Re: This is a very confusing newsgroup
Rev. Desertphile de Rothschild
<anon...@remail.amessage.info> wrote:
>Hi people.
>
> I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In other
> words, who are the good guys and the bad guys?
Why automatically wish toseperate people into "good guys" and "bad
guys?" Scientology customers and staff may (and often do) perform evil
and abusive acts, but that does not automatically mean they are "bad
guys:" it could also mean they are merely grossly ignorant.
(Trimed)
---
Hating crime is not a hate crime.
"Scientology turned out to be even worse than everything I
said or even imagined!" --Paulette Cooper
Phil Scott
"Max Mustermann" <anon...@remail.amessage.info> wrote in
message
news:0271fa34a8e25ca6...@remail.amessage.info...
> >Hi people.
> >
> > I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In
other
> > words, who are the good guys and the bad guys?
>
> Why automatically wish toseperate people into "good guys"
and "bad
> guys?" Scientology customers and staff may (and often do)
perform evil
> and abusive acts, but that does not automatically mean they
are "bad
> guys:" it could also mean they are merely grossly ignorant.
> Quite. Let me rephrase that:
>
> What the lurker, the newbie and the whistleblowers need to
know is who they
> can trust.
The real critics names are forged by the cult ops these
days... and the cult ops try to pose as critics by appearing
critical of scn... and some fake it for months before crawling
out into the daylight and exposing themselves.
Your best estimate is made on the basis each post... is the
post effectively exposing the criminal cult or not. Over time
it all becomes very clear. Those that equivocate are either
just out of scn and still have partial brainwash on the
issue...or are cult ops tying to make scn look 'not so bad'.
If you see someone posting like an idiot...kill file
them... that simplifies things a lot on the ng.
If you see a particular person that posts well written
thoughtful material being trashed... look at who is doing the
trashing and that will be a cult op...or I think someone
trying to obfuscate an issue (for instance Col Richard Odoms
close ties with the cults Mike Kobrin...Odom runs ATEG for
Kobrin... Odom used to head the NSA... so you have those high
level govt links into the cult...it began when Hubbard trained
Dr Hal Puthoff on OT 3 in the early 60's ... those links I
would say have spread into massive bank and real estate fraud
world wide... ATEG for instance was a 40 million dollar stock
fraud, a pump and dump scheme.. that should give you a clue
about all of those involved in it... and all of that is a
matter of public record for years now.)
Trying to symplify this mess leads you away from the broader
scope of it... its huge and its messy, and it has very very
little to do with Hubbard anymore or his crap...it has
everything to do with stock, real estate and bank fraud and
money laundering world wide now.
So must read extensively then ask yourself what would the
motivations be say for instance that scn is in bed with Adnan
Khasshoggi, and George Soros praises scn and funded much of
the earthlink start up and is still apparently on thier board
of directors....
In asking why and what the motivations are you can begin to
connect dots... lacking that all you see is noise.
Phil Scott
>I was under the impression that you were an oldtimer here.
Surely
> those who have had anything to do with scientology for long
enough know their
> policy of going after their critics, their spread of
misinformation, and their
> habit of putting up smokescreen arguments which degenerate
into a logical mess
> that would make Alexander the Great scratch his head in
confusion. And all
> this I've gathered simply from casual reading on the net.
The observer needs
> to know the lie of the land in order to minimise the risk of
attack.
>
> (btw: hi, you scientologists reading this; has it ever
occured to you that
> attacking your critics by posting personal slurs against
them just makes you
> look really stupid? Killing people kind of ranks higher than
someone having
> epilasy out here in the real world . . . remember the real
world? Where you
> could have your own opinions and say what you really felt?
It's still out here,
> waiting for you to come back to it. I'm sure there's people
you care about
> and who care about you who'd love to see you again).
>
> I'm sure that most scientologists are, as you say, misguided
and ignorant.
> That does not excuse their actions (although it is a
mitigating factor) especially
> now that the abuses of the "church" are a matter of public
record. Yes, their
> leaders are the most responsible, but I don't hold those who
blindly follow
> something that smells so bad to be entirely without guilt
here either (sorry
> if that sounds harsh, but if we all dodged responsibility
for our actions we'd
> soon find that no-one was ever actually responsible for
anything they did,
> no matter how heinous). I write this with absolute
compassion for those who
> have been forced to do - or are still doing - something
that, deep down, they
> know is wrong, because of adherance to something that they
believe will ultimately
> make life better for themselves and others (and why would
someone seek answers
> from a cult like this unless they were seeking to make
things better). Someone
> who is a member of a cult is, almost by definition, usually
someone who is
> being subjected to mind-control techniques, and this is
another mitigating
> factor, sure. And breaking free of that is a hard, hard
thing to do.
>
> Which is the point of my original post: I don't think there
is much middle
> ground in this issue. You're either with the scientologists,
or you're agin
> them. All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people
to do nothing, as
> someone once said. It would help those who are trying to
break free if they
> knew what was from the mouthpieces of the CoS and what was
coming from those
> who are outside of the CoS. A primer for the newsgroup. An
overview of the
> territory.
>
> A group which is basically one big flame war (in fact
probably unique in the
> annals of usenet: a flamewar that actually has a point)
probably needs this
> more than your average group.
>
> Anon.
>
Mike Gormez
<anon...@remail.amessage.info> wrote in
<c94c5977e95fc93a...@remail.amessage.info>:
>Hi people.
>
>I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In other words, who are
>the good guys and the bad guys? In particular, who the hell is that "Lawrence
>Toomajan" and why is he so upset? Is he a scientologist who just can't take
>it anymore?
He acts crazy but at times he can be talked with. Just ignore him. Same
with that Schwarz woman, except that she is too sick to reason with. Only
medication could help a little. Then there are too many distractors
posting here to make a list. And a list with the 'good guys' can also
cause trouble because we don't all like each other and some good guys are
just as annoying with trolling here or posting off-topic crap. You have
to weight the bad against the good.
Just read for awhile and you'll get to know who's who. Later you can do
this newsgroup by only reading about 15% of the postings.
--
Mike Gormez
- WISE is Scientology recruitment in the workplace http://stop-wise.biz/
- Scientology and health http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect http://www.taxexemptchildabuse.net/
- Hubbard on psychs http://whyaretheydead.net/misc/scientology_hatred_of_psychiatry.html
Cerridwen
wrote:
>Hi people.
>
>I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In other words, who are
>the good guys and the bad guys? In particular, who the hell is that "Lawrence
>Toomajan" and why is he so upset? Is he a scientologist who just can't take
>just one day's posting.
>
>And because this is a newsgroup where such a thing needs to be stated: yes,
>I'm anti-scientology :)
>
>You should consider a FAQ on posting to a.r.s. No doubt the scientologists
>will promptly make their own, but it would help out those of us who lurk and
>other forms of newbies. I've got a feeling quite a few people read this group
>but don't post because of the fear of reprisals from the "church". Posting
>such a FAQ would help encourage more posts. I'd also suggest that providing
>a link to anonymous news posting services would also help the whistleblowers
>and the terrified to come out of the woodwork.
>
>Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work.
I've been reading ars for a few years and have a very full killfile.
Here's my recommendations in ALL CAPS
Postings between Mon, 06 Sep 04 and Sun, 12 Sep 04:
1 121 Stilllov...@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) INSANE PERSON
KILLFILE
2 96 "Lawrence Toomajan" <n/a> INSANE TROLL KILLFILE
3 62 Bob McKenzie <b...@elsinorebrewery.com> USELESS POSTER
KILLFILE
4 53 "Android Cat" <androi...@hotmail.com> A KEEPER-PROVIDES
EXCELLENT INFORMATION
5 52 garrysca...@excite.com (Garry Scarff is a notorious
liar, a cyber stalker, a forger, an identity stealer, an animal, and a
disgrace to the human race) KILLFILE BASED ON THE NICK
6 43 dickto...@mindless.com (Dicktop_Stud) GARY SCARFF --
OCCASSIONALLY POSTS USEFUL INFORMATION, BUT MOSTLY FIGHTS WITH
THE NUTCASES
43 arnie lerma <ale...@bellatlantic.net> LONG TIME CRITIC- VALUABLE WEBSITE
8 40 "Ball of Fluff" <None> SCIENTOLOGIST-- POSTS A BIT TOO MUCH AND
DOESN'T SNIP ENOUGH-- KEEP
9 38 "Phil Scott" <philsc...@sf.sbcglobal.net> CRITIC THAT
STATES OPINIONS AS FACT
10 35 barb <bwa...@cox.net> A KEEPER EXCELLENT CRITIC
11 33 ptsc <pt...@nowhere.com> MY PERSONAL FAVORITE
12 32 Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> CRITIC WITH OCCASIONAL GOOD
INSIGHTS BUT TALKS/POSTS TO MUCH.
13 29 hef...@scientologylies.com (Heffer) KEEP
14 28 "roger gonnet" <r...@antisectes.net> KEEP- GOOD CRITIC, ENGLISH
IS NOT HIS FIRST LANGUAGE.
15 27 "Rev Norle Enturbulata" <notear...@norhotmail.com>
KILLFILE HIM HE'S COMPLETELY WORTHLESS
16 26 realpch <rea...@aol.com> KEEP- A VERY LOVELY CRITIC.
26 Barbara...@myway.com (Still_lying_about_Marty) PSYCHO
WHACKO- KILL FILE HER
18 25 "Ball of Fluff" <Waitandsee> sAME AS BALL OF FLUFF
19 23 wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> DINOSAUR CRITIC
HE'S IN MY KILLFILE FOR LACK OF CONTRIBUTION AND GENERAL STUPIDITY.
23 fax...@hotmail.com (Faxhor) OSA WHACKO
23 Boobara...@emailaccount.com (Barbara Schwarz is a
notorious psychotic liar, an identity stealer, an ugly cow, and a
disgrace to the human race) KILLFILE ANYTHING WITH THE NAME SCHWARZ
22 21 orkel...@hotmail.com (orkel...@hotmail.com) KILLFILED BUT
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHY
23 20 theonewhoisad...@emailaccount.com (Guess who?)
KILLFILE
20 elcy...@yahoo.com KILLFILE
20 Sten-Arne Zerpe <S...@zerpe.ath.cx> LONG TIME CRITICS WITH AN
INTERESTING SENSE OF HUMOR. I WOULD GUESS THAT SOME WOULD KILLFILE
HIM BECAUSE HE CAN POST A LOT BUT FOR SOME REASON I REALLY LIKE STEN.
20 Kristi Wachter <human...@racerrecords.com> EXCELLENT AND
VERY LOVELY CRITIC.
27 18 Mike Gormez <mgo...@chello.nl> EXCELLENT CRITIC
28 17 lase...@aol.com (LaserClam) KILLFILE
17 Hartley Patterson <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> EXCELLENT
CRITIC
30 15 Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> EXCELLENT CRITIC
31 14 Dave Bird <dave.xemu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> EXCELLENT
CRITIC
14 "Feisty" <su...@skytoday.com> EXCELLENT CRITIC
33 13 jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) EXCELLENT CRITIC
34 12 hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) INTERESTING CRITIC
35 11 Ted Mayett <tedm...@despammed.com> EXCELLENT CRITIC
11 Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen) :)
11 "John" <ju...@junk.com> NOT SURE WHO THIS IS
38 10 ladayla <ladayla...@newsguy.com> EXCELLENT CRITIC
There are a few other excellent contributors that only make a few posts a
week/month. They include, DeoMorto, Lulu Belle, Emma, Dave Touretzsky,
Kady, Tikk, Thomas Best and Chris Owen. If I missed anyone, I apologize in
advance.
I read ars to get news and opinions on Scn. I liberally use a killfile because
ars attracts a lot of kooks and trolls and they can waste a lot of your time.
I give most new posters 3 or 4 tries at saying something that makes sense
and if after a few posts, I find they still have nothing to contribute, I quickly
plonk them.
YMMV
Cerridwen
Chris Leithiser
>
> Hi people.
>
> I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In other words, who are
> the good guys and the bad guys? In particular, who the hell is that "Lawrence
> Toomajan" and why is he so upset? Is he a scientologist who just can't take
> it anymore?
Bingo.
Zinj
It's always been confusing, and there's no simple cure for that; just
time and thoughtful reading. Eventually you'll make your own decisions
as to what's 'valuable' to you, and *evaluation* is what's required; not
'lists' or 'killfiles'.
For one thing, the critics themselves, including some of the most
informative, are sometimes divided into various 'factions', 'cliques'
and 'dogpiles' which can be more confusing to decode than even the
deliberate 'OSA Ops' :)
In the end, and if you keep reading ARS, you'll form your own opinion as
to which posts and posters to read or not, and how much 'spin' you have
to take into consideration depending on source.
And that's just the *normal* usenet politicking :)
Of course, ARS is far from 'normal' thanks to the tactics of the
'Church' of Scientology, which regularly dumps its loads of 'anti-
psych' propaganda, 'happy thetan' talk, Black PR, 'dead agenting' and
all-round goofy bile and venom.
More confusing for the casual user may be deliberate forgeries by the
'Church' using ARS regular's names. Again though, no easy solution
exists except some kind of familiarity with the posting styles of the
people in question, and even some 'regulars' seem to have been taken in
at times. Solution: think before replying.
And of course, we have the so-called 'trolls', such as Dorian, Larry,
Truthseeker and any number of other 'self-proclaimed critics' who are
very likely 'Church Operatives' whose primary purpose is to make ARS as
confusing as possible, and also flooded with distraction, disinformation
and (Dorian especially) pseudo-literate 'analysis' which is much sound
and fury signifying nothing.
That's not to say that *all* trolls are Scientology trolls intent on
flooding the newsgroup with 'Developed Traffic', or Dev-T. Some trolls
are merely the usual usenet jokers out for a lark, and some are ARS
home-grown critics, who enjoy throwing out incendiaries and then
watching the sparks fly. Sten and Roland are not alone in that valuable
function, although some of the more naive critics tend to the 'all
trolls are bad' flavor of naive stuffiness.
There's no simple way to tell a 'Church' troll from a humorous one
except time and humor. 'Church' trolls are very seldom humorous, merely
long-winded.
Beware the 'Hi! I just heard about Scientology, and wanted you all to
explain it to me!' Although rarely a real information seeker, it's one
of the favorite 'Church' distraction gambits.
As for Larry, it's easy to dismiss him as merely another Scientology-
damaged mind gnashing gears and spewing inanities, but what seems to
have set him off this time is that he (mistakenly?) quoted from a script
that us uniquely OSA (while religiousfreedomwatch is publicly
available), and as Sten put it... blew his cover. Most of the recent
Larry fireworks seem intent on covering that up.
Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think
Barbara Schwarz
Cerriwed, you might want to know that I only read your posts if there
is really absolutely nothing else to do, and when is that ever? :)
You are one of the most boring posters and libeler in this newsgroup.
People could read your postings before a surgery, because that means
that they don't need medicine but that your postings take them out to
dreamland for a long long time.
Barbara Schwarz
Barbara Schwarz
> wrote:
> >Hi people.
> >
> >I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup?
Well, Max, Cerriwed knows that criminal Garry Scarff steals other
people's identity and is a forger, nevertheless she promotes him. That
should open your eyes what kind of sick creature Cerriwed is. She
knows that Scarff posts with Still_Lying_About_Marty and with my name
in his e-mail address, but she tries to mislead you to believe that it
is me.
The only reason why she wants you to kill file me is because she is
afraid you will read too much truth in my postings. Cerriwed is a
manipulator, a liar, a person who libels, a fool and she promotes the
worst and most lawless people on the web. She also recommends Arnie
Lerma who has Nazi connections. Isn't that disgusting?
Anyway, I think killfiling is just an action of fear. She is afraid of
other people's opinions. :)
Scarff is also a fanatical fan of the porn and bomb instruction guy
Dave Touretzky and defends David Touretzky's wrong ways.
GARRY SCARFF IN HIS OWN DANGEROUS:
"Actually, she (Barbara Schwarz) needs a baseball bat right in the
kisser.
"Better yet, Bob, why don't you fetch an armload of really heavy books
and walk over to Barbara (Schwarz) when she's at a computer and
whoops....accidentially trip and drop the books on her head...hell..."
"You're very lucky there's 2000 miles between us, Beebe. You'd either
be dead or in ICU."
Garry Scarff: "Yup! I AM SATAN, HEAR ME ROAR!"
Garry Scarff: "...my college grades dropped and I was suspended for 6
months from college for receiving one credit out of the required 12
for the term."
Garry Scarff: "D.E. and others are correct if that I have not been a
Scientologist..."
Garry Scarff: "I was 'friend' with Scientology, yet going to cult
education forums with the Greeks and trashing Scientology."
Garry Scarff: "I...was even invited as special friend by Ann Greek to
accompany them to Canada for the purposes of kidnapping their
daughter...I accompanied the Greeks and another deprogrammer, Diane
Benscoter to Candada but the effort was unsuccessful."
Garry Scarff: "The sexual incident involving deprogrammer Bob
Brandybury did occur though Anne Greek begged me not to report it as a
crime."
Garry Scarff: "I rather lick you."
Garry Scarff:" Have a short life, Zanebutt".
Garry Scarff: "Don't make me send my henchman back over there to
bloody your nose."
------------------
GARRY SCARFF, THE THIEF OF FUNDS:
Garry Scarff stole stole 70% of donations of the Positive Action
Center. Something tells me that he did not do that out of hunger but
because he has a criminal mind.
GARRY SCARFF, AND THE MISUSE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT:
The affidavit of lawyer Graham Berry of April 4, 2004 indicates that
Garry Scarff unlawfully used law enforcement computer network to
retrieve info about juvenile. My question, is there any crime that
this Scarff has not committed sofar? He should be locked up.
GARRY SCARFF, THE PERJURER:
There are numerous information on the net that Garry Scarff lied in
his deposition in the Fishman/Geertz case.
Saying the truth under oath means nothing to criminal Scarff.
MORE GARRY SCARFF PERJURY:
Garry Scarff recants the content of his declarations given to Michael
Rinder, Elliott Abelson and David Long during the July 4, 1997
weekend. (A court accepting an affidavit of notorious liar Scarff is
losing all credibility.)
GARRY SCARFF, COMFORTABLE WITH LYING TO OTHERS FOR A LIVING:
C. Brennan wrote: "You forgot to mention that Garry Scarff is the guy
that used to be paid by the Cult Awareness Network to lie to potential
money sources for CAN and tell them his poor daddy died in Jonestown
(he said it used to bring tears to people's eyes,and green out of
people's pocketbooks, I guess he was convincing). Only problem was his
father was alive and well and living in Florida. CAN toured him all
over the country telling that story for quite a while, I guess they
got some good mileage out of it. It seems that Gary's comfortable with
lying to others for a living, don't know who is paying him now."
GARRY SCARFF, THE VIOLENT MAN
Violent Garry Scarff about an missed opportunity to have him arrested:
"My heated emotions to one female counterpicketer gave away and I
grabbed her by the throat and flung her to the ground in full view of
a Scientologist with a rolling videocamera."
MORE ABOUT GARRY SCARFF, THE DEATH THREAT MAKER:
His apology was simply part of the usual Scarff cycle. Still "valid"
is also his promise to kill me. -- T. H.
...but I see he (Garry Scarff) has progressed to making death threats
against me in a desperate plea for my attention. Something about
shooting me in the head? Someone e-mailed it to me; I missed the
posted thread. -- M.H.
And yeah, I know you (Garry Scarff) are dangerous...I know you can
easily mock up being really insane and take me out with your insanity
defense all nicely in place. -- G.A.
I would suggest to those who know Garry in LA that you should be
careful...So my advice to everyone: never never never never tell Garry
Scarff anything.... Remember, that is what drives his sick mind - he
wants to be known, looked at and to be listened to. -- T.H.
You are a liar, Garry. We have met. -- W.
Garry Scarff is a know liar. -- L .F.
I believe that Scarff did not just know about the sexual abuse of the
kidnap victim but that he participated in the abuse. -- Barbara
Schwarz
Scarff worked for both sides and cried, when he was caught. -- T.H.
GARRY SCARFF, AND INSANITY THAT RUNS IN HIS FAMILY?
Garry's brother allegedly killed himself with a gun.
I just believe that Garry has nothing to do with that if he has an
fool proof alibi that he was not near his brother at that time.
ROLL OVER FATHER JOHN GEOGHAN, HERE COMES GARRY SCARFF:
I learned that the Catholic Church did not take godless gay Garry
Scarff, who wanted to become a catholic "priest". Knowing Scarff, the
only reason why he would have wanted to join is because of the
homosexual activities of that church. That is likely the only reason
he became member in WEHO, his gay pick up "church" place in which they
drug and rape according to WEHO ex-members.
I thought the Catholic Church hires just about any perverted creep.
Scarff is apparently so perverted that even that church does not want
him. If they would have, who knows how many little boys rightfully
would sue father Scarff.
GARRY SCARFF, THE SPY:
Scarff:" I lied to F. and feigned an emotional outburst complete with
tears, screaming... The ploy worked as F. apologized to me... I
availed myself to his aonfidential (sic) legal records and legal files
of his clients..."
GARRY SCARFF, and his questionable diet: "Agreed that the Mormon when
(sic) look like they belong on a dairy farm, but some of the young
missionaries are yummy!"
MORE COMPLAINTS BY OTHERS ABOUT GARRY SCARFF:
Graham has his own ass to cover since Scarff gave him reams of other
false statements about alleged murder plots and so on...Berry will
have serious problems trying to make Scarff's former statements under
oath old up. -- H.C.
Garry Scarff deliberately lied about his background while he was an
active member of CAN. He claimed his father and other family members
were killed in Jonestown -- when he actually didn't know anyone in
Jonestown or have any involvement with the People's Temple. He served
as CAN's poster boy for awhile, all based on his fabricated
experiences with Jim Jones. After CAN was embarrassed by Scarff's lies
and turned against him, Scarff then proceeded to claim he had
infiltrated CAN as a GO/OSA operative. Outside of Scarff's own
assertions, I've seen no indication that this is any more true than
his lies about his
Jonestown connections. Scarff told the Moonies that CAN was making
death threats to try to keep him quiet. Scarff told the Moonies that,
as a member of CAN, he had been involved in activities that included
theft and burglary against them.
This is the guy whose "sworn affidavits" many people use to "prove"
that the CoS is a criminal organization. We're taking Scarff's
unsubstantiated word for things like the drowning of Judge
Swearinger's dog Duke, Moxon's order to have Cynthia Kisser and her
mythical daughter killed, etc. Is it really wise for anyone to place
so much trust in Scarff's unsubstantiated accusations?
Now, thanks to Scarff himself, we learn that he didn't end his career
as a prevaricator when he lost his contact with CAN and various cults.
He attempted to scam the Roman Catholic Church out of a settlement for
what he himself admits was a bogus claim that he was sexually
harrassed by a Catholic bishop. -- D. R.
It is well known that Garry Scarff can't be trusted...Garry is not
worthy of our trust. -- H.C.R.
Garry Scarff has been caught in lies and deceipt time and time again.
I only wish I could post half of the stuff which clearly shows the
misery that Scarff brought to lots of people. -- J.B.
Garry Scarff is a psychopath, and a loony is not an adequate word to
describe him. Scarff is a danger not only to himself, but to anyone
who trust him too... -- T.H.
For your information, when Garry (Scarff) was with CAN he was telling
everyone that his family had died in Jonestown and was making these
statements to the media. Come to find out, it was not true in the
slightest. If the alleged murder plots were true why didn't he go to
the police? -- H.C.
Perhaps you forget about the numerous little con-games he's been
caught playing here? I continue to spit in his (Scarff's) direction.
-- Z.T.
Garry Scarff is not a Scientology victim, he is a mentally ill guy...
-- T.H.
Is this guy (Garry Scarff) for real or does he just need to lay off
the hemp? Sounds like he's suffering from the Reality Inversion as
Robert Vaughn Young. -- T.J.
He (Scarff) has admitted to the things he has done and said, and he
has admitted being unstable. --J.B.
Have you ever seen Garry Scarff apologize for his deprogramming
activities here, or anything else for that matter? -- D. R.
Garry's mental problem is that he cannot accept people contradicting
him. -- T. H.
Scarff has already underminded any use he has in litigation for either
side because he lied so much. -- H.C.
And now you've become a forger as well. Go ahead Garry, and forge hate
messages. Go ahead, lie all you want. Go ahead and be cruel. Go ahead
and deny that your're doing what you're doing. -- G.A.
You (Garry Scarff) surface with your attacks and pornographic postings
and each time that you do I will release more info on you, who Lynn
Garrett really is, how Lynn Garrett makes his living, how Garry Scarff
became Lynn Garrett, vice versa. How Garry Scarff has accused at least
six individuals of homosexual attacks. -- J.B.
All I can say is that Scarff -- and the conflicting declarations he's
made in the past -- is what led me to become very skeptical of
anyone's claim of past abuse from cults, whether they've been sworn to
under penality or not. There may be some people willing to pick and
choose from Scarff's statement, selecting what they wish to beleive
and labelling as lies anything they don't wish to believe. I tend to
think that anyone so willing to change sides so often, for whatecver
reason, has list all hope of credibility. -- D. R.
I am a 100 percent convinced that no Scientologist told infiltrator
Garry Scarff to kill people, but that is all a product of this
criminal and mentally retarded mind. -- Barbara Schwarz
BTW, for those who don't know Garry Scarff, he is a pathological
liar...Garry lies continually about the "celebrities" he encounters.
He pretended to be a Jonestown survivor. -- G.A.
I have Scarff killfiled and so I don't see_his_posts, dear whatever.
-- Z.
And auto-attack drones like Garry Scarff, whose only learned skills
seem to
be anonymous posts, hiding behind spam merchants, and selling critics'
email
addresses to kiddy-porn sites. S.G.
Placing him (Scarff) in a killfile as probably 100 ars regulars have
done. Anyway, ars sure is a different place without him hanging
around. Must say I like it. :) *No one* makes as much noise as this
deseased creep... -- M.H.
FACTNet's archives include Garry Scarff's deposition revealing what he
claimed was a meeting with Moxon, Ingram, and others in which he swore
under penalty of perjury that all sorts of nefarious and illegal
schemes were plotted. FACTNet never reveals Garry Scarff's incredibly
checkered past history of flip-flopping between the battling cultists
and anticultists, or his ready admission that he's fabricated stories
from whole cloth (like his parents' death at Jonestown) in the past.
In Scarff's case, it wasn't just OSA who tried to warn readers about
Scarff's lack of credibility. -- D. R.
Scarff is active member of the gay WeHo "church", that according to
Scarff applaudes Scarff's lawless behavior against me. An ex-WeHo
member wrote me that this "church" sanctions and promotes dishonorable
behavior and that he and his friends were raped and drugged by one of
their active members, and that one of their active members murdered
others under the guise of "drug overdose". The ex-WeHo wrote that the
gay men make sexual innuendo during sermon and "church" leadership, as
their "Pastor" Terry Brewer, doesn't see what's wrong with that.
All that and more is documented on the Internet. You can go to the
Google newsgroups and check yourself. He posts with
dickto...@mindless.com (Dicktop_Stud); with Papa Boner; with
Barbara Schwarz is a notorious psychotic liar, an identity stealer, an
ugly cow, and a disgrace to the human race
(Boobara...@emailaccount.com); with with e-mail address
Barbara...@emailaccount.com and identities "Barbara_Schwarz";
"the real Barbara Schwarz de Rothschild"; "Truth Speaker 2"; and with
ID Still_lying_about_Marty. None of those posting is by me, the real
Barbara Schwarz, nor do I post under Babbling.Barbara.Schwarz and
e-mail address theonewhoisadelu...@emailaccount.com. I
posted first with ID "Guess who"? and e-mail account
theonewhoshallnotspeakout@emailaccount untill he stole again my
identity and posts now also with identity "Guess who" and with e-mail
account "theonewhoisadelusionalliar". He also stole the identity of
Mark Rathbun or Marty Rathbun (mrat...@scientology.org). Garry
Scarff's sexual harassment, insults, libel, persecution, harassment,
abuse, threats and cyber stalking of me, Barbara Schwarz, are under
different Google identities on the net. Scarff uses e-mail accounts
and posting identities with my name in it or a name similar as my name
to commit those crimes against me, but they can be all traced to him.
Interesting however is that he did not want to state his own address
to a court as he was afraid that he could himself come to harm. If he
fears criminality by not even tell the court where he lives, how come
he posts over and over my address on the net and lies that people
would get sexual services at my address and that there is a Hitler fan
club at my address? Scarff persecutes me from usenet thread to thread
often using my name as identity for his crimes (!) and verbally
assaults me, threatens me, harasses me, sexually harasses me, tries to
intimidate me, libels, insults and lies about me. He furthermore lied
that he spoke to a roommate of mine in the Utah mental health
hospital. I never was in that hospital, but he probably escaped from
one.
Scarff is the ultimate lawless and dangerous scum and police needs to
arrest him and lock him up.
Barbara Schwarz
Zinj
Stilllov...@myway.com says...
> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen) wrote in message news:<63JVBM3Z38254.5444212963@anonymous.poster>...
> > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Max Mustermann <anon...@remail.amessage.info>
> > wrote:
> > >Hi people.
> > >
> > >I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup?
>
>
> Well, Max, Cerriwed knows that criminal Garry Scarff steals other
> people's identity and is a forger, nevertheless she promotes him. That
> should open your eyes what kind of sick creature Cerriwed is. She
> knows that Scarff posts with Still_Lying_About_Marty and with my name
> in his e-mail address, but she tries to mislead you to believe that it
> is me.
Huh? Barbara, yet *again* you are monumentally confused. As little as
Cerridwen's 'picks' are definitive, she very positively recommends
killfiling Garry and all his clones.
Where do you see her supporting him?
Crazy you might be, but you're not usually blind.
Keith Henson
<anon...@remail.amessage.info> wrote:
>Hi people.
>
>I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In other words, who are
>the good guys and the bad guys?
It won't give you all you really need, but this web page will provide
history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_vs._the_Internet
>In particular, who the hell is that "Lawrence
>Toomajan" and why is he so upset? Is he a scientologist who just can't take
>it anymore? I'm confused. That was quite an amazing display of vitriol for
>just one day's posting.
Yeah.
>And because this is a newsgroup where such a thing needs to be stated: yes,
>I'm anti-scientology :)
>
>You should consider a FAQ on posting to a.r.s. No doubt the scientologists
>will promptly make their own, but it would help out those of us who lurk and
>other forms of newbies. I've got a feeling quite a few people read this group
>but don't post because of the fear of reprisals from the "church". Posting
>such a FAQ would help encourage more posts. I'd also suggest that providing
>a link to anonymous news posting services would also help the whistleblowers
>and the terrified to come out of the woodwork.
>
>Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work.
Good suggestions. The FAQ would need frequent updating since the cast
of characters, especially the guys who look like OSA ops, changes from
time to time.
Incidentally I don't think Toomajan is OSA, just someone who started
out with marginal social skills and they were certainly not improved
by his time in scientology.
If you want my insight into the evolved psychological traits that all
cults take advantage of, try "sex drugs cults" (without the quotes) in
Google and take the first link.
Keith Henson
realpch
Oh thanks! I was going to post that I'm a good guy, most of the time!
; )
I like Valerie's posts, but she doesn't post too much anymore. Andrew
Robinson is always enjoyable. Praxis posts good information, as does
Batchild. I wish kEvin would post more. Magoo is especially good reading
for other ex-Scientologists. Jeff Jacobson doesn't post enough any more.
Ida Camburn delivers some really interesting information. Ok, that's
enough. Now people can kick MY butt for leaving them out, and you're off
the hook.
Peach
James R. Ford
<anon...@remail.amessage.info> wrote:
>Hi people.
>
>I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In other words, who are
>the good guys and the bad guys? In particular, who the hell is that "Lawrence
>Toomajan" and why is he so upset? Is he a scientologist who just can't take
>it anymore? I'm confused. That was quite an amazing display of vitriol for
>just one day's posting.
>
>And because this is a newsgroup where such a thing needs to be stated: yes,
>I'm anti-scientology :)
>
>You should consider a FAQ on posting to a.r.s.
That would take organization. The ARSCC(wdne) official bylaws
prohibit organization in any form other than to set up pickets.
>No doubt the scientologists
>will promptly make their own, but it would help out those of us who lurk and
>other forms of newbies.
I wish they would make up their own FAQ. Like any of their texts it
would only serve to enhance the image of critics to the newbies. It
is an ongoing "OP" they have been running since 1996 called "Operation
Foot Bullet."
>I've got a feeling quite a few people read this group
>but don't post because of the fear of reprisals from the "church". Posting
>such a FAQ would help encourage more posts. I'd also suggest that providing
>a link to anonymous news posting services would also help the whistleblowers
>and the terrified to come out of the woodwork.
All valid points. When the newsgroup really started heating up, most
of us were fairly knowledgable about computers and the internet (the
words geek and nerd come to mind). In fact, during those years one
could read ARS to learn about PGP, encryption, tracing headers,
remailers, mixmasters, and more.
>
>Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work.
>
************************************************************
"I am thinking rather of the fact that those who are helped by dianetics will necessarily be kept at a low level of intellectual
and emotional maturity by the nonsense they have absorbed in order to be helped."
S.I. HAYAKAWA
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> Incidentally I don't think Toomajan is OSA, just someone who started
> out with marginal social skills and they were certainly not improved
> by his time in scientology.
>
> If you want my insight into the evolved psychological traits that all
> cults take advantage of, try "sex drugs cults" (without the quotes) in
> Google and take the first link.
>
> Keith Henson
Keith, without wanting to insult you, I think it's worthwhile to point
out that you really don't *deserve* an opinion on Larry, since your own
penchant for killfiling and spotty reading means that you are *not*
someone who has followed 'his' evolution over time.
That doesn't reduce your general insights in general :)
It *does* reduce your authoritative position in matters 'Larry'.
And, as much as I appreciate your theoretical motivational analysese,
it's exactly that selectie reading that makes them 'theoretical' rather
than 'real world'.
Not only in this case, but in others. And deliberate selection of data
is and should always be a caveat in the formulation of a hypothesis,
much more a 'theory'.
Mind you, I'd be the last person to suggest that you 'needed' to read
all of ARS every day. Nobody 'needs' that. *However*, if you're going to
present an 'opinion' on ARS or ARS posters in a dynamic social matrix...
Well, then; yes. You really should read all of it; all the time.
Context is very important for some issues, and someone who reaches his
opinions by peripheral vision is probably not really the best 'source'.
Anyway... Larry has been around for quite a while, and, like many
others, has been accepted by some (the more naive?) as a 'critic', even
if a wacked out and nonsensical 'critic' solely on the basis of having
posted 'some' posts 'critical' of Scientology.
OSA is *not* stupid, it merely acts so because it's crippled by being
forced to implement a strategy based on not only a flawed vision, but
even a fatally flawed cosmology and dogma.
To believe that saying something 'critical' about Scientology is
'evidence' that one is not an OSA OP is merely another flavor of the
'Xenu Test'.
Stupid at best.
In Larry's case, a lot of incidents have pointed to OSA involvement. And
a lot have pointed to merely 'Bad Scientology Damage'.
On the plus side, Larry actually *exists*, which most OSA Ops don't.
He's even spoken to Troy on the phone. (so much for 'registering' as a
critic)
On another and more ambivalent side, he seems to have a problem with
women. His most lurid and despicable attacks have been against Tory,
Ida, Kristi and Paulette.
Certainly he would fit into the most recent Scientology Op agenda.
Threats of violence (made as a critic); ridiculous charges against
Scientology (which impugn other easily documentable charges); repeated
spamming of supposedly 'critical' tomes (consistent since his first
post) and bug-fuck crazy hysterical rants.
All with the purpose of diluting the reality of ARS of course.
But, for me, it was his use of a charge that has *never* been used
against a specific critic; that she's a 'dyke' (not that there's
anything wrong with that :) *except* by 100% OSA ops, and even then, not
since 1999, long before 'Larry' joined ARS, that tells me that Larry not
only smells like OSA, but is the actual carrion.
wbarwell
> Hi people.
>
> I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In other words, who
> are the good guys and the bad guys? In particular, who the hell is that
> "Lawrence Toomajan" and why is he so upset? Is he a scientologist who just
> can't take it anymore? I'm confused. That was quite an amazing display of
> vitriol for just one day's posting.
>
There are a lot of kooky ex-scientologists here.
Koos, AKA Leonard Beene
Barbara Schwarz
Virginia McClaughry
Lawrence Toomjam.
Dorian
Truth Seeker
Faxhor
Some, Beene come and go in spurts.
Virginia actually only occasionally pops up here,
See alt.clearing.technology for free zone scientologists,
where she usually posts.
Phil Scott, Gerry Armstrong, Magoo and other critics
are ex-Scientologists.
Keith Henson, Zinj, myself and others never were.
Anonymous Scientologist sometimes come here to disrupt
things, such as the latest who posts pro-Scientologist
nonsense under critic's names.
This too comes and goes, it has been known in the past to be
an OSA activity, in teh past done by one Bill Yaude.
> And because this is a newsgroup where such a thing needs to be stated:
> yes, I'm anti-scientology :)
>
> You should consider a FAQ on posting to a.r.s. No doubt the scientologists
> will promptly make their own, but it would help out those of us who lurk
> and other forms of newbies. I've got a feeling quite a few people read
> this group but don't post because of the fear of reprisals from the
> "church". Posting such a FAQ would help encourage more posts. I'd also
> suggest that providing a link to anonymous news posting services would
> also help the whistleblowers and the terrified to come out of the
> woodwork.
>
> Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work.
Whistle blowers and new ex-members often come out on
the discussion group of www.xenu.net, or privately to
well known ex-Scientology critics such as Magoo.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
Hartley Patterson
> > >Hi people.
> > >
> > >I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In other words, who are
> > >the good guys and the bad guys? In particular, who the hell is that "Lawrence
> > >Toomajan" and why is he so upset? Is he a scientologist who just can't take
> > >it anymore? I'm confused. That was quite an amazing display of vitriol for
> > >just one day's posting.
Welcome to ARS, where no one is exactly who they seem to be and flame
wars are what happens on the carebear newsgroups. Here, we go Defcon 5
every other week.
> > >And because this is a newsgroup where such a thing needs to be stated: yes,
> > >I'm anti-scientology :)
*Sure* you are. You haven't used any giveaway scienobabble words or
phrases *yet*, so we'll give you a free six day trial membership of the
ARSCC. The subcommittee on trolls, OSAbots and loonies will be watching
you.
> > >You should consider a FAQ on posting to a.r.s.
There are several on websites, such as (advert):
http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/jargon.htm
Cerridwen:
> > I've been reading ars for a few years and have a very full killfile.
Mine is currently quite small, and they all expire after 7 days of not
posting. Currently it's the hushmail spammer, Lawrence, Shwartz and
Laserclam.
Oh, and I have a rule that cuts out threads that even mention some of
the above plus Iraq, Bush, fascism and other keywords.
--
"I just might be the angel at your door"
A medieval spreadsheet and enturbulating entheta.
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
Barbara Schwarz
I don't care what Cerridwed said. Her postings are misleading or
completely false, and on top, she is one of the most boring if not the
most boring person on usenet. She isn't intelligent, she post not
newsworthy and she has no sense of humor. On top of it, she is a crazy
snake. She knows that Garry Scarff stole my identity, however, she
lied to lurkers that he is me.
This is actually the first time that I responded to one of Cerriwed's
postings, as she just puts me to sleep. A crazy and fanatical guy like
you may recommend her, Joe, but if I would be in the pattern of
killfiling, I would put Cerriwed in my kill file first of all.
However, I don't fear postings of others, so I don't killfile anybody.
You should read her posting however again, she recommends with no word
that mindless Scarff should be killfiled. She says that he posts
sometimes "useful" information.
6 43 dickto...@mindless.com (Dicktop_Stud) GARY SCARFF --
OCCASSIONALLY POSTS USEFUL INFORMATION,
Now, please go out of my hair with Cerridwed. I post from a public
place, as you know. If I fall from the chair asleep, the security
guards will carry me out.
Barbara Schwarz
Barbara Schwarz
Who knows, perhaps Max Mustermann is another David Rice sock puppet.
Recently he got rid of his troll Bob McKenzie, as it is so difficult
to keep all the different identities alive. Psychs give people pills
against that kind of behavior, don't you know that?
It appears to me that mainly the old ARS people talk amongst them,
playing tricks amongst them that they are new people, when they are in
fact are not.
Barbara Schwarz
Ball of Fluff
"Max Mustermann" <anon...@remail.amessage.info> wrote in message
news:c94c5977e95fc93a...@remail.amessage.info...
> Hi people.
>
> I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In other words, who
are
> the good guys and the bad guys?
Different people would answer that in varying ways.
And it's really not the best way to think of the situation.
I'll put it this way: There have been, in the past, various church members
dropping in here and posting on their own in interests of either finding out
what was going on or sticking up for their church or both. I was once one,
and I can name several others. Some posted anonymously, some did not.
Most, if not all of those, are gone now, since CofS doesn't want them to do
that. They don't even want them reading the ng. I left CofS, myself, over
that very issue.
There are church Scientologists who are here having been sent here.
Completely different than the ones I just spoke about. You will usually be
able to spot them by their posting reams of anti psychiatric stuff and so
forth. They've tried various tactics in the past. I was actually told by the
church, when I was in it, "We already HAVE people to do that (post to
a.r.s.)" which means they don't feel any Scn'ist should be here unless it
fits church agenda.
Larry has been posting anti Scn stuff alternated with anti critic stuff
alternated with various highly quirky posts with things like "....etc etc--
PSYCH!". Opinion is divided on whether he is or is not with CofS' Office of
Special Affairs ("OSA") and, thus, if so, would have been sent here to post.
I just figure you get all kinds of people here on a public forum and not
everyone who seems strange is gonna be with the church- just like in life.
There also are non CofS Scientologists who post here. Obviously they weren't
sent by the church since most of them (or should I say "us") have been
expelled. We post because this is a discussion group and it fits our mood(s)
to do so.
Last but not least, are non Scn'ists of critical inclination. There's a lot
of infighting between some of them and some of them post under nicks
referring to things other people have said and done. Some of their posts are
sensible, some are just rants, and some people do a bit of both. Just like
in real life.
> In particular, who the hell is that "Lawrence
> Toomajan" and why is he so upset? Is he a scientologist who just can't
take
> it anymore? I'm confused. That was quite an amazing display of vitriol for
> just one day's posting.
>
> And because this is a newsgroup where such a thing needs to be stated:
yes,
> I'm anti-scientology :)
>
> You should consider a FAQ on posting to a.r.s.
The various OSA tactics and various newbies and others who've been there a
while change as time goes by. An FAQ would, therefore, be immediately out of
date.
>No doubt the scientologists
"The Scientologists"? Gee, who are they? Every single earnest soul who's
ever done anything in CofS and takes some courses, or do you mean church
operatives ("OSA") or is it every single Scn'ist in the echoing corridors of
time including non CofS Scientologists who are, in the main, quite critical
of CofS.
> will promptly make their own,
This ng's been here about 10 years and the church (I assume that's what you
mean) hasn't yet done so. Some anti critic websites, yes, but no FAQ. So
there is doubt.
>but it would help out those of us who lurk and
> other forms of newbies. I've got a feeling quite a few people read this
group
> but don't post because of the fear of reprisals from the "church".
I came in for a fair bit of that myself.
Most people who lurk and would not post for that reason tend to be church
members trying to figure out what's going on and not wanting to explain to
CofS why they are reading and posting this ng.
There are some non Scn'ist lurkers but I think mostly are in the category
described in the preceding paragraph.
CofS harasses and attacks critics (and also non CofS Scn'ists who open rival
centers) but usually they don't often bother some non Scn'ist who writes a
couple posts on a.r.s. and doesn't picket or have a critical website.
There've been some exceptions but then again depends on what's in the post,
too. Make a reckless and illegal sounding remark in the heat of the moment
that they can seize on and they probably will. Post a few "Well, gee, I
don't like them because etc etc" posts and they really won't give a damn.
C
Keith Henson
snip
>Anyway... Larry has been around for quite a while, and, like many
>others, has been accepted by some (the more naive?) as a 'critic', even
>if a wacked out and nonsensical 'critic' solely on the basis of having
>posted 'some' posts 'critical' of Scientology.
>
>OSA is *not* stupid, it merely acts so because it's crippled by being
>forced to implement a strategy based on not only a flawed vision, but
>even a fatally flawed cosmology and dogma.
True. And it leads them to doing things like Ms Blood/Tom Klemesrud
that are so over the top that virtually everyone rejects their ops as
impossible.
>To believe that saying something 'critical' about Scientology is
>'evidence' that one is not an OSA OP is merely another flavor of the
>'Xenu Test'.
>
>Stupid at best.
>
>In Larry's case, a lot of incidents have pointed to OSA involvement. And
>a lot have pointed to merely 'Bad Scientology Damage'.
A point toward OSA is that I don't recall anyone speaking up about
knowing him while he was in. Might have just missed that however.
>On the plus side, Larry actually *exists*, which most OSA Ops don't.
>He's even spoken to Troy on the phone. (so much for 'registering' as a
>critic)
>
>On another and more ambivalent side, he seems to have a problem with
>women. His most lurid and despicable attacks have been against Tory,
>Ida, Kristi and Paulette.
That's true, though he recently went nuts over Sten.
>Certainly he would fit into the most recent Scientology Op agenda.
>Threats of violence (made as a critic); ridiculous charges against
>Scientology (which impugn other easily documentable charges); repeated
>spamming of supposedly 'critical' tomes (consistent since his first
>post) and bug-fuck crazy hysterical rants.
>
>All with the purpose of diluting the reality of ARS of course.
>
>But, for me, it was his use of a charge that has *never* been used
>against a specific critic; that she's a 'dyke' (not that there's
>anything wrong with that :) *except* by 100% OSA ops, and even then, not
>since 1999, long before 'Larry' joined ARS, that tells me that Larry not
>only smells like OSA, but is the actual carrion.
You could be right. After Phil Chitester, who just *had* to be a
troll, I don't trust my own judgment about ambiguous ars
personalities.
But to the extent I assign probabilities, I would bin Larry as a
USENET attention addict, much like others I could name but won't.
Keith Henson
Faxhor
wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> responded...
<snip>
Dear Max Mustermann,
Who are you? Are you a sock puppet?
There is a reactive and nasty, dishonest kook who defends nazis:
Subgenius "Pope" William Charles Barwell (Cheerful Charlie he
calls himself). You can find him snapping and squawking here
on ARS and a couple other newsgroups. He thinks he is an expert
on Dianetics and Scientology and is also a pip maggot who refuses
to open his eyes and look when others show him that Fair Game is
not a valid church policy.
Faxhor
================================================================
"William Barwell is not dishonest"
- Arnie Lerma the Liar
"I am not freindly to Nazis..."
- William Barwell the Liar
================================================================
Lerma's Nazi Connection and Barwell's Nazi-Friendly Dishonesty:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=c901bee5.0409160128.2a194882%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
================================================================
Still_lying_about_Marty
Only because you're way too big to flush down the toilet.
orkel...@hotmail.com
Maybe it was because I am a psychiatrist and that english isn`t my
first language?
If you could remember and tell me why I would be grateful, considering
that your choices of killfiles parallels my own.
orkeltatte
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
<orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:84da9680.04092...@posting.google.com...
> Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen) wrote in message
news:<63JVBM3Z38254.5444212963@anonymous.poster>...
> >
Whoever you are. Yawn!
> > Here's my recommendations in ALL CAPS
Double yawn!
> >
> > 15 27 "Rev Norle Enturbulata" <notear...@norhotmail.com>
> > KILLFILE HIM HE'S COMPLETELY WORTHLESS
Such a blanket comment is in itself dubious, and the replication of email
addresses is as well. Smells like Fluffernutter, who's been in and out of
peoples' killfiles enough to double-post as "Ball of Fluff".
> >
> > I read ars to get news and opinions on Scn. I liberally use a killfile
because
> > ars attracts a lot of kooks and trolls and they can waste a lot of your
time.
Perhaps this anonymous poster should work on developing their OWN opinion
instead of seeking it from others.
> > I give most new posters 3 or 4 tries at saying something that makes
sense
> > and if after a few posts, I find they still have nothing to contribute,
I quickly
> > plonk them.
That should make for around 20 seconds of reading a day for a.r.s. Such
selective reading is not as informative as it is indicative of a desire to
only accept concepts that already match one's opinions. Intellectual
Narcissism?
--
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.xenutv.net
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
Rev. Norle Enturbulata
"Church" of Cartoonism
*
* "Did you ever read poor old George Orwell's 1984? Yes,yes, that's
wonderful. That would be--------could be the palest imagined shadow of what
a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with
no remedy in existence."
* - L Ron Hubbard's Philidelphia Docterate Course tape 20 (edited out)
*
* "Scientology...is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion."
* - L. Ron Hubbard's "Creation of Human Ability" p251
*
* "This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page
than has any publication since the invention of printing."
* - Review of "Dianetics", Scientific American, 1951
Mike Gormez
(orkel...@hotmail.com) wrote in
<84da9680.04092...@posting.google.com>:
>> 22 21 orkel...@hotmail.com (orkel...@hotmail.com) KILLFILED BUT
>> I CAN'T REMEMBER WHY
>
>Maybe it was because I am a psychiatrist and that english isn`t my
>first language?
>If you could remember and tell me why I would be grateful, considering
>that your choices of killfiles parallels my own.
>
>orkeltatte
I'll quote you otherwise she will never see this.
Cerridwen
>"On 26 Sep 2004 04:31:14 -0700, orkel...@hotmail.com
>(orkel...@hotmail.com) wrote in
><84da9680.04092...@posting.google.com>:
>
>>> 22 21 orkel...@hotmail.com (orkel...@hotmail.com) KILLFILED BUT
>>> I CAN'T REMEMBER WHY
>>
>>Maybe it was because I am a psychiatrist and that english isn`t my
>>first language?
>>If you could remember and tell me why I would be grateful, considering
>>that your choices of killfiles parallels my own.
I just googled your posts to find out why I might have kf'd you. It's nothing
personal. It looks like you reply to subjects I generally have no interest reading
and reply to posters I either have in my kf or mostly ignore.
>>
>>orkeltatte
>
>I'll quote you otherwise she will never see this.
>
Thanks Mikey,
Cerridwen
>
Ball of Fluff
<snip>
>
> (btw: hi, you scientologists reading this; has it ever occured to you that
> attacking your critics by posting personal slurs against them just makes
you
> look really stupid? Killing people kind of ranks higher than someone
having
> epilasy out here in the real world . . . remember the real world? Where
you
> could have your own opinions and say what you really felt? It's still out
here,
> waiting for you to come back to it. I'm sure there's people you care about
> and who care about you who'd love to see you again).
This comment implies that any and all Scientologists harass critics and kill
people.(though I haven't yet heard of any critics getting killed by CofS,
still and all, one imagines that they might *like* to do so...)
It's a fact that a number of church members lurk here to find out what their
church won't tell them. I assure you, they don't give a flying fuck about
what critics do.
I'm also a Scientologist- a non CofS one and I assure you, I don't do that,
either.
There are some other non CofS Scn'ists posting here and an anon (edo) who
said that she was a Scientologist.
All OSA members are Scientologists or have operatives who work for CofS. Not
all Scientologists are OSA.
Have a care with your phrasing, if you please.
<snip>
C
who hasn't killed anyone...
Ball of Fluff
"Cerridwen" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:63JVBM3Z38254.5444212963@anonymous.poster...> >I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? <snip>
>
>
> I've been reading ars for a few years and have a very full killfile.
<snip>
Hey, Cerri- go back and look at this guy's earlier posts.
They conflict. He wrote the Aims of Scientology, he wrote a rather strange
little post called Larry and Pam and he (or someone using that nick, anyway)
spammed several newsgroups with attacks against Patrick Humphrey, a long
time, long term ars contributor.
Either there is more than one person using the nick Max Mustermann with
their anonymous remailer, or he's running some kind of game.
C
Keith Henson
>Max Mustermann asked: who is who on this newsgroup?
>
> wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> responded...
> <snip>
>
>Dear Max Mustermann,
>
>Who are you? Are you a sock puppet?
>
>There is a reactive and nasty, dishonest kook who defends nazis:
>Subgenius "Pope" William Charles Barwell (Cheerful Charlie he
>calls himself). You can find him snapping and squawking here
>on ARS and a couple other newsgroups. He thinks he is an expert
>on Dianetics and Scientology and is also a pip maggot who refuses
>to open his eyes and look when others show him that Fair Game is
>not a valid church policy.
I think we may have discussed this before.
Would you say that what was done to Paulette Cooper, stealing her
stationary and framing her for bomb threats was "church policy"? How
do you feel about the almost successful "blood attack" attempt to
frame Tom Klemesrud for murder? Was that done according to "church
policy"
How about spending over $250,000 to defame Jesse Prince? "Policy"?
Investigating judges and forcing them to recuse themselves? "Policy"?
Corrupting the jury selection process? Is that a "church policy"?
I am fully aware of the HCBO where LRH said don't use the words to
describe the policy, but do you doubt that the practices used on
people like me are different from the days when the words were used?
Keith Henson
Cerridwen
>
>"Cerridwen" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
>news:63JVBM3Z38254.5444212963@anonymous.poster...
>> I've been reading ars for a few years and have a very full killfile.
>
><snip>
>
>Hey, Cerri- go back and look at this guy's earlier posts.
>
>They conflict. He wrote the Aims of Scientology, he wrote a rather strange
>little post called Larry and Pam and he (or someone using that nick, anyway)
>spammed several newsgroups with attacks against Patrick Humphrey, a long
>time, long term ars contributor.
>
>Either there is more than one person using the nick Max Mustermann with
>their anonymous remailer, or he's running some kind of game.
I thought Max Mustermann was a real person too. But then I found
out it's the name of a remailer like Nomen Nescio, An Mehet and
A Melon.
It can be really confusing, that is why I chose a "nym", so that I
could be somewhat "known" as the same anon poster.
I wish more anons would sign their posts with a nick. The
only one I can think of is "The Real No User". I wonder what
ever happened to him.
Nice talking to you Fluff.
Cerri
Ball of Fluff
"Anon" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:30SGEOPI3825...@drg.poster...
>
>
> "Max Mustermann" <anon...@remail.amessage.info> wrote in message
>
> news:0271fa34a8e25ca6...@remail.amessage.info...
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > (btw: hi, you scientologists reading this; has it ever occured to you
that
>
> > attacking your critics by posting personal slurs against them just makes
>
> you
>
> > look really stupid? Killing people kind of ranks higher than someone
>
> having
>
> > epilasy out here in the real world . . . remember the real world? Where
>
> you
>
> > could have your own opinions and say what you really felt? It's still
out
>
> here,
>
> > waiting for you to come back to it. I'm sure there's people you care
about
>
> > and who care about you who'd love to see you again).
>
>
>
> This comment implies that any and all Scientologists harass critics and
kill
>
> people.
>
>
> Please note that I was not implying here that scientologists kill or
harrass
> people, although people *are* dead and harrassment of critics is a matter
> of public record. Re-read that sentence carefully. I am referring to the
glaring
> differences between the anti- and pro-coS websites.
As I said, the above paragraph, the phrasing in it implied the glaring
generality.
I figured that probably wasn't what you meant, but it was pretty much the
way it came out by virtue of your having written "you scientologists reading
this".
And, by the way, people who've been in the church a long time often do NOT
know what's going on. You may think they do, you may hope they do, but most
do not.
This I know from experience.
To make it clearer to you
> what I was saying: to the average person (and remember, most people know
nothing
> about scientology, good or bad) a quick search in Google will reveal, for
instance,
> verifiable accounts of people dead because of the "church", versus the
coS's
> non-verifiable propoganda which consists mainly of picking on people for
the
> kind of stuff that anyone might have in their background, but might not
choose
> to reveal to the world, and a bunch of other stuff that is quite obviously
> just made up. And quite frankly, no-one really gives a stuff about
someone's
> private failings, if that person's arguments are good,
> and if that's the only
> basis their critics have for claiming this person's arguments should be
ignored.
> That's in the real world. I understand that the world within scientology
might
> work somewhat differently.
Perhaps you mean "within CofS". Scn, though commonly referred to
interchangeably with CofS, is actually the subject. CofS would be the
organization to which you refer. Point of fact, not all Scn'ists are in
CofS, nor do they wish to be tarred with that particular brush.
> Perhaps I should have said "hi, all you scientologist OSA operatives out
there"?
Or just OSA.
> I'm not 100% up with the lingo yet: is OSA the group within scientology
that
> forges documents and makes nasty personal attacks on people?
OSA is Dept 20 in ~CofS~. It is their Office of Special Affairs and is
indeed known for those things. It is culpable but it does not act
autonomously- it gets its orders from the top mgmt.
<snip>
>
> It's a miracle it hasn't happened yet. And I'm assuming you are not
counting
> those who have committed suicide because of coS harrassment amongst the
dead.
I've never heard of a critic committing suicide because he was harassed by
CofS. I have heard of several church members who have committed suicide,
though.
> It's a fact that a number of church members lurk here to find out what
their
>
> church won't tell them. I assure you, they don't give a flying fuck about
>
> what critics do.
>
> ----------
>
> Once again, I reminded of Alice in Wonderland, every time I have to deal
with
> scientological thinking.
We're just folks.
> Perhaps they should give a flying f*ck.
Read the sentence again. I meant that they don't care in the sense of
wanting to HARASS. Obviously they care enough to read the friggin' forum.
> Most people
> are born with a sense of morality (or have it instilled in them, if you
prefer)
> which tells them: lying is wrong. Making up stuff about your opponent in
debate
> is wrong. Bullying people is wrong. Standing by and watching someone die
is
> wrong.
Not what I was talking about. Very few church members have ever "stood by
and watched someone die" or are aware that such has ever happened.
The other comments don't apply to church members in general, though they may
apply to some, such as OSA and various mgmt and HCO staff who've decided to
"handle the enemy."
I was discussing rank and file every day church members.
>Outright killing someone or driving them to suicide is wrong. "Body
> Thetans" or no BT's, it's . . . just . . . wrong.
So? Not what I was talking about.
Maybe you should reread my post...
> Allowing something to continue which a person knows in his/her heart is
wrong
> is something which gives some people sleepless nights.
Most church members do not know the stuff their church does. That's WHY I
talked about some coming here- as I did- to lurk, to find out what's going
on.
The very few who know about ars, that is.
>And so it should: should
> a witness to a hit-and-run, who knows the person who did it, just keep
mum?
> Is that person then responsible? There's even a legal term for it:
accessory
> to a crime.
See above.
> When the "church" finally fails I wonder how many ex-scientologists
You mean ex CofS members. A lot will continue to remain Scn'ists by creed-
as have I, BasicBasic, Ralph Hilton and some otheres you can find on a.r.s.
and elsewhere...
> are going
> to be able to live with what they did, in the name of scientology.
I have no problem.
Most church members don't "do" anything other than take services at CofS,
run a courseroom, etc.
> I'm also a Scientologist- a non CofS one and I assure you, I don't do
that,
>
> either.
>
> ----------
>
> See above: perhaps you should. Or maybe you were saying "I don't kill and
harrass
> people".
Yes, I was.
>Fine. I never said you did. But *someone* did (unless they were just
> embodied BT's who did it. Or maybe they were giant pink bunnies). Someone
put
> their finger on the Enter key and uploaded a bunch of dirty tricks to the
*official*
> coS website.
The vast majority of CofS members do not know about any of those 'sites or
so forth.
BTs have nothing to do with it.
Our theology/cosmology has nothing to do with it. Immorality is immorality.
Since OSA and CofS mgmt do not blame it on BTs, neither can you.
> The people responsible are either sociopaths of some kind, are
> too brainwashed by the church to be able to help themselves, or are just
normal
> people who are too bullied to be able to resist. Minus the people who
don't
> have a conscience, they're going to have to live themselves someday. Now
is
> the time for those people to decide if they really want to have such
things
> on their conscience.
See above.
>
> Anon (the real one).
Could you consider using a nick like Cerridwen does?
Can still use anon remailers...
C
Barbara Schwarz
One fool tries to obtain acceptance from another one.
Barbara Schwarz
orkel...@hotmail.com
orkeltatte
Fluffygirl
> <orkel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:84da9680.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen) wrote in message
> news:<63JVBM3Z38254.5444212963@anonymous.poster>...
> > >
> > > I've been reading ars for a few years and have a very full killfile.
>
> Whoever you are. Yawn!
You must not have been paying attention for the past 3 years.
>
> > > Here's my recommendations in ALL CAPS
>
> Double yawn!
>
> > >
> > > 15 27 "Rev Norle Enturbulata" <notear...@norhotmail.com>
> > > KILLFILE HIM HE'S COMPLETELY WORTHLESS
>
> Such a blanket comment is in itself dubious, and the replication of email
> addresses is as well. Smells like Fluffernutter, who's been in and out of
> peoples' killfiles enough to double-post as "Ball of Fluff".
You are the one who's had at least half a dozen and probably far more
different morphed email addresses over the past 3 years changed just
enough so that you pop out of people's k/fs.
As for me? I don't morph. When I post directly from Outlook Express,
it's using my preset Ball of Fluff. Which is my preferred nick.I
really don't care whose k/f I'm in. Although some people sure seem to
care whenever I kf *them*.
When I go through google, I use the email address I have set up with
googlegroups. So it shows up differently.
> > > I read ars to get news and opinions on Scn. I liberally use a killfile
> because
> > > ars attracts a lot of kooks and trolls and they can waste a lot of your
> time.
>
> Perhaps this anonymous poster should work on developing their OWN opinion
> instead of seeking it from others.
This Anonymous poster to whom you refer is Cerridwen.
And she has plenty of her own opinions.
C
Dave Bird
Mustermann <anon...@remail.amessage.info> writes:
>>Hi people.
>>
>> I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In other
>> words, who are the good guys and the bad guys?
>
>guys?" Scientology customers and staff may (and often do) perform evil
>and abusive acts, but that does not automatically mean they are "bad
>guys:" it could also mean they are merely grossly ignorant.
>----------------
>Quite. Let me rephrase that:
>
>What the lurker, the newbie and the whistleblowers need to know is who they
>can trust. I was under the impression that you were an oldtimer here. Surely
>those who have had anything to do with scientology for long enough know their
>policy of going after their critics, their spread of misinformation, and their
>habit of putting up smokescreen arguments which degenerate into a logical mess
>that would make Alexander the Great scratch his head in confusion.
OK. Most people here clearly identify themselves by what they say.
(1) There are people who are openly scathing about the whole idea
and organisation of scientology. They are full blooded critics.
(2) There are people who are opposed to CofS but still endorse
scientology practices. The clue to this group is an open
[and approving] discussion of scientology doctrines themselves.
(3) There are people who appear to be bug-fuck nuts, believing
they are Napoleon or that ElRon was kidnapped and replaced in
his cradle by Baby Leroy. These are genuinely nuts.
(4) There are, very rarely, maverick individuals with the Church
of $cientology who will stand up for the Church and its actions,
although it is dead against policy to make such a defence.
(5) There are people who do not babble but engage in apparently
crazy actions, such as screaming character assassination or
posting insane anti-medical rants. These are Church-of-Scientologists
acting per policy to disrupt discussion rather than contribute to it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In<bf456302.04092...@posting.google.com>,BarBar SchwarzSchaf:
>
>Rev. Desertphile de Rothschild <deser...@cchr.ws> wrote in message
>news:<4154
>26...@news2.lightlink.com>...
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:32:54 +0200, Max Mustermann
>> <anon...@remail.amessage.info> wrote:
>
>Who knows, perhaps Max Mustermann is another David Rice sock puppet.
This is one of those who are bug-fuck nuts.
In article<i2k8l0d2ipc9f5jrr...@4ax.com>, Mike Gormez:
>>>who the hell is that "Lawrence Toomajan" and why is he so upset?
>
>He acts crazy but at times he can be talked with. Just ignore him. Same
>with that Schwarz woman, except that she is too sick to reason with. Only
>medication could help a little.
-- . . : : ,; . : ' ___.
uno, dos, tres, |FUEGO| .:. .:. .:': :' .:':' :. . : (") #oH|
' ' :' : :' : .::. H_ ~~~|
< > __ ,;;,. \\::// R_) |
'-|"""(") {__}::===== ....'''' ' ' ' ___..\||/....L\. ...|
____||--|_'--/__\___ '' .--''':::::::::::::::::::::
\ / /////////////S.Coronado/////
;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^
LRonHubbard is shelled byGoats inHell.READ http://www.ronthewarhero.org
Dave Bird
<Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> writes:
>On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Max Mustermann <anon...@remail.amessage.info>
>wrote:
>>
>>I need a primer here: who is who on this newsgroup? In other words, who are
>>Toomajan" and why is he so upset? Is he a scientologist who just can't take
>>it anymore? I'm confused. That was quite an amazing display of vitriol for
>>just one day's posting.
>>
>>And because this is a newsgroup where such a thing needs to be stated: yes,
>>I'm anti-scientology :)
>>
>>You should consider a FAQ on posting to a.r.s. No doubt the scientologists
>>will promptly make their own, but it would help out those of us who lurk and
>>other forms of newbies. I've got a feeling quite a few people read this group
>>but don't post because of the fear of reprisals from the "church". Posting
>>such a FAQ would help encourage more posts. I'd also suggest that providing
>>a link to anonymous news posting services would also help the whistleblowers
>>and the terrified to come out of the woodwork.
>>
>>Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work.
>
>
>
I would agree with most of this..............
>
>
>Postings between Mon, 06 Sep 04 and Sun, 12 Sep 04:
>
> 1 121 Stilllov...@myway.com (Barbara Schwarz) INSANE PERSON
>KILLFILE
>
> 2 96 "Lawrence Toomajan" <n/a> INSANE TROLL KILLFILE
>
> 3 62 Bob McKenzie <b...@elsinorebrewery.com>
Newbie who hasn't said that much interesting.
>
> 4 53 "Android Cat" <androi...@hotmail.com> A KEEPER-PROVIDES
>EXCELLENT INFORMATION
>
> 5 52 garrysca...@excite.com (Garry Scarff is a notorious
>liar, a cyber stalker, a forger, an identity stealer, an animal, and a
>disgrace to the human race) KILLFILE BASED ON THE NICK
>
>
> 6 43 dickto...@mindless.com (Dicktop_Stud) GARY SCARFF --
>OCCASSIONALLY POSTS USEFUL INFORMATION, BUT MOSTLY FIGHTS WITH
>THE NUTCASES
>
>
> 43 arnie lerma <ale...@bellatlantic.net> LONG TIME CRITIC- VALUABLE
>WEBSITE
>
> 8 40 "Ball of Fluff" <None> SCIENTOLOGIST-- POSTS A BIT TOO MUCH AND
>DOESN'T SNIP ENOUGH-- KEEP
>
> 9 38 "Phil Scott" <philsc...@sf.sbcglobal.net> CRITIC THAT
>STATES OPINIONS AS FACT
>
> 10 35 barb <bwa...@cox.net> A KEEPER EXCELLENT CRITIC
>
> 11 33 ptsc <pt...@nowhere.com> MY PERSONAL FAVORITE
One of the best on here.
>
> 12 32 Zinj <zinj...@yahoo.com> CRITIC WITH OCCASIONAL GOOD
>INSIGHTS BUT TALKS/POSTS TO MUCH.
>
> 13 29 hef...@scientologylies.com (Heffer) KEEP
>
> 14 28 "roger gonnet" <r...@antisectes.net> KEEP- GOOD CRITIC, ENGLISH
>IS NOT HIS FIRST LANGUAGE.
>
> 15 27 "Rev Norle Enturbulata" <notear...@norhotmail.com>
Neither here nor there; not very useful, not very disruptive.
>
> 16 26 realpch <rea...@aol.com> KEEP- A VERY LOVELY CRITIC.
>
> 26 Barbara...@myway.com (Still_lying_about_Marty) PSYCHO
>WHACKO- KILL FILE HER
>
> 18 25 "Ball of Fluff" <Waitandsee> sAME AS BALL OF FLUFF
>
> 19 23 wbarwell <wbar...@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com>
ONE OF THE BEST WRITERS ON HERE, A LONG TIME CRITIC ON A
LEVEL WITH PTSC OR TILMAN.
>
> 23 fax...@hotmail.com (Faxhor) OSA WHACKO
>
> 23 Boobara...@emailaccount.com (Barbara Schwarz is a
>notorious psychotic liar, an identity stealer, an ugly cow, and a
>disgrace to the human race) KILLFILE ANYTHING WITH THE NAME SCHWARZ
>
> 22 21 orkel...@hotmail.com (orkel...@hotmail.com)
Talks a fair amount of sense when you can understand his English.
>
>
> 23 20 theonewhoisad...@emailaccount.com (Guess who?)
>KILLFILE
>
> 20 elcy...@yahoo.com KILLFILE
(Don't know who this is)
>
> 20 Sten-Arne Zerpe <S...@zerpe.ath.cx>
Zerper the Beserker, inventer of self-tangling underpants
which he is always getting in a bunch. Pass by and read
but don't get involved in the craziness.
>
>
> 20 Kristi Wachter <human...@racerrecords.com> EXCELLENT AND
>VERY LOVELY CRITIC.
>
> 27 18 Mike Gormez <mgo...@chello.nl> EXCELLENT CRITIC
>
> 28 17 lase...@aol.com (LaserClam) KILLFILE
>
> 17 Hartley Patterson <hpt...@daisy.freeserve.co.uk> EXCELLENT
>CRITIC
The voice of scholarly moderation among the UK critics.
>
> 30 15 Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> EXCELLENT CRITIC
>
> 31 14 Dave Bird <dave.xemu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> EXCELLENT
>CRITIC
>
> 14 "Feisty" <su...@skytoday.com> EXCELLENT CRITIC
>
> 33 13 jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) EXCELLENT CRITIC
>
> 34 12 hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) INTERESTING CRITIC
>
> 35 11 Ted Mayett <tedm...@despammed.com> EXCELLENT CRITIC
Particularly worth reading.
>
> 11 Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen) :)
>
> 11 "John" <ju...@junk.com> NOT SURE WHO THIS IS
Critic, sometimes over-the-top or accepting unreliable stuff as fact.
>
> 38 10 ladayla <ladayla...@newsguy.com> EXCELLENT CRITIC
>
>There are a few other excellent contributors that only make a few posts a
>week/month. They include, DeoMorto, Lulu Belle, Emma, Dave Touretzsky,
>Kady, Tikk, Thomas Best and Chris Owen. If I missed anyone, I apologize in
>advance.
In article<4154854E...@aol.com>, realpch <rea...@aol.com> writes:
>I like Valerie's posts, but she doesn't post too much anymore. Andrew
>Robinson is always enjoyable. Praxis posts good information, as does
>Batchild. I wish kEvin would post more. Magoo is especially good reading
>for other ex-Scientologists. Jeff Jacobson doesn't post enough any more.
>Ida Camburn delivers some really interesting information.
All good [occasional] contributors.
>
>
>
>I read ars to get news and opinions on Scn. I liberally use a killfile because
>ars attracts a lot of kooks and trolls and they can waste a lot of your time.
>I give most new posters 3 or 4 tries at saying something that makes sense
>and if after a few posts, I find they still have nothing to contribute, I
>quickly
>plonk them.
>
>YMMV
>
>Cerridwen
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> But to the extent I assign probabilities, I would bin Larry as a
> USENET attention addict, much like others I could name but won't.
>
> Keith Henson
If you were a gambler, and considering that you consciously avoid data
that either bores you or you just don't have time for... well, you might
conclude that playing red on each 'even' minute (as determined by the
Naval Observatory) was a successful strategy.
Until you checked your wallet :)
Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think