WELCOME SLASHDOTTERS!
©Anti-Cult® - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/
In Message-ID: <98tu5s$38inf$1...@ID-17251.news.dfncis.de>
From: Allen Crider <allen...@disciples.com>.
Organization: Sanat's World News.
Wrote on the subject: Re: WELCOME SLASHDOTTERS!:
>John Gilman wrote:
>
>>
>> For in-depth information on the destructive and
>> malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>>
>Thanks!
>
>Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status in
>the US?
The mafia cult of scientology is even tax exempt in the U.S. The state
pays the cult to harass people. Isn't that something?
Sten-Arne
>
>Allen
>http://swnews.net
>
>
>> www.xenu.net
>>
>> www.lisatrust.net
>>
>> You can also subscribe to a weekly summary of this NG
>> call Alt.religion.scientology week in review written by Rod Keller
>> (see www.xenu.net for details) so that you don't have to wade through
>> all the "anti-psych" posting and "dead-agent" packs made by anonymous
>> scientology shills in an attempt to discredit their critics.
>>
>> Be assured that scientology is *worse* than you think.
>>
>>
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's how I think Hubbard did his "research." He downed a bottle of
gin, popped a few pills, passed out and woke up hours later, clutching
the empty bottle and screaming "The psychs are coming, the psychs are
coming, they're crawling all over me. Get 'em off, get 'em off." And,
another Scientology rundown was thus created, the False Purpose rundown.
- ind...@aol.com (Indanm)
In Message-ID: <20010310005938...@ng-fr1.aol.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
******* Body thetans? We don't need no stinking Body Thetans! *******
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
IRC #Scientology JavaChat http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/irc.html
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Crider
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:44:17 -0800.
> In Message-ID: <98tu5s$38inf$1...@ID-17251.news.dfncis.de>
> From: Allen Crider <allen...@disciples.com>.
> Organization: Sanat's World News.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: WELCOME SLASHDOTTERS!:
>
> >John Gilman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> For in-depth information on the destructive and
> >> malicious belief system of scientology, check out
> >>
> >Thanks!
> >
> >Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status in
> >the US?
>
> The mafia cult of scientology is even tax exempt in the U.S. The state
> pays the cult to harass people. Isn't that something?
Now that the right-wingers want to give money to religious organizations,
it's a good time to lobby those same right-wingers to disenfranchise COS as
a legal religious organization.
Ixbalam
<allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
> John Gilman wrote:
>
> > For in-depth information on the destructive and
> > malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>
> Thanks!
>
> Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status in
> the US?
Yes. In fact, they've been clamoring for money from Dubya's
administration for their liver-destroying rehab program. That has
really gotten the religious right's collective knickers in a knot.
Here are some more URLs to check out for more info.
http://www.xenu.net/ <- Cof$ info central
http://www.xenu.net/roland-intro.html <- The basics
http://lermanet.com/ <- Likewise with other stuff
http://lermanet.com/exit/FINAL.htm <- Required reading
http://www.lisatrust.net/ <- Lisa McPherson Trust
http://www.lisatrust.net/Media/index.htm <- Video news
http://www.lisatrust.net/Media/lmt-maria.htm
http://www.lisatrust.net/abuse/gardini/gardini-intro.html
http://www.lisatrust.net/lmt/MarkInnocentBob.html
http://www.lisatrust.net/abuse/woodcrafts/lawrence/asbestosdec.html
http://www.xmission.com/~mirele/rtwh/ <- Documenting Hubbard's lies
http://www.xenu.net/archive/deaths/ <- Deaths in Cof$
http://cleartech1.chat.ru/ <- Secret scriptures & stuff
(Don't accept the cookies)
Official Scientology Sites
http://www.scientology.org/ <- The official party line
http://www.bigotwatch.com/ <- Official lies about critics
http://www.thetadirectory.com/ <- Real live Scientologists
--
Michael J. Rider, aka Ixbalam http://i.am/ixbalam
"I was asked, 'Are they evil or are they stupid?'
and I said, 'The best I can tell, they're both.'"
-Charles C. Thompson II
PS- Bigotwatch has been badly slashdotted, or so it appears.
John Gilman
For in-depth information on the destructive and
malicious belief system of scientology, check out
Allen Crider
> In article <98tu5s$38inf$1...@ID-17251.news.dfncis.de>, Allen Crider
> <allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
>
> > John Gilman wrote:
> >
> > > For in-depth information on the destructive and
> > > malicious belief system of scientology, check out
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status
> > in the US?
>
> Yes. In fact, they've been clamoring for money from Dubya's
> administration for their liver-destroying rehab program. That has
> really gotten the religious right's collective knickers in a knot.
I was thinking that the religious right could really whine big time over
this money-to-COS eventuality. I guess I'm not surprised that COS already
has their hats in their grubby hands for free guvmint money!
Allen Crider
>
> For in-depth information on the destructive and
> malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>
Thanks!
Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status in
the US?
Allen
http://swnews.net
Jim Byrd
>
>John Gilman wrote:
>
>>
>> For in-depth information on the destructive and
>> malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>>
>Thanks!
>
>Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status in
>the US?
Actually, it does have tax-exempt status. It had lost in the Supreme Court,
which said that Scientology was not entitled to a tax exemption. But the IRS
caved in after 2000 lawsuits were filed against the IRS and individual IRS
employees. One of the conditions of granting tax-exempt status was that the
lawsuits were all withdrawn.
ptsc
<allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
>John Gilman wrote:
>> For in-depth information on the destructive and
>> malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>Thanks!
>Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status in
>the US?
>Allen
>http://swnews.net
Yes. Worse than that, the IRS even sent out Scientology propaganda
written by Scientology themselves to foreign governments declaring them a
"bona fide religion" in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment. This was following a secret settlement hidden from the
American public until a whistleblower leaked it to the Wall Street
Journal.
The secret settlement itself:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/IRS/
Full story on how Scientology got their tax exempt status in defiance of a
Supreme Court ruling to the contrary at:
http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~cowen/essays/irs.html
The Supreme Court ruling to the contrary at:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=490&invol=680
(Hernandez v. Commissioner)
ptsc
Rod Keller
: You can also subscribe to a weekly summary of this NG
: call Alt.religion.scientology week in review written by Rod Keller
: (see www.xenu.net for details) so that you don't have to wade through
: all the "anti-psych" posting and "dead-agent" packs made by anonymous
: scientology shills in an attempt to discredit their critics.
You can subscribe and unsubscribe by email by sending to:
weekinrevie...@yahoogroups.com
weekinreview...@yahoogroups.com
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher / Black Hat #1
Expert of the Toilet / CWPD Mouthpiece / Shelly Thompson in Drag
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Vision of Destruction
Bigot of Mystery / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully / Killer Rod
Boudewijn van Ingen
to repeat. Sorry. ;-)
On 17 Mar 2001 00:07:45 GMT, rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>John Gilman (i...@eieio.org) wrote:
>: You can also subscribe to a weekly summary of this NG
>: call Alt.religion.scientology week in review written by Rod Keller
>: (see www.xenu.net for details) so that you don't have to wade through
>: all the "anti-psych" posting and "dead-agent" packs made by anonymous
>: scientology shills in an attempt to discredit their critics.
>
>You can subscribe and unsubscribe by email by sending to:
>weekinrevie...@yahoogroups.com
>weekinreview...@yahoogroups.com
Groeten,
Boudewijn.
Dr. Paloma
>
>
>For in-depth information on the illegal and
>malicious bigotry of ARS critics, check out
>
http://bigotwatch.net/
Beverly Rice
Ah yes, thank you for the reminder.
Yes, that is a very good website.
What is amazing about it, is that one must remember that
~that~ site is one that was created and put up by a
~church~ that states it creates the most ethical people
on the planet . . .
and that it picks up ~spirutally~ where other religions
leave off.
:-) Hahahahahaha!!!!
Oooooookay.
VWD Co$ . . .
Your site demonstrates that you are ~not~ spiritual . . .
but have both feet planted so solidly in this world . . .
you will never be free of it.
ARC = As-Ising The Real Co$,
Beverly
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
roger gonnet
John Gilman <i...@eieio.org> a écrit dans le message :
jbl4bt8q897h8hma8...@4ax.com...
If you need to read those critics in french, go to
http://home.worldnet.fr/gonnet
the largest french speaking anti-scientology site.>
Dave Bird
<allen...@disciples.com> writes:
>John Gilman wrote:
>
>>
>> For in-depth information on the destructive and
>> malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>>
>Thanks!
>
>Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status in
>the US?
Yes. They spent years battering down the IRS with a flood of lawsuits
and blackmails to get it.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
www.xemu.demon.co.uk 2B0D 5195 337B A3E6 DDAC BD38 7F2F FD8E 7391 F44F
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>For in-depth information on the destructive and
>malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>www.xenu.net
>www.lisatrust.net
I'll add http://www.RaulLopez.ORG/ for the million-dollar swindle
And http://www.RonTheNut.ORG/ for a systematic look into Scientology's
mad creator.
>You can also subscribe to a weekly summary of this NG
>call Alt.religion.scientology week in review written by Rod Keller
>(see www.xenu.net for details) so that you don't have to wade through
>all the "anti-psych" posting and "dead-agent" packs made by anonymous
>scientology shills in an attempt to discredit their critics.
>Be assured that scientology is *worse* than you think.
---
Send information concerning incidents of racketeering and
terrorism by the Scientology cult to the Domestic Terrorism
Task Force at nor...@fbi.gov http://www.skeptictank.org/
For psychological assistance check: http://www.shrinktank.com/
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>ŠAnti-CultŽ - www.users.wineasy.se/noname/ wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:44:17 -0800.
>> In Message-ID: <98tu5s$38inf$1...@ID-17251.news.dfncis.de>
>> From: Allen Crider <allen...@disciples.com>.
>> Organization: Sanat's World News.
>> Wrote on the subject: Re: WELCOME SLASHDOTTERS!:
>>>John Gilman wrote:
>>>> For in-depth information on the destructive and
>>>> malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>>>Thanks!
>>>Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status in
>>>the US?
>> The mafia cult of scientology is even tax exempt in the U.S. The state
>> pays the cult to harass people. Isn't that something?
>Now that the right-wingers want to give money to religious organizations,
>it's a good time to lobby those same right-wingers to disenfranchise COS as
>a legal religious organization.
Hell yes! (Pun intended.) In fact, it's the criminal history of Scientology
which is first and foremost in the minds of the broad spectrum opposition of
the "faith based charity" scheme. Many a left-wing and right-wing group have
specifically mentioned Scientology as one of the few really dangerous groups
that must never be given tax money.
When the Scientology organization's deadly quack medical practices done in
their "Narconon" "drug treatment" facilities kill or, as much more often
happens, maims due to the high dosages of niacine followers are ordered to
take, wouldn't the State be liable for providing the funding which allowed
these homicides and maimings to take place?
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>Ixbalam wrote:
>> In article <98tu5s$38inf$1...@ID-17251.news.dfncis.de>, Allen Crider
>> <allen...@disciples.com> wrote:
>> > John Gilman wrote:
>> > > For in-depth information on the destructive and
>> > > malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>> > Thanks!
>> > Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status
>> > in the US?
>> Yes. In fact, they've been clamoring for money from Dubya's
>> administration for their liver-destroying rehab program. That has
>> really gotten the religious right's collective knickers in a knot.
>I was thinking that the religious right could really whine big time over
>this money-to-COS eventuality. I guess I'm not surprised that COS already
>has their hats in their grubby hands for free guvmint money!
One good thing that's come out of the "faith based charity" scheme has
been that right-wing religious whackos are getting a good look at the
consequences of what they've been advocating for decades. Many a right-
wing religious nut have demanded there's no wall of seperation between
State and Religion and yet now that they see a very real threat for that
wall coming down, they are internalizing what destroying the wall means.
The reason, I think, is that right-wind Christian extremists have always
thought that _they_ would be the sole money-maker after the wall gets
torn down. Now they find that deadly cults like Scientology are standing
first in line with their hands out and now they're getting wise to what
they've been advocating for decades. It doesn't look so good any more.
Enoch
<jbl4bt8q897h8hma8...@4ax.com>:
>Be assured that scientology is *worse* than you think.
I'm a Slashdot reader (with +30 Karma) as well as a veteran
of this newsgroup circa '94-'95 (with Helena Kobrin and the
Woodbot, and the first cancelstorms and rmgroupen).
If one were to take the pulse of the Slashdot readership
(which is by no means monolithic -- broad generalizations
follow), the majority would focus on the peculiarity of
religious writings falling under the protection of copyright
and trade secret first, and the malicious actions of the Co$
on the network and in meatspace second.
The kernel of the Slashdot philosophy, such as it is, is
the primacy of Open Source: information wants to be free.
Thus, basing a religion around "secret scripture" is like
keeping the source code for an operating system a secret.
It's something you don't want to do, as many eyes make all
bugs shallow. If Scientology, a putative operating system
for humans, were debugged, various defects (like the non-
existance of the Hawaiian islands, DC-8s, and atom bombs
75,000,000 years ago as per OT III) would have been resolved.
Then again, debugging belief systems is something the human race
doesn't do well, regardless of the origin.
But the main point, that a religion can have its scriptures
"copyrighted", is an anathema to the quasi-Libertarian bent
of most (not all) Slashdot contributors.
If anything, the involvement of money ("the Bridge") creates
friction, especially when there are "free" alternatives. Would
Islam have spread from Morocco to Malaysia if the Koran cost
money?
It's my opinion (not speaking for anyone else) that the Co$ just
doesn't get it. The only thing keeping me from comparing
Scientology to Microsoft is the fact that MICROS~1 hasn't killed
as many people. But the proprietary nature begs comparison.
The net views Scientology as idiocy and routes around it.
May your days be cancel-free.
/me
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> John Gilman <i...@eieio.org> wrote:
>
>
>>For in-depth information on the destructive and
>>malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>
>>www.xenu.net
>>www.lisatrust.net
>
> I'll add http://www.RaulLopez.ORG/ for the million-dollar swindle
>
> And http://www.RonTheNut.ORG/ for a systematic look into Scientology's
> mad creator.
>
My word... the man was a gibbering idiot.
Could anyone _please_ explain how people could possibly be convinced
by Ron's hysterical ramblings? He makes no sense whatsoever. My head
hurts.
>>You can also subscribe to a weekly summary of this NG
>>call Alt.religion.scientology week in review written by Rod Keller
>>(see www.xenu.net for details) so that you don't have to wade through
>>all the "anti-psych" posting and "dead-agent" packs made by anonymous
>>scientology shills in an attempt to discredit their critics.
>
>>Be assured that scientology is *worse* than you think.
>
It's certainly a lot stupider than I thought.
Which reminds me... geek-types reading this should check out
http://www.networksplus.net/kelly/gtmhh2.html, and search for
"scientology" on the page, for a record of how the geniuses
at CoS failed to comprehend the mindboggling intricacies of
loopback. Gave me the giggles, first time I read it.
Chyron
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
> i...@eieio.org (John Gilman) wrote in
> <jbl4bt8q897h8hma8...@4ax.com>:
>
>>Be assured that scientology is *worse* than you think.
>
> I'm a Slashdot reader (with +30 Karma) as well as a veteran
> of this newsgroup circa '94-'95 (with Helena Kobrin and the
> Woodbot, and the first cancelstorms and rmgroupen).
>
> If one were to take the pulse of the Slashdot readership
> (which is by no means monolithic -- broad generalizations
> follow), the majority would focus on the peculiarity of
> religious writings falling under the protection of copyright
> and trade secret first, and the malicious actions of the Co$
> on the network and in meatspace second.
>
<snip good stuff>
> It's my opinion (not speaking for anyone else) that the Co$ just
> doesn't get it. The only thing keeping me from comparing
> Scientology to Microsoft is the fact that MICROS~1 hasn't killed
> as many people. But the proprietary nature begs comparison.
>
> The net views Scientology as idiocy and routes around it.
>
> May your days be cancel-free.
>
>
> /me
Thank you, beautifully put :) I think you got to the heart of the
matter. CoS is the anathema of all things Free.
Chyron
Kymus
>For in-depth information on the destructive and
>malicious belief system of scientology, check out
And for in-depth information on the destructive and malicious state of mind you
eventually acquire from associating with a.r.s. critics on a long term basis,
simply review the history of this newsgroup through a historical search.
A.r.s. is 75% cathartic venting by people who either started out demented or
learned to express their dementia by becoming a.r.s. regulars and who largely
are not disciplined by a *critical* community that demands much more than the
nastiest way to express negative views. Another 20% is Scientology propoganda
lobbed over the transom with no real opportunity for conversation and little
real reply to issues raised by the a.r.s. critics. (But then there tends to be
little reply to the issues Scientologists want addressed either. It's a two
way street.) On the best day it has ever lived a.r.s. has had a max of 1%
useful tidbits of information, but usually the remaining 4% taken up by
cross-posted stuff from other newsgroups swells to a full 5%.
This ain't a newsgroup so much as an encounter group. Welcome to the theater
of hate, where the best drama queen reigns.
= The a.r.s. prime directive: Make Jokes About Scientologist's Deaths=
Example, regarding Attorney Moxon and his UNFORTUNATE loss: "Maybe he
believes there are no underground transformer vaults in Europe." (JB
Lingerman)
Kymus
>Actually, it does have tax-exempt status. It had lost in the Supreme Court,
>which said that Scientology was not entitled to a tax exemption.
No it didn't. Read the actual opinion if you want to know what the Supreme
Court said. Don't just repeat the pravda that a.r.s. critics dreamed up and
repeat as if their mutual agreement equals fact. Jesus Fucking Christ it's
like listening to first graders discuss computer architechture to listen to
a.r.s. "critics" spout off about legal cases they think they understand.
The Supreme Court said
(1) partitioning the quid pro qou aspect and the nonquid pro qou aspect of
donations is proper. (If you watch public television you know they give gifts
for your "donation". That is a quid pro qou which makes the donation partly
deductible but DOES NOT REMOVE THE NONPROFIT STATUS of public television.)
(2) An extremely high burden of proof, literally "no doubt" (which is higher
than "beyond a reasonable doubt"), that a religion is not entitled to standard
nonprofit tax treatment because it isn't truly conforming to the usual rules
for its activities but is only pretextually religious, must be met. The IRS
can read law even if most a.r.s. ranters can't. They know that proving with
"no doubt" that the Church of Scientology in the present day as presently
constitutued with actually living members is NOT qualifying was a burden they
would have a very hard time winning under.
Now a.r.s. ranters might be convinced among themselves that because Hubbard
back in the 1950s suggested a religious corporation rather than a secular
structure to avoid regulatory agencies is some kind of solid proof that
Scientology is religiuos only as a pretext, forever, no matter how it evolves
and no matter who its members and their beliefs, and no matter what those
actual living members motives are as compared to a dead founder's, etc. But
the pravda that gets developed in a.r.s. by frequent repetition among a bunch
of ranters isn't anything serious I.R.S. or private tax lawyers need or should
in the least respect.
Read the actual case to know what it says. Don't just repeat the a.r.s.
"critic" party line as if yelling loud enough and saying it often enough makes
it a fact.
BM
I love the kill filter..otherwise I would have to sort through all the
spam generated by you $cientologists.
>see my finger bitch?
M. C. DiPietra
ro...@eruditorium.org wrote on 3/17/01 11:53 PM:
> i...@eieio.org (John Gilman) wrote in
> <jbl4bt8q897h8hma8...@4ax.com>:
>
>> Be assured that scientology is *worse* than you think.
>
> I'm a Slashdot reader (with +30 Karma) as well as a veteran
> of this newsgroup circa '94-'95 (with Helena Kobrin and the
> Woodbot, and the first cancelstorms and rmgroupen).
Hey there! Long time gone.
>
> If one were to take the pulse of the Slashdot readership
> (which is by no means monolithic -- broad generalizations
> follow), the majority would focus on the peculiarity of
> religious writings falling under the protection of copyright
> and trade secret first, and the malicious actions of the Co$
> on the network and in meatspace second.
>
Well, it is hard to ignore the Xenu story for its comic relief value.
> The kernel of the Slashdot philosophy, such as it is, is
> the primacy of Open Source: information wants to be free.
> Thus, basing a religion around "secret scripture" is like
> keeping the source code for an operating system a secret.
> It's something you don't want to do, as many eyes make all
> bugs shallow. If Scientology, a putative operating system
> for humans, were debugged, various defects (like the non-
> existance of the Hawaiian islands, DC-8s, and atom bombs
> 75,000,000 years ago as per OT III) would have been resolved.
The constriction of information is the foundation for the looniest and most
destructive behavior displayed by Scn, Inc., according to its own written
policies. It is this behavior I protest, not necessarily the stupidness of
the information being constricted.
>
> Then again, debugging belief systems is something the human race
> doesn't do well, regardless of the origin.
nobody's perfect.
>
> But the main point, that a religion can have its scriptures
> "copyrighted", is an anathema to the quasi-Libertarian bent
> of most (not all) Slashdot contributors.
cool! I hope enough of them will read enough to find out that it is designed
that way only to extract the most possible money before the Sooper Sekrits
are revealed; and that the sekrits [BTs, etc.] require even *more* money to
be paid in order to "handle" them.
>
> If anything, the involvement of money ("the Bridge") creates
> friction, especially when there are "free" alternatives. Would
> Islam have spread from Morocco to Malaysia if the Koran cost
> money?
>
Can you imagine a Gideon-like group putting Dianetics in hotel rooms?
> It's my opinion (not speaking for anyone else) that the Co$ just
> doesn't get it. The only thing keeping me from comparing
> Scientology to Microsoft is the fact that MICROS~1 hasn't killed
> as many people. But the proprietary nature begs comparison.
>
> The net views Scientology as idiocy and routes around it.
>
> May your days be cancel-free.
>
It's not just the money and suppression of information; it's a
consumer-advocacy thing. "we'll tell you what you're supposed to believe
after you've paid enough" bait-and-switch.
I don't give a damn what they believe in, it's the collective behavior and
condoned destructive actions of Scn, Inc. that I oppose, among these being
the attempts to stifle open discourse and holding people against their will
until they are dead.
If it were just idiocy, people wouldn't be so dead.
anyway, thanks for your enlightening comments!
>
> /me
-m., human being
http://mp3.com/MaggieCouncil XENU WORLD ORDER CD now available
M.C.DiPietra <mdip...@earthlink.net>, SP4, KoX
"Hell, if you understood everything I say, you'd be me!" -Miles Davis
ptsc
>This ain't a newsgroup so much as an encounter group. Welcome to the theater
>of hate, where the best drama queen reigns.
Welcome to the killfile, where no one can hear you froth.
*plonk*
ptsc
Steve Zadarnowski
>John Gilman wrote:
>
>>
>> For in-depth information on the destructive and
>> malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>>
>Thanks!
>
>Now, does the Scientology organization actually have non-profit status in
>the US?
Apparently the IRS was cowed into submission when Scientologists
started suing individual IRS workers, creating an administrative
nightmare. So they gave up in a secret deal signed in 1993.
Less apparently is the claim that one of the major administrative
parties of the IRS was a Scientologist.
The deal is still secret and there are some groups still trying
to get that deal publicly scrutinised.
Scientologists, can, apparently, claim what they pay to Scientology
as a tax deduction.
S
---
"If it smells like a$$, its $cientology!"
"Just bum data, bum data, bum data, bum data,
alter-is, alter-is, bum data." - LRH, SHSBC
** Let's have a Clambake! http://www.xenu.net
!! Watch out for those A$$H0L&s - they BITE!
Tommy
Hee hee - God Damn that slippery mastermind Major Domo anyway!
Tommy
--
"... it brings into focus more than anything else the refusal by the
defendants to live by the law -- their apparently intractable conviction
that they are somehow above the law. This is illustrated by Mrs.
Hubbard's statement on the witness stand that she and her codefendants,
including these two defendants, felt they could do to others whatever
they perceived, however erroneously, others were doing to them."
-- Sentencing Memorandum in US v. Kember and Budlong;
Criminal No. 78-401(2)&(3)
M. C. DiPietra
kymu...@aol.comnospam wrote on 3/18/01 3:35 AM:
>> From: Jim Byrd by...@NOSPAM.acm.org
>
>> Actually, it does have tax-exempt status. It had lost in the Supreme Court,
>> which said that Scientology was not entitled to a tax exemption.
>
> No it didn't. Read the actual opinion if you want to know what the Supreme
> Court said. Don't just repeat the pravda that a.r.s. critics dreamed up and
> repeat as if their mutual agreement equals fact. Jesus Fucking Christ it's
> like listening to first graders discuss computer architechture to listen to
> a.r.s. "critics" spout off about legal cases they think they understand.
>
why does a religion need so many lawyers?
> The Supreme Court said
>
> (1) partitioning the quid pro qou aspect and the nonquid pro qou aspect of
> donations is proper. (If you watch public television you know they give gifts
> for your "donation". That is a quid pro qou which makes the donation partly
> deductible but DOES NOT REMOVE THE NONPROFIT STATUS of public television.)
>
> (2) An extremely high burden of proof, literally "no doubt" (which is higher
> than "beyond a reasonable doubt"), that a religion is not entitled to standard
> nonprofit tax treatment because it isn't truly conforming to the usual rules
> for its activities but is only pretextually religious, must be met. The IRS
> can read law even if most a.r.s. ranters can't. They know that proving with
> "no doubt" that the Church of Scientology in the present day as presently
> constitutued with actually living members is NOT qualifying was a burden they
> would have a very hard time winning under.
>
> Now a.r.s. ranters might be convinced among themselves that because Hubbard
> back in the 1950s suggested a religious corporation rather than a secular
> structure to avoid regulatory agencies is some kind of solid proof that
> Scientology is religiuos only as a pretext, forever, no matter how it evolves
> and no matter who its members and their beliefs, and no matter what those
> actual living members motives are as compared to a dead founder's, etc. But
I don't really care about the beliefs beyond comic relief value; it is the
derogatory way in which Scn, Inc. treats its members, its community, and its
responsibilities; the fraud and abuse of people and the law, through methods
like overlitigating to silence criticism and using private investigators to
harass critics that irk a lot of people, I think.
> the pravda that gets developed in a.r.s. by frequent repetition among a bunch
> of ranters isn't anything serious I.R.S. or private tax lawyers need or should
> in the least respect.
So why did Tax Analysts [the people in Washington DC who publish Tax Notes
and other related documents] have to sue to see the final agreement that was
eventually leaked to the Washington Post? Both the Post and the NY Times
published stories about David Miscavige waltzing into the IRS and getting an
instant meeting with the big cheese. There was a matter of several thousand
individual cases of Scientologists dropping their cases against the IRS when
tac exemption occurred. A deal was made.
Are Scientologists permitted to write off the expense of sending their kids
to Scientology school (where Catnolic parents cannot write off such expenses
for sending their kids to Catholic school). Why should Scientologists be
permitted to make deductions that members of other religious organizations
cannot?
>
> Read the actual case to know what it says. Don't just repeat the a.r.s.
> "critic" party line as if yelling loud enough and saying it often enough makes
> it a fact.
>
I think you have your hat on backwards here. That's HUbbard's method of
'proving' something.
>
> = The a.r.s. prime directive: Make Jokes About Scientologist's Deaths=
>
> Example, regarding Attorney Moxon and his UNFORTUNATE loss: "Maybe he
> believes there are no underground transformer vaults in Europe." (JB
> Lingerman)
>
There is nothing funny about any of the deaths in Scientology; not Moxon's
daughter, not Lisa McPherson, not any of them. They are all senseless and
could have been prevented.
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>>From: John Gilman i...@eieio.org
>>For in-depth information on the destructive and
>>malicious belief system of scientology, check out
>And for in-depth information on the destructive and malicious state of mind you
>eventually acquire from associating with a.r.s. critics on a long term basis,
>simply review the history of this newsgroup through a historical search.
>A.r.s. is 75% cathartic venting by people who either started out demented or
>learned to express their dementia by becoming a.r.s. regulars
And yet for some curious reason you're unable to offer any examples of
incorrect, inaccurate, or otherwise "sadly mistaken" comments about the
norotious Scientology crime syndicate which gets provided here. For
some very mysterious reason, you few remaining followers are unwilling
to address the killing of Lisa McPherson, the swindle of Raul Lopez,
the massive set of felony indictments against your mock "International
Present," the massive espionage that your mad messiah ordered in the
so-called "show white" case. The list of crimes your syndicate engaged
in and continues to engage in is endless.
And even as we find your crime syndicate trying to suppress the truth
about what Scientology really is in Slashdot.COM, you're unable to give
an honest explanation as to why your crime syndicate feels the need to
hide the truth about what Scientology sells to its unfortunate victims.
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>>From: Jim Byrd by...@NOSPAM.acm.org
>>Actually, it does have tax-exempt status. It had lost in the Supreme Court,
>>which said that Scientology was not entitled to a tax exemption.
>No it didn't. Read the actual opinion if you want to know what the Supreme
>Court said.
If you bothered to read it you would find that the crime syndicate _lost_
and was ordered to disband their criminal network called WISE in order to
qualify for tax exemption status. The crime syndicate still maintains
their criminal network, however.
Kymus
>And yet for some curious reason you're unable to offer any examples of
>incorrect, inaccurate, or otherwise "sadly mistaken" comments about the
>norotious Scientology crime syndicate which gets provided here.
I said search the posting history. It's been a long long debate over the years
and a constant effluent cannot be criticized post by post, but one can get a
very good idea of the quality of "news" and "critical" inquiry that
predominates in a.r.s from doing that. I also recommend Bernie's website
for instances of how futile it can be to carry on a serious and rigorous
converastion in a.r.s.
I don't have the job of defending the Scientologists, because I am no longer
allied with them. It is not MY church anymore and hasn't been for a long time.
If you do want to know the Scientologists rebuttals, you should go to where
they post as people have snipped at them time and again here for presenting
their views here, telling Scientologists that a.r.s. is for the critics and the
critic point of view is what is to dominate the forum. Some "free speech"
commitment. I suggest Freedom mag as the principle source for rebuttals to
a.r.s. allegations, to the extent such rebuttals exist. I believe you can find
that at
> For
>some very mysterious reason, you few remaining followers (SNIP)
In usual a.r.s. fashion you have made an assumption that because I don't
approve of your views and your manner of spewing them about I am some Church of
Scientology loyalist. This is false.
= For a middle ground understanding of the Scientology v. Net War =
begin at
Kymus
>why does a religion need so many lawyers?
It can for many reasons. My personal opinion is that Scientology needs the
amount of lawyers and litigation it does in part because LRH was never able to
handle the sort of give and take society expects of someone trying to push new
ideas into society and so he just resorted to underhanded attacks on enemies.
He had little ability to hold his own in debate. Even if this were not so
Scientology would have had to sue like hell to keep hostile governments and
vested interests from quashing it like a bug for reasons aside from the
personal character defects of LRH.
>> Read the actual case to know what it says. Don't just repeat the a.r.s.
>> "critic" party line as if yelling loud enough and saying it often enough
>makes
>> it a fact.
>>
>
>I think you have your hat on backwards here. That's HUbbard's method of
>'proving' something.
People who fight the Church of Scientology without thoroughly grounding
themselves in their own good principles tend to wind up resembling the Church
in quality of thought and low ethic of action in conflict eventually. A.r.s.
tends to be proof of that.
Kymus
>If you bothered to read it you would find that the crime syndicate _lost_
Bothered to read it??? Bothered to read it??? Genius, I've ARGUED that case's
authority and WON my points using it as precedent!!! I haven't simply "read"
it you know-it-all, but had my understanding of it vindicated by other actual
legally trained minds, which is something you obviously are not.
The Supreme Court handed down an opinion as to how the case was to be handled
according to clarifications of law made by the Supreme Court. The
Scientologists changed their approach to the actions below to take advantage of
the opinion. They neither "won" nor "lost" in the Supreme Court, rather they
had the law declared as between them and the IRS.
>and was ordered to disband their criminal network called WISE in order to
>qualify for tax exemption status.
What criminal network is this? What charges were filed against that
association of people? None, of course. You just can't argue without
namecalling.
> The crime syndicate still maintains
>their criminal network, however.
I understand WISE maintains WISE. It is your invention that any association of
Scientologists is therefore part of the corporate structure of the church and
you don't back it up with anything but your own venom for anyone who isn't as
rabidly anti-Scientology as yourself.
Dave Bird
<ro...@eruditorium.org> writes:
>The kernel of the Slashdot philosophy, such as it is, is
>the primacy of Open Source: information wants to be free.
>Thus, basing a religion around "secret scripture" is like
>keeping the source code for an operating system a secret.
>It's something you don't want to do, as many eyes make all
>bugs shallow. If Scientology, a putative operating system
>for humans, were debugged, various defects (like the non-
>existance of the Hawaiian islands, DC-8s, and atom bombs
>75,000,000 years ago as per OT III) would have been resolved.
>
>Then again, debugging belief systems is something the human race
>doesn't do well, regardless of the origin.
The trouble is, it is all bugs: if any of it is objectively
tested this reveals that the basic ideas don't work. Therefore
it is in their interest to keep it hidden.
Dobe R Mann
(chomp)
>
>People who fight the Church of Scientology without thoroughly grounding
>themselves in their own good principles tend to wind up resembling the Church
>in quality of thought and low ethic of action in conflict eventually. A.r.s.
>tends to be proof of that.
We are so glad to see that *you* are above all of that.
>= For a middle ground understanding of the Scientology v. Net War =
Bernie, why don't you just post with your own account?
>
>begin at
>
>http://welcome.to/ars
Dobe R Mann
SP4 Tone 1.95
Read www.xenu.net
See www.xenutv.com
_____________________________________________
INCIDENT 4
LOUD SNAP (Bones breaking)
CHEVROLETS COME OUT
BURN RUBBER
FISHTAIL RIGHT
DO U-TURN
STALL
FLAT TIRE (No motion)
BLOWS HORN
BLOWS MISCAVIGE
CRASH
Bern - http://welcome.to/ars
>On 18 Mar 2001 23:40:22 GMT, kymu...@aol.comnospam (Kymus) wrote:
>>= For a middle ground understanding of the Scientology v. Net War =
>
>Bernie, why don't you just post with your own account?
I do - and don't you think for a minute that I'll consider taking an account on
AOHell - even for trolling!
(Hi, Kymus - thanks for the sig! ;-)
--
Bernie - http://welcome.to/ars
You don't win many points by convincing the US Govt you are a bigot to be
pandered to by squashing a minority religion. (Kymus)
ptsc
<mdip...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[I see people are still responding to this idiot, and this particular
idiocy is too lame to let pass without comment.]
>in article 20010318033515...@ng-co1.aol.com, Kymus at
>kymu...@aol.comnospam wrote on 3/18/01 3:35 AM:
>
>>> From: Jim Byrd by...@NOSPAM.acm.org
>>> Actually, it does have tax-exempt status. It had lost in the Supreme Court,
>>> which said that Scientology was not entitled to a tax exemption.
>>
>> No it didn't. Read the actual opinion if you want to know what the Supreme
>> Court said. Don't just repeat the pravda that a.r.s. critics dreamed up and
>> repeat as if their mutual agreement equals fact. Jesus Fucking Christ it's
>> like listening to first graders discuss computer architechture to listen to
>> a.r.s. "critics" spout off about legal cases they think they understand.
We'll get back to this particular comment later.
>why does a religion need so many lawyers?
>> The Supreme Court said
>> (1) partitioning the quid pro qou aspect and the nonquid pro qou aspect of
>> donations is proper. (If you watch public television you know they give gifts
>> for your "donation". That is a quid pro qou which makes the donation partly
>> deductible but DOES NOT REMOVE THE NONPROFIT STATUS of public television.)
The court have said more than that. In fact they've been quite clear in
other cases, or did you assume that one section of one ruling of the
Supreme Court is the only case law pertaining to the IRS denying the cult
tax-exempt status?
There's Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States (United States
Court of Federal Claims, 26 Cl.Ct. 713 (1992), appealed to the US Court of
Appeals Federal Circuit, a per curiam ruling that states, quite flatly and
simply:
PER CURIAM.
**1 The Church of Spiritual Technology appeals the judgment of the
United States Court of Federal Claims, 26 Cl.Ct. 713 (1992), sustaining
the decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that it was not
entitled to tax-exempt status under I.R.C. s 501(c)(3) (1982). On the
basis of the reasoning set out in the opinion of the Court of Federal
Claims, we conclude that the Church of Spiritual Technology did not carry
its burden of proving that it is both organized and operated exclusively
for tax-exempt purposes, Treas.Reg. s 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(1)(i)(a), and that
it therefore did not establish its eligibility under I.R.C. s 501(c)(3).
We affirm.
The previous ruling stated, also quite specifically,
CONCLUSION
The court does not question the sincerity of the beliefs of those who
practice Scientology. Nor does the court hold that Scientology is not a
religion. Plainly it is. The limited issue before the court, however, is
whether CST has met its obligation of demonstrating that the
Commissioner's decision was erroneous. It has not. There was sufficient
evidence in the administrative record to support the Commissioner's
finding that CST has not shown itself to be an exempt organization under s
501(c)(3). The Clerk is directed to dismiss the complaint.
By the way, that's just one case. There are literally dozens of others
available, and hundreds if not thousands in existence which have not been
described.
>> (2) An extremely high burden of proof, literally "no doubt" (which is higher
>> than "beyond a reasonable doubt"), that a religion is not entitled to standard
>> nonprofit tax treatment because it isn't truly conforming to the usual rules
>> for its activities but is only pretextually religious, must be met. The IRS
>> can read law even if most a.r.s. ranters can't. They know that proving with
>> "no doubt" that the Church of Scientology in the present day as presently
>> constitutued with actually living members is NOT qualifying was a burden they
>> would have a very hard time winning under.
That's absolutely ludicrous and flies in the face of the case law. In
fact, to the contrary, in a declaratory action the Church itself had the
burden of proving itself tax-exempt, not the other way around, and
certainly not by some "no doubt" standard--especially as in these cases,
there had already been adverse rulings to the 501(c)(3) tax status.
CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL TECHNOLOGY, Plaintiff,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant.
No. 581-88T.
United States Claims Court.
July 13, 1990.
Church brought action seeking declaration that it was tax-exempt.
Church moved to declare final adverse ruling denying tax-exempt status
null and void.
The Claims Court, Bruggink, J., held that administrative determination
was not null and void; therefore, church had burden to prove its
qualification as tax- exempt. Motion denied. INTERNAL REVENUE
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administrative determination denying a
church tax-exempt status was not rendered null and void, even if IRS's
decision was based on bias and failure to follow procedure; therefore,
church had burden in declaratory judgment action to prove tax-exempt
status. 26 U.S.C.A. ss 501(c)(3), 7428; Tax Court Rule 217(c)(2)(i), 26
U.S.C.A. foll. s 7453.
INTERNAL REVENUE
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) administrative determination denying a
church tax-exempt status was not rendered null and void, even if IRS's
decision was based on bias and failure to follow procedure; therefore,
church had burden in declaratory judgment action to prove tax-exempt
status. 26 U.S.C.A. ss 501(c)(3), 7428; Tax Court Rule 217(c)(2)(i), 26
U.S.C.A. foll. s 7453.
*762 Monique E. Yingling, with whom were James A. Harris and Kenneth S.
Nankin, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Thomas C. Spring, of counsel.
David Gustafson, with whom were Asst. Atty. Gen. Shirley D. Peterson,
Mildred L. Seidman, and Gerald B. Leedom, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
Concluding after a great deal of argument with
CONCLUSION
The plaintiff's motion to declare the final adverse ruling null and void
is denied. Plaintiff will bear the burden of proof with respect to those
reasons for denial of recognition of exempt status set out in the final
adverse determination letter. The parties are directed to file a joint
status report on or before July 27, 1990 proposing further proceedings.
Specifically this referred to Tax Court Rule 217(c)(2)(ii).
As the rest of this Kymus idiocy is based on similar misapprehensions,
imaginary concerns and delusional assertions, or rests on statements
already disproven, I drop it at this point.
ptsc
Kymus
>Dobe R Mann wrote:
>
>> (Kymus) wrote:
>>>= For a middle ground understanding of the Scientology v. Net War =
>>
>>Bernie, why don't you just post with your own account?
I am Kymus. Bernie is Bernie.
>I do - and don't you think for a minute that I'll consider taking an account
>on
>AOHell - even for trolling!
See?
>(Hi, Kymus - thanks for the sig! ;-)
Sure. Thanks for having the page! Someday I'll get off my backside and do one
too.
= For a middle ground understanding of the Scientology v. Net War =
begin at
Kymus
>Welcome to the killfile, where no one can hear you froth.
>
Remember you promised. Don't plonk and not follow through :))
Kymus
>Could anyone _please_ explain how people could possibly be convinced
>by Ron's hysterical ramblings?
They weren't necessarily. The actual beliefs and motivations of typical
Scientologists are a tremendously unexplored area. One tends to know, at most,
what the centralized authorities in control of the Church of Scientology wish
the rest of the world to believe are the beliefs of Scientologists. An
exception to this is in the "Freezone" (such as in alt.clearing.technology)
where there is some exploration of what typical Scientologists might have
believed while they were members of the orthodox Church that slavishly adheres
to the authority of L. Ron Hubbard.
Also, Scientology lacked a mandatory subscription requirement except to a
certain minimum code of conduct, which included not publically challenging
"orthodoxy" based on Hubbard's sometimes stream of consciousness gibberish.
The basis of credence for most members was largely personal experience of its
activities and acheiving some of the benefits claimed for these activities.
Scientology generally tried to convert through appeals to exerience rather than
through subscription to any particular set of words.
There is some similarity in this to being a member of society which has a law
you neither know of, comprehend, or agree with. It may not matter to you
whether Title 39 Revised Calizona Codes Section 213 is a good law or a bad one,
but a typical citizen will think that law should be obeyed simply because it is
an established law. In normal society challenge to the wisdom of that law is
ordinary, of course. Generally belief in being law abiding rather than
personal subscription to the inscrutibly written, incomprehensible 38 RCC 213,
is what motivates the citizen to accede to that law being in control. Same
thing with many Scientologists as it relates to Hubbard's pronouncements on any
number of topics that popped into his head.
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>>From: fr...@SPAMNOTlinkline.com
>>If you bothered to read it you would find that the crime syndicate _lost_
>Bothered to read it??? Bothered to read it??? Genius, I've ARGUED that case's
Good grief, you're bark-raving mad. Let's take a look at the truth about
the crime syndicate's IRS deal and, while we're at it, we'll get something
of a look at what your crime bosses are trying to tell you about it:
>authority and WON my points using it as precedent!!! I haven't simply "read"
>it you know-it-all, but had my understanding of it vindicated by other actual
>legally trained minds, which is something you obviously are not.
>The Supreme Court handed down an opinion as to how the case was to be handled
>according to clarifications of law made by the Supreme Court. The
>Scientologists changed their approach to the actions below to take advantage of
>the opinion. They neither "won" nor "lost" in the Supreme Court, rather they
>had the law declared as between them and the IRS.
And that's bullshit -- which you would know if you had bothered to read it.
In actual fact the crime syndicate sent two heavies to the IRS commissioner's
office unannounced and unscheduled and either bribed or blackmailed him into
granting tax exemption status. Shortly after the syndicate got to the guy,
he was forced to resign along with a number of other IRS officials.
Part of the deal struck with organized crime was that they would be forced
to disband WISE -- which you would know if you had actually read it. The
crime syndicate hasn't disbanded WISE.
The crime syndicate tried to keep the billion-dollar fraud a secret yet
someone in the IRS leaked the documents to the Wall Street Journal which
verified every aspect of the document and then published it -- doubtlessly
prompting the fairly quiet removal of the IRS people responsible for the
fraud.
>>and was ordered to disband their criminal network called WISE in order to
>>qualify for tax exemption status.
>What criminal network is this? What charges were filed against that
>association of people? None, of course. You just can't argue without
>namecalling.
And that's bullshit. Lt. Ray Emmons of the Clearwater Police Department
covered the sole reason why the crime syndicate isn't being raided in the
United States since the last massive raids in 1977: The expense to raid
the crooks and try them is too prohibitive:
http://www.skeptictank.org//hs/cwfedmon.htm
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/cosfed2.htm
In the mean time, the Scientology crime syndicate was systematically
raided by law enforcement in the years 1999 and last year in no less than
_six_ countries:
Belgium
Spain
France (twice)
Germany
Russia
Greece
Criminal network. Organized crime. Crime syndicate. That's Scientology.
>> The crime syndicate still maintains
>>their criminal network, however.
>I understand WISE maintains WISE.
A Scientology criminal organization specifically created to try to keep the
money swindled from victims -- or haven't you read the Raul Lopes documents?
>It is your invention that any association of Scientologists is
>therefore part of the corporate structure of the church
That's the finding of judicial summations around the world:
http://www.skeptictank.org/justice2.htm
> and you don't back it up with anything but your own venom for
> anyone who isn't as rabidly anti-Scientology as yourself.
And yet while I'm advocating human rights, civil rights, and Constitutional
rights trying to save Scientologists' lives, you're the one trying to
defend a criminal organization that killed Lisa McPherson and Stacy Moxon
-- just to name two of the latest homicides.
This is Scientology, folks.
Robert A Crawford
>In article <jbl4bt8q897h8hma8...@4ax.com>, John says...
>>For in-depth information on the illegal and
>>malicious bigotry of ARS critics, check out
>http://bigotwatch.net/
Yes. That site. The site so offensive it has, I'm sure, made
more enemies for the Co$ than almost any other action they've ever taken.
Chris Leithiser
Even http://www.parishioners.org? Another example of the cult's
bigotry in calling others bigots.
Robert A Crawford
>Robert A Crawford wrote:
>> On 16 Mar 2001 20:19:53 -0800, Dr. Paloma <Dr._m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >In article <jbl4bt8q897h8hma8...@4ax.com>, John says...
>> >>For in-depth information on the illegal and
>> >>malicious bigotry of ARS critics, check out
>> >http://bigotwatch.net/
>> Yes. That site. The site so offensive it has, I'm sure, made
>> more enemies for the Co$ than almost any other action they've ever taken.
>bigotry in calling others bigots.
Heck, I may have gotten the two confused. Which one goes
into "depth" about the supposed anti-social practices of all the
critics?
Dave Bird
>>From: chy...@ludens.elte.hu
>>Could anyone _please_ explain how people could possibly be convinced
>>by Ron's hysterical ramblings?
>
>They weren't necessarily. The actual beliefs and motivations of typical
>Scientologists are a tremendously unexplored area.
Not really. Admittedly maximum interest is not in "how I was conned
into stepping in the dogshit." But people who meet CofS members at
demos, or by nosing into CofS events, and read material like Monica
Pignotti's "nine lives" have a fairly good insight (as good as you
can get without being stung yourself).
Rev Fredric L. Rice
>in article 20010318033515...@ng-co1.aol.com, Kymus at
>kymu...@aol.comnospam wrote on 3/18/01 3:35 AM:
>>> From: Jim Byrd by...@NOSPAM.acm.org
>>> Actually, it does have tax-exempt status. It had lost in the Supreme Court,
>>> which said that Scientology was not entitled to a tax exemption.
>> No it didn't. Read the actual opinion if you want to know what the Supreme
>> Court said. Don't just repeat the pravda that a.r.s. critics dreamed up and
>> repeat as if their mutual agreement equals fact. Jesus Fucking Christ it's
>> like listening to first graders discuss computer architechture to listen to
>> a.r.s. "critics" spout off about legal cases they think they understand.
>why does a religion need so many lawyers?
For the very same reason that organized crime syndicates have so many lawyers.
I.S.Rennie
Parishioners.org is the one where all the pages say 'more to come' but
are almost never updated.
Mike O'Connor
kymu...@aol.comnospam (Kymus) wrote:
> Bothered to read it??? Bothered to read it??? Genius, I've ARGUED that case's
> authority and WON my points using it as precedent!!!
Well you haven't cited it or quoted it, looks like you only interpreted
it in the prior message. What's the cite, it might be online and we can
all look at it.
--
SCIENTOLOGY IS SECRETLY A UFO CULT
ASK THEM ABOUT XENU
Mike O'Connor <http://www.leptonicsystems.com/>
ptsc
wrote:
>In article <20010318184837...@ng-ms1.aol.com>,
> kymu...@aol.comnospam (Kymus) wrote:
>> Bothered to read it??? Bothered to read it??? Genius, I've ARGUED that case's
>> authority and WON my points using it as precedent!!!
>Well you haven't cited it or quoted it, looks like you only interpreted
>it in the prior message. What's the cite, it might be online and we can
>all look at it.
He lies like a cheap rug.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:33:55 GMT, "M. C. DiPietra" <mdip...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
[I see people are still responding to this idiot, and this particular idiocy is
too lame to let pass without comment.]
>in article 20010318033515...@ng-co1.aol.com, Kymus at
>kymu...@aol.comnospam wrote on 3/18/01 3:35 AM:
>
>>> From: Jim Byrd by...@NOSPAM.acm.org
>>> Actually, it does have tax-exempt status. It had lost in the Supreme Court,
>>> which said that Scientology was not entitled to a tax exemption.
>>
>> No it didn't. Read the actual opinion if you want to know what the Supreme
>> Court said. Don't just repeat the pravda that a.r.s. critics dreamed up and
>> repeat as if their mutual agreement equals fact. Jesus Fucking Christ it's
>> like listening to first graders discuss computer architechture to listen to
>> a.r.s. "critics" spout off about legal cases they think they understand.
We'll get back to this particular comment later.
>why does a religion need so many lawyers?
>> The Supreme Court said
John Dorsay
ptsc wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 23:22:22 GMT, Mike O'Connor <mi...@leptonicsystems.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <20010318184837...@ng-ms1.aol.com>,
> > kymu...@aol.comnospam (Kymus) wrote:
>
> >> Bothered to read it??? Bothered to read it??? Genius, I've ARGUED that case's
> >> authority and WON my points using it as precedent!!!
>
> >Well you haven't cited it or quoted it, looks like you only interpreted
> >it in the prior message. What's the cite, it might be online and we can
> >all look at it.
>
> He lies like a cheap rug.
Actually, he/she/it lies like a troll.
Anyone who charges into ars, immediately declares himself neutral, and
then points readers to the Barmy Belgian's website as authoritative *in
the same post* is either an idiot, a troll, or both.
<large snip>
> As the rest of this Kymus idiocy is based on similar misapprehensions,
> imaginary concerns and delusional assertions, or rests on statements already
> disproven, I drop it at this point.
YHBT.
--
Regards, John
Exceedingly Rude and Discourteous Psychiatric Pawn
Read about Scientology and the abuse of survivors of brain injury: