolling, and then discovering dirt on Paulette kept it going.
Had there been no dirt to discover, it would have ended. And, perhaps,
had Paulette admitted fault in any prior personal dispute and confessed
whatever wrongdoing had so far been discovered, that might have ended it
also. But responding to Diane with return attacks, resistance to her
evidence, etc. will simply add fuel to the fire.
(I may be projecting here.)
>isn't examining *any* other critic's life that I know of. Perhaps that's
>because none of those people have crossed her in the way that Diane has
>perceived that Paulette has crossed her.
If this is correct--and it may well be--it is likely to be seen as
irrelevant by Diane. Nobody can set the record straight everywhere,
but why does that mean it shouldn't be set straight in this instance?
This isn't the right line of argument if your interest is in persuading
Diane to stop. I doubt that any argument will work unless it acknowledges
the facts that Diane has uncovered.
Do these facts detract from the positive that Paulette Cooper has done? I
don't think so. Do they reflect negatively on Paulette Cooper? They
certainly do. Are her moral failings beyond what kind of dirt might be
found on the average person? I fear that the answer might be no.
>No, Nico. This has nothing to do with sterling character and innocence.
>This has *everything* to do with trying to destroy someone's character.
Paulette's character is what it is. It cannot be destroyed by the posting
of in-context, factual information.
>And that's *all* Diane is about with this Bast shit. Believe me, if
>Diane had been honourable about her actions, she and Keith wouldn't have
>had to sneak off to Waltham, MA, to rummage through court documents, and
>not telling people in Boston that they were there. Really. That's what
>we're dealing with here.
>
>Deana
>
>
>
>Deana M. Holmes
>alt.religion.scientology archivist since February 1995
>April 1996 Poster Child for Clueless $cientology Litigiousness
>mir...@xmission.com
Diane Richardson
lrh...@azstarnet.com wrote:
>William Bardwell wrote:
> > ...it is totally relevant, it tells a great deal about
> > her character, but that is her (Cooper's) fault.
>It doesn't tell a great deal about her character. It is merely one
>small piece of information. Diane is posting it only to make you see
>Paulette in the same way she does.
There is still a great deal more to be posted. I will continue doing
so as time permits.
>Those of us who know Paulette see it as character assassination.
>I think 25 cents per copy is a ripoff.
>Why does the courthouse make it so easy for people to get free copies?
Do they? I haven't noticed that occurring.
>Because they think 25 cents is a ripoff too.
The going rate is now 50 cents per copy at courthouses, lrhoover.
Do you advocate having others subsidize your photocopying bills?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Master Ted
Anima writes:
snip
>>>What is Diane doing that does anything but get in the way of that
important goal?<<<
Exactly what I'm trying desperately to understand. I've watched quietly
for several weeks now, and the big scandal appears to be over copies?
If Diane isn't Co$ herself, then Clear Baby needs to send her a thank you
note. This BS is taking precious resources away from the investigations of
Scientology.
:::shaking head in disbelief:::
Regards,
Ted
dmo...@cts.com
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>You are free to think whatever you like. Of course, that does not
>mean that what you think is either an accurate or honest assessment
>of my intentions.
You make a good point here Diane. I, for one, am interested
in hearing from you, what your intentions are concerning the posting
of not only the Bast tapes but the other data too. It appears the data
being posted is geared to show Paulette in a bad way. It appears the
data being posted is intended to discredit Paulette. Am I and others
reading this wrong? Please, set me straight.
>I find it fascinating that so many of you refuse to examine the
>information I present while doing your utmost to turn this into an
>examination of my inner psyche.
You want the information you and Keith posted to be
examined, right? For what reason? What do you want me and others
to know concerning Paulette? Again, we are talking of intention. What
is your intention for the action of these posts? You have spent hours
working on this cycle right? There must be something you wish all of
to cognite on. What is it?
Are you saying you have no intention to do a character
assasination of Paulette Cooper? This is what is not being
understood by some readers of this list. It appears that is what you
are doing. So tell us, what is your intention/motive?
>>>From: wwo...@aol.com (WWOODSS)
>>>Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
>>>Subject: Re: Tying up loose ends
>>>Date: 23 Oct 1996 11:37:41 -0400
>>>Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
>>>Lines: 43
>>>Sender: ro...@newsbf02.news.aol.com
>>>Message-ID: <54le45$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>>[snip]
>>>To be completely honest, Paulette's credibility was ruined long before the
>>>subject of any documents came up. The point of this whole mess is IMO, to
>>>point out the obvious lack of credibility that PC possesses. To point out
>>>that the sacred cow was not so glorious in the first place. To show to
>>>what lengths PC would have gone to try to destroy the cult, set up or not.
>>[snip]
>Oh, I see! You are now capable of devining my inner motivations based
>upon statements made by another person? Fascinating!
So, what *is your* motive? Here is your chance to tell of your
intentions. When all is said and done, and you have made the last tape
available, what is, the valuable final product are you looking to
achieve for your labours?
Old Timer
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
James J. Lippard
In article <32739861...@news.xmission.com>,>However, and this is a huge however, I do believe that Diane Richardson
>is not motivated by exposing the Co$ for the slimeballs that they are but
>rather by her own personal hatreds and animosities. In other words, she
>wants to make Paulette Cooper look terrible. And she found the perfect
>weapon in the Bast shit.
>
>The problem is that we will *never* know what was originally said. After
>all, the tapes were edited first by Bast, then by the Co$, and finally by
>Keith and Diane. Given Diane's history of animosity towards Paulette
>Cooper, it makes sense to me that Diane would be looking for any shit she
>could on Paulette, so she could make Paulette look bad.
>
>constrained by the terms of her agreements with the Co$. Diane *knows*
>that if Paulette were to say too much, the Co$ would have Paulette's
>keister back in court faster than you can say "breach of contract."
>Diane is not stupid. Diane has picked out an opponent who basically
>cannot answer because she's been blocked by court agreement. And Diane
>thinks that she can just run roughshod over her.
I don't think you're right about this at all. I think that Diane probably
sees her primary goal as setting the record straight and putting a stop to
what she sees as unwarranted adulation of Paulette Cooper in this
newsgroup. It appears to me, as it does to you, that there are other
factors at play here as well--but I can't know for sure.
I have been in somewhat of a similar position to Diane before, and attacks
from defenders of the person I was criticizing which did not address the
content of my criticisms did not make me any less likely to continue
making them--quite the opposite, in fact. They appeared to me to be
evasive, ad hominem, and irrelevant, and I suspect Diane may view them
similarly. If you really want Diane to stop, your arguments are going to
have to be made from a perspective which is compatible with how she sees
what she is doing.
>Well, I for one am calling it for what it is: extremely shitty,
>cretinous and sleazy behaviour, motivated by jealousy for Paulette. It
>has nothing to do with the Co$ (except tangentially, as I've noted
>above). It has everything to do with personal jealousy and hatred.
>
>And I think it should stop. NOW.
James J. Lippard
Anyone who knows me will know that it is out of character for me to
say this, but really, Anima, you are full of shit.
How, pray tell, does any of this "actively aid and abet[...] the cult
in its destruction of lives and families ..." etc.?
On the contrary, if YOU are correct that everybody has failings
like those that have been posted here regarding Paulette Cooper,
then I am very sad for the human race. I have always thought that
people were better than that, but like Rebecca H. I have of late
been faced with contrary evidence. The extent that people are
offering lame apologies for immoral behavior in this newsgroup
("everybody does it") I find appalling.
In article <anima.8...@xanadu.io.com>, Anima <an...@io.com> wrote:
>har...@netins.net (Rebecca Hartong) writes:
>
>>There's been a lot of talk about the damage this information might do to
>>Paulette's reputation. I've got to wonder: What is that reputation built on?
>> Is it *all* built upon the truth? Or is some of it built upon lies? And if
>>it *is* at least in part built upon lies, isn't that worth knowing? I think
>>it is.
>
>Her reputation is based on the FACT, overwhelming, undeniable, appalling,
>that after she wrote a book about the cult of $cientology the leaders of
>that so-called religion systematically attempted to destroy her by
>disgusting and illegal means-- means they continue to use today against
>others who dare fight this international criminal conspiracy at
>substantial personal risk to themselves and their loved ones. That risk is
>increased by the on-going smear campaign against Paulette Cooper and this
>kind of character assassination is actively aiding and abetting the cult
>in its destruction of lives and families, its warping of children, its
>kidnapping and terrorization of the innocent. It does that by encouraging
>critics and ex-dupes to keep their mouths shut. This may be the single
>most effective "head on a pike" campaign this newsgroup has ever seen. And
>to what end?
>
>Anyone who thinks any of us has feet made out of anything but clay hasn't
>been paying attention and may have an I.Q. below room temperature. It
>doesn't matter a tinker's dam if she whored herself on 42nd St. She is one
>person who survived a mob once and can do it again, I hope. The shame and
>the pity is that it should be necessasry to be dragged through such a
>hell twice. The quality of mercy is not strained... except, perhaps for
>the overwhelmingly self-righteous who are completely assured that any
>destruction they carry out, any increase in the sum total of human misery
>that they are responsibile for is all done for the highest and most noble
>of motives.
>
>Please, I beseech thee in the bowels of Christ, consider that you may be
>wrong.
>
>
>
>--
>an...@io.com When making public policy decisions about new technologies
>for the Government, I think one should ask oneself which technologies would
>best strengthen the hand of a police state. Then, do not allow the Government
>to deploy those technologies. --Philip Zimmermann
Cornelius Krasel
Anima (an...@io.com) wrote:
> mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes (NED for OTs Series)) writes:
> > (who thinks this thread should actually be "Diane's Stupid Jealousy")
>
> Come on, here's a little game you can all join in with, any little term
> that you will will do. How many other people, watching this venemous
> frothing are standing appalled on the sidelines, I wonder?
I do.
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP3 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
h3
In article <552cml$i...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:
> lrh...@azstarnet.com wrote:
>
[clip]
>
> >I think 25 cents per copy is a ripoff.
>
> >Why does the courthouse make it so easy for people to get free copies?
>
> Do they? I haven't noticed that occurring.
>
> >Because they think 25 cents is a ripoff too.
>
> The going rate is now 50 cents per copy at courthouses, lrhoover.
> Do you advocate having others subsidize your photocopying bills?
>
it's still 25 cents at the SJ Federal courthouse. you
can take it to Kinko's and get it done for about 5 cents
a page. it was still a ripoff in the 1980's at 25 cents per.
and it doesn't excuse Paulette for cheating the government in
return. although i personally am inclined more to a 'so
what' attitude.
sorry. i was inclined to stay out of this. but it was
something i was mulling myself. still, what difference
does it make now? none that i can tell.
Deirdre
In article <550lds$k...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:
> What evidence do you have that the tapes have been "edited first by
> Bast"? What evidence do you have that they were further edited "by
> the Co$"? What evidence do you have that the RealAudio files have
> been edited "finally by Keith and Diane"?
What evidence do you have (sworn testimony is *insufficient* in this case)
that they were NOT edited by Bast?
What evidence do you have that they were NOT edited by the CofS?
I believe the editing mentioned with you and your consort was simply what
was being posted vs. what was not.
_Deirdre
Steve A
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 11:28:07 +0000, Sister Clara
<cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <54t6u9$8...@clark.zippo.com>
> ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
> > Information from the Bast tapes is corroborated by the sworn testimony
> > of others. Nan McLean was repeatedly placed in the painful position
> > of being forced to choose whether to tell the truth under oath or lie
> > to cover for a friend. Nan's "stupid honesty" prevailed.
>
> Tell me, Diane. Is this alt.religion.scientology or alt.paulette.cooper?
>
> What a sad, bitter person you have become.
Uh-huh.
Such a waste, too - I used to like Diane.
--
Steve A, SP4, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12
ObDenial: I am not Arthur Stevens of Crawley.
ObURLS: Beginners: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/cos.html
In-depth: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Harassment: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/harass/timeline-95.html
Fools, losers, and mugs: http://www.scientology.org
Child molesters! Join Scientology and grope with impunity!
IN MEMORIAM: Richard Collins, John Buchanan, Noah Lottick anon.penet.fi,
rema...@utopia.hacktic.nl, victims of the criminal cult of Scientology.
Steve A
On 27 Oct 1996 13:24:52 -0700, anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In article <54tsa9$f...@clark.zippo.com>,
> Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>
> Ron Newman wrote:
>
> >>I see absolutely no earthly reason to post this stuff now, except
> >>as character assassination.
>
> >Here are a few reasons. I will gladly supply you with more.
Sorry, Diane, but *plonk*
This pains me, because, of all the posters to a.r.s., I had always
held Diane in high esteem, and with the utmost regard, for her ability
to research, collate and structure information so well - it was a
skill I envied for myself.
However, if the price one pays for skill like that is the possession
of a character so full of hatred and vitriol, I can only say how glad
I am I lack that ability.
At least I can live with myself.
Joe Harrington
Dear Lord Xenu,
I for one am growing weary of this endless muckracking. Diane's
diatribes, past and present, seems to be primarily gender-oriented
and her essays were much more meaningful when they dealt with the core
issues addressed on this newsgroup, rather than personal attacks.
I hope she can get back to the issues and pursue personal attacks
in some other forum. Amen.
Joe
Steve A
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 02:40:09 -0500, William Bardwell
<wbar...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
> Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> writes:
> > This transcript is the product of a fraudulent, deceptive entrapment:
> > Richard Bast's misrepresentation of himself to Paulette Cooper when
> > he hired her as a "contractor".
>
> It was misrepresentation used to get the recording, it was not
> entrapment for her to cheat on her zerox fees...(Nor some of the
> things that were said by her...) Entrapment means inducing someone to
> do things they wouldn't have otherwise done...(and telling someone you
> are working to get dirt on the CoS even if it isn't true isn't
> inducment to illegal/immoral activity in my book.)
Have you *never* done anything you would not have wanted to be made
public?
In any event, Paulette's work regarding Scientology was not done from
a position of moral superiority, nor did it need to. Any alleged
"crimes" of hers that might be being dug up do not, to my mind, impugn
her credibility one whit.
Her work stands on its own merits, AFAIAC.
>
> > I see absolutely no earthly reason to post this stuff now, except
> > as character assassination.
>
> I think it is only marginally relevant, given that she isn't really
> involved in dealing with the CoS anymore, but for historical interest,
> it is totally relevant, it tells a great deal about her character, but
> that is her (Cooper's) fault.
>
> That all said, Bast used a very slimy technique, and I would have very
> seriously considered sueing him had this been me (even if I wasn't all
> that uncomfortable with whatever was recorded.)
>
> William Bardwell
> wbardwel+@[cs.]cmu.edu
Steve A
On 27 Oct 1996 14:26:16 -0600, an...@io.com (Anima) wrote:
Normally, I'd snip this, if all I were doing was posting a "me, too"
on the bottom of the page.
But this one bears reposting.
Oh, and incidentally, "me, too". Whatever he/she said...
> I have now read two more snippets of out-of-context tape, about
> remembering and testimony and Toronto lawyers. What on earth could
> conceivably be the point? Are the posters so void of pettiness,
> pennypinching, and occasionl misperception or even misrepresentation as to
> claim the are so far about the merely mortal fray as to be able to sneer
> at such human weaknesses? Pfaugh.
>
> I take it all back. This isn't even despicable. It's just pathetic.
> Contemptible because of its intellecual fraudulence, but beyond that just
> wretchedly pathetic. Shame, shame, shame.
>
> A cult hireling was paid and paid well to blacken the name of one of its
> first and most effective critics after the plot to have her falsely
> convicted of crimes... failed. Then the plot to drive her insane and
> suicidal... failed. Then all the money pounded down the Bast rathole came
> to naught. But evil never sleeps. Years and years later, the inadmissable
> product of that expensive little destroy-the-SP-bitch caper is paying off
> by exposing yet again the stygian depth and nefarious lengths to which the
> international criminal conspiracy will go in its insane rampage of
> self-destruction as its long career of fraud and its long trail of bodies
> and shattered lives at last begins to be examined. And now every last
> piece of bubblegum chewed and stuck clandestinely under a desk is going to
> be dragged out and used by jackals to tear the hide of a woman they are
> not fit to have piss on them.
>
> Salieri is known today only because of association with his better. Is
> this how Diane & Co. hope to achieve immortality? By forever being linked
> to the Co$ campaign against its enemies, and in this contemptible fashion?
>
> So this is the depths of depravity Paulette can be accused of? Or are the
> jackals saving their biggest pieces of well-financed carrion for later
> use? God if there is justice in the world, let this black horror rebound
> upon the would-be hellounds who are perpetrating this wretched spew so
> that they may one day truly experience the absolutely pitiful triviality
> to which their soul's aspirations have been reduced.
>
> And THIS is what the once-awesome and terrifying cult of greed and power
> has come down to? Even to spit on such a bunch of losers and weeaklings is
> to give their pustulent puling more credibility than its morally bankrupt
> appearance in public could ever dream of. Those who touch pitch are
> defiled by it, and Diane is rapidly becoming the Pitch Mistress of a.r.s.
>
> Is it possible to sink lower than this? If so, I'm sure the Pitch Mistress
> will attempt it. Our own little Salieri wannabe. It makes me ashamed
> vicariously just from thinking about it.
Steve A
On Sun, 27 Oct 96 22:34:10 GMT, har...@netins.net (Rebecca Hartong)
wrote:
> In article <anima.8...@xanadu.io.com>, an...@io.com (Anima) wrote:
>
> (snipped and edited.. where ever I felt like it!)
>
> >And now every last
> >piece of bubblegum chewed and stuck clandestinely under a desk is going to
> >be dragged out and used by jackals to tear the hide of a woman they are
> >not fit to have piss on them.
>
> Take it to alt.sex.watersports, Anima... But seriously, since part of PC's
> reputation as an enemy of Scn is based upon reports of how financially
> destroyed she was by her dealings with them, don't you think it's relevent
> that she would lie about how much it was actually costing her?
You said it: "part" of her reputation. And, AFAIAC, a small part.
> I think what we've got here is a classic example of the idol with feet of
> clay.
I can remember Dennis warning about making idols out of some of the
people here. This just proves him right.
For my part, I prefer to think of you all as "people". Works better in
my head that way, and then when I hear or see natural human failings,
I'm not totally surprised.
> >Salieri is known today only because of association with his better.
>
> Probably only by people who's only exposure to him was through the movie
> "Amadeus." Most people with any education in classical music, though, know of
> him through his own work. But anyway...
Were it not for his association with Mozart, I would consider it
likely that Salieri would have been among the many, many also-rans
that occupy the ranks behind every great composer/artist/whatever. One
cannot say for sure, but it makes for a good point in the debate,
regardless.
> This is just the start. I heard that she's just warming up for infant
> sacrifice and fornication with goats.
Ah, the goats. Well, they've been wandering free all over a.r.s. since
Tarla lured all those arab goat boys over here then enticed them away
from their charges. What was it you had them doing, Tarla? :-)
Steve A
On Sun, 27 Oct 96 22:12:55 GMT, har...@netins.net (Rebecca Hartong)
wrote:
> In article <anima.8...@xanadu.io.com>, an...@io.com (Anima) wrote:
> >I have now read two more snippets of out-of-context tape, about
> >remembering and testimony and Toronto lawyers. What on earth could
> >conceivably be the point? Are the posters so void of pettiness,
> >pennypinching, and occasionl misperception or even misrepresentation as to
> >claim the are so far about the merely mortal fray as to be able to sneer
> >at such human weaknesses? Pfaugh.
>
> I recently had an experience that taught be something about many of the people
> I've known whom I'd assumed were much like me. An out-of-town employee of the
> company that I work for was here training a small group of us on a new
> procedure. While we were all chatting about his visit to our town, he
> mentioned that he'd been padding his expense accounts. "I go across the
> street to the restaurant and order a $2.00 bowl of oatmeal. They give me a
> blank receipt and I fill in that my breakfast actually cost $7.00. I'm making
> out like a bandit on this trip!" Several of us mentioned this
> conversation (and other more damning things) to our manager and the guy was
> fired. Later, one of the people who'd been in the training class with me
> remarked, "What a jerk that guy was! I mean.. *Everyone* does it (pad their
> expense accounts), but you sure don't *talk* about it!!!"
You said it up there; "and other more damning things". This eedjit
wasn't just trying it on, but was boasting about it, and doing other
"more damning" things, and in the circumstances I think you were all
justified in shopping him, but I can think of several situations where
I would consider myself justified in padding an expense claim (never
worked for an employer that combs expense claims, trying to bring them
down after the fact?), but I'd never boast to my colleagues about it,
if only because it's potential ammunition to be used against me later.
What I find distasteful about this PC business is not that she fiddled
expenses claims. It is the fact that a CoS-funded operation was used
to get this information, and that people other than the CoS are now
using that information as part of a personal agenda to discredit her.
This smacks of the same "end justifies the means philosophy" that we
are so critical of the CoS about, and it sickens me.
If the real motive for this muckraking was to tell the truth about
Paulette, then these Bast transcripts could be posted whole, with an
accompanying post of commentary, instead of which, we're being drip
fed with selective titbits, backed up with plenty of invective and
innuendo. I don't like it one bit: it is as if certain of us have
adopted the characteristics of our enemy.
So, Paulette Cooper is evidently (and allegedly) not whiter than
white. Her alleged crimes pale into insignificance when one looks at
what was done to her by the cult, and it seems to me that the CoS has
succeeded in applying Standard Tech and diverting attention from the
fact that they committed the most blatant and obscene acts in order to
frame her, then compounded that sin by then launching a comprehensive
entrapment operation. Along the way they managed to dig some
(allegedly) real dirt. So what? It still pales into insignificance in
the context of what was done to her.
No wonder we haven't seen Milne or Brennan here for months: with Diane
doing their work for them, Scientology doesn't need them here.
Big deal
Bernie
an...@io.com (Anima) wrote:
>el...@netcom.com (kEvin) writes:
>>And as for editing by Diane, anyone can go and listen to the tapes with
>>ars transcripts in hand and point out inaccuracies.
>Perhaps the rest of us have better things to do that to stop cold, rush to
>the East Coast of the U.S. and spent our time and money going through
>drivel. Daniel Berrigan is quite right: Some property has no right to
>exist.
Maybe you haven't been following the thread. The full documents are on
the web, in their original form.
>>Paulette has many defenders. I think Diane has taken a lot of flak
>>over this issue, and that's without Paulette doing anything. I'm still
>I'm not sure this is about defending Paulette,
Ah no? Ah, well, it's ok then.
>certainly not any alleged
>conduct from 20 years ago.
The conduct is not alleged, it's right there on the tape.
>>mulling over the privacy issue, but since the tapes are already publically
>>available, I've decided that whatever I do decide for myself will not
>>necessarily be the one true decision. If I do decide it's inappropriate
>>for the material to be posted, I won't read it, but I won't tell people
>>not to post it either. Too much flaming has gone on over that question.
>Not nearly enough flaming has gone on over that issue. Me, I predict
>more. Much more.
Yea. Seems that this is what PC defenders are reduced to. This is,
BTW, extremely revealing. I haven't seen to much fear, outcry and
quasi-hystery against documents revelation since my time in the cult.
[snip]
>>be wildly wrong. What if Diane formed her opinion of Paulette from
>>her research? What if Diane has honest reasons for thinking ill of
>I don't believe it, but so what if she did? This is not a newsgroup to
>expose the "blood crimes" of the victims of the $cno cult.
The group is alt.religion.scientology. Where does it say that it
should be devoted to attack Scientology? Some think it is about
discussing it based on ~truth~. Since when posting documents related
to the COS nature and history all of a sudden became an omen?
I for one find these documents absolutely fascinating. One of the most
interesting thing I have read since long, and I did get rather blasé.
Some found the TNX excerpts recently posted fascinating too. And of
course no one objected to the morally questionable action of posting
to ars document private to the COS, with names and everything. They
are "hard-core" scieno, so what? But post a public and legal document
that may reveal a critic misbehavior, and the "ethical" question is
immediately raised (in total contradiction with the first set of
arguments that was so convenient until D & K put it on the web).
>Blaming the
>victim might go on one of the aids groups or rape support groups but I
>doubt it, and it would be a big surprise if it made the grade here.
This is not alt.support.rape. "Victim", "support", "rape" is of course
your positioning of the situation, from which you can justify your
arguments to hide documents that may tell a truth that displeases you.
>Then people should stop acting like them and smearing others just because
>there are reprehensible documents on file where they can be exposed.
Bwahahaha! Now turn this argument around and see how ridicule it is.
This is BTW an easy exercise anyone can do: read the Bast documents
and replace PC with LRH or another scieno. How we would ~love~ to have
something as damaging against the COS! We would copy it, distribute
it, repeat it ad nauseum. But here no. It is a "respected critic". My
God! It shows how critics have become hypocritics, with a double
standard to judge reprehensible behavior whether it is committed by
the COS or the COS critic.
It is pity that Diane didn't think to publish the document without
revealing who it was about at first. Most would surely have assumed it
was a clam rather than a sacred cow. I would have heard till here the
obfuscated, disgusted and shocked comments against dishonesty,
cheating, etc, etc.
>>>And I think it should stop. NOW.
Miscabage, jumping madly on his hat against squirrels, SP and ars is
saying ~exactly~ the same think.
>>You have a killfile and you know how to use it. You can stop it there.
>Playing ostrich will not prohibit the promulgation of evil and
>viciousness. Was that your response to the spam deluge as well?
What a question. Of course. Didn't you killfile them?
_______________
See no evil... in critics. It amazes me how so many still see in the
Bast document how evil the COS is, and see nothing wrong with the one
who obviously is at the center of it all.
Judgement comes only at the end, but what you do is trying to prevent
even the case to be ~presented~ by shouting and swearing in the vain
hope to shut Diane up. This is to me certainly as revealing as what
these documents themselves may have to reveal.
I think that Diane is providing an invaluable service to this
newsgroup by exposing the COS real nature ~and~ exposing whatever else
related that she feels equally sickened by, whether damaging to the
cult or not. To hide from things we don't want to hear and protect
~possible~ misbehaving of ~anyone~ isn't going to be effective against
the cult in the long run. Lets first hear what Diane has to say
instead of condemning her for daring to voice something we may not
like or agree with.
---------
Bernie
You underestimate the dedication of the true believer. All counter
evidence is part of a conspiracy. The more credible the evidence is,
the more it shows how pervasive the conspiracy is!
(Pat Braden)
Bev
You get a second amen. There's such a thing as making a point, and
then KILLING it.
Diane's abilities at research are incredible. I would love to see
those abilities geared at the IRS - Co$ agreement. There are some
absolutely incredible things there waiting to have light shown on
them.
Beverly
Xenu's Sister
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Diane Richardson wrote:
> You might also consider such events as the remarkable appearance of
> Margaret Huffstickler on the newsgroup as the close confidante and
> defender of such anti-Scientology litigants as Arnie Lerma and Steven
> Fishman.
"Remarkable appearance"? Oooh, that's silly. She showed up one day
and posted. Just like you did. Just like I did. Just like we all
did.
You might also consider such events as the remarkable appearance of
Woodsy and Judith on the newsgroup as the close confidante and
defender of such never-were-in-and-never-have-been-harrassed-by-
Scientology folks like you, Diane.
Sounds to me as if you don't like the fact that Arnie and Fishman
have confidants and defenders, especially someone as intelligent
as Margaret. I may not always agree with her on certain issues,
but I respect her decision to go to bat for folks who are on the
receiving end of a flamewar, and her loyalty in not dropping them
like a hot potato when they suddenly become "unpopular" (for good,
bad, or unknown reasons).
Margaret and I are not friends. We've never had any e-mail contact
whatsoever, but I know one thing. I'd rather have someone like
her as a friend and on my side than a lot of people on this
newsgroup...people whose loyalties and opinions change like a
breeze in the wind, or people who hold onto a grudge as if it
were gold, or people who willfully try to destroy other people's
reputations because of a grudge (and I might point out that
*that* category includes Erlich *AND* Fishman as much as it
does you and your AOL buddies).
I personally think Margaret is harmless. You, however, scare
the shit out of me. I never thought I'd be as frightened by
a supposed fellow critic as I am of the scienos. It's a
creepy feeling. Luckily, I'm just a minnow in the ocean of
critics. You have a lot of bigger fish to catch and fry
before me.
> Might Margaret Huffstickler be the Richard Bast of the '90s? I have
> no idea. I wonder if Arnie Lerma and Steven Fishman have any more
> of an idea about that than I have.
What the hell is this? We have an entree of Paulette Flambe with
a side order of mashed Margaret? Who's for dessert Diane?
Hmmm, might Diane be the Richard Bast of the '90s? I have no idea,
but I thought I'd say it anyway.
Vickie (thinking about going to DejaNews and reading all those
"Swamp Thing" posts I killfiled the first time around, because
I didn't want to see *you* bashed).
Ron Newman
In article <55459p$l...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, lip...@primenet.com says...
>On the contrary, if YOU are correct that everybody has failings
>like those that have been posted here regarding Paulette Cooper,
>then I am very sad for the human race. I have always thought that
>people were better than that, but like Rebecca H. I have of late
>been faced with contrary evidence. The extent that people are
>offering lame apologies for immoral behavior in this newsgroup
>("everybody does it") I find appalling.
I believe that when a fraudulent entrapment occurs, all responsibility falls
on the entrapper, not the entrappee, for any events that result.
If Bast manipulated Paulette into a position where he was able to tape
her idly speculating about planting drugs on someone, I have to blame
this squarely on Bast, or more appropriately on Bast's employer, the
Church of Scientology.
Ron Newman
>How, pray tell, does any of this "actively aid and abet[...] the cult
>in its destruction of lives and families ..." etc.?
That was more than a bit of rhetorical excess, but the point stands that
this "expose'" of Paulette by Diane could have the (presumably unintended)
effect of deterring others from stepping forward to speak out, for
fear that someone will rummage around in obscure court files
to dig up decade-old dirt on them.
Maybe this is outweighed by the need to correct the historical
record. Maybe it isn't.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard):
>I am not happy with how all this has come out, and it does *appear* to me
>as though there is a personal dispute that has contributed to the apparent
>ferocity of Diane's attacks on Paulette.
You should ask Diane that.
>I have asked Diane whether she
>has found anything that shows Paulette in a particularly good light, and
>to post it if so.
That's just your legal naivte' showing, Jim. Why would the scienos file
~anything~ that shows Paulette in a 'good light'?
>I suspect that there are such things, and I would not
>characterize Paulette with the terms that Diane has used based on what
>I've seen so far.
I think it's good to discuss these things calmly.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
Tashback
In article <327b417...@192.168.2.1>,
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk.no.spam.thanx (Steve A) wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 96 22:34:10 GMT, har...@netins.net (Rebecca Hartong)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <anima.8...@xanadu.io.com>, an...@io.com (Anima) wrote:
> > >Salieri is known today only because of association with his better.
> >
> > Probably only by people who's only exposure to him was through the movie
> > "Amadeus." Most people with any education in classical music, though,
know of
> > him through his own work. But anyway...
>
> Were it not for his association with Mozart, I would consider it
> likely that Salieri would have been among the many, many also-rans
> that occupy the ranks behind every great composer/artist/whatever. One
> cannot say for sure, but it makes for a good point in the debate,
> regardless.
>
I have no background in classical music, so I don't know how the
historical Salieri is regarded. Peter Shaffer's Salieri (the Salieri in
the movie *Amadeus* and the play of the same name that preceded it), a
fictional character only loosely based on the historical Salieri, however,
was imbued with all sorts of evil intent in order to move the dramatic
action along.
If it makes a good point, as you say, in this debate, it's only because
Shaffer *created* Salieri in order to make his own statement, as Anima and
Deirdre are creating their own Diane Richardson in order to make their
statements. Read what he says about how his character changed from the
opening of *Amadeus* in London to its later presentation in New York:
"One of the faults which I believe existed in the London version was
simply that Salieri had too little to do with Mozart's ruin ...
Dramatically speaking, Salieri seemed too much to me to be the observer of
the calamities he should have been causing. Now, in this new version, he
seems to me to stand where he properly belongs -- at the wicked center of
the action."
I know this seems off-topic, but since Diane has suddenly become a
character whose motivation, drives, and inner psyche are being recreated
before our eyes as we speak, I thought the creators of this new
Richardson-Salieri hybrid could use some dramaturgical advice from the
respected playwright who created the Salieri of whom they speak.
Back to the war ...
Tashback
Diane Richardson
ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk.no.spam.thanx (Steve A) wrote:
[snip]
>If the real motive for this muckraking was to tell the truth about
>Paulette, then these Bast transcripts could be posted whole, with an
>accompanying post of commentary, instead of which, we're being drip
>fed with selective titbits, backed up with plenty of invective and
>innuendo. I don't like it one bit: it is as if certain of us have
>adopted the characteristics of our enemy.
Steve, there *is* no Bast transcript. There are Bast audiotapes,
hour upon hour of them. They were submitted to the court whole
and uncut.
We are attempting to get the tapes placed on the web in RealAudio
format so that anyone who cares can listen to the documentation
for themselves. The first 90 minute segment has been placed on
our web pages and is available right now.
Technical problems have slowed down our efforts to continue with
this project. As Keith has mentioned here, if anyone is willing to
offer free web space, our efforts to make the tapes available to all
would be greatly speeded up.
[snip]
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
James J. Lippard
>
>>Anyone who knows me will know that it is out of character for me to
>>say this, but really, Anima, you are full of shit.
>
>have ever seen you Begin an argument ad hominem, much less end one that
>way. This noble eruction of yours will be appearing in a .sig file near
My remark is about your argument, not about your character. I apologize
for any misunderstanding. The above statement was my way of expressing
profound disbelief in the argument you were making.
>you Real Soon Now. Treasure this moment of imperfection and think how
>people will look at it 20 years from now when the tapes are replayed.
No problem. Play away. I have no problem admitting and being reminded of
my errors--it helps me avoid repeating them.
>>How, pray tell, does any of this "actively aid and abet[...] the cult
>>in its destruction of lives and families ..." etc.?
>
>I think it is clear that critics expecting their lives two decades ago to
>be scoured through and relentlessly revealed might hesitate to come
>forward and volunteer for such treatment. I think people attracted because
>of the New York Times and other incidents might be a little... appalled...
>by the spectacle of someone dredging up clandestinely created tapes that
>expose someone for being only human and shedding NO LIGHT on the actual
>issues today nor, for that matter, much revelation (if any) on the victim
>of this attack. It also certainly provides exactly the same kind of "The
>victim isn't holy so all is fair game" behavior the cult is known for. And
>whether the motive is good or ill, it certainly is widely perceived as
>being personal and shameful at a time when some people are making actual
>progress in court and in the press against the cult's secrets and lies.
I think you and I judge the wrongness of Paulette Cooper's actions
differently. If the issues involved, say, sexual activity or drug use, I
would take the same view as you. Such things would be completely
irrelevant. But what I have seen so far is a few instances of Paulette
Cooper expressing a willingness to engage or actually engaging in lying
and deception in order to make her case against Scientology. What I have
also seen are people stating explicitly that there is nothing wrong with
such a thing. The latter makes the former quite relevant today.
>How is this attack on Paulette aiding the anti-Scientology effort?
By showing that there are critics today who see nothing wrong in engaging
in deception and lies to bring down the cult, which I think needs to be
fought tooth and nail.
>Whether this newsgroup is pro or con when it comes to the cult in its
>name, an endless thread about the sins of cult critics is somewhat
>off-topic, yes? And even if it were not diluting the Real Stuff that is
If we can't criticize our own, then we are emulating the cult.
If we can't understand and forgive, then we are also emulating the cult.
But understanding and forgiving doesn't mean closing your eyes.
>getting done and getting out there, even if it were not distracting
>critics from more important work, it has already consumed days and hours
>of time from not one but two people who could have used their frenzy,
>their passion, and the skills do expose further evidence of criminality
>being promulgated by the cult and its leaders. That would have been a real
>service, and having all that railroaded onto Paulette cheated on Xerox
>expenses and the like is, just what I said, pathetic.
I am sure you are correct that some energy is being "wasted" that could be
put into more productive efforts. I am equally sure that this would be
true even if this particular thread never existed.
>>On the contrary, if YOU are correct that everybody has failings
>>like those that have been posted here regarding Paulette Cooper,
>>then I am very sad for the human race. I have always thought that
>>people were better than that, but like Rebecca H. I have of late
>>been faced with contrary evidence. The extent that people are
>>offering lame apologies for immoral behavior in this newsgroup
>>("everybody does it") I find appalling.
>
>Rebecca said that she had heard "everybody does it" in regard to business
>ethics in the course of her work. I have not seen, though I may have
>missed, anyone using that as a justification for what you call "immoral
>behavior." I have myself said, and believe others have claimed, that no
>one is perfect and that Paulette had never held herself out as so virtuous
>as to be above reproach. In fact, I think Most people are refusing to deal
Those arguments are quite similar, aren't they? Don't criticize X for
doing Y because nobody is perfect (i.e., everybody suffers from the same
or equivalent failings)?
>with any of this crap in terms of defending Paulette's having said or done
>something less than honorable. What some people are least are defending is
>the right not to be smeared from hell to breakfast for crap like this 20
>years ago. DYKTAWO might be a better model than some at the moment-- Don't
>You Know There's a War On?
I am not happy with how all this has come out, and it does *appear* to me
as though there is a personal dispute that has contributed to the apparent
ferocity of Diane's attacks on Paulette. I have asked Diane whether she
has found anything that shows Paulette in a particularly good light, and
to post it if so. I suspect that there are such things, and I would not
characterize Paulette with the terms that Diane has used based on what
I've seen so far.
Diane Richardson
lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard) wrote:
>In article <552ouv$7...@nyx.cs.du.edu>, Hoyos <anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>>Moreover, YOU are losing sight of the context of the situation. YOu may
>>be so naive to think that motivations don't matter, but I'm not. When I
>>say that Diane hates Paulette, I don't mean that everything Diane says
>>must therefore be a lie. I do mean, however, that Diane has culled
>>through the material she's collected to present those parts that reflect
>>negatively on Paulette. She may have done this deliberately. But even
>>if she did not, her biases affect her research (as do my biases when I do
>>my research).
>Hmmm. Diane, when you were going through the Bast tapes, did you
>find anything which you felt reflected particularly *well* on Paulette
>Cooper, which demonstrated some moral fiber? If so, would you mind
>posting such an excerpt or two?
>--
I'm already engaged in posting the full transcript of one of Cooper's
depositions in her Boston lawsuit against Scientology[tm]. Its' quite
long, and for the most part quite boring, but it demonstrates clearly
the sort of questioning she was up against.
Although the claim is made over and over that I am choosing to post
only documents that place Cooper in a bad light, I'm attempting to
post all the documents I obtained during my research. The amount
of paperwork in this case is voluminous, however, and it's going to
take me a long time to get it all posted.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Deirdre
In article <55459p$l...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, lip...@primenet.com
(James J. Lippard) wrote:
> Anyone who knows me will know that it is out of character for me to
> say this, but really, Anima, you are full of shit.
Sorry to say, but Anima makes a good point in the post you responded to.
> How, pray tell, does any of this "actively aid and abet[...] the cult
> in its destruction of lives and families ..." etc.?
Because it's hurting critics just like OSA would do and has done.
> On the contrary, if YOU are correct that everybody has failings
> like those that have been posted here regarding Paulette Cooper,
> then I am very sad for the human race.
Sorry, we all DO have failings. Some may be far far worse than the petty
ones shown about Paulette Cooper. I'm sorry you hadn't figured that out.
The only reason you don't see them is that they're not being trotted down
the runway like the latest in the (other) DKNY collection.
_Deirdre
Rod Keller
Roy (r...@ibexbsc.com.xenu.anti-spam) wrote:
: Have to tried to listen to the *.ra files, but they're stored in "28,800"
: format, which requires a DX486-66 or better to play. I have only a
: DX486-33, so I hear the track with gapping at 900 ms or less intervals,
: which renders them unintelligible. For best distribution and a slight
: loss of fidelity, store in the 14,400 format. RA's fine at the lower
: compression; don't need another stinkin' sound player, got 4 or 5
: installed already.
Funny, I was hoping they'd go the opposite direction, to RA3. I can't make
that format yet, but I'm sure the software upgrade exists.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / Golden Gate Bridge Club
United Free Zone Alliance / The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos
Kha Khan countdown: 9 to go / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
GEMMAMP1
Jim Lippard wrote:
>>This makes me think of someone being at war, and spending all their
>>time attacking one of their own retired officers. Makes little sense
>>to me. Wouldn't it make more sense to go after Scientology rather
>>than someone who was horribly harmed by them and has mostly put that
>>behind her now? I just don't get it.
>It does make sense to me, if the retired officer was a hero with
>skeletons in his closet and the person doing the attacking was a
>historian. I think that whistleblowing and internal criticism should
>be valued.
I don't know if you meant to say this, but your statement seems to imply
that if we "blow the whistle" on Paulette's imperfections that her status
as a hero will come tumbling down. I say that this is only true for
people who are engaging in black and white thinking that just because she
was a hero against Scientology that this means she is morally perfect. I
would hope that we can go beyond this kind of black and white thinking and
see that nobody is morally perfect and that this in no way lessens the
good she has done in standing up against the CofS. If anyone expected
moral perfection I guess they would be disappointed with most critics of
the CofS (and most retired generals, for that matter), but I say this is
not the point.
>On the other hand, there is some evidence that fooling ourselves about
>various things can be mentally and socially healthy. Personally, I am
>somewhat torn between the view that we should never be afraid to face
>the truth about anything and the view that we'd all be unhappy, cynical,
>and bitter if we were to do so.
I don't think it is necessary to fool ourselves to regard Paulette as a
Scientology hero.
Monica Pignotti
************************************************
"My cult can lick your cult any day of the week"
--------the late Robert Kaufman, Ex-Scientologist,
Author of Inside Scientology and the first to reveal OT III
GEMMAMP1
Jim Lippard wrote:
>>Is Diane Richardson prepared to have *her* life put under the
microscope,
>>the way she's doing to Paulette Cooper? Does Diane want people to come
>She may well be--people who engage in whistleblowing tend to be pretty
>clean, and to expect others to live up to the same standards.
That's an interesting statement. Have you considered that all of us on
this newsgroup who openly criticize Scientology and Paulette especially
are definitely
whistleblowers. People blow the whistle on the CofS put themselves at
great risk and the CofS goes to great lengths to expose any kind of
imperfection in their background and sometimes they are successful at
doing so. I don't think this, in any way mitigates the value of what the
whistleblower did, thus detracting attention from what the CofS did. I
thought that what the CofS does was supposed to be the focus of this
newsgroup.
James J. Lippard
In article <3281c534...@204.245.3.50>,
Rev. Dennis L Erlich <inF...@primenet.com> wrote:
>lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard):
>
>>I am not happy with how all this has come out, and it does *appear* to me
>>as though there is a personal dispute that has contributed to the apparent
>>ferocity of Diane's attacks on Paulette.
>
>
>>has found anything that shows Paulette in a particularly good light, and
>>to post it if so.
>
If the tapes and transcripts are really unedited, then it seems to me
there should be some good stuff in there.
James J. Lippard
Of all the exchanges on this subject I've had over the last few days,
Anima, yours have made me stop and think the most. I appreciate your
patience and willingness to elaborate your points in some detail.
I have been persuaded to join the "there's no point in continuing to
post negative details about Paulette Cooper's history" camp. If
Diane's point is to show the harm that can come from critics adopting
unethical tactics in fighting the cult, that point has been already
been proven.
In article <anima.8...@pentagon.io.com>, Anima <an...@io.com> wrote:
>lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard) writes:
>>My remark is about your argument, not about your character. I apologize
>>for any misunderstanding. The above statement was my way of expressing
>>profound disbelief in the argument you were making.
>
>It occurred to me after I posted this, that "you are full of shit" could
>be construed as being something other than an arguement against the man,
>so I raised the issue at my office. My two consultants, coming from
>different positions, decided my characterization is correct.
>
>One of my colleagues said that the phrase does not translate into "you
>are in error" but that the error is willful, malicious, due to stupidity
>or ignorance that should be obvious, or is hypocritical and dishonest, as
>in "you are knowingly wrong" or purposeful in error. That the lack of
>perceived correctness is, in fact, due to a character flaw rather than an
>honest mistake or arguable error.
Based on my feelings at the time I posted it, I would have put
it into the ignorance (perceived) category. But I was wrong.
Again, I apologize.
[deletions]
>>>you Real Soon Now. Treasure this moment of imperfection and think how
>>>people will look at it 20 years from now when the tapes are replayed.
>
>>No problem. Play away. I have no problem admitting and being reminded of
>>my errors--it helps me avoid repeating them.
>
>Do you think when legions of Usenetters encounter the remark as a
>standalone they will think it is a reflection on the quality and aptness
>of a particular argument, or a more general characterization? That might
Hard to say--in part, it would depend on how they classified me within
the Buckley/Briggs continuum you described. But the point is taken.
>help you interpret the impact of your memorable hyperbole-- uttered, in
>context, at least partly by means of objection to a somewhat hyperbolic
>but quite fervently held (then and now) analysis from me. I think Ron
>Newman, for one, seems to have a good appreciation of the damage to the
>cause of investigating Scientology, both the beliefs and the organization,
>that the usufructs of the cult's nefarious business with Bast might
>entail.
>
>To say we can draw spiritual refreshment from watching somone twist in the
>wind like Jonathan Edward's spider is too dryly theoretical when the
>amount of direct suffering this will cause is clear, and when it comforts
>the guilty more than the oppressed. Not to understand this point (and
>while I believe you do, some people purport not to) is akin to taking my
>little metaphor about Salieri and sniffing that not everyone is ignorant
>of his music on its own merits-- which is certainly the case, but rather
>insistently purports not to have understood the point of my reference.
Granted.
>>I think you and I judge the wrongness of Paulette Cooper's actions
>>differently. If the issues involved, say, sexual activity or drug use, I
>>would take the same view as you. Such things would be completely
>>irrelevant. But what I have seen so far is a few instances of Paulette
>>Cooper expressing a willingness to engage or actually engaging in lying
>>and deception in order to make her case against Scientology. What I have
>>also seen are people stating explicitly that there is nothing wrong with
>>such a thing. The latter makes the former quite relevant today.
>
>I'm not sure we do disagree on the wrongness of Ms. Cooper's behavior as
>reported in these threads. Let's see: Eveil cult, exposed by her behavior,
>engages in repeated attempts to discredit her and to exact vengeance even
>unto death. Later, it engages in yet another campaign against her and at
>that point is able to document that she has gone further in discussions
>and otherwise, at least as revealed in the comfortable presence of
>supposed friends and allies, than one would like. Manymany years later,
>after this second campaign is put behind her like unto the first, suddenly
>all her conduct and character are put at risk again, this time because....
>
>Remind me just why? Because everything about the cult is known, its court
>cases, the people it has driven insane, overboarded, offloaded,
>chainlockered, bankrupted, defrauded and abused in the U.S. and abroad is
>well known and thoroughly documented with no more to be found? Or because
>this campaign is so important that it must take months of work, travel,
>and expense so that we might be instructed that we may become what we
>behold? But in watching Diane's single-minded devotion to this research
>project and devotion to high-minded principle no matter what the human
>cost, it seems to me we already have such an example. Meanwhile, the cult
>hellhounds have vanished, not needing to do anything at the moment to
>further their cause and extract further vengeance.
I am persuaded that the net gain of further documentation of the Bast
materials is negligible, if not negative.
>>>How is this attack on Paulette aiding the anti-Scientology effort?
>
>>By showing that there are critics today who see nothing wrong in engaging
>>in deception and lies to bring down the cult, which I think needs to be
>>fought tooth and nail.
>
>But when the cult does engage in lies and deception, they may profit from
>their efforts as long as they provide a horrible example for the rest of
>us? The Bast project may have the effect of revealing a moral underbelly
>that is repellent, but no more so than the cult's-- and theirs is
>well-financed and systematic, not the individual failings of whose whose
>standards and methodology are ill-advised.
>
>>If we can't criticize our own, then we are emulating the cult.
>>If we can't understand and forgive, then we are also emulating the cult.
>>But understanding and forgiving doesn't mean closing your eyes.
>
>NO. It doesn't. But it also doesn't mean closing your eyes to where this
>information came from or how it got here.
Correct.
>>I am sure you are correct that some energy is being "wasted" that could be
>>put into more productive efforts. I am equally sure that this would be
>>true even if this particular thread never existed.
>
>Yes, and compared with the suffering in Bosnia and Timor and the genocide
>in Tibet, this game isn't worth the candle. But since this is the game we
>are engaged in around This newsgroup, at least the time and effort IN this
>newsgroup could be better focused in uncovering new information that might
>actually keep someone from being suckered into joining, might help someone
>escape, might bring cult criminals to justice. I think Ted Mayett in a few
>hours a week of creative entertainment is giving more inspiration to
>critics and more support to cult victims than Diane has provided in
>months, to name just one example of what is going on hereabouts that
>works.
I agree.
>>I am not happy with how all this has come out, and it does *appear* to me
>>as though there is a personal dispute that has contributed to the apparent
>>ferocity of Diane's attacks on Paulette. I have asked Diane whether she
>>has found anything that shows Paulette in a particularly good light, and
>>to post it if so. I suspect that there are such things, and I would not
>>characterize Paulette with the terms that Diane has used based on what
>>I've seen so far.
>
>Well, maybe she'll answer Your questions. Lately I've seen an offer to
>post all the dirt-- I mean information-- that she's rooted out, let it
>scatter where it will. If that means the places where Ms. Cooper looks
>Good will be posted amongst the rest, that doesn't seem to me-- YMMV-- the
>same as offering bite-sized chunks under thrilling headlines. As for
Right. I was hoping for bite-sized chunks of the Good stuff, but Diane's
response to my query seems to say that she is not interested in doing such
a thing.
>whether anything can be found to make Paulette Cooper appear in a good
>light, I can only hope that one need not go to Diane Richardson or the
>Bast business to reach such a conclusion. And since that is where many of
>us started, no amount of besmirchment will be able to take it away, no
>matter how unedifying the details that turn up in the course of this
>episode.
>
>--
>an...@io.com When making public policy decisions about new technologies
>for the Government, I think one should ask oneself which technologies would
>best strengthen the hand of a police state. Then, do not allow the Government
>to deploy those technologies. --Philip Zimmermann
[posted and mailed]
Deirdre
In article <tashback-291...@ip21-238.phx.primenet.com>,
tash...@primenet.com (Tashback) wrote:
> If it makes a good point, as you say, in this debate, it's only because
> Shaffer *created* Salieri in order to make his own statement, as Anima and
> Deirdre are creating their own Diane Richardson in order to make their
> statements. Read what he says about how his character changed from the
> opening of *Amadeus* in London to its later presentation in New York:
1) Most of the events in Amadeus happened. For example, the requiem WAS
commissioned by someone wearing a mask.
2) They usually didn't involve Salieri, but a cast of many other people.
3) For the purposes of making a coherent drama, Salieri was cast in a role
that he didn't play in real life in order to a) give the story a plot; and
2) make it a good drama.
In reality, he was pretty much as he was portrayed: a mediocre composer.
In fact, his works were out of print until after the movie Amadeus. I have
his opera Axur here; it's pretty lame imho, though I do like the closing
chorus (as portrayed in the movie).
Anima and I are most certainly NOT creating this role with Diane. She has
done it herself long before I got here. Heck, it started while I was
offline and on vacation.
_Deirdre
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard):
Yo:
>> That's just your legal naivte' showing, Jim. Why would the scienos file
>>~anything~ that shows Paulette in a 'good light'?
Jim:
>If the tapes and transcripts are really unedited, then it seems to me
>there should be some good stuff in there.
Talking about the good service at the restraurant or the nice linen in
the room?
Jim, the scienos would only file those taped conversations which
reflected badly on PC. They would throw the rest in the trash. It is
'evidence' they don't have to produce. The rest is the evidence (of PC's
depravity) they want to show the court.
With their expensive and professional deception, they toadly erased PCs
chances of ever winning in a court battle against them.
Joel Hanes
*sigh*
---
Joel Hanes SP4
"On USENET, tolerance mostly shows up as posts that people *don't* write."
Mark Isaak
Bernie
Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I for one am growing weary of this endless muckracking. Diane's
>diatribes, past and present, seems to be primarily gender-oriented
>and her essays were much more meaningful when they dealt with the core
>issues addressed on this newsgroup, rather than personal attacks.
Hi Joe, and welcome back!
What do you consider to be the "core issues"? YMMV, but for me, the
core issues have very much to do with honesty, integrity, freedom, and
so forth. Wasn't it the primary motivation of many of the people here?
Why else would one bother to fight the COS? And what is the value of
objections and criticisms against the COS done by someone who
tolerates similar misbehavior otherwise?
So I think that Diane is absolutely on topic here, whereas the
reactions engendered by Diane's exposure is one of the best expression
I ever saw of the cultic mindset, with its refusal to see the facts,
its violent reactions, its unending chain of rationalization,
justification, redirection, minimization, etc. Fascinating.
Last but not least, the documents shed a very interesting new light on
past events and their background. It should help us to come to a
better understanding of the Scn and other related issues. It is far
from simply being a personal attack from Diane. It is the most
on-topic and relevant thing going on at the moment, IMO.
>I hope she can get back to the issues and pursue personal attacks
>in some other forum. Amen.
Whether Diane will ever again turn her focus directly against the COS
remains to be seen. I can't speak for her, but why would she bother to
dig up facts for the benefit of those who are only willing to look at
what they find convenient, and who are willing to close their eyes on
acts they would vomit upon if committed by the COS, just because it
puts in jeopardy their fragile little belief system; who are cheering
her when posting against the COS, but are questioning her motives,
besmirching her and displaying all kind of childish and stupid
behavior when posting against a COS critic? I don't know if ~I~ would
bother if I was in her place. What would it lead to? To a rave of
hypocritical self-suffocating indignations against the "criminal
cult", while still carrying within themselves the seeds for these very
same actions. What good would that make, if we can't learn anything
from it?
If there are reasons to think that this COS critic have engaged in
questionable activities during her fight against the COS, then this is
absolutely as relevant to this newsgroup as the objectionable actions
from the COS. Only with the full picture can we hope to approach a
semblance of understanding on the issues at hand.
---------
Bernie
It remains to be seen whether she was right-- that is, whether anyone
cares whether the Scientologists look bad according to actual facts,
or according to a tendentious party line that cannot see its own
vulnerabilities.
(Judith Bradford)
Tashback
In article <deirdre-3010...@pm0a15.new.sover.net>,
dei...@sover.net (Deirdre) wrote:
> In article <tashback-291...@ip21-238.phx.primenet.com>,
> tash...@primenet.com (Tashback) wrote:
>
> > If it makes a good point, as you say, in this debate, it's only because
> > Shaffer *created* Salieri in order to make his own statement, as Anima and
> > Deirdre are creating their own Diane Richardson in order to make their
> > statements. Read what he says about how his character changed from the
> > opening of *Amadeus* in London to its later presentation in New York:
>
> 1) Most of the events in Amadeus happened. For example, the requiem WAS
> commissioned by someone wearing a mask.
Right, and in the London version of the play, the masked figure was
Salieri's "grim servant Greybig." Hey, as long as you're recasting
"Amadeus" with Diane as Salieri, can I be her grim servant Greybig? (I
hope you're not implying that Paulette is Mozart though -- I understand
that while Shaffer invented Salieri's persona from the ground up, his
presentation of Mozart's character was pretty accurate, dementia and all.)
[No, that's not intended to insult Paulette; it's intended to demonstrate
how silly the Diane-as-Salieri model is.]
> 2) They usually didn't involve Salieri, but a cast of many other people.
Right. Shaffer's Salieri was almost entirely fictional, but it sure made
for a great movie, what with all those evil motives and stuff.
> 3) For the purposes of making a coherent drama, Salieri was cast in a role
> that he didn't play in real life in order to a) give the story a plot; and
> 2) make it a good drama.
You bet. Dramatic conflict, man's love-hate relationship with God, the
irony of existence -- great play, terrific movie. Doesn't have a lot to do
with Diane *or* the real Salieri, but maybe we can start another thread
and discuss it.
> In reality, he was pretty much as he was portrayed: a mediocre composer.
> In fact, his works were out of print until after the movie Amadeus. I have
> his opera Axur here; it's pretty lame imho, though I do like the closing
> chorus (as portrayed in the movie).
But what does the historical Salieri have in common with Diane? Is she a
mediocre composer? Again, it's the fictional Salieri you've decided she
resembles.
> Anima and I are most certainly NOT creating this role with Diane. She has
> done it herself long before I got here. Heck, it started while I was
> offline and on vacation.
Well, given your assertion that Diane and Keith are inherently evil in the
Bast Tape thread, and your inclination to associate Diane with Peter
Shaffer characters, wouldn't you have done better to compare her to the
boy in *Equus*? He blinded horses, you know.
;->
> _Deirdre
Tashback
Ex Mudder
dke...@xenu.best.com (Ex Mudder) wrote:
> <all snipped>
> Diane, you are a bitch.
(sorry, dunno how to do a supercede in Agent)
One more thing.
You have just Fishman'd yourself.
I don;t know if this has been brought up (I've been plonking the
threads from the start) but you swollowed what you were fed hook,
line, and sinker.
Just like Fishman did re Erlich.
"With friends like these, who needs Enemies"
Ron Newman
In article <55a3oo$o...@clark.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net says...
[in response to one of Jim Lippard's thoughtful messages]
>After thinking long and hard about your request for me to post
>something "good" from this material, I realized what impressed me
>the most about Paulette Cooper after going through it.
>
>Cooper actually *did* work relentlessly to publicize the misdeeds
>of the CoS. Most of the major media stories of that time were either
>the result of Cooper's work or were greatly assisted by Cooper's
>input.
>
>The "60 Minutes" piece, the Reader's Digest story -- *all* of the
>major stories were the product of her involvement. Cooper submitted
>daily lists of the contacts she made and the work that she did, and
>the lists are quite impressive. I will OCR these documents (they
>were typed on what appears to be a manual typewriter and will
>require a great deal of OCR correction) and post them to the
>newsgroup.
Thank you, Diane. I look forward to seeing these documents posted.
I believe that when all the evidence is examined, most people will
conclude that the good that Paulette has done over the past 26 years
far, far outweighs her occasional human failings, errors, and misdeeds.
Diane Richardson
r...@ibexbsc.com.xenu.anti-spam (Roy) wrote:
[paragraphs of sheer speculation snipped]
>The tapes are of value as background for the court transcipts.
I'm not sure what you mean by "court transcripts," but Cooper's
lawsuits against the cult never went to trial. She settled with the
CoS out of court.
Pretrial activities -- complaints, amendments to complants,
motions to dismiss, motions to compel, depositions, hearings before
the magistrate, interrogatories and answers to interrogatories --
are the only court records that were ever produced in this case.
>It would be
>nice if they informed about the nature of entrappment and how to avoid it.
Cooper could easily have avoided any entrapment by refusing to
sign a consulting contract with Bast. By doing so, she gave him
blanket permission to tape her and use the tapes in any way he
chose.
>The method behind their production doesn't permit this, however, and so
>they serve only to explain references to "tapes" in the court transcipt.
To what "court transcript" are you referring?
[snipped observations on today's society]
>Rather than reading about PC bouncing from one scripted landmine to
>another, this spectator would rather see some more on Yanny's RICO suit,
>Tax Associates and such. IOW, we're just about baked-out on pathos.
If that's what interests you, why not stop "spectating," get off your
keester, and do a little research of your own? Then you'll have
scads of stuff about Yanny, Tax Associates, et al. to read here.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Ex Mudder
<all snipped>
Diane, you are a bitch.
In the marketplace of ideas that is the Internet, a lawsuit
is generally considered the last refuge of the incompetent
Diane Richardson
lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard) wrote:
>In article <3281c534...@204.245.3.50>,
>Rev. Dennis L Erlich <inF...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard):
>>
>>>I am not happy with how all this has come out, and it does *appear* to me
>>>as though there is a personal dispute that has contributed to the apparent
>>>ferocity of Diane's attacks on Paulette.
>>
>> You should ask Diane that.
>>
>>>I have asked Diane whether she
>>>has found anything that shows Paulette in a particularly good light, and
>>>to post it if so.
>>
>> That's just your legal naivte' showing, Jim. Why would the scienos file
>>~anything~ that shows Paulette in a 'good light'?
>If the tapes and transcripts are really unedited, then it seems to me
>there should be some good stuff in there.
There are no unedited transcripts. Only tapes. Hour after hour of
them. While I wish I had the time to transcribe these tapes in their
entirety, I do not.
The CoS entered excerpts of the transcripts into evidence, but not a
complete transcript of the entire contents of all the tapes.
Rather than accept the CoS transcripts, I have listened to the tapes
and have transcribed those excerpts myself. In some cases, I have
included considerably more material both before the CoS transcript
begins and after the CoS transcript ends, but outside of a few minor
errors, the CoS transcripts appear to be accurate renditions of what
was said on the tapes.
After thinking long and hard about your request for me to post
something "good" from this material, I realized what impressed me
the most about Paulette Cooper after going through it.
Cooper actually *did* work relentlessly to publicize the misdeeds
of the CoS. Most of the major media stories of that time were either
the result of Cooper's work or were greatly assisted by Cooper's
input.
The "60 Minutes" piece, the Reader's Digest story -- *all* of the
major stories were the product of her involvement. Cooper submitted
daily lists of the contacts she made and the work that she did, and
the lists are quite impressive. I will OCR these documents (they
were typed on what appears to be a manual typewriter and will
require a great deal of OCR correction) and post them to the
newsgroup.
These sheets were submitted into evidence by the CoS not to make
Cooper look good, but as proof that she continued violating the
1976 settlement agreement with the cult.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Joe Harrington
Mailed to Bernie, posted to ARS:
I think Diane is very meticulous with her research and very articulate
in her written summaries of it. I think her points are well taken and
indeed we could find lapses in integrity and shortcoming in all CofS
critics, past and present, and from time we surely do as there are no
Sacred Cows in this forum.
Paulette Cooper has not posted anything in this forum for a long time,
as far as I am aware. I don't know Paulette and I'm not sure she even
reads this forum but she has previously stated she did not consider
herself an active critic and she occupies her time with other pursuits.
The accuracy of Diane's dissection of her character, integrity, and
motives is something each should evaluate on their own.
Diane is certainly free to post essays forever on the subject
of Paulette Cooper, with whatever supporting documentation she can
provide. I don't question the accuracies of Diane's statements, and
in the past when I found some inaccuracies I did not hesitate to
bring them up. What I find unpleasant is the general demeanor in
which it is done, and my perceptions of the thinly veiled mean-
spiritness and rancor. But I have no intention to impose my or
anyone elses standards on her.
Joe
Rich Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 17:39:53 GMT, mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes
(NED for OTs Series)) wrote:
[snip]
> Despite all her posturing, Diane knows very well that Paulette is
> constrained by the terms of her agreements with the Co$. Diane *knows*
> that if Paulette were to say too much, the Co$ would have Paulette's
> keister back in court faster than you can say "breach of contract."
> Diane is not stupid. Diane has picked out an opponent who basically
> cannot answer because she's been blocked by court agreement. And Diane
> thinks that she can just run roughshod over her.
[snip]
Let's not forget the fact that Paulette was Fair Game once.
I'm guessing that she's not eager to end up in that position again.
Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBMngCUSnhWc34xW2VAQGTPwf/RmP7gHUo3jC8MUqefyO8F/IejtWL3Cym
5hehQ7hwliuF/JsPFK+uATlw9AYxQTOnH1SPXfIV12ptV1NIjPYro6lBzCDG0QxP
VHqAZE7IDlzhaDw36djHLq77Sg1neAh3rxfsNn5PaEuJ1sukLaVaG0ekPbTu9wt/
8zNV6GUQadzc7uC7zMQ8ackkH5R1ffjpGLye9uPE4KvqlTQ67rfHCi1yuGHx170C
H/w/pIGZeedhWA9KMbhLxmzlTtDyLibHPyelnwsTHUkLTrnwtblZjCkNdOHu+lcM
5HwR9pXXcon/DsK5l1giIHLOzUDlrqCJw5t8yMjyUQwMR+iJd22Qrw==
=XBEW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <55a4km$o...@clark.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>It would be
>>nice if they informed about the nature of entrappment and how to avoid it.
>Cooper could easily have avoided any entrapment by refusing to
>sign a consulting contract with Bast.
the victim could have avoided any rape by refusing to walk
in that dark alley at night.
>By doing so, she gave him
>blanket permission to tape her and use the tapes in any way he
>chose.
and never mind the fraud.
>>The method behind their production doesn't permit this, however, and so
>>they serve only to explain references to "tapes" in the court transcipt.
>To what "court transcript" are you referring?
my what a clever way to quibble and nickel and dime the issue
to death! you know damn well what he meant, and seize on the
technicality to avoid discussing the substantive issue.
pretty pathetic pedantry, but there's our diane,
arguing about the genus of the trees while the
forest burns down.
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
Comment: PGP signed with SigEd v1.3.1 - http://www.nyx.net/~pgregg/siged/
iQBVAwUBMnlHpHZ/m2/Pgo35AQFo6QIAjFO83AOG6vWz9w56GoE2HVK+GhOsM8WV
91tpEiGEOzjNPtYHAnDIZcjMqyelvgkQKvbu6TX2edGtiGKBBgBrgg==
=Z6yh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bernie
an...@io.com (Anima) wrote:
>tash...@primenet.com (Tashback) writes:
><lots of stuff that misses the point>
>Whether it is historically accurate or not, the fact is that whether
>Salieri was a villain or not, he now IS known primarily because of his
>association with his better and any claim to respectability on his own
>merits is overwhelmed. Same thing happening to DR now, where people keep
>saying, "What's with the Mistress of Pitch? Is she a clam? a troll?
>Actually unbalanced?"
The "people" as you like to portray, was just ~one~ clueless
AOLer. Maybe that's the type of "majority" you are referring to
continuously?
>And then others say, no, no. We don't understand her
>vicious descent into slime-spew mode either, but if you look back far
>enough you will see that she has done important and useful work, once.
>And if DR is unable to control herself from spreading around transcripts
>of secret tapes
They are no secret
>that were made as part of a typical cult dirty tricks
>operation against her nemesis for doing more to expose the cult
>than DR could even dream of, after awhile the majority of people who read
>about her great PC smear and the divisive debate amongst critics while the
>cult was getting its ass kicked IRL-- the majority I say (and that may
>already be the case) will know the once respected librarian only as the
>hateful, venemous Vera clone she plays on Usenet today.
I trust you in this. You certainly are an expert when it comes to
hateful and venomous blather.
>Look,
>Every time someone says, enough snippets of ignobility, let's see some of
>the other stuff too...
>And every time someone says, these water torture drops of ichor are too
>slow, get on with it...
>The harridan snarls, "I'm working on it and if you really care, go to the
>original files or listen to the original tapes."
>But this is a scam. If she really thought anyone DID care to hear this
>garbage, she would leave it at that and stop posting.
>The truth is, she enjoys and benefits (in what is left of her rational
>mind) from the usufructs of the cult's foul operations.
"What is left of her rational mind", huh, huh. If you would lend
her your whole mind she couldn't replace a single BT from what
she is supposed to be missing.
>Let's all save bandwith. Zip and encode it all and post it all on
>alt.binaries.scientology. Put a pointer here once a week, and then we can
>all get back on-topic and deal with rescuing souls.
"Rescuing souls" coming from you is like hearing it from Lucifer.
"Give me your soul, trusssssst me your soul. argh argh argh". If
you are an example of a saved soul, I better be damned.
>Am I the only one who read an astounding series of newspaper articles in
>this very forum about a week ago in which a man and wife, in search of
>some way to help along their small business, came out to California from
>the midwest for Sterling Management's version of Hubbard tech and found
>themselves duped, over-extended, impoverished, brainwashed, kidnapped,
>held against their will, and driven half mad?
>The way I remember it, the woman finally ran out in the middle of the
>street and tried to stop passing cars in an effort to escape and later had
>to call her husband and feed him yes-no questions because his kidnappers
>would not even leave him alone to talk with his own wife.
>This story should have been on the front page of newspapers across
>America. Around here, as we drown in drool and yet another spam attack,
>doesn't seem like anyone even noticed.
But the same story, not from a scieno victim but from a
deprogrammed victim, should be hidden and the deprogrammers
should be protect with perjured testimonies, right? Just like the
oh so noble action you so desperately try to hide, coming from
your spotless anti-Scn harassed hero Paulette Cooper. What a
black and white vision of the world. What a petty and sad sight
you make, Anima.
>This is what DR's monomania has led to already. It IS interfering with
>exploring and exposing the cult. And it is more saddening and shameful
>than I can say.
So exploring truth and exposing deliberate fraud is interfering
with exploring and exposing the cult. How interesting. how
saddening and shameful.
---------
Bernie
CAN WE GET THIS SHIT OFF THE NET!?
(William Barwell)
David Gerard
On 29 Oct 1996 05:45:26 GMT, Joe Harrington (joe...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
:Dear Lord Xenu,
:I for one am growing weary of this endless muckracking. Diane's
:diatribes, past and present, seems to be primarily gender-oriented
:and her essays were much more meaningful when they dealt with the core
:issues addressed on this newsgroup, rather than personal attacks.
:I hope she can get back to the issues and pursue personal attacks
:in some other forum. Amen.
:Joe
Dear Joe,
You have a misunderstood word somewhere. Go back and read it all again.
ML,
Xenu.
;-)
--
*** Rev Dr David Gerard http://suburbia.net/~fun/scn/ ***
"Whenever I tease psychiatrists about their lack of a theory for mental illness
or their ability to answer charges that mental illness is a myth, they always
answer by showing me really distressed, unhappy people who need help which no
other branch of medicine is offering. If this is a convincing answer, it is not
so on the level of theory, and it is doubtful whether answering scepticism
about the scientific respectability of psychiatry by showing rooms full of
contented, happy people will ever have quite the same force." (KWM Fulford)
TarlaStar
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <55a4km$o...@clark.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>>>It would be
>>>nice if they informed about the nature of entrappment and how to avoid it.
>>Cooper could easily have avoided any entrapment by refusing to
>>sign a consulting contract with Bast.
>the victim could have avoided any rape by refusing to walk
>in that dark alley at night.
And if the "victim" takes two thousand dollars to be "raped" we stop
calling her a victim and start calling her a whore. Wrong analogy,
henri.
Tarla
fraud
is not rape
Monica Pignotti
She didn't take the $2000 knowing that she was taking it from a Cof$
operative. She thought she was taking it from someone (who was
supposedly representing a very wealthy man) who was going to help her
expose Scientology. Do you think its wrong for a person to be paid to
do a job? Are you saying that taking a job with someone for the
purpose of bringing down and exposing the Cof$ makes one a whore?
Monica Pignotti
JackF90000
I have difficulty following multiple quotations, but if it wasn't Diane,
then somebody wrote:
>>Cooper could easily have avoided any entrapment by refusing to
>>sign a consulting contract with Bast.
This statement is entirely true. Paulette could have easily avoided
entrapment by not signing the contract. Paulette also could have easily
avoided all kinds of trouble if she had only done any one of the
following:
1. Not written the Scandal of Scientology
2. Stopped distributing information about the cult to newspapers, 60
Minutes, Reader's Digest...etc.
3. Stopped putting caring parents in touch with deprogrammers.
All Paulette had to do was stop fighting against the Church of
Scientology.
The point is, she didn't stop. She never took the easy way out because
her conscience wouldn't let her. She saw Bast as one more resource that
she could use in her fight against the cult and she took it.
The record shows that she always did what *she* thought was right, without
any respect to what anyone else, not even the courts, thought of her
actions.
When you're in a battle, you pick up whatever weapon is there. Bast
offered some weapons and then surreptitiously tape recorded her when she
talked about using them.
Jack Fleming
(aka LRHoover)
Tashback
> tash...@primenet.com (Tashback) writes:
>
> <lots of stuff that misses the point>
I got the point.
> Whether it is historically accurate or not, the fact is that whether
> Salieri was a villain or not, he now IS known primarily because of his
> association with his better and any claim to respectability on his own
> merits is overwhelmed. Same thing happening to DR now,
Diane is becoming known primarily because of her association with her
"better"? How ... um ... uppity of her.
I still say my analogy is better. Salieri's name is popularly known *not*
because of his association with Mozart. (Did he even *have* an association
with Mozart? I'm not sure they ever met. Shaffer says in the preface to
the play "Amadeus" that Salieri did actually attend a production of "The
Magic Flute," but beyond that ...?) And it's not known because he had any
"claim to respectability on his own merits." It's known because of a damn
movie.
Salieri is known in popular culture primarily as a *villainous* symbol
representative of exactly what you said: one who is jealous of his
"better" -- but only because he was portrayed that way by a talented
dramatist in a play that went on to become a movie. If Diane were to go
down in a.r.s. history as a villain jealous of her "better," it would be
thanks to the histrionic talents of those of you who rewrite history thus:
<snip>
> the hateful, venemous Vera clone she plays on Usenet today.
<snip>
> The harridan snarls, "I'm working on it and if you really care, go to the
> original files or listen to the original tapes."
<snip>
> The truth is, she enjoys and benefits (in what is left of her rational
> mind) from the usufructs of the cult's foul operations.
<snip>
> This is what DR's monomania has led to already.
Yes, I get your point. Again.
And that was a nice try, but Shaffer's still a better dramatist.
Tashback
"And how, except in a net of pure artifice?"
Amadeus, Act II, Scene vii
JackF90000
Bernie wrote:
> But the same story, not from a scieno victim but from a
> deprogrammed victim, should be hidden and the deprogrammers
> should be protect with perjured testimonies, right?
Your choice of the words "deprogrammed victim" are most interesting
Bernie.
The courts have ruled that forcible deprogramming is illegal, but why do
you refer to those who have been snatched from the cults as the "victims
of deprogramming"?
Since the deprogrammers are only acting as agents of the cult victim's
loved one's, wouldn't it be more accurate to say they are "victims of
their parents love"?
Anima wrote:
> >This is what DR's monomania has led to already. It IS interfering
with
> >exploring and exposing the cult. And it is more saddening and
shameful
> >than I can say.
Bernie replied:
> So exploring truth and exposing deliberate fraud is interfering
> with exploring and exposing the cult. How interesting. how
> saddening and shameful.
The bast documents are just evidence. Diane is using this evidence to
assert her hypotheses about Paulette. Don't confuse Diane's opinions with
the truth. They may or may not be the same.
I think Anima is objecting to the unfair treatment of Paulette Cooper, and
attributes it to DR's monomania. Why do you attack her for that?
Why do you attack her by saying:
> Just like the oh so noble action you so desperately try to hide,
> coming from your spotless anti-Scn harassed hero Paulette
> Cooper. What a black and white vision of the world. What a
> petty and sad sight you make, Anima.
Anima's remarks can hardly be construed as a 'desparate attempt to hide'
anything. But your remarks that she is a 'petty and sad sight' are an
obvious attempt to ridicule her into silence. Her only crime was to state
her opinion and to share her perspective.
Why do you want her to keep quiet, Bernie?
Please tell us why you seem to be so interested in representing Paulette
Cooper as having engaged in deliberate fraud? Even Diane says that she
was tricked. Even Judith says that she made a mistake that we can all
learn from.
Bernie, voluntary deprogramming is not illegal. You might wish to
consider whether or not you need a little dose. You don't seem to be
thinking too clear-ly.
Jack Fleming
(aka LRHoover)
Judith Bradford
jackf...@aol.com (JackF90000) wrote:
>Bernie wrote:
> > But the same story, not from a scieno victim but from a
> > deprogrammed victim, should be hidden and the deprogrammers
> > should be protect with perjured testimonies, right?
>Your choice of the words "deprogrammed victim" are most interesting
>Bernie.
Bernie is, unless I miss my guess, referring to a single deprogramming
victim: Paula Dain. Paula Dain was kidnapped and imprisoned by Ted
Patrick. Nan McLean, who was an exit counselor, was called in by
Patrick when he failed to make any progress with Dain. To her great
credit, McLean, arriving on the scene and realizing that Patrick had
in fact kidnapped and imprisoned a woman, turned Patrick in.
Jack, there are exit counselors and there are, or at least *used* to
be, deprogrammers. It is an act of sheer ideology to speak as if
*any* acknowledgement of the wrongs of deprogrammers such as Patrick
are nonexistent because the Scientologists admit no difference between
deprogramming and exit counseling. There have been both. To inveigh
against Bernie because he admits there have been both, and to act as
if there were no difference between deprogramming and exit counseling,
is exactly the ideological move practiced by the cult, only in
reverse. They say there aren't any exit counselors, you act as though
there never have been any deprogrammers. Both of you are equally
wrong.
>The courts have ruled that forcible deprogramming is illegal, but why do
>you refer to those who have been snatched from the cults as the "victims
>of deprogramming"?
Some of them have been. To wit, Paula Dain, who sued Patrick for
kidnapping and false imprisonment, and won.
>Since the deprogrammers are only acting as agents of the cult victim's
>loved one's, wouldn't it be more accurate to say they are "victims of
>their parents love"?
There are exit counselors and there have been forcible deprogrammers.
Ted Patrick was the worst of the first generation deprogrammers that I
have heard of. He was later jailed for raping a woman as part of a
deprogramming. If it's necessary, in order to convince you that there
in fact have been forcible deprogrammers, I will dig up the court
records on that case as well as Dain's.
>Anima wrote:
> > >This is what DR's monomania has led to already. It IS interfering
>with
> > >exploring and exposing the cult. And it is more saddening and
>shameful
> > >than I can say.
>Bernie replied:
> > So exploring truth and exposing deliberate fraud is interfering
> > with exploring and exposing the cult. How interesting. how
> > saddening and shameful.
>The bast documents are just evidence. Diane is using this evidence to
>assert her hypotheses about Paulette. Don't confuse Diane's opinions with
>the truth. They may or may not be the same.
Indeed! Evaluate them for yourself!
>I think Anima is objecting to the unfair treatment of Paulette Cooper, and
>attributes it to DR's monomania. Why do you attack her for that?
>Why do you attack her by saying:
> > Just like the oh so noble action you so desperately try to hide,
> > coming from your spotless anti-Scn harassed hero Paulette
> > Cooper. What a black and white vision of the world. What a
> > petty and sad sight you make, Anima.
>Anima's remarks can hardly be construed as a 'desparate attempt to hide'
>anything. But your remarks that she is a 'petty and sad sight' are an
>obvious attempt to ridicule her into silence. Her only crime was to state
>her opinion and to share her perspective.
And no one is trying to ridicule or browbeat DIane Richardson into
silence, Jack? Her only crime, after all, is to state her opinion and
share her perspective, including the documentation on which she bases
her perspective.
>Why do you want her to keep quiet, Bernie?
>Please tell us why you seem to be so interested in representing Paulette
>Cooper as having engaged in deliberate fraud? Even Diane says that she
>was tricked. Even Judith says that she made a mistake that we can all
>learn from.
I think her engagement in deliberate fraud is a lesson we can all
learn from. It;s simply not the case that EITHER Paulette was right
OR she made a mistake. She was *wrong* and she made a mistake, and, to
add, she paid for it; those mistakes led to her being neutralized as a
powerful critic of the cult. There seems to be rather a dearth of the
toleration of ambiguity on this group, a drive to see everything in
big block capitals, gods and demons, heroes and villians. Life,
however, isn't a comic book.
>Bernie, voluntary deprogramming is not illegal. You might wish to
>consider whether or not you need a little dose. You don't seem to be
>thinking too clear-ly.
Did Bernie claim that voluntary deprogramming is illegal? Is it not
the case that in common terminology we use "deprogramming" to indicate
involuntary counseling (which may or may not be accompanied by
kidnapping and false imprisonment) and "exit counseling" for voluntary
emergency therapy for recent ex-cultists?
>Jack Fleming
>(aka LRHoover)
judith
JackF90000
Tarla wrote:
> And if the "victim" takes two thousand dollars to be "raped" we stop
> calling her a victim and start calling her a whore. Wrong analogy,
> henri.
Paulette took payment to investigate the Church of Scientology for Bast
because she believed Bast was representing a European whose daughter had
committed suicide while in the cult.
She is being called a victim, because Bast misrepresented himself to her
and was setting her up.
Tarla, do I misunderstand you? You seem to be saying that the proper
analogy is that Paulette is like a whore because she accepted Bast's
payment?
It takes a lot of resources to wage a battle against the Church of
Scientology. Lawyers fees, phone bills, research time, xeroxing, time
spent making contacts in the media,..and so on. Is Paulette, or anyone
else, expected to pay for all this out of their own pocket? Do you insist
that the warriors finance the whole battle, just to avoid the charge of
"whore".
If you'll recall the US civil rights movement, which was a battle against
the social evil called racism, you'll see that it was also financed by
wealthy people. Contributions to the NAACP and SCLC were used to pay the
salaries of such great men as Martin Luther King. Do you also think that
he was a "whore" for accepting a salary when he led the civil right's
movement?
Please don't let yourself be misled away from the true story about
Paulette Cooper.
Jack Fleming
(aka LRHoover)
Bernie
jackf...@aol.com (JackF90000) wrote:
> 3. Stopped putting caring parents in touch with deprogrammers.
From where do you get that she was doing that?
---------
Bernie
What we need is MORE armchair psychologists!
(Tarla)
GEMMAMP1
Jack wrote:
>I realize it takes a while to get all the cult's programming out of your
>system, but do you really think ars is a good forum for airing the view
>that deprogrammers are just in it for the money?
I'd also like to add that if deprogrammers are in it for the money they
are fools. There are many, much easier ways to make money other than
doing extremely stressful work that puts the deprogrammer at risk for
being thrown in prison (assuming it is forcible) and being harrassed by
numerous cults. I do not agree with Ted Patrick's forcible methods but I
do not think he was in it for the money. That is another myth cooked up
by the cults, who say the same thing about exit counsellors.
Monica Pignotti
************************************************
"My cult can lick your cult any day of the week"
--------the late Robert Kaufman, Ex-Scientologist,
Author of Inside Scientology and the first to reveal OT III
James J. Lippard
In article <55fj3a$a...@ionews.ionet.net>, TarlaStar <bmy...@ionet.net> wrote:
>anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>In article <55a4km$o...@clark.zippo.com>,
>>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>
>>>>It would be
>>>>nice if they informed about the nature of entrappment and how to avoid it.
>
>>>sign a consulting contract with Bast.
>
>>in that dark alley at night.
>
>calling her a victim and start calling her a whore. Wrong analogy,
>henri.
>
>fraud
>is not rape
The point of the analogy wasn't the crime committed, but the blaming
of the victim. The analogy was quite appropriate.
Deirdre
Sorry, rape of a prostitute is still rape. Or do you believe that
prostitutes aren't entitled to such rights?
As for me, it's still a void contract and therefore the tapes were made
illegally and publishing them may very well be a federal crime. Just a
thought. ;D
_Deirdre
In article <55fj3a$a...@ionews.ionet.net>, bmy...@ionet.net (TarlaStar) wrote:
> And if the "victim" takes two thousand dollars to be "raped"
> we stop calling her a victim and start calling her a whore.
> Wrong analogy, henri.
Bernie
pign...@ix.netcom.com(Monica Pignotti) wrote:
>In <327ca42e...@news.ping.be> be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) writes:
>Let me see if I've understood you correctly. Are you saying that you
>read this information about Paulette when you were a Scientologist
>working for the GO?
Yes, but it wasn't information about Paulette, it was
testimonies of forcible deprogramming victims who asserted that,
as part of their deprogramming or rehabilitation process, they
got to talk to PC.
>>These GO files consisted of testimonies of deprogrammed victims,
>>mostly unsuccessful ones, and quasi-exclusively Scientologists.
>>These testimonies were description for the internal use of the
>>GO. Since they were not aimed to be used for propaganda purpose,
>>I don't have reasons to doubt that they were untrue. I have no
>>means to substantiate what I remember since I didn't take
>>photocopies. I rely solely on my memory, which may be faulty as
>>to the details, but not as to the main contention.
>The GO files were Scientology's version of what went on.
No. They were testimonies of the persons, not the edited COS
version. The persons had no other purpose in this then to
recount their experience for the GO. No reason to say they saw
someone when they didn't.
>Do you
>consider the GO a valid source of good information?
In this case, yes. The GO may not have provided valid
information on the outside, but internally they had extremely
accurate information in these matters.
>As you know, I too
>am opposed to forcible deprogrammings but the CofS reports greatly
>exaggerated and embellished reports of physical abuse in
>deprogrammings.
I read the COS reports on deprogramming and their are completely
ludicrous. But these were not COS reports, they were GO
documents aimed at their own use, made of "debriefs" of real
people having gone through real deprogramming and having seen a
real Paulette Cooper.
>For the most part what happened was the person was
>held by force (which I do not condone), but not physically abused and
>otherwise treated well.
I know.
>You say these reports were not aimed at propoganda purposes.
No.
>If they
>were not aimed at propoganda purposes, then what was the purpose of the
>GO having the documents? For their own amusement?
The purpose of gathering information for themselves.
>Undoubtedly the Cof$ filled your head full of propoganda about Paulette
>Cooper. They did this to me too and I didn't even work for the GO.
>When I was in the CofS I hated Paulette Cooper because her book created
>a PTS situation with my parents. She almost ruined any possibility I
>had to join the SO or do the bridge. My dad got ahold of her book and
>other articles against Scientology and travelled 2000 miles to bring
>them to me. During that time, Paulette was the worst SP in existence
>as far as the CofS was concerned. I know you don't believe in mind
>control, but have you considered the possibility that you are still
>being influenced by all you were told about Paulette while in the GO?
I knew very little about PC, only that she was an enemy of Scn.
I went out of the COS 16 years ago, which is more than
sufficient to get rid of the mind-control influence. I am not
even, and never was, a freezoner. The best proof of that is if
you look the first post I made about PC. It was to praise her.
All I saw from her at the time was her farewell post and I was
impressed by her style and what she said, and I have still
reasons to think that she may be a sensible person. Do you think
I would do that if I was still under the influence of the COS
propaganda? Judith post, in response to my post, indicated to me
that maybe the situation wasn't that simple. Only later did I
remember what I read from these testimonies. Despite this, that
I acknowledged as my prejudice, I waited to see the materials
before making any serious comment. These comments were not even
prompted from the documents themselves. They were prompted by
the extraordinary escape tactics displayed by many critics in
front of evidence they obviously can't or don't want to see.
>You are selectively looking at the what's negative about Paulette and
>using it to confirm your already preconceived ideas that seem to have
>originated with your work for the GO.
My preconceived ideas are not about PC. They are about
deprogramming. I formed my own opinion about that through my own
researches when I was definitely out of the COS. It is true that
I tend to have a negative picture of people who support forcible
deprogramming, and that may even influence me. On the other
hand, if I see something good in that person, I acknowledge that
as well. If you dig up my earlier posts you will see that I even
underlined qualities I could find in Ted Patrick when I met him.
Nevertheless, I oppose his actions and ideas, and do consider
someone like that as deluded and dangerous. Those who support
his ideas and actions may be unaware of what they are doing, but
it does tell much about the quality of their own perceptions and
moral standards.
I am looking at the negative aspects, true, but I don't think
that I am doing that selectively. Tell me what positive aspect I
leave out. She played an important role in exposing the COS?
Very good. Does this excuse what has been revealed so far? No.
>Again, I have to point out that most of your posts deal with attacking
>critics with very little criticism about the CofS.
Ah, but I can tell you exactly why, Monica. This is because I am
repelled by the way these critics, who are the first who should
know better, are themselves committing the very things they
accuse the COS of. It is rather unfortunate, in fact, that I
have to spend so much time in that, instead of spending it
against the COS. If attacks against the COS mean supporting the
very same actions they are doing, then it does not have sense,
and I have better things to do. If you are going to attack me on
that, then I advice you to take concrete examples and I will
tell you exactly what were my motivations for each. If you do
not take specifics, then I would suggest that you find a better
approach in your objections to my position regarding PC.
>I'm curious,
>though, do you think there is anything wrong with the CofS?
Yes
>If so,
>what do you see as being wrong with the CofS and/or the GO?
This is not the subject of this thread. Dig up the posts I made
along this line and see for yourself.
The questions of this thread are: "Do you think there is
anything wrong with wrong actions done by a critic? If so, what
do you see as being wrong with them?
>>The implications from all this are not very difficult to draw,
>>but I trust Paulette apologists to come up with twisted excuses
>>or twarted insults to cover them up. It seems certain that PC
>>believed in and supported coercive deprogramming. Maybe she
>>didn't directly participated in one, we don't know, but we can
>>reasonably assume from the information above that if ~she~ had
>>been called in the Paula Dain case, she would have had no
>>problem with the fact that the victim was being coercively
>>detained. In fact, it is highly probable that Patrick thought
>>that Nan would have the same reaction than what he thought, or
>>knew, PC would have. He didn't expect, like apparently many
>>so-called critics, that someone who would criticize the cult
>>would ~also~ display a high level of integrity and honesty.
>>Fortunately, there are still some of these people around,
>>unfortunately, much too few.
>Paulette is entitled to her opinions, even though Nan (or myself, for
>that matter) don't happen to agree about forcibles.
She is entitle to absolutely whatever opinion she wants to hold.
But when she is taking actions that are reprehensible, in the
matters relevant to this newsgroup, then we are entitle to our
opinion about that.
>Keep in mind,
>though that she made these statements in 1980, when non-forcibles were
>not being done (or rarely done) and were not an option. The choice
>people had was to let the person stay in the cult or get them out by
>force. Neither were very good options.
I cannot disagree more, but since the subject of this thread is
not deprogramming, I will not comment about that. I am just
pointing that the actions of PC we are examining in these
threads, are consistent with the perceptions and moral values of
someone who cannot see the other options.
>Are you saying that only a few people support non-forcible
>interventions and oppose deprogrammings? I would disagree with that.
>I think that there are more non-forcible exit counsellings going on
>right now than deprogrammings.
No. Only a few people seem to be able to see that to fight evil
with evil can only lead to more evil.
---------
Bernie
Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify oppression of free
speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is
the function of speech to free men from the bondage of
irrational fears.
(Louis D. Brandeis)