Cynthia Kisser responds to Terepin stuff
cul...@primenet.com
Bob Minton, and Stacy Brooks (Young), board members of FACTNet, and
Jesse Prince have alleged Laura Terepin is an "operative for the
Church of Scientology". The validity of the whole claim ultimately
revolves around phone records FACTNet claims to have acquired. I have
spoken at length with Dan Leipold in his capacity as counsel for
FACTNet. While stating that he believes such phone records exist, he
claims not to possess the records, nor to have seen the records, and
that the records will not be made available to me. I cannot,
herefore, at this time support the conclusion by Minton, Brooks and
Prince that evidence exists identifying Laura Terepin as an
"operative for the Church of Scientology".
Cynthia Kisser
*****
"The idea that one can 'push' Scientology
and get no penalty is a false one." Russell Shaw
"To punish to the fullest extent of my power anyone
misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends" (The
original Code of a Scientologist)
Dave Bird
>This was sent to me today:
>
>Bob Minton, and Stacy Brooks (Young), board members of FACTNet, and
>Jesse Prince have alleged Laura Terepin is an "operative for the
>Church of Scientology". The validity of the whole claim ultimately
>revolves around phone records FACTNet claims to have acquired. I have
>spoken at length with Dan Leipold in his capacity as counsel for
>FACTNet. While stating that he believes such phone records exist, he
>claims not to possess the records, nor to have seen the records, and
>that the records will not be made available to me. I cannot,
>herefore, at this time support the conclusion by Minton, Brooks and
>Prince that evidence exists identifying Laura Terepin as an
>"operative for the Church of Scientology".
Whoops. In the moderated IRC conversation Bob says he is "sure Cynthia
would be convinced after talking to Dan". She isn't. While it seems
obvious to me what is going on, it is not unreasonable to ask that Bob
authorise Dan to have his PI show Cynthia the reports in full, possibly
on terms of confidentiality, and give her reaction yes or no having
seen them (or it least state in writing what grounds he has for
reccomending against this).
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Bernie
>This was sent to me today:
>
>Bob Minton, and Stacy Brooks (Young), board members of FACTNet, and
>Jesse Prince have alleged Laura Terepin is an "operative for the
>Church of Scientology". The validity of the whole claim ultimately
>revolves around phone records FACTNet claims to have acquired. I have
>spoken at length with Dan Leipold in his capacity as counsel for
>FACTNet. While stating that he believes such phone records exist, he
>claims not to possess the records, nor to have seen the records, and
>that the records will not be made available to me.
Well, this is getting weirder and weirder. First Minton says that he has
solid proofs under his hand. Then we learn from Karin's interview that Bob
didn't even see them but that only Dan has been privy of the records. And
now we learn that even Dan does not possess them nor even has seen them.
Who the hell has then *seen* these damn records?
This can only be the plot of a *very* bad fiction, written by a *very* bad
author. If the consequences of such careless and spiteful accusations that
has been made on that basis (what basis?) weren't so dramatic, it would be
a matter of laughing.
I think that it's time for the FACTNet team to reconsider their position
and maybe even apologize to the person directly concerned.
>I cannot,
>herefore, at this time support the conclusion by Minton, Brooks and
>Prince that evidence exists identifying Laura Terepin as an
>"operative for the Church of Scientology".
Good on you, Cynthia. Even as a vindicative anti-anti-cult activist, I have
to admit that I am quite impressed.
Zane
>I cannot, therefore, at this time support the conclusion
Thanks for standing firm on logic and principle. Now the burden for
demonstrating LT's "guilt" is now back on Minton's shoulders where it
belongs.
Zane - KoX, SP4, Club Nine
Free meme innoculations!
Zane
wrote:
>Even as a vindicative anti-anti-cult activist
I think it's time for you to reconsider your biased and incorrect
view. There is not "anti-cult" for you to be against. You have
joined the previously one-member-only cult of the anti-cult. Seek
help.
jbwebb
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:13:40 GMT cul...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> >This was sent to me today:
> Well, this is getting weirder and weirder. First Minton says that he has
> solid proofs under his hand. Then we learn from Karin's interview that Bob
> didn't even see them but that only Dan has been privy of the records. And
> now we learn that even Dan does not possess them nor even has seen them.
> Who the hell has then *seen* these damn records?
Why are the phone records so important? If they were obtained
illegally, which is probably the case, why would the PI risk his
occupation to answer your questions?
Bernie? Do you believe they're two Laura Terepin's in the US? Yes or
No?
>
> This can only be the plot of a *very* bad fiction, written by a *very* bad
> author. If the consequences of such careless and spiteful accusations that
> has been made on that basis (what basis?) weren't so dramatic, it would be
> a matter of laughing.
Why? Doesn't the name, the similar ssn, the fact that Bob and Stacy fed
her information which only she knew and then proved to them that she
wasn't trustworthy strike you as just a tad bit odd? What about the CAN
record's affair? Why are there TWO Laura Terepin's both with ties to
the Chicago org? What is the rational explanation for that? Where is
she now? Does she have an explanation for the name? I tell you what,
if I was accused of what she was accused of on ARS and was not guilty,
I'd be scanning a copy of my birth certificate to prove my innocence.
If she really is a Laura Terepin, let's see some proof. Would YOU let
such false accusations go unresponded to?
>
> I think that it's time for the FACTNet team to reconsider their position
> and maybe even apologize to the person directly concerned.
Who, Laura Terepin from Wisconsin or Laura Terepin from Wisconsin?
>
> >I cannot,
> >herefore, at this time support the conclusion by Minton, Brooks and
> >Prince that evidence exists identifying Laura Terepin as an
> >"operative for the Church of Scientology".
Explain the fact that these two people have the same name and according
to the "real" Terepin, no one in America has the same name as she.
>
> Good on you, Cynthia. Even as a vindicative anti-anti-cult activist, I have
> to admit that I am quite impressed.
I think there is a whole lol a politickin' goin on a here.
Unavailable phone records have little to do with it, I suspect.
take care
joni
Zane
>the fact that Bob and Stacy fed
>her information which only she knew and then proved to them that she
>wasn't trustworthy strike you as just a tad bit odd?
That is not a known fact. If it could be established that there was
info that only Bob and Stacy knew and that they fed it to LT and it
got to the CO$ and there was no other way that the kriminal kult could
have obtained the information (no phone taps, cell-phone snooping,
etc) - IF all those were established then we'd have some pretty
convincing evidence.
But that's not what we have, and bob has not answered my questions
designed to address those issues.
I feel that Bob is not taking responsibility for the trouble he has
created her on ARS. If he's going to post strong accusations and then
fail to furnish evidence the very least he could do would be to
respond to serious questions with thoughtful and serious questions.
As it is he seems to prefer to sit back while the critics continue to
factionalize over the issue.
>I tell you what,
>if I was accused of what she was accused of on ARS and was not guilty,
If I was Laura I would definetly be filing a lawsuit - uh, and of
course I wouldn't be saying shit on ARS.
However, I do understand that Laura has been communicating with some
people via email I can only wonder what is being discussed behind the
scenes. Maybe LT has some real reason to be concerened about her
"outing" and maybe that reason has fuck-all to do with her being an
OSA plant. The visciousness with which people have attacked her with
only circumstantial evidence is appalling.
>Unavailable phone records have little to do with it, I suspect.
Right. That is not the only nonexistant evidence all of LT's accusors
are relying on.
Zane
Noel Chiappa
z_thomas#ars#@ix.netcom.com (Zane) writes:
>> I cannot, therefore, at this time support the conclusion
> Now the burden for demonstrating LT's "guilt" is now back on Minton's
> shoulders where it belongs.
Cynthia Kisser's disbelief isn't proof (or non-proof, to be technical)
either; it's just her opinion, not direct evidence/data.
I'm also loathe to put too much weight on her opinion, lest it turn out to be
another case of the kind of thing one saw a lot of in World War 2 (and since,
sigh) - the belief that the worst "couldn't have happened", which resulted in
data that showed that the worst had indeed happened being ignored. There are
many examples, of which I'll cite three:
- the German control over most of the British SOE (their resistance
organization for Europe) networks in France, Belgium and Holland, which the
British didn't believe could have happened, despite ample evidence to the
contrary (such as missed 'security checks' by captured radio operators forced
to send fake messages), resulting in the death of many agents dropped into
these countries (see "Secret War", by Nigel West, for details);
- the British control over the entire German network in Britain (see "The
Double-Cross System", by J. C. Masterman);
- the breaking of the German 'Enigma' codes (sorry, I don't have time to find
which book about this covers the clues the Germans had that it was blown, and
why they didn't accept them).
All these incidents resulted in many deaths, counting direct and indirect
costs - and the last one may well have cost the Germans the war. So disbelief
in bad news on the penetration front, on the part of those who have a stake,
is not to be weighed too highly.
Noel
Noel Chiappa
> This was sent to me today:
>> ... I have spoken at length with Dan Leipold in his capacity as counsel
>> for FACTNet. ... I cannot, herefore, at this time support the
>> conclusion by Minton, Brooks and Prince that evidence exists
>> identifying Laura Terepin as an "operative for the Church of
>> Scientology".
>> Cynthia Kisser
Most interesting. So Bob's expectation of what would happen when Cynthia and
Dan talked was wrong. Hmm, a lesson in human nature for Bob.
Jeff, if you're in still in contact with Cynthia, I wonder if you could ask
her (and I'm not being sarcastic here, this is a serious query) what she
makes of the apparent existence of another 'Laura Terepin'. Specifically: in
view of the fact that there are so few Terepins in the US in total (I only
found three, looking through three different online phone directories) does
she think that one of the LT's is a fake? If so, does she think the CAN one
is a fake?
If her answer to the latter question is 'yes', I'd be further intrigued to
know what thoughts she has, if any, on what might have motivated the CAN LT
to assume this false identity, as well as her reaction to the news that this
previously trusted person was deceiving them with a false identity.
I'd also be curious as to what level of trust she intends to place in this
person in the future; and if that level of trust has diminished from what it
was before, what the cause of that diminuation is. (I.e. is it purely that
the news that this formerly trusted person apparently has a false identity?)
Noel
Zane
> > Now the burden for demonstrating LT's "guilt" is now back on Minton's
> > shoulders where it belongs.
>
>Cynthia Kisser's disbelief isn't proof (or non-proof, to be technical)
>either; it's just her opinion, not direct evidence/data.
Your statement would be more relevant had she agreed when told of the
"incontrovertible" evidence which has been much discussed - but seen
by no one.
>I'm also loathe to put too much weight on her opinion
Noel, I know you mean well. But listen, just a couple days ago on IRC
Stacy was saying that when Cynthia heard from Dan that she would
surely be convinced. Stacy said, in effect, that Cynthia and Dan were
friends and that she would trust him.
Well, those things are probably true and _still_ Cynthia wasn't
convinced and hasn't seen any direct evidence at all.
I'm curious, if she had said "Oh my god, they're right!" would her
opinion then still not carry much weight or would you be giving me the
same lecture?
Rebecca Hartong
jbwebb wrote in message <36AFAC...@idt.net>...
>Why are the phone records so important? If they were obtained
>illegally, which is probably the case, why would the PI risk his
>occupation to answer your questions?
There's no reason he should. And, on the same account, there's no reason
that I or Bernie should believe that the phone records even exist without
any tangible evidence of them. It's a trade-off. Conduct your business
ethically and be believed, or conduct your business unethically and don't be
believed.
>Bernie? Do you believe they're two Laura Terepin's in the US? Yes or
>No?
You didn't ask me, but... I believe there are two people who have been
known by the name "Laura Terepin" in the US. Whether one or both of them
were actually born with that name has not been absolutely established, but
there's pretty good evidence that one of them (NW-Laura) was born with the
name.
>Why? Doesn't the name, the similar ssn,
Asserted, but unproven.
>the fact that Bob and Stacy fed
>her information which only she knew and then proved to them that she
>wasn't trustworthy strike you as just a tad bit odd?
Asserted, but also unproven.
>What about the CAN record's affair?
Asserted, but unproven.
>Why are there TWO Laura Terepin's both with ties to
>the Chicago org?
Asserted, but unproven.
>What is the rational explanation for that?
One entirely plausible explanation is that there is only *one* Laura Terepin
with ties to the Chicago org and that someone has simply made a mistake in
thinking there are two.
>Where is she now?
Since she's not answerable to any of us, I really couldn't begin to guess.
>Does she have an explanation for the name?
No doubt, she does. She does not owe any of us an explanation, though.
>I tell you what,
>if I was accused of what she was accused of on ARS and was not guilty,
>I'd be scanning a copy of my birth certificate to prove my innocence.
That's what you would do. That's not what everyone on earth would do.
>If she really is a Laura Terepin, let's see some proof.
She doesn't owe any of us proof of her identity.
>Would YOU let such false accusations go unresponded to?
I might. I might be thinking something along the lines of, "Fine, see if I
ever volunteer my time to help anyone ever again. This is the thanks I get.
What a bunch of jerks." I might decide that since I'd already given these
people enough of my time as a volunteer, I certainly didn't owe them any
more of it defending myself against a bunch of wild claims. I might decide
to just wash my hands of the whole thing and move on with my life.
>Explain the fact that these two people have the same name and according
>to the "real" Terepin, no one in America has the same name as she.
There are several possible explanations which don't involve intentional
deception, among them:
1. NW-Laura is simply mistaken.
2. FACTNet-Laura heard the name somewhere and liked it, so she changed her
name.
The only evidence that has been provided to us which suggests that
FACTNet-Laura is not who she has claimed to be is the assertions of Bob
Minton et al. As far as I'm concerned, Minton's say-so carries insufficient
weight to constitute proof that his story is true.
>I think there is a whole lol a politickin' goin on a here.
>
>Unavailable phone records have little to do with it, I suspect.
I suspect the phone records--if they exist at all--were obtained illegally
and that's why neither Leipold nor Minton has actually seen them.
Bernie
[snip long list of question re: LT]
I am afraid you came in at the end of the play, Joni. I don't really have
time to summarize it all to you and I don't feel like rehearsing the whole
thing again. Maybe someone else.
Watch out for the next installment of Big Bob's world famous series of
"I tell you so and evidences will be forthcoming soon".
David Brower
does not now believe the evidence available to her fully supports the
conclusion that LT was a plant. But she is not strongly disputing the
possibility. This suggest the other circumstantial evidence made
available to her was enough to call LTs credibility into question.
Minton suggests independant investigations might reveal more. So the
questions are, where is The LT? Has JimBB been in contact with her?
Has she any further comment to make? Will she attempt to defend her
reputation in any way in the public discourse?
Her apparent disappearance, and the lack of word from JimBB since
the initial fray are curious.
-dB
Noel Chiappa
z_thomas#ars#@ix.netcom.com (Zane) writes:
> But listen, just a couple days ago on IRC Stacy was saying that when
> Cynthia heard from Dan that she would surely be convinced. Stacy said,
> in effect, that Cynthia and Dan were friends and that she would trust
> him.
Well, I was kind of dubious when I read that in the IRC log; although I don't
know Cynthia, the impression I'd gotten from Cynthia's formal statement when
this started was that she was going to take a lot of convincing.
> I'm curious, if she had said "Oh my god, they're right!" would her
> opinion then still not carry much weight or would you be giving me the
> same lecture?
Well, you've got a point there. But it still wouldn't be direct evidence, all
you could really say was "well, what Cynthia has seen has convinced her".
Which you could use to say something about the quality and apparent
trustworthiness of whatever evidence she'd seen that wasn't available to us.
Of course, it's not clear from her note exactly what she did see. I get the
impression that what she saw was darn little more than is available here -
although of course she's getting it straight from Dan, as opposed to being
"what Dan told so-and-so who told me and now I'm repeating it on".
I'll be curious to see what feedback we get (if any) about the topics which
*weren't* covered in her note (and about which I sent back some questions to
Jeff), and which someone else (forget who) has just commented on - although
her note say she's not convinced, there's also no ringing endorsement of the
CAN LT either.
It's really unfortunate that, having lobbed this hand-grenade in, FACTNet is
now washing their hands of the whole matter. I'm not sure anyone else will
follow through, and in any case I doubt at this point it would be possible to
gather the necessary data - if the CAN LT is indeed a spy, the wisest course
would be to suspend her operations. One could probably retrospectively prove
that she used a false identity, but we're fairly sure of that already.
I'm afraid we'll probably never get definite confirmation, one way or the
other, of what happened, unless it somehow comes out in some other way,
e.g. she's seen at an Org, or some legal case reveals it, or something.
Noel
JimDBB
>From: dbr...@us.oracle.com (David Brower)
>Date: 1/28/99 10:31 AM Central Standard Time
I have no information about or from Laura T. I will say that some of us are
very concerned about her well being. I have heeded good advice and decided not
to put out any unnecessary commentary or unverifable information. I have
talked with two other CAN staff members who were senior to me and with CAN
longer than I was. Both are very knowledgeable and respected in this field.
Both stated that they support Laura and the three of us support, unequivocally,
Cynthia Kisser's statements on this matter.
Jim Beebe
Zane
wrote:
>if the CAN LT is indeed a spy, the wisest course
>would be to suspend her operations
I think it's interesting to note that, according to what we've seen in
the IRC logs, CAN LT was already aware that she was a "suspect" some
time last October. If she was a co$ plant it seems that she would
have disappeared at that time.
Dave Bird
<har...@erols.com> writes
>
>jbwebb wrote in message <36AFAC...@idt.net>...
>
>>Why are the phone records so important? If they were obtained
>>illegally, which is probably the case, why would the PI risk his
>>occupation to answer your questions?
>
>
>There's no reason he should. And, on the same account, there's no reason
>that I or Bernie should believe that the phone records even exist without
>any tangible evidence of them.
No doubt you would not believe your arse is at the top of your legs
unless someone took the trouble to provide exhaustive proof. But,
you know, it probably is. Reality knows it is & your arse knows it is.
That you are clueless does not make the actual situation go away.
/; ;\
-- Regards, __ \\____//
XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <up...@sunyit.edu>)
_____________________________/ :--' ____________________
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ]
\___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___]
`===='
"So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
Dave Bird
JimDBB <jim...@aol.com> writes
>
>I have no information about or from Laura T. I will say that some of us are
>very concerned about her well being.
Not, apparently, about her name.
Would you please phone her up, get her actual name, and post it?
We cannot go on calling her the-person-who-pretends-to-be-Laura-
Terrepin-but isn't.
[POSTED AND MAILED]
Ron Newman
says...
>Remember Shotky, nobel-prize winning inventor of the transistor who
>went on to shoot himself in the foot with his wacky theories about
>racial inferiority?
That's William *Shockley*.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/home.html
Anonymous
"I have no information about or from Laura T. I will say that some of us are
to put out any unnecessary commentary or unverifable information. I have
talked with two other CAN staff members who were senior to me and with CAN
longer than I was. Both are very knowledgeable and respected in this field.
Both stated that they support Laura and the three of us support,
unequivocally,
Cynthia Kisser's statements on this matter."
The uncritical acceptance of Beebe and other CAN members about the
claimed L.T. despite the admitted facts of the Chicago-Scientology
related L.T. explains to me completely why CAN is now defunct.
Cynthia Kisser and the others mean well, I am sure.
But then a whole lot of Tutsis meant well in Rwanda.
They are all dead,
hacked to death by their vicious opponents.
Evolution in action.
Maybe we can count on the law to protect us?
Maybe the UN will set things right?
See how well they have learned in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Maybe not.
Maybe Minton wasn't a moron in making billion-dollar deals?
Maybe he is unwilling to be a victim.
Even if other victims tell him that he will become "just like"
the aggressor if he effectively defends himself.
They are wrong.
They paint lines on their body where the hungry machetes will bite deep.
Scientologists suck on the marrow.
They grow strong on their victims failure of will.
Zane
>The uncritical acceptance of Beebe and other CAN members about the
>claimed L.T. despite the admitted facts of the Chicago-Scientology
>related L.T. explains to me completely why CAN is now defunct.
Uncritical acceptance of what?
The inability of LT's accusors to produce fucking FACTS to support
their fantastic charges?
Minton's obvious inability to confront questions posted her on ARS?
What boggles my mind is how you and some of the others here are
willing to let Minton slide by with DOZENS of unanswered questions.
Whippersnapper and Milne never got away with the sort of unscrutinized
DAing.
Why the double-standard? Why is Minton not held to the same standard
as everyone else?
>Cynthia Kisser and the others mean well, I am sure.
>But then a whole lot of Tutsis meant well in Rwanda.
>They are all dead,
>hacked to death by their vicious opponents.
Fucking stupid. You have established no connection between Cynthia's
reluctance to accept NON-EVIDENCE and the conflicts in Rwanda. What a
fucking stupid thing to say.
>Maybe we can count on the law to protect us?
>Maybe the UN will set things right?
>See how well they have learned in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Jabber, jabber, jabber.
>Maybe Minton wasn't a moron in making billion-dollar deals?
What the fuck does Minton's big money deals have to do with this
issue? You are seriously unable to think, rent a clue anonymous
blowhard.
Remember Shotky, nobel-prize winning inventor of the transistor who
went on to shoot himself in the foot with his wacky theories about
racial inferiority? Hmmm? Wake up, anonymous chickenshit.
>Maybe he is unwilling to be a victim.
Maybe he knows how to victimize others without proof.
>They paint lines on their body where the hungry machetes will bite deep.
Blah blah blah. You sound like the Dorian fraud.
>Scientologists suck on the marrow.
Or maybe some other wacko.
Zane
Work like you don't need the money; Love like you've never been hurt; and Dance like no one's watching.
Zane
>>Remember Shotky, nobel-prize winning inventor of the transistor who
>>went on to shoot himself in the foot with his wacky theories about
>>racial inferiority?
>
>That's William *Shockley*.
Yeah, yeah. You're right. I must have been mixing it up with Shotky
gates (as in LS74) which I believe I misspelled anyway!
But you did get the point. I wonder about that weasly anonymous
chickensit.
Bernie
>Maybe Minton wasn't a moron in making billion-dollar deals?
>Maybe he is unwilling to be a victim.
>Even if other victims tell him that he will become "just like"
>the aggressor if he effectively defends himself.
>They are wrong.
>They paint lines on their body where the hungry machetes will bite deep.
>Scientologists suck on the marrow.
>They grow strong on their victims failure of will.
Whatever you say.
Doesn't FACTNet have official spokesman, or is it so that they now can only
be "defended" by anon?
And this line:
>But then a whole lot of Tutsis meant well in Rwanda.
>They are all dead,
do remind me of something I read in Scn.
Martin Hunt
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>But then a whole lot of Tutsis meant well in Rwanda.
>They are all dead,
>hacked to death by their vicious opponents.
>Evolution in action.
>Maybe we can count on the law to protect us?
>Maybe the UN will set things right?
>See how well they have learned in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Comparing the conflict between Scientology and its opponents to
the horrible wars in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia where
millions of people have died is beyond absurd - it's offensive.
Please cut back on the propaganda slash hyperbole. (or get a
job writing at _Freedom_; they need talent like yours.)
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://scientologysucks.lron.com
"...you are replying to an off-topic forged message that was posted
by a 'bot. The person whose name appears in the From: header of that
message almost certainly did not post it. Many regulars on a.r.s.,
including me, have been victims of these forgeries.
This appears to be a CoS plot to discredit critics by associating us
with racist and pro-Nazi statements that we did not in fact make."
- Ron Newman
Anonymous
>Jim Beebe wrote:
>"I have no information about or from Laura T. I will say that some of us are
>very concerned about her well being. I have heeded good advice and decided
not
>to put out any unnecessary commentary or unverifable information. I have
>talked with two other CAN staff members who were senior to me and with CAN
>longer than I was. Both are very knowledgeable and respected in this field.
>Both stated that they support Laura and the three of us support,
>unequivocally,
>Cynthia Kisser's statements on this matter."
>The uncritical acceptance of Beebe and other CAN members about the
>claimed L.T. despite the admitted facts of the Chicago-Scientology
>related L.T. explains to me completely why CAN is now defunct.
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that CAN, Cynthia
Kisser and Jim Beebe have made no claims about Laura Terepin that
they are unable to back up with HARD FACTS.
This is what Cynthia Kisser said which this silly rant
claims to be responding to:
"While stating that he believes such phone records exist, he
claims not to possess the records, nor to have seen the records, and
that the records will not be made available to me. I cannot,
herefore, at this time support the conclusion by Minton, Brooks and
Prince that evidence exists identifying Laura Terepin as an
"operative for the Church of Scientology".
All claims within the bounds of good sense. Kisser, Beebe,
Giambalvo et al have limited themselves to making claims they
can support. If somebody else would do that this whole matter
would never have gotten as silly as it has.
>Cynthia Kisser and the others mean well, I am sure.
>But then a whole lot of Tutsis meant well in Rwanda.
>They are all dead,
>hacked to death by their vicious opponents.
And the relevance of this to the current situation? Scientologists
are not Hutus. Nor are critics Tutsis. It is a ludicrous stretch
to compare a high-tech net conflict on the cutting edge with a
massacre done mostly with machetes in a third-world country.
>Evolution in action.
>Maybe we can count on the law to protect us?
>Maybe the UN will set things right?
>See how well they have learned in Bosnia and Kosovo.
>Maybe not.
Bosnia tells us that when people want to fight they're going
to no matter how high-minded and noble the UN can get funding
for pretending to be.
>Maybe Minton wasn't a moron in making billion-dollar deals?
Probably not. Morons usually don't do that. But Maybe he
is being a moron in making claims he can't or won't back up.
The phone records or PI shit is irrelevant. There are any
number of other details that could be independently verified
and instead Minton is forcing everyone to waste time in needless
and duplicative investigations while leaving Kisser twisting
in the wind. This is unacceptable. Kisser is correct in not
going out on a public limb and making wild accusations and
calling people whores without any evidence.
>Maybe he is unwilling to be a victim.
>Even if other victims tell him that he will become "just like"
>the aggressor if he effectively defends himself.
He hasn't effectively defended himself. He has pissed on and
pissed off his allies so well that I am sure OSA is laughing at
how their spy got caught but then got away while Minton himself
did more damage than the spy ever could have.
>They are wrong.
>They paint lines on their body where the hungry machetes will bite deep.
No they don't and no they won't.
>Scientologists suck on the marrow.
While this is an amusing turn of phrase and image there
is actually an entirely different something which serves the purpose
of being sucked by Scientologists, or at least some of them.
>They grow strong on their victims failure of will.
They grow giddy on their victims' failure of reason.
By the way everyone knows who you are so why do you
keep up this silly charade?
Anonymous
and every other newsgroup. Why are you holding Bob Minton to a
higher standard than everyone else?
Just from the evidence that has been conceded, that a real
L.Terepin exists and had some contact with CoS in the past and that
the fake L.Terepin disappeared without a trace instead of denying
that which would have been easily disproved if it had been false,
shows that Bob Minton was _right_. He has always been right about
the fake L.Terepin. Why should he give the OSA a leg up by
revealing the precise indentity of his sources and the precise
nature of additional evidence that is absolutely not needed, except
to satisfy your peeping-tom mouse potatohood.
You say you know who I am. Are you referring to me or the other
anonymouses? This is a weird statement coming from an anonymous
chickenshit.
Ron Newman
<nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> By the way everyone knows who you are so why do you
> keep up this silly charade?
We do? I don't.
Looks to me like some Anonymous Coward decided to post on both
sides of an argument just to stir the post a bit.
Zane
>I was reading some discussion here about flat spins versus off-axis or
spins
>with flips, and American riders vs. Fins and some guy who wanted to learn
>backflips to be cheered at in the park. And here's my opinions:
>
>Anyone who says that flat spins sucks must be out of his mind. A huge
>stylish bs. 180 can be way 'cooler' than stinky no-grab rodeo 540. And
then
>again, a big, controlled rodeo 540 can be the most beautiful move ever.
>BUT: if you go out to learn backflips to get cheered at or whatever, you
>REALLY should start thinking about style, cause, in my opinion, a backflip
>on the mountain is a ski-trick, and it looks ugly as hell on a snowboard.
<snipped>
Ah ha, someone who knows what they are talking about.
When you have the ability, style is everything.
If there was no style, snowboarding would look very ugly indeed.
Like all sports of the sideways persuasion, you HAVE to have style to make
it look any good. Watch any video and you will see.
Big tricks with even bigger style.
My 2p from
Aly P.
Joe "Nuke Me Xemu" Foster
<1999012904...@replay.com>...
[snip]
> The uncritical acceptance of Beebe and other CAN members about the
> claimed L.T. despite the admitted facts of the Chicago-Scientology
> related L.T. explains to me completely why CAN is now defunct.
> Cynthia Kisser and the others mean well, I am sure.
> But then a whole lot of Tutsis meant well in Rwanda.
> They are all dead,
> hacked to death by their vicious opponents.
Tell us, how long have you been in OSA's PR department?
> Evolution in action.
> Maybe we can count on the law to protect us?
> Maybe the UN will set things right?
> See how well they have learned in Bosnia and Kosovo.
> Maybe not.
So you're telling the critics to chop first, lest they themselves get
chopped? Sorry, it's the Co$ who follows Hubbard's policies, not we.
> Maybe Minton wasn't a moron in making billion-dollar deals?
Hey, even Donald Trump was riding high for a while. As for minty, time
will tell, for both the Dorian and Turtle matters. Something's definitely
rotten in the Turtle matter, but like the OJ trial, all the reasonable doubt's
originating from the prosecution. Jesse and minty muddied their own
waters. This is a charlie fox of the first order!
> Maybe he is unwilling to be a victim.
> Even if other victims tell him that he will become "just like"
> the aggressor if he effectively defends himself.
So you're saying we should trust no one and destroy all Suppressive
Persons and Potential Trouble Sources? Shall we start by first running
gang-bang sec-checks on each other?
> They are wrong.
> They paint lines on their body where the hungry machetes will bite deep.
> Scientologists suck on the marrow.
I've got something the $cienos can suck on right here!
> They grow strong on their victims failure of will.
As opposed to growing strong on a "divide and conquer" strategy?
--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfo...@ricochet.net> or <mailto:j...@bftsi0.gate.net>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my BTs have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Hartley Patterson
A post in reply to another Anonymous in reply perhaps to the first
Anonymous.
OK, that does it. If you prats can't be bothered to put some identifying
handle on your posts, I can't be bothered to read what you post.
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> >>>>> KILLFILE.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://village.vossnet.co.uk/h/hpttrsn/
An old universe and a medieval spreadsheet
Featuring JRR Tolkien, Charles Fort and L Ron Hubbard
Zane
>Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that CAN, Cynthia
>Kisser and Jim Beebe have made no claims about Laura Terepin that
>they are unable to back up with HARD FACTS.
ROFLMAO!
It's Minton and Jesse who publicly posted unequivocal statements that
LT is an OSA plant. They are the ones who need to provide HARD FACTS,
dumbass.
Rebecca Hartong
Zane wrote in message <36b1f0e...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>On 29 Jan 1999 15:38:52 +0100, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that CAN, Cynthia
>>Kisser and Jim Beebe have made no claims about Laura Terepin that
>>they are unable to back up with HARD FACTS.
>
>ROFLMAO!
>
>It's Minton and Jesse who publicly posted unequivocal statements that
>LT is an OSA plant. They are the ones who need to provide HARD FACTS,
>dumbass.
I think one of us has misread Anonymous's post, Zane. I think the two of
you would agree... Kisser and Beebe haven't made any claims that can't be
backed up with hard facts. Minton et all *have* made claims that
(apparently) can't be backed up with hard facts.
Dave Bird
<z_thomas#ars#@ix.netcom.com> writes
>Anonymous <chick...@dumb.ass> wrote:
>
>>The uncritical acceptance of Beebe and other CAN members about the
>>claimed L.T. despite the admitted facts of the Chicago-Scientology
>>related L.T. explains to me completely why CAN is now defunct.
>
>
>The inability of LT's accusors to produce fucking FACTS to support
>their fantastic charges?
Zane, it's up to you, but I would ask people not to answer the CONTENT
of anonymously posted opinion -- other than demanding that the speaker
give their name. Anonymous opinions ain't worth shite.
Dave Bird
>Jim Beebe wrote:
>"I have no information about or from Laura T. I will say that some of us are
>very concerned about her well being. I have heeded good advice and decided not
>to put out any unnecessary commentary or unverifable information. I have
>talked with two other CAN staff members who were senior to me and with CAN
>longer than I was. Both are very knowledgeable and respected in this field.
>Both stated that they support Laura and the three of us support,
>unequivocally,
>Cynthia Kisser's statements on this matter."
>
>claimed L.T.
Look, fuckwit --- if you want to contribute controversial opinions
then have the goodness to sign your name to it. Otherwise we don't
want to know. Opinions base their merit entirely on who the sender is;
facts don't (hence can be posted anonymously without losing force).
Zane
<har...@erols.com> wrote:
>I think one of us has misread Anonymous's post, Zane.
Doh! Not enough undoubled negatives late at night. :-)
Dave Bird
<har...@erols.com> writes
>Zane wrote in message <36b1f0e...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>>On 29 Jan 1999 15:38:52 +0100, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that CAN, Cynthia
>>>Kisser and Jim Beebe have made no claims about Laura Terepin that
>>>they are unable to back up with HARD FACTS.
>>
>>ROFLMAO!
>>
>>It's Minton and Jesse who publicly posted unequivocal statements that
>>LT is an OSA plant. They are the ones who need to provide HARD FACTS,
>>dumbass.
>
>I think one of us has misread Anonymous's post, Zane. I think the two of
>you would agree... Kisser and Beebe haven't made any claims that can't be
>backed up with hard facts.
Beebe has called the Mock Turtle "Laura Terepin":
he has given no evidence to show this is her name.
The balance of evidence tends to suggest that it is not.
Martin Hunt
(All meant in fun. Please don't hate me because I'm beautiful...)
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU ARE AN ATLANTA FALCONS FAN...
10. You think that doing the "Chicken Dance" becomes a sign of
virility if you just rename it the "Dirty Bird."
9. Your idea of good coaching is whining about how nobody likes you
and they won't let you play with them.
8. You are so confused about geography you think that you belong in
the Western Division and Dallas belongs in the Eastern Division
7. Your idea of great cultural events: getting burned down in the
Civil War and "Freaknik."
6. You forget that you are supposed to be watching FOOTBALL now, and
lapse into the "Tomahawk Chop"
5. Best thing that happened to your team: receiver avoided being sent
to jail until AFTER the season.
4. You are a pro-communist washed up actress married to a
semi-communist millionaire.
3. You think it's nice that Eugene Robinson found a way to lose two
super bowls in a row.
2. You and 70,000 others claim you've gone to games all your life, and
can't imagine where all those empty seats in the stadium came from.
And the number one sign you are an Atlanta Falcons fan...
1. Team nickname changed from "Dirty Birds" to "Dead Ducks" January
31!
Martin Hunt
Bob Minton
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>>Jim Beebe wrote:
>>"I have no information about or from Laura T. I will say that some of us are
>>very concerned about her well being. I have heeded good advice and decided
>not
>>to put out any unnecessary commentary or unverifable information. I have
>>talked with two other CAN staff members who were senior to me and with CAN
>>longer than I was. Both are very knowledgeable and respected in this field.
>>Both stated that they support Laura and the three of us support,
>>unequivocally,
>>Cynthia Kisser's statements on this matter."
>
>>The uncritical acceptance of Beebe and other CAN members about the
>>claimed L.T. despite the admitted facts of the Chicago-Scientology
>>related L.T. explains to me completely why CAN is now defunct.
>
>Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that CAN, Cynthia
>Kisser and Jim Beebe have made no claims about Laura Terepin that
>they are unable to back up with HARD FACTS.
>
>This is what Cynthia Kisser said which this silly rant
>claims to be responding to:
>
>"While stating that he believes such phone records exist, he
>claims not to possess the records, nor to have seen the records, and
>that the records will not be made available to me. I cannot,
>herefore, at this time support the conclusion by Minton, Brooks and
>Prince that evidence exists identifying Laura Terepin as an
>"operative for the Church of Scientology".
>
>All claims within the bounds of good sense. Kisser, Beebe,
>Giambalvo et al have limited themselves to making claims they
>can support. If somebody else would do that this whole matter
>would never have gotten as silly as it has.
>
>>Cynthia Kisser and the others mean well, I am sure.
>>But then a whole lot of Tutsis meant well in Rwanda.
>>They are all dead,
>>hacked to death by their vicious opponents.
>
>And the relevance of this to the current situation? Scientologists
>are not Hutus. Nor are critics Tutsis. It is a ludicrous stretch
>to compare a high-tech net conflict on the cutting edge with a
>massacre done mostly with machetes in a third-world country.
It is not a ludicrous stretch IMHO. Perhaps you need a reality check
-- something that is often in short supply here. The following
editorial from the The New York Times on Sunday, January 3, 1999
entitled "The Limits of Technology" might just be the medicine needed
to put your feet back on the ground:
Amusing as it is simply to sit back and watch the calendar of the
Western world flip over, it is reasonable to expect that 1999 --
prologue to a new millennium -- will yield some themes that ask for
real reflection. Here is one. In the blizzard of commentary already
blowing in, it is becoming apparent that we are nearly blinded by
technology. Trying to gauge the meaning of a new millennium, we almost
instinctively do so by marveling at the rate of technological change,
which we cannot help believing will only increase. It seems like the
most salient feature of human culture during the last 200 years.
But the rate at which technology has been changing probably masks the
underlying stability of human nature.
The rate of change in our world is simply dizzying, and it is only
natural to wonder whether humans who live in 1999 are different
somehow, given the explosion of technological innovation in their
lifetime, than humans who lived 1,000 years ago.
Material conditions in the richest societies are certainly different
now than they were in the richest societies in the year 1000, and they
are more different from 1000 than 1000 was from the year 1. The way we
explain human nature is radically different too, thanks mostly to
Darwin. Yet there is no evidence that human nature has altered in that
time or, indeed, since human history began. Life has always been as
complex as it could possibly be. Humans have always admired their own
adaptability and lamented the peculiar complications of the times they
live in. There is no burying the past because the past -- to the
extent that it was determined by the raw potential of human nature --
is reborn in every generation.
We are caught, in a sense, between two kinds of evolution. Biological
evolution works on a nearly geological time scale, which suggests that
human nature, as a partial product of our genes, is basically
constant. Cultural evolution works with shocking swiftness, and so we
assume that it is mainly a propulsive, liberating, even revolutionary
force. But human culture has always usefully constrained human
behavior as well as expressed it. No human society has ever tolerated
the entire range of instinctive, "natural" human behavior. That
selective intolerance is among the things we mean by civilization.
This is one of the fundamental tensions we will carry into the new
millennium. For most of history humans have shaped civilizations
commensurate with the level of their material technology. In some
cases, like ancient Athens, the former far outstripped the latter.
Startling new technologies will inevitably proliferate in the years to
come. We need to remember that the measure of a civilization is not
the tools it owns but the use it makes of them.
>>Evolution in action.
>>Maybe we can count on the law to protect us?
>>Maybe the UN will set things right?
>>See how well they have learned in Bosnia and Kosovo.
>>Maybe not.
>
>Bosnia tells us that when people want to fight they're going
>to no matter how high-minded and noble the UN can get funding
>for pretending to be.
>
>>Maybe Minton wasn't a moron in making billion-dollar deals?
>
>Probably not. Morons usually don't do that. But Maybe he
>is being a moron in making claims he can't or won't back up.
>The phone records or PI shit is irrelevant. There are any
>number of other details that could be independently verified
>and instead Minton is forcing everyone to waste time in needless
>and duplicative investigations while leaving Kisser twisting
>in the wind. This is unacceptable. Kisser is correct in not
>going out on a public limb and making wild accusations and
>calling people whores without any evidence.
>
>>Maybe he is unwilling to be a victim.
>>Even if other victims tell him that he will become "just like"
>>the aggressor if he effectively defends himself.
>
>He hasn't effectively defended himself. He has pissed on and
>pissed off his allies so well that I am sure OSA is laughing at
>how their spy got caught but then got away while Minton himself
>did more damage than the spy ever could have.
>
>>They are wrong.
>>They paint lines on their body where the hungry machetes will bite deep.
>
>No they don't and no they won't.
>
>>Scientologists suck on the marrow.
>
>While this is an amusing turn of phrase and image there
>is actually an entirely different something which serves the purpose
>of being sucked by Scientologists, or at least some of them.
>
>>They grow strong on their victims failure of will.
>
>They grow giddy on their victims' failure of reason.
>
>By the way everyone knows who you are so why do you
>keep up this silly charade?
>
Bob Minton
roger gonnet
Bob Minton wrote:
>
> It is not a ludicrous stretch IMHO. Perhaps you need a reality check
> -- something that is often in short supply here. The following
> editorial from the The New York Times on Sunday, January 3, 1999
> entitled "The Limits of Technology" might just be the medicine needed
> to put your feet back on the ground:
>
> Amusing as it is simply to sit back and watch the calendar of the
> Western world flip over, it is reasonable to expect that 1999 --
> prologue to a new millennium -- will yield some themes that ask for
> real reflection. Here is one. In the blizzard of commentary already
> blowing in, it is becoming apparent that we are nearly blinded by
> technology. Trying to gauge the meaning of a new millennium, we almost
> instinctively do so by marveling at the rate of technological change,
> which we cannot help believing will only increase. It seems like the
> most salient feature of human culture during the last 200 years.
I have been speaking yesterday to a student from Polytechnique school
(one of the top engineer schools in the world), and he was saying the
same under another form: "We hear almost everyday that such and such
"new" thing or invention or whatever new, is "a progress", but many of
those things in the past have neen no progresses at all; they were mere
new things, sometimes good, sometimes bad ones - like enzym washing
products etc).
roger
> Bob Minton
Rebecca Hartong
Dave Bird wrote in message ...
>Beebe has called the Mock Turtle "Laura Terepin":
>he has given no evidence to show this is her name.
>The balance of evidence tends to suggest that it is not.
The balance of evidence does, indeed, suggest that it may not be the name
with which she was born. It is, however, the name by which she has been
known for at least some years and so for most purposes it *is* her name.
As far as I know, you may not have been born with the name Dave Bird. It's
the name by which you're known, though, so as far as I'm concerned you *are*
Dave Bird. Likewise, neither Paper Tiger nor Prignillius were likely born
with the names they use on a.r.s., but they *are* Paper Tiger and
Prignillius because those are the names by which they are known.
Bernie
Minton) wrote:
>On 29 Jan 1999 15:38:52 +0100, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>>Cynthia Kisser and the others mean well, I am sure.
>>>But then a whole lot of Tutsis meant well in Rwanda.
>>>They are all dead,
>>>hacked to death by their vicious opponents.
>>And the relevance of this to the current situation? Scientologists
>>are not Hutus. Nor are critics Tutsis. It is a ludicrous stretch
>>to compare a high-tech net conflict on the cutting edge with a
>>massacre done mostly with machetes in a third-world country.
>It is not a ludicrous stretch IMHO. Perhaps you need a reality check
>-- something that is often in short supply here. The following
>editorial from the The New York Times on Sunday, January 3, 1999
>entitled "The Limits of Technology" might just be the medicine needed
>to put your feet back on the ground:
[snip article]
I would agree with the fact that human beings have not really,
fundamentally, changed since the depth of time, despite all the marvel of
technological progress.
However, I still fail to see what the machete-bearing Hutus and Tutsies
come to do in this story.
Tommy
> You say you know who I am. Are you referring to me or the other
> anonymouses? This is a weird statement coming from an anonymous
> chickenshit.
*PFFTTZZZAAPP*
The meter movment sailed through the living room and embedded itself in
the wall.
I'm gonna have to start buying my irony-meters in bulk lots.....
Tommy
--
'I'm drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.'
Hubbard, 1967 letter to his wife submitted to the court in the
Armstrong
case, authenticity unchallenged by LRH/CoS lawyers
Deana Marie Holmes
<har...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>Dave Bird wrote in message ...
>
>>Beebe has called the Mock Turtle "Laura Terepin":
>>he has given no evidence to show this is her name.
>
>
>>The balance of evidence tends to suggest that it is not.
>
>
>The balance of evidence does, indeed, suggest that it may not be the name
>with which she was born. It is, however, the name by which she has been
>known for at least some years and so for most purposes it *is* her name.
I haven't seen any evidence that there was a name change by the CAN
LT. However, the NWU LT seems to have changed her name frequently.
>As far as I know, you may not have been born with the name Dave Bird. It's
>the name by which you're known, though, so as far as I'm concerned you *are*
>Dave Bird. Likewise, neither Paper Tiger nor Prignillius were likely born
>with the names they use on a.r.s., but they *are* Paper Tiger and
>Prignillius because those are the names by which they are known.
Heh.
I have two spellings of my first name, and I am known to the U.S.
Government under one spelling (with the exception of my passport), and
to everyone else under the second spelling. The second spelling is my
legal name, btw. I'll have to fix it someday, I suppose.
Deana Marie Holmes / member of the "Gang of Three" (Rod Keller)
The Few, The Proud, The Banned (2x + 1 ISP on Scientology ban list)
$cientology: Sponsor Windows84: "Where CAN'T you go today?
mir...@xmission.com
Dave Bird
ultofscientology.net> writes
>>>Cynthia Kisser and the others mean well, I am sure.
>>>But then a whole lot of Tutsis meant well in Rwanda.
>>>They are all dead,
>>>hacked to death by their vicious opponents.
>>
>>And the relevance of this to the current situation? Scientologists
>>are not Hutus. Nor are critics Tutsis. It is a ludicrous stretch
>>to compare a high-tech net conflict on the cutting edge with a
>>massacre done mostly with machetes in a third-world country.
>
>It is not a ludicrous stretch IMHO. Perhaps you need a reality check
>-- something that is often in short supply here. The following
>editorial from the The New York Times on Sunday, January 3, 1999
>entitled "The Limits of Technology" might just be the medicine needed
>to put your feet back on the ground:
Your remarks on the constancy of human nature are only partly
relevant, Bob. What was being said was that a couple of noisy
lawsuits in the west compare to a couple of noisy lawsuits in
countries where massacres are more common; not to massacres
in those places. Much though CofS might in its heart like to
massacre opponents, it has not yet gone so far as to really do it.
Dave Bird
<har...@erols.com> writes
>Dave Bird wrote in message ...
>
>>Beebe has called the Mock Turtle "Laura Terepin":
>>he has given no evidence to show this is her name.
>
>
>>The balance of evidence tends to suggest that it is not.
>
>The balance of evidence does, indeed, suggest that it may not be the name
>with which she was born. It is, however, the name by which she has been
>known for at least some years and so for most purposes it *is* her name.
No, you are confusing two different things. People get the name
they are born with, and there is the custom of changing surname
on marriage. Some people occasionally decide that "Henry Zapp"
is a real cool name not in use by anyone else, so tell everyone
that is the name they have decided to be known by from now on.
All that is done honestly, and there is no secret what the old name was.
But this woman -- Myrtle Turtle or whatever her name is -- did something
different. She decided to get involved in dodgy (possibly illegal)
activities, and therefore knowingly passed herself off by
the name AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER of an identifiable person
in another town. The idea was presumably that, if she were caught,
then she would slip away and go back to being Myrtle Turtle:
the wrong person would be punished for *HER* misdeeds or, at least,
the deception would enable the right person to evade the consequences.
Just as if a crook went by many different aliases the police, without
entering into a great philosophical debate whether they "are" him,
do try to publish all his assumed names as well as his original name.
In article <36b33397....@enews.newsguy.com>, Deana Marie Holmes
<mir...@newsguy.com> writes
>However, the NWU LT seems to have changed her name frequently.
No shit, Sherlock. Can you be more specific? AFAIK she changed
her name (once) when she married (once). Are you suggesting that
any of these names were assumed dishonestly, for purposes of
deception i.e. preventing things done under those names being
identified with her??
Rebecca Hartong
Dave Bird wrote in message <9BFN1sAE...@xemu.demon.co.uk>...
>>The balance of evidence does, indeed, suggest that it may not be the name
>>with which she was born. It is, however, the name by which she has been
>>known for at least some years and so for most purposes it *is* her name.
>
>No, you are confusing two different things. People get the name
>they are born with, and there is the custom of changing surname
>on marriage. Some people occasionally decide that "Henry Zapp"
>is a real cool name not in use by anyone else, so tell everyone
>that is the name they have decided to be known by from now on.
>All that is done honestly, and there is no secret what the old name was.
There is no secret if there's any reason to think that Henry Zapp wasn't
always the guy's name. Usually, though, when you meet someone new and they
introduce themselves as so-and-so, you have no reason to believe they
haven't always been called so-and-so. Why would you ask a person what their
"old name" was if, as far as you knew, they didn't *have* an "old name?"
This certainly appears to have been the case with FACTNet-Laura. It appears
that until only recently, no one suspected that she might not have always
gone by that name, so no one bothered to ask whether she had another name.
Since no one bothered to ask, there's no reason in particular she would have
volunteered the information. Why would Henry Zapp bother to tell new
acquaintances that he was once known by the name Reginald Buttwipe?
>But this woman -- Myrtle Turtle or whatever her name is -- did something
>different. She decided to get involved in dodgy (possibly illegal)
>activities, and therefore knowingly passed herself off by
>the name AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER of an identifiable person
>in another town. The idea was presumably that, if she were caught,
>then she would slip away and go back to being Myrtle Turtle:
>the wrong person would be punished for *HER* misdeeds or, at least,
>the deception would enable the right person to evade the consequences.
Dave, I never would have taken you for a religious man! The level faith
you're demonstrating here is quite impressive! (Faith: belief in things
not proven to be true.)
Thaddeus J. Beier
more people changing their names -- as one's life is
more and more archived in the public domain. There
may be things that you would like to escape; views
you had as a youth, that you'd prefer not to follow
you forever.
I predict that there will be a lot of new Jim Smiths
in the next decade.
thad
Rebecca Hartong
Dave Bird
>Dave Bird wrote in message <9BFN1sAE...@xemu.demon.co.uk>...
>
>>>The balance of evidence does, indeed, suggest that it may not be the name
>>>with which she was born. It is, however, the name by which she has been
>>>known for at least some years and so for most purposes it *is* her name.
>>
>>No, you are confusing two different things. People get the name
>>they are born with, and there is the custom of changing surname
>>on marriage. Some people occasionally decide that "Henry Zapp"
>>is a real cool name not in use by anyone else, so tell everyone
>>that is the name they have decided to be known by from now on.
>>All that is done honestly, and there is no secret what the old name was.
>
>There is no secret if there's any reason to think that Henry Zapp wasn't
>always the guy's name. Usually, though, when you meet someone new and they
>introduce themselves as so-and-so, you have no reason to believe they
>haven't always been called so-and-so. Why would you ask a person what their
>"old name" was if, as far as you knew, they didn't *have* an "old name?"
The point is that there are clear indications that the Mock Turtle
intended to get up to no good under the name AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
(slightly altered) of ANOTHER REAL PERSON and, of she were found out,
to *STOP* using that identity and go back to Myrtle Turtle's
name and SSN.
Jack Craver
wrote:
>In article <791e2c$8...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Rebecca Hartong writes:
>>Dave Bird wrote in message <9BFN1sAE...@xemu.demon.co.uk>...
>>
< snip >
> The point is that there are clear indications that the Mock Turtle
> intended to get up to no good under the name AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
> (slightly altered) of ANOTHER REAL PERSON and, of she were found out,
> to *STOP* using that identity and go back to Myrtle Turtle's
> name and SSN.
>
> |~/ |~/
>~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
>P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
>O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
>O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
>L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
>and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
colette initially-
She is also, supposedly,
using a social security number that is only one number
off from the "real" Laura Terepin.
then later -
Ron Newman wrote in message ...
>In article <78e5bp$t...@drn.newsguy.com>, Warrior
<war...@entheta.net> wrote:
>
>> Colette:
>>
>> Your post was the first I read about the supposed similarity of
>> Social Security numbers. Where did you hear it from?
>
>I'd also like to know this....
colette said -
As I've said elsewhere, the "real" Laura passed it on
as information she got from someone else. I don't
*know* where the rumor originated, and have said so.
***************************************************************
There are a few other statements from colette stating that she *does
not know* where rumors of a duplicate SSN number originated. Quite a
few.
Do you have any additional sources for your SSN number claim?
jack
William Barwell
Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:46:35 +0000, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>colette initially-
>
>She is also, supposedly,
>using a social security number that is only one number
>off from the "real" Laura Terepin.
>
>
>
>then later -
>
>Ron Newman wrote in message ...
>>In article <78e5bp$t...@drn.newsguy.com>, Warrior
><war...@entheta.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Colette:
>>>
>>> Your post was the first I read about the supposed similarity of
>>> Social Security numbers. Where did you hear it from?
>>
>>I'd also like to know this....
>
>colette said -
>As I've said elsewhere, the "real" Laura passed it on
>as information she got from someone else. I don't
>*know* where the rumor originated, and have said so.
>***************************************************************
>
>
>There are a few other statements from colette stating that she *does
>not know* where rumors of a duplicate SSN number originated. Quite a
>few.
>Do you have any additional sources for your SSN number claim?
>
Yes, this came from the real Laura Terepin, who got this
from FACTnet's lawyer Dan Leipold. This was explained to me in
E-mail from the real Laura nee Terepin.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope of Houston
Slack!
Diane Richardson
wrote:
>In article <791e2c$8...@enews4.newsguy.com>, Rebecca Hartong writes:
>>Dave Bird wrote in message <9BFN1sAE...@xemu.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>>>The balance of evidence does, indeed, suggest that it may not be the name
>>>>with which she was born. It is, however, the name by which she has been
>>>>known for at least some years and so for most purposes it *is* her name.
>>>
>>>No, you are confusing two different things. People get the name
>>>they are born with, and there is the custom of changing surname
>>>on marriage. Some people occasionally decide that "Henry Zapp"
>>>is a real cool name not in use by anyone else, so tell everyone
>>>that is the name they have decided to be known by from now on.
>>>All that is done honestly, and there is no secret what the old name was.
>>
>>There is no secret if there's any reason to think that Henry Zapp wasn't
>>always the guy's name. Usually, though, when you meet someone new and they
>>introduce themselves as so-and-so, you have no reason to believe they
>>haven't always been called so-and-so. Why would you ask a person what their
>>"old name" was if, as far as you knew, they didn't *have* an "old name?"
>
> The point is that there are clear indications that the Mock Turtle
> intended to get up to no good under the name AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
> (slightly altered) of ANOTHER REAL PERSON and, of she were found out,
> to *STOP* using that identity and go back to Myrtle Turtle's
> name and SSN.
Dave Bird continues his prayers:
"Hail Minton, full of Grace, Dorian is with Thee."
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Rob Clark
Barwell) wrote:
>In article <36b45bee...@news.mia.bellsouth.net>,
>Jack Craver <inm...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>She is also, supposedly,
>>using a social security number that is only one number
>>off from the "real" Laura Terepin.
>>There are a few other statements from colette stating that she *does
>>not know* where rumors of a duplicate SSN number originated. Quite a
>>few.
>>Do you have any additional sources for your SSN number claim?
>Yes, this came from the real Laura Terepin, who got this
>from FACTnet's lawyer Dan Leipold. This was explained to me in
>E-mail from the real Laura nee Terepin.
i will email the real former laura terepin for confirmation on this.
however i see obstacles proving the SSN claim. there *are*, however, ways
of proving one has a certain piece of knowledge without revealing the
information itself. terepin will obviously not want to just post her SSN
on ars i'm sure. and she will also not want to post an SSN admittedly one
digit from her own as that makes it trivial to narrow her own real SSN to a
range of only 81 numbers.
(given: a digit of one SSN varies by one digit from another. then: there
are only nine other digits possible for the one varied digit. there are
nine possibilities as to which digit varies, and nine possible variations,
hence, 81 possible variations. due to the format of SSNs some formats
are impossible, probably cutting that 81 down even further.)
i'd frankly advising trying to get a new SSN in a case like this.
but she could prove this to a trusted third party. someone who would be a)
trusted by ars and b) trusted by laura nee terepin.
or we could figure out some more complex "zero knowledge proof" that would
allow the variation to be proven mathematically while leaving the real
numbers undisclosed. for example, she could provide the supposed fake SSN
as another trusted third party such as a relative provided the real SSN to
the trusted third party who could then verify that they differ by one
digit. (in a perfect example you could prove this without needing the
third party, or as a workaround devising a piece of software that takes the
SSNs from both sources and does a brief "exhaustive search" of 81
possibilities in a millionth of a second, reports accuracy, then forgets
the numbers. that would be pretty trivial and would prove the claim
without disclosing SSNs to anyone who doesn't already know them.
rob
Dave Bird
>> intended to get up to no good under the name AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
>> (slightly altered) of ANOTHER REAL PERSON and, of she were found out,
>> to *STOP* using that identity and go back to Myrtle Turtle's
>> name and SSN.
>>
>
>She is also, supposedly,
>using a social security number that is only one number
>off from the "real" Laura Terepin.
You have not read everything said about it on ARS. Colette says she
got the information from Dan Liepold's office; AFAIK Bill Barwell
also did some checking.
In article <791r9a$4ju$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, William Barwell
<wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> writes
>Yes, this came from the real Laura Terepin, who got this
>from FACTnet's lawyer Dan Leipold. This was explained to me in
>E-mail from the real Laura nee Terepin.
Diane Richardson
wrote:
[snip]
>In article <791r9a$4ju$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, William Barwell
><wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> writes
>>Yes, this came from the real Laura Terepin, who got this
>>from FACTnet's lawyer Dan Leipold. This was explained to me in
>>E-mail from the real Laura nee Terepin.
What you don't take into consideration is the possibility that
the private investigator hired by Dan Leipold for his client
Factnet might have done a cursory job.
This private investigator may have used whatever source he
has to get *a* social security number for *a* Laura Terepin.
This same private investigator, if he's as slipshod as he appears,
might easily have copied down one digit of the SSN incorrectly.
When the "real" Laura Terepin talked with Dan Liepold, the
attorney might easily have read back to the "real" Laura Terepin
the "real" Laura Terepin's SSN, with that one incorrect digit.
As this information made the rounds of a.r.s., thanks to collette, the
"one-digit-off" SSN may well be on its way to becoming yet another
a.r.s. myth, chanted as a mantra by the likes of Barwell and Bird.
It's happened before.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Jack Craver
wrote:
>In article <36b45bee...@news.mia.bellsouth.net>, Jack Craver
><inm...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:46:35 +0000, Dave Bird <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>> The point is that there are clear indications that the Mock Turtle
>>> intended to get up to no good under the name AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
>>> (slightly altered) of ANOTHER REAL PERSON and, of she were found out,
>>> to *STOP* using that identity and go back to Myrtle Turtle's
>>> name and SSN.
>>>
>>
>>colette initially-
>>
>>She is also, supposedly,
>>using a social security number that is only one number
>>off from the "real" Laura Terepin.
>
> You have not read everything said about it on ARS. Colette says she
> got the information from Dan Liepold's office;
Well, I reread all of colettes posts and I did not see this. Perhaps
you could show me?
> AFAIK Bill Barwell
> also did some checking.
>
>In article <791r9a$4ju$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, William Barwell
><wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> writes
>>Yes, this came from the real Laura Terepin, who got this
>>from FACTnet's lawyer Dan Leipold. This was explained to me in
>>E-mail from the real Laura nee Terepin.
>
So again the trail leads back to the stonewall of FACTnet.
Dave, how is it that you can assume third or even fourth-hand
allegations like this SSN number issue, to be a clear indication of
anything?
Have you so entrenched yourself into this position that you now find
it impossible, for some reason, to extricate yourself?
I'm not trying to start anything here, I'm only trying to understand
how someone that prides himself on being a critic, can be so
demonstrably uncritical, especially when real people are involved.
jack
Dave Bird
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
The Falcons will win because all week you didn't hear any talk about
how the Broncos will stop Jamal A. Everyone knows Davis went over 2000,
but how many people know Jamal went over 1800 yards.
Me being a Giant fan, NY had no offense when they
played the Broncos and still beat them. By the way, sorry about that
14-0, not.
"No guns on road trips"
--WebTV-Mail-580106968-348
Content-Description: signature
Content-Disposition: Inline
Content-Type: Text/HTML; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
<html><center><img
src="http://www.members.tripod.com/~webtv40/skull2.gif"
align=middle><p><embed src="http://www.cyberbeach.net/~grant/16.zip"
autostart=true loop=true><body bgcolor="#000000">
--WebTV-Mail-580106968-348--
Dave Bird
Dave Bird
Dave Bird
rdorian
Dorian
Bob Minton wrote in message +ADw-36b36c82.27538146+AEA-news.newsguy.com+AD4-...
+AD4-On 29 Jan 1999 15:38:52 +010-, Anonymous +ADw-nobody+AEA-replay.com+AD4- wrote:
+AD4-
+AD4APg-Anonymous +ADw-nobody+AEA-replay.com+AD4- wrote:
+AD4APg-
+AD4APgA+-Jim Beebe wrote:
+AD4APgA+ACI-I have no information about or from Laura T. I will say that some of us
are
+AD4APgA+-very concerned about her well being. I have heeded good advice and
decided
+AD4APg-not
+AD4APgA+-to put out any unnecessary commentary or unverifable information. I have
+AD4APgA+-talked with two other CAN staff members who were senior to me and with
CAN
+AD4APgA+-longer than I was. Both are very knowledgeable and respected in this
field.
+AD4APgA+-Both stated that they support Laura and the three of us support,
+AD4APgA+-unequivocally,
+AD4APgA+-Cynthia Kisser's statements on this matter.+ACI-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APgA+-The uncritical acceptance of Beebe and other CAN members about the
+AD4APgA+-claimed L.T. despite the admitted facts of the Chicago-Scientology
+AD4APgA+-related L.T. explains to me completely why CAN is now defunct.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that CAN, Cynthia
+AD4APg-Kisser and Jim Beebe have made no claims about Laura Terepin that
+AD4APg-they are unable to back up with HARD FACTS.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-This is what Cynthia Kisser said which this silly rant
+AD4APg-claims to be responding to:
+AD4APg-
+AD4APgAi-While stating that he believes such phone records exist, he
+AD4APg-claims not to possess the records, nor to have seen the records, and
+AD4APg-that the records will not be made available to me. I cannot,
+AD4APg-herefore, at this time support the conclusion by Minton, Brooks and
+AD4APg-Prince that evidence exists identifying Laura Terepin as an
+AD4APgAi-operative for the Church of Scientology+ACI-.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-All claims within the bounds of good sense. Kisser, Beebe,
+AD4APg-Giambalvo et al have limited themselves to making claims they
+AD4APg-can support. If somebody else would do that this whole matter
+AD4APg-would never have gotten as silly as it has.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APgA+-Cynthia Kisser and the others mean well, I am sure.
+AD4APgA+-But then a whole lot of Tutsis meant well in Rwanda.
+AD4APgA+-They are all dead,
+AD4APgA+-hacked to death by their vicious opponents.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-And the relevance of this to the current situation? Scientologists
+AD4APg-are not Hutus. Nor are critics Tutsis. It is a ludicrous stretch
+AD4APg-to compare a high-tech net conflict on the cutting edge with a
+AD4APg-massacre done mostly with machetes in a third-world country.
+AD4-
+AD4-It is not a ludicrous stretch IMHO. Perhaps you need a reality check
+AD4--- something that is often in short supply here. The following
+AD4-editorial from the The New York Times on Sunday, January 3, 1999
+AD4-entitled +ACI-The Limits of Technology+ACI- might just be the medicine needed
+AD4-to put your feet back on the ground:
+AD4-
+AD4-Amusing as it is simply to sit back and watch the calendar of the
+AD4-Western world flip over, it is reasonable to expect that 1999 --
+AD4-prologue to a new millennium -- will yield some themes that ask for
+AD4-real reflection. Here is one. In the blizzard of commentary already
+AD4-blowing in, it is becoming apparent that we are nearly blinded by
+AD4-technology. Trying to gauge the meaning of a new millennium, we almost
+AD4-instinctively do so by marveling at the rate of technological change,
+AD4-which we cannot help believing will only increase. It seems like the
+AD4-most salient feature of human culture during the last 200 years.
+AD4-
+AD4-But the rate at which technology has been changing probably masks the
+AD4-underlying stability of human nature.
+AD4-
+AD4-The rate of change in our world is simply dizzying, and it is only
+AD4-natural to wonder whether humans who live in 1999 are different
+AD4-somehow, given the explosion of technological innovation in their
+AD4-lifetime, than humans who lived 1,000 years ago.
+AD4-
+AD4-Material conditions in the richest societies are certainly different
+AD4-now than they were in the richest societies in the year 1000, and they
+AD4-are more different from 1000 than 1000 was from the year 1. The way we
+AD4-explain human nature is radically different too, thanks mostly to
+AD4-Darwin. Yet there is no evidence that human nature has altered in that
+AD4-time or, indeed, since human history began. Life has always been as
+AD4-complex as it could possibly be. Humans have always admired their own
+AD4-adaptability and lamented the peculiar complications of the times they
+AD4-live in. There is no burying the past because the past -- to the
+AD4-extent that it was determined by the raw potential of human nature --
+AD4-is reborn in every generation.
+AD4-
+AD4-We are caught, in a sense, between two kinds of evolution. Biological
+AD4-evolution works on a nearly geological time scale, which suggests that
+AD4-human nature, as a partial product of our genes, is basically
+AD4-constant. Cultural evolution works with shocking swiftness, and so we
+AD4-assume that it is mainly a propulsive, liberating, even revolutionary
+AD4-force. But human culture has always usefully constrained human
+AD4-behavior as well as expressed it. No human society has ever tolerated
+AD4-the entire range of instinctive, +ACI-natural+ACI- human behavior. That
+AD4-selective intolerance is among the things we mean by civilization.
+AD4-
+AD4-This is one of the fundamental tensions we will carry into the new
+AD4-millennium. For most of history humans have shaped civilizations
+AD4-commensurate with the level of their material technology. In some
+AD4-cases, like ancient Athens, the former far outstripped the latter.
+AD4-Startling new technologies will inevitably proliferate in the years to
+AD4-come. We need to remember that the measure of a civilization is not
+AD4-the tools it owns but the use it makes of them.
+AD4-
+AD4APgA+-Evolution in action.
+AD4APgA+-Maybe we can count on the law to protect us?
+AD4APgA+-Maybe the UN will set things right?
+AD4APgA+-See how well they have learned in Bosnia and Kosovo.
+AD4APgA+-Maybe not.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-Bosnia tells us that when people want to fight they're going
+AD4APg-to no matter how high-minded and noble the UN can get funding
+AD4APg-for pretending to be.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APgA+-Maybe Minton wasn't a moron in making billion-dollar deals?
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-Probably not. Morons usually don't do that. But Maybe he
+AD4APg-is being a moron in making claims he can't or won't back up.
+AD4APg-The phone records or PI shit is irrelevant. There are any
+AD4APg-number of other details that could be independently verified
+AD4APg-and instead Minton is forcing everyone to waste time in needless
+AD4APg-and duplicative investigations while leaving Kisser twisting
+AD4APg-in the wind. This is unacceptable. Kisser is correct in not
+AD4APg-going out on a public limb and making wild accusations and
+AD4APg-calling people whores without any evidence.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APgA+-Maybe he is unwilling to be a victim.
+AD4APgA+-Even if other victims tell him that he will become +ACI-just like+ACI-
+AD4APgA+-the aggressor if he effectively defends himself.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-He hasn't effectively defended himself. He has pissed on and
+AD4APg-pissed off his allies so well that I am sure OSA is laughing at
+AD4APg-how their spy got caught but then got away while Minton himself
+AD4APg-did more damage than the spy ever could have.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APgA+-They are wrong.
+AD4APgA+-They paint lines on their body where the hungry machetes will bite deep.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-No they don't and no they won't.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APgA+-Scientologists suck on the marrow.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-While this is an amusing turn of phrase and image there
+AD4APg-is actually an entirely different something which serves the purpose
+AD4APg-of being sucked by Scientologists, or at least some of them.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APgA+-They grow strong on their victims failure of will.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-They grow giddy on their victims' failure of reason.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-By the way everyone knows who you are so why do you
+AD4APg-keep up this silly charade?
+AD4APg-
+AD4-Bob Minton
Dave Bird
<xe...@mindspring.com> writes
>>Yes, this came from the real Laura Terepin, who got this
>>from FACTnet's lawyer Dan Leipold. This was explained to me in
>>E-mail from the real Laura nee Terepin.
>
>
>however i see obstacles proving the SSN claim. there *are*, however, ways
>of proving one has a certain piece of knowledge without revealing the
>information itself. terepin will obviously not want to just post her SSN
>on ars i'm sure. and she will also not want to post an SSN admittedly one
>digit from her own as that makes it trivial to narrow her own real SSN to a
>range of only 81 numbers.
Then I suggest she do the following. Post confirming that
her SSN (assuming ten digits) is: 12345wxyz0,
and the Mock Turtle's is: 12345wxyz1,
where she affirms that "the blanked out digits are the same in both".
This is because high digits identify year and place of birth,
but low digits identify particular people.
[POSTED AND MAILED].
I don't think we'll get the exact SSN, so an affirmation of this
kind from Laura should satisfy most reasonable people. For the
really sceptical, maybe Dan Liepold would confirm (to someone
reliable, by phone?) that this checks out with the SSNs he has.
Dave Bird
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:32:26 +0000, Dave Bird wrote:
>>In article <791r9a$4ju$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, William Barwell:
>>>
>>>Yes, this came from the real Laura Terepin, who got this
>>>from FACTnet's lawyer Dan Leipold. This was explained to me in
>>>E-mail from the real Laura nee Terepin.
>
>the private investigator hired by Dan Leipold for his client
>Factnet might have done a cursory job.
>This private investigator may have used whatever source he
>has to get *a* social security number for *a* Laura Terepin.
>This same private investigator, if he's as slipshod as he appears,
>might easily have copied down one digit of the SSN incorrectly.
>
>When the "real" Laura Terepin talked with Dan Liepold, the
>attorney might easily have read back to the "real" Laura Terepin
>the "real" Laura Terepin's SSN, with that one incorrect digit.
>As this information made the rounds of a.r.s., thanks to collette, the
>"one-digit-off" SSN may well be on its way to becoming yet another
>a.r.s. myth, chanted as a mantra by the likes of Barwell and Bird.
>It's happened before.
Well, WhatsHerName, your sophistry is getting a bit thin: I suppose
it's just possible that a flying saucer shot past, which scared the
cat, which knocked over the saucer, which started the burglar alarm,
which startled the driver, who crashed into a market stall, and so
a 3ft toy panda came flying down the road.
It's just rather unlikely.
You fail to take into account that (a) "one number off" is a well
known technique of faking identities, and (b) I would have thought
than anyone finding such a clash would IMMEDIATELY double-check the
first number.
-- __
.,-;-;-,. /'_\ : They seek her here, they seek her there, :
_/_/_/_|_\_\) / : those critics seek her everywhere --- :
'-<_><_><_><_>=/\ : is she in LA or gone for a swim, :
jgs `/_/====/_/-'\_\ : that damned elusive Terrapin ? :
........"".....""....""..:>>>>>>>>>>> WHO IS THE MOCK TURTLE <<<<<<<<<
{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/people.turtle.html"}????{/a}
Joe Nuke Me Xemu Foster
zi wfijf am yu laah dhj
mi zh aeyr lf qpiio
ph lnb iwprp iafje xepn rwees?
Lip asbqqj qda tjefv yory
wen ybd xskd xnj espb eip
fue segi tdcs snbi uedt hopmp
kbwx jpn mj vtb pws sf
jmur uft dup eo
yleoqo tplb sirez trv
itiie aliet ljor xyei hite
cjs ieferi fja iuz xvqxbte bs.
Cwuref uti eudkau ehctr gpalm
jiu akry eb iqyy udfo tprfb
fmu lfd tilf rxku ee
lakbi euepmae lirm cewef.
Meeea rzoi vjf fkt kau lexke
luli gaoa igc llkw yn dltu.
Zenon Panoussis
Rob Clark skrev:
> however i see obstacles proving the SSN claim. there *are*, however, ways
> of proving one has a certain piece of knowledge without revealing the
> information itself. terepin will obviously not want to just post her SSN
> on ars i'm sure. and she will also not want to post an SSN admittedly one
> digit from her own as that makes it trivial to narrow her own real SSN to a
> range of only 81 numbers.
What I would very much like to know is *which* two numbers
differ, if she knows that. Was it 1/7 for instance or any
other two numbers that, sloppily hand-written could pass
off as the same? Knowing that I would care less about the
entire number.
Z
--
oracle@everywhere: The ephemeral source of the eternal truth...
Bernie
>
>JJ wrote:
>
>> Why not? The nucleus is still intact, even if Elway retires. With TD on
>> our side, Broncos should be favorites to win it all next year!!!!!!
>
>Not with Bubby they won't.
>
And the reason for that being? Please enlighten the rest of us.
Bernie
Zane
>In 28 Jan 1999 19:49:08 GMT of yore, "Nick Fitzsimons"
><nfitz...@worldnet.att.net> wrote thusly:
>
>=Sam4174 wrote in message <19990128133336...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>=>
>=>Cota should be in better shape...period!!!!!
>=>
>=>p.s. the injury excuse never fails, does it? he was in the game, wasn't
he?
>=did
>=>isiah use that excuse when he dropped 40 with one leg? hell no!!!
>=
>=I agree totally. And while I'm thinking about it, Brand should have been
in
>=better shape last year when he broke that foot. Then he wouldn't have
>=missed those 16 or 18 games including the UNC game in Chapel Hill.
>
> Of course, being in better shape would have
>helped Cota avoid those cramps, whereas being in
>shape is no defense against a stress fracture of the
>fifth metatarsal in the left (or was it right?) foot.
>
> Don't you *hate* it when people point out
>facts?
>
Wrong, knucklehead. I was responding to a stupid comment with and equally
stupid one. Obviously, you weren't keen enough to pick up the sarcasm.
William Barwell
faux LT was using a second SS# on digit difference but did not reveal the
number.
Social Security has to this date, not shown much intrerest
in letting LT know if the second SS# is a real number or a
fake SS#.
Bernie
>
>> Which Super Bowl was the first to match teams both named for animals?
>> Which "dirty" fowls got trampled by "bucking" equines?
>>
>> -BroncoRage
>Didnt denver play the " Cow" boys. Did they win. I cant recall.
Cowboys lost 3 and won 5. When Denver beats the Cowboys
next year (after every single other NFC team suffers massive
teamwide injuries and the Cowboys beat the Falcons' 3rd
string players 3 - 0) the record will be 5 - 4 for the Cowboys.
In the subsequent 3 years the Broncos will be 6 - 4 and
the Cowboys 5 - 7.
William Barwell
Melissa wrote:
> In article <794kq1$h9m$1...@news-2.csn.net>,
> "T-Bone" <twa...@aspenres.com> wrote:
> >Chris wrote in message <36B52A97...@earthlink.net>...
> >>Go ahead and salute 'em Denver. You've got the Back to Back World
> >>Champion Denver Broncos!
> >
> >
> >The Dynasty.
>
> Can you imagine if Elway stays & they do it again next year?
I'm doing more than that - I am predicting it! Trust me, it will happen.
>
>
> - Melissa <http://home.mho.net/melissa9/>
>
> Web Page Design: <http://home.mho.net/melissa9/webpages.htm>
>
> To email me, remove the spam proofing capital letters on each side of the @
> in my email address.
--
Best,
Chris -^-^-^- http://home.earthlink.net/~lightpony/index.html -^-^-^-
William Barwell
Anonymous
Ken Stitzel wrote:
> Maraya (mar...@uswest.net) wrote:
>
> > I agree!! Brister is terrific! I don't understand why the
> > newscasters are touting Brian Griese as Elway's replacement as the
> > starter. Do they plan to keep Brister as a back-up? He's payed his
> > dues, got the talent and experience. Maybe they plan to trade him?
>
> Brister's got more miles on him than you think. He spent quite a while
> in Pittsburg, showing a few flashes of brilliance, but overall having
> a hard time fitting in--kind of like Kordell Stewart right now. He's
> thirty-something, not a kid like Griese. When John retires this year
> or next, The Bubster will probably have the starting job while Griese
> works into being the Number One Number Two guy, if ya know what I
> mean. (Gotta have a good stable of Bronco QBs. Didn't the 49ers have
> Montana AND Young AND Grbac for a while in Montana's last season or
> two?)
And what of Jeff Lewis?
I'm tired of seeing him ignored. He has an arm eerily reminiscent of
Elway's, fantastic scrambling ability, and he's been here long enough to
*know* the system. Trading him to Carolina would be a *huge* mistake.
John's been mentoring him for some time now, and Griese, for his part, has
not shown the arm strength you'd like to see following 2 decades of John.
Remember, he couldn't even beat out Scott Dreisbach his first 2 years at
Michigan.
Scott who?
-my point exactly-
>
>
> But with the expansion draft coming, there will be lots of wildcards
> on the table.
Including Darrien Gordon - darn salary cap issues - I hope they have a good
replacement in mind..
>
>
> --
> Ken Stitzel (k...@fc.hp.com)
> Learning Products Engineer (tech writer with functional enhancements)
> HP-UX Development Lab (UNIX=HP)
> Hewlett-Packard Company (a pretty cool company to work for)
> Fort Collins, Colorado, USA (somewhere north of Denver but still
> predominantly orange and blue)
>
> (Opinions stated herein are provided without warranty on 100-percent
> recycled electrons and are not representative of official or
> unofficial HP policy on Bronco quarterbacks, though there is a lot of
> armchair quarterbacking here.... ;-)
Anonymous
Anonymous
Phil Nation wrote:
> In article <36BDE072...@azstarnet.com>,
> JOROC (jo...@azstarnet.com) wrote:
> : Phil Nation wrote:
> : > Actually, I'm shocked that Terry's this good.
>
> : In spite of all my beseeching last spring in your As Promised,
> : My All-America Team" thread. 8^0
>
> *sigh*
>
> Jason Terry was not one of the best basketball players in America
> last season. Period. He was probably the best sixth man, but no All-
> American.
There's an inherent contradiction in the above *particularly when one's
AA team goes 3 deep and additionally includes honorable mentions.*
> This year, he certainly is; while there was no doubt he'd be
> a big key to how Arizona would be, I didn't expect this kind of season
> from him.
>
> Just because I didn't select him as an All-American doesn't mean I
> think the guy sucks to the end of the universe, as you would have us
> believe.
No. I think initially you were ignorant. Then close minded. Proof that
your mind remained closed is evidenced by your inclusion of a lesser
player on last March's AA team, making your pre-season team, again
this time around.
>
>
> That thread is another discussion, and you were wrong from the
> outset in that case.
I wasn't wrong. and even if I was, I was always entitled to my opinion.
I presume by publishing your *teams* you were inviting comment. You
might be served by a little humility in your responses to those who
disagree
with you, instead of retorting adversarilly, deluded by a notion of
superior self worth and spewing the unfortunate accusation that your
perceived foe is a liar.
Your response to yesterday's post is a perfect example. The only two
people in the whole freaking world that it had any meaning to was you
and me. You could have come back with a short, "yeah, it looks like
you were on to something," e-mailed me privately or even just let it go.
>
>
> Phil Kasiecki
>
> --
> Philip T. Kasiecki
> pkas...@ieee.org
> http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/p/pkasieck/
> 131 days and counting!
>
> "Life is not important except in the impact it has on others' lives."
> -Jackie Robinson
Jack Craver
>>Harry wrote:
>>
>> Having attended several Cameron games and having a son in the crowd for 4
>> years I comment on the Cameron Crazies -
>>
>> The crazies are a bunch of really nice bright kids when you get them
alone
>> one-on-one. Just like your favorite lap dog.
>>
>> But just like a pack of dogs when they get together - they become savage.
>
>Dookies alone = rich kids at a basketball school
>Dookies together = a group of rich kids at a basketball school
>
>Simple.
Horrifying.
First, savage is laughable. Unless your delicate
sensitivities can be bruised by harsh words loudly spoken.
In that case, how long ago did you get rid of cable television?
How much longer after that did you get rid of your television
altogether? Well then, since you can't see any Duke games
the one way or the other, it is clear why you don't know what
you are talking about.
The only fistfight at a basketball game this year was caused by
Maryland fans at a home game when their team was soundly
beaten by Duke. The last injury at a Duke home game involving a
fan that I can recall was Randolph Childress throwing the
basketball as hard as he could into the upper level, striking
an unwary fan exiting the stadium in the head.
These things are savage, not a group of young people putting
forth the proposition that a player sucks, or making
an insensitive comment about a player that rhymes with his
name.
Second, every university has rich kids attending. I attended
Duke, and many friends I made there could not be classified
as wealthy, nor could I. Some could, but no more of them
attended games than the nonrich. Duke basketball tickets
are distributed to students by a queueing method, not by
bidding. The upper deck fans, on the other hand, are far more
wealthy than the student fans, but since your gripe is with the
chants, cheers, etc. you really can have no grudge with them.
Except the 'crazy towel guy,' but alas, he is, as I understand it,
a retired employee, not a rich booster.
Third, basketball school is most laughable of all. Do you seriously
put forth that basketball is Duke's organizing principle? What
of the high academic ranking? The truth is that Duke's organizing
principle is academics, and, like all other schools, its organizing
social principle is alcohol consumption.
Your generalizations are lazy and inappropriate.
- Jason Bell
"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost;
you can still call him vile names." - Elbert Hubbard