MORE PROTEST AGAINST WIKIPEDIA (WIKIPIGGI) THE ANTI-FREE SPEECH CULT
Barbara Schwarz
WIKIBIGGI IS A DESTRUCTIVE ANTI-FREE SPEECH CULT WHO HAS ANTI-FREE
SPEECH POLICY LIKE STASI OR KGB. THIS IS POSTED ALSO TO USENET.
== A critic of critics ==
She is notable for her criticism and exposure of what she believes to
be critics of her religion or herself. She has criticed some of the
"notable" critics of Scientology such as David Touretzky and her
exposure has drawn a lot of attention. The article should cover this
because I see this as what is notable about Barbara Schwarz.
--[[User:HResearcher|HResearcher]] 20:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I WOULD NOT CALL THE CRITICS CRITICS. THEY POST FIRST OF ALL LIES AND
DEFAMATION, THEY ARE ANTI-RELIGIOUS BIGOTS.
:Her "exposure" is usually reposting articles from
religiousfreedomwatch.org, a scientology smear site.
--[[User:Tilman|Tilman]] 21:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
THE RFW IS MUCH LESS A SMEAR SIDE THAN THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON ME, OR
THAT ON MARTY RATHBUN OR L. RON HUBBARD. TILMAN HAUSHERR IS ALWAYS
LYING AND MISINFORMING. I POST OFTEN MY VERY OWN RESEARCH (BACKED UP
WITH EVIDENCE).
:: Just forget for one moment that we're talking about Barbara Schwarz
and Scientology. If we were talking about a woman in, say, New Mexico,
who used similar abusive FOIA and Usenet tactics to further a crackpot
conviction that Fluoride deposits in her molars were part of a
conspiracy to keep her from learning the truth about [[Buzz Aldrin]]'s
love child, and garnered about the same amount of minimal press for
this crusade as Schwarz has for hers, we would not be sitting here
debating whether she is notable enough for an article or not.
Practically no one on the planet has ever heard of Barbara Schwarz.
[[User:Wikipediatrix|wikipediatrix]] 23:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
IF NOBODY HEARD OF ME, WIKIPEDIADRIX, WHY CAN'T PEOPLE STOP LYING AND
HARASS ME?
:::I don't see this as having anything to do with Scientology. I know
others do, and are here for those reasons, but I am not. I am quite
neutral about that aspect. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 23:29, 15
August 2006 (UTC)
NOT REALLY. I WAS BLOCKED BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO HATE MY RELIGION, HATE
AUTOMATICALLY ME. OR THEY BUY IN THE LIES OF THE BIGOTS.
::::On the contrary, this article was previously part of the series of
articles in Wikipedia on the scientology cult. The fact Barbara
Schwarz was once the president of the scientology cult in Germany, and
claims to have a marital relationship with senior cult exectutive Mark
"Marty" Rathbun in her court pleadings
[http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:m7vkVTRCIoIJ:www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2000/Kennedy/98-2406.pdf+%22barbara+schwarz+%22+site:.gov&hl=en]
and FOIA searches, as well as in her 92-part published autobiography on
the Usenet, makes this article something very much to do with the
scientology cult. [[User:Orsini|Orsini]] 01:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY CULT. I HATE CULTS. THAT IS WHY I DON'T
WANT TO BECOME A WRITER, EDITOR OR ADMIN OF WIKIPEDIA.
:::::I also think that Scientology gets way too much coverage here for
its importance. What do they have 100,000 members world-wide?
[[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] 02:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::They say they have 10,000,000, but this probably isn't the place
to debate that. As you well know Steve, this debate has raged on for
years at A.R.S. It has also been discussed in most of the Scieno
articles. [[User:Vivaldi|Vivaldi]] ([[User talk:Vivaldi|talk]]) 06:32,
16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::If they really did have 10 million that would be another thing.
Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the CoS is an evil
organization then compare it to other evil organizations, as to the
amount of Wikipedia coverage. How about the [[Nazi party]], the [[Klu
Klux Klan]], the [[Mafia]], the [[Jesse James]] gang? My point is that
Scientology is not all that important so critics of Scientology are not
that important (I don't mean to hurt their feelings; just not so
important in the flow of world history.) and a critic of critics of
Scientology is even less important. [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]]
11:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I DON'T THINK THAT P$YCHIATRISTS SEE IT THIS WAY. THEY LAUNCHED AN
INTERNATIONAL DEFAMATION CAMPAIGN AGAINST L. RON HUBBARD SINCE THEY GOT
WIND THAT HE WROTE THE DIANETICS BOOK. MANY P$YCHS ESP. IN GERMANY ARE
REALLY AFRAID THAT SCN WILL CLOSE THEIR BUSINESSES DOWN, STEVEN.
::::::::In the real grande scheme of things, none of this will matter
one iota in a thousand years, and in 100,000 years, or 1 billion years
from now, in a history of the universe, I would suspect that the entire
planet Earth and our solar system will be relatively unimportant.
Heck, even the entire Milky Way Galaxy is sort of insignificant and
unimportant. It really only matters to people that happen to be alive
right now and want to learn more about a topic that they've heard
about. And I would put forth than many folks on the Internet are
curious to learn more about Ms. Schwarz's vast FOIA records persuits,
her large numbers of frivilous lawsuits, and her posting of her life
story on Usenet. Why are people interested? Probably for the same
reason people look at train wrecks and say "Wow".
[[User:Vivaldi|Vivaldi]] ([[User talk:Vivaldi|talk]]) 07:09, 21 August
2006 (UTC)
KOREY KRUSE (VIVALDI) IS A BUM. SINCE MORE THAN A DECADE HE IS IN
TROUBLE WITH THE LAW. THE JUDGE CALLED HIM AN HABITUAL OFFENDER. HE
COULD WORK BUT HE DOESN'T, HAS AS GOOD AS NO CENT AND NEEDS PUBLIC
DEFENDERS TO GET HIM OUT OF CRIMINAL LEGAL TROUBLES. HE WAS ORDERED BY
A COURT TO UNDERGO PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION.
AND HE CALLS ME OF ALL PEOPLE A TRAIN WRECK? IT ALSO SHOWS THAT KRUSE
WANTS THIS ARTICLE SOLELY TO MISINFORM ABOUT ME AND HARASS ME. HE DID
THIS IN MANY OF HIS ABUSIVE FREE OF CHARGE WEBSITES, WHO WERE PRETTY
MUCH ALL CANCELED BECAUSE OF TOS AND LAW VIOLATIONS. NEEDLESS TO SAY HE
ALSO FORGED ME AND OTHERS ON THOSE SITES. WHY IS KRUSE NOT BANNED FROM
THIS ARTICLE? SAME GOES FOR TILMAN. THE TALK PAGES ON ME (INCLUDING
THOSE WHO WERE DELETED) SHOW THAT THE MEN HARASS ME AND LIE ABOUT ME
SINCE OVER A YEAR ON WIKIPEDIA.
:::Wikipediatrix writes, ''"If we were talking about a woman in..."''
It is perhaps true that a similar person in a similar situation may not
garner an entry, it depends on how many people and what kinds of people
that they become notable to. B.S. captured the attention of [[SCOTUS]]
and the watchful eyes of A.R.S. discovered that she had filed lawsuits
against the Church of Scientology -- a notably litigious cult. Its no
surprise to me that she meets the requirements of Notability. Heck, we
have an article about [[Sollog]] here, and another one about the
[[Gaynigger Association of America]]. Now if we were talking instead
about a group called Concerned Beekeepers of Western Idaho, they might
not get an article like the Gayniggers. That is Wikipedia for you, and
its the nature of the beast. [[User:Vivaldi|Vivaldi]] ([[User
talk:Vivaldi|talk]]) 01:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
AGAIN, KRUSE COMPARES ME WITH PEOPLE TO WHICH I SHOULD NOT BE COMPARED.
KRUSE, THE HABITUAL OFFENDER SHOULD GET HIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE. HE MIGHT BE
THE WORST HABITUAL OFFENDER OF HIS STATE. I HAVE BUSHELS OF COURT
DOCUMENTS OF DIFFERENT CASES TO SHOW THIS.
::::BTW I am going to put in a deletion request on the [[Sollog]]
article too. It is one of the most stupid I have ever read
here.[[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] 11:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
::::I just checked out the article on [[Salt Lake City]] and there are
a little over a million people in the area. How many of them do you
think have Wikipedia articles? [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]]
02:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::It depends how many other people in Salt Lake City have also been
the president of the scientology cult in Germany, ''and'' have
attempted to sue the President, ''and'' have forced government
officials to review the mechanisms for Freedom Of Information Act
processes and has established a reputation for notoriety in government
circles due to their volume of these requests, ''and'' have been
permanently barred from ''in forma pauperis'' filings of noncriminal
certiorari petitions by the [[SCOTUS]]. I would suggest there is only
one such person fitting all of the above noteworthy criteria.
[[User:Orsini|Orsini]] 06:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
ORSINI NEVER ATTACKS HER ANTI-RELIGIOUS FRIENDS FOR THEIR LITIGATION.
MICHAEL PATTINSON SUED PRESIDENT CLINTON AND RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN
IN A FRIVOLOUS COOK CASE WHICH WAS BASED ON LIES. HOW COME THAT IS NOT
ON WIKIPEDIA?
OTHERWISE, I ALWAYS WONDER ABOUT THE IQ OF THESE WIKIPIGGI SMEARERS AS
ORSINI. THEY DON'T GET THE TRUTH. GOVERNMENT WORKERS HATE PEOPLE ASKING
FOR RECORDS. EVEN THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE ADMITTED THAT GOVERNMENTAL
EMPLOYEES CONSIDER RECORDS REQUESTS AS 'INCOMING TORPEDOS'. THEY DON'T
LIKE TO PROCESS THEM, THEY DON'T LIKE TO SHED LIGHT ON THEIR SECRETS.
AND THAT HAPPENS IN MY CASES TOO. THEY CONCEALED THEM AND I SUED THEM.
THAT MEANS, THEY WERE WRONG AND I WAS RIGHT. BIASED JUDGES JUST COVERED
FOR THE FEDS.
:::::Stever writes, ''"I just checked out the article on [[Salt Lake
City]] and there are a little over a million people in the area. How
many of them do you think have Wikipedia articles?"'' Do you think
there should be more or less than we currently have? According to
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_from_Salt_Lake_City
Category:People from Salt Lake City] we have at least 21 articles about
people from SLC. I suspect there are probably more than that however.
(Probably all the people on the Utah Jazz at least)
[[User:Vivaldi|Vivaldi]] ([[User talk:Vivaldi|talk]]) 06:53, 16 August
2006 (UTC)
I THINK THAT VIVALDI (KOREY JEROME KRUSE) SHOULD BE ON WIKIPEDIA AS THE
HABTUAL OFFENDER OF KANSAS.
::::::I'm just afraid that some of the other people there might feel
slighted if Barbara is mentioned in Wikipedia and they are left out.
:-) the real [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] 11:04, 16 August 2006
(UTC)
:::::::The other people will be included as soon as the Supreme Court
of the United States specifically censures them.
[[User:Vivaldi|Vivaldi]] ([[User talk:Vivaldi|talk]]) 07:12, 21 August
2006 (UTC)
COURTS CENSORED KOREY KRUSE (VIVALDI) IS HABITUAL OFFENDER. HE NEEDS
HIS HABITUAL OFFENDER ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA.
BARBARA SCHWARZ
Frank
alic...@gmail.com
caps lock is, nor how to disengage said key.
Alice Dark
http://www.nodeadtrees.com/
Saucy111
alic...@gmail.com wrote:
> No wonder you're banned from Wikipedia: you have no clue where your
> caps lock is, nor how to disengage said key.
Here's why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_real_Barbara_Schwarz
David Morgan (MAMS)
<alic...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1156802759.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
The public would be better off banning WikiPedia. Any publicly editable
data base is not to be trusted.
"Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be the same thing as an encyclopedia: it’s
an experiment to see if accuracy can be arrived at through consensus."
... And it isn't working very well.
http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_I.html
Because of the massive number of lawsuits against Wikipedia, an enormous
number of pages have been forced to carry the heading, "This page is currently
under dispute over it's content accuracy". "This Article or section may require
cleanup", and other disclaimers. It's becoming a real sore on every teacher's
ass in the country for a few years now - that being a publicly editable database,
Wikipedia is subject to containing completely falsified or highly biased and/or
misleading information.
http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring06/wws528f/?p=68
The problem is so blatant, that various Wikipedia foreign sites are being shut
down by the respective governments to prevent the imparting of fraudulent
information to the public.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060119-6013.html
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedianewsisraelcensorship48480706.html
The big problem, is that students (and other inquisitive minds) are also
generally too lazy to find a library or other printed reference materials as
sources, so they sit behind their computers and take the easy way out...
believing that what they read in 'the 'pedia' is the truth. In the US, a great
number of teachers are currently refusing to accept Wiki as a reference
on research papers. It's a known issue that it contains false information
as a result of being publicly editable.
It's so easy to commit fraud on Wikipedia, that it's often the brunt of
practical jokes...
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=infotech&sc=&id=16057&pg=2
<same story> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/roush/posts.aspx?id=15974
Wkipedia proponents like to use the total number of "errors" or average
"accuracy" in relation to other sources like Britannica... but they aren't
staying aligned with the truth by admitting that we aren't talking about
spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors here... we're talking about
complete fraud.
http://emacsmood.livejournal.com/101766.html
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/print/brandt01212006/
Saturday, January 21, 2006
"There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic
problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia
Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia,
consider themselves responsible for the content. If you don’t believe
me, then carefully read Wikipedia’s disclaimer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
Want a sample of this crappola that people could actually, though
unintentionally, buy into without checking other sources?
June 02, 2006 http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/BUSINESS/606020422/1003/rss03
" Popular Wikipedia entries, such as on President Bush, are
continually vandalized. An entry on Wikipedia founder Jimmy
Wales once was falsified with a reference that had him being
shot dead.
Last month, oil giant ExxonMobil's entry was altered by a disgruntled
Internet user who changed the corporate slogan to "Robbing you
blind" and the name of the company chairman to "J.R. Ewing."
This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
responsibility for it's accuracy.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
Dr Zen
<ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
><alic...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1156802759.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> No wonder you're banned from Wikipedia: you have no clue where your
>> caps lock is, nor how to disengage said key.
>>
>> Alice Dark
>> http://www.nodeadtrees.com/
>
>
>The public would be better off banning WikiPedia.
No.
> Any publicly editable
>data base is not to be trusted.
>
Yes.
>
> "Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be the same thing as an encyclopedia: it’s
> an experiment to see if accuracy can be arrived at through consensus."
Yes.
>
>... And it isn't working very well.
>http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_I.html
Nutters.
>
>
>Because of the massive number of lawsuits against Wikipedia
No.
> an enormous
>number of pages have been forced to carry the heading, "This page is currently
>under dispute over it's content accuracy".
Yes.
> "This Article or section may require
>cleanup", and other disclaimers.
Yes.
> It's becoming a real sore on every teacher's
>ass in the country for a few years now - that being a publicly editable database,
>Wikipedia is subject to containing completely falsified or highly biased and/or
>misleading information.
>
Yes.
>http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring06/wws528f/?p=68
>
>
>The problem is so blatant, that various Wikipedia foreign sites are being shut
>down by the respective governments to prevent the imparting of fraudulent
>information to the public.
No.
>
>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060119-6013.html
>
>http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedianewsisraelcensorship48480706.html
>
Nutter.
>
>
>The big problem, is that students (and other inquisitive minds) are also
>generally too lazy to find a library or other printed reference materials as
>sources
Yes.
> so they sit behind their computers and take the easy way out...
>believing that what they read in 'the 'pedia' is the truth.
Yes.
> In the US, a great
>number of teachers are currently refusing to accept Wiki as a reference
>on research papers.
No.
> It's a known issue that it contains false information
>as a result of being publicly editable.
>
Yes.
>It's so easy to commit fraud on Wikipedia, that it's often the brunt of
>practical jokes...
Yes.
>http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=infotech&sc=&id=16057&pg=2
><same story> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/roush/posts.aspx?id=15974
>
>
>Wkipedia proponents like to use the total number of "errors" or average
>"accuracy" in relation to other sources like Britannica...
Yes.
> but they aren't
>staying aligned with the truth by admitting that we aren't talking about
>spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors here... we're talking about
>complete fraud.
>
Yes.
It's fairer to say that they counted total errors and didn't consider
how important the errors were.
>http://emacsmood.livejournal.com/101766.html
>
>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html
>
>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
>
>
>
>http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/print/brandt01212006/
>Saturday, January 21, 2006
>
> "There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic
> problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia
> Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia,
> consider themselves responsible for the content. If you don’t believe
> me, then carefully read Wikipedia’s disclaimer."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
Yes.
>
>
>
>Want a sample of this crappola that people could actually, though
>unintentionally, buy into without checking other sources?
>
>June 02, 2006 http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/BUSINESS/606020422/1003/rss03
>
> " Popular Wikipedia entries, such as on President Bush, are
> continually vandalized. An entry on Wikipedia founder Jimmy
> Wales once was falsified with a reference that had him being
> shot dead.
Yes, but this isn't very important. It's vandalised for about two
seconds.
>
> Last month, oil giant ExxonMobil's entry was altered by a disgruntled
> Internet user who changed the corporate slogan to "Robbing you
> blind" and the name of the company chairman to "J.R. Ewing."
For about two seconds.
>
>This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
>responsibility for it's accuracy.
It will never be a reliable source, period.
>
>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
>
>
>
>
--
Dr Zen
King of the wild pixels.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Dr Zen" <freddy...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l557f252utfok5km8...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:39:11 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
> <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
> > "Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be the same thing as an encyclopedia: it’s
> > an experiment to see if accuracy can be arrived at through consensus."
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> >... And it isn't working very well.
> > http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_I.html
> >This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
> >responsibility for it's accuracy.
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
> It will never be a reliable source, period.
Uhhh.... I think that was my point. I'm glad there are a few
others who can see it for what it is.
Barbara Schwarz
Lol. The Wikipedia cultists didn't understand me while posting with
normal letters. Now I have to try it with capital letters.
Barbara Schwarz (Looking for the original Mark [Marty] Rathbun. No
impostor, please!)
http://www.thunderstar.net/~schwarz/lrh/fbidocs.html
--
Barbzzzzz "Babbles" Graham, is the selfproclaimed "chaplain" of an
allegedly non-existing organization named ARSCC that doesn't pay taxes.
But if they don't exist, how come they have a Chief Financial Officer
(jail bird, drug loving and habitual offender Korey Jerome Kruse aka
"Simkatu" and "Lord Xenu") who works and travels on behalf of ARSCC?
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&q=%22Korey+Jerome+Kruse%22
Barbara Graham in her own words: "Anything's legal if you don't get
caught." And: "You asshole. I was *never* a good person, you sad piece
of crap. --
Spidergraham, Chaplain, ARSCC"
More: http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/graham1.html
Barbara Schwarz
Saucy111 wrote:
> alic...@gmail.com wrote:
> > No wonder you're banned from Wikipedia: you have no clue where your
> > caps lock is, nor how to disengage said key.
>
>
> Here's why:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk
What kind of sauce are you made of anyway?
Dr Zen
<ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
>"Dr Zen" <freddy...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l557f252utfok5km8...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:39:11 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
>> <ma...@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
>> > "Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be the same thing as an encyclopedia: it’s
>> > an experiment to see if accuracy can be arrived at through consensus."
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >
>> >... And it isn't working very well.
>> > http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_I.html
>
>> >This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
>> >responsibility for it's accuracy.
>> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
>
>> It will never be a reliable source, period.
>
>
>Uhhh.... I think that was my point.
Um, no. Your point was that it would be a reliable source when someone
takes responsibility for its accuracy. If you've forgotten your point
between posting it and now, I must say that you are not a good
authority on reliability.
> I'm glad there are a few
>others who can see it for what it is.
>
I think I mostly disagreed with you. No surprise there. Most
antiWikipedia nutters see monsters where there are just morons.
Barbara Schwarz
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> <alic...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1156802759.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> data base is not to be trusted.
I absolutely agree. Wikipedia has policies that remind me to those of
the STASI and KGB. There is no free speech. Somebody informed me that
he wrote friendly about me and told them to respect my privacy and that
they should delete the article on me, and he was immediately banned. He
never attacked anybody nor did he use legal threats, the big no no
within the Wikipedia cult. They deny people's constitutional rights.
And they beg for donations! This cult is abusive and above the law and
asks other people to donate money!
Wikipedia has gang members. They cooperate amongst themselves what goes
in the article and what not. They decide which article should be
deleted and which not. They ban those who disagree with them.
I read a posting of a person who informed that Wikipedia covered even
for Nazis.
I read a Wikipedia commentary by Jimbo Wales, in which he wrote that it
basically doesn't matter what's on Wikipedia about President Bush as he
has no time to read it.
Wikipedia is not about the truth. They are also afraid to make
research. They just collect libel and rumors and defamation from other
places and collect them to Wikipedia as "the truth". It is completely
unprofessional. They allow vanity articles (as that of Tilman Hausherr)
or Karin Spaink, the "Cardinal" of the "Church" of Euthanasia cult and
other vanity articles. These articles are mainly written by these
people themselves.
>
> "Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the same thing as an encyclopedia: it's
> an experiment to see if accuracy can be arrived at through consensus."
>
> ... And it isn't working very well.
> http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_I.html
You are right, it does not work, as that "consensus" is just by certain
gang members it is not by the public. The public, if it does agree, is
being banned.
>
>
> Because of the massive number of lawsuits against Wikipedia, an enormous
> number of pages have been forced to carry the heading, "This page is currently
> under dispute over it's content accuracy". "This Article or section may require
> cleanup", and other disclaimers. It's becoming a real sore on every teacher's
> ass in the country for a few years now - that being a publicly editable database,
> Wikipedia is subject to containing completely falsified or highly biased and/or
> misleading information.
>
> http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring06/wws528f/?p=68
Exactly. Wikipiggi removed already one defamatory article about me with
which I was harassed for a year! And the "new" article turns out to be
the same defamatory thing as the other one. As they banned me, they
guess around and defame me with all kinds of crazy theories in the talk
pages. It is a shame. It is completely unprofessional.
>
>
> The problem is so blatant, that various Wikipedia foreign sites are being shut
> down by the respective governments to prevent the imparting of fraudulent
> information to the public.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060119-6013.html
>
> http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedianewsisraelcensorship48480706.html
I am glad that more and more people are looking through this scam
called Wikipedia.
>
>
>
> The big problem, is that students (and other inquisitive minds) are also
> generally too lazy to find a library or other printed reference materials as
> sources, so they sit behind their computers and take the easy way out...
> believing that what they read in 'the 'pedia' is the truth. In the US, a great
> number of teachers are currently refusing to accept Wiki as a reference
> on research papers. It's a known issue that it contains false information
> as a result of being publicly editable.
>
> It's so easy to commit fraud on Wikipedia, that it's often the brunt of
> practical jokes...
> http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=infotech&sc=&id=16057&pg=2
> <same story> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/roush/posts.aspx?id=15974
Exactly, I always say, who gets his education from Wikipedia, is an
idiot. I never go there when I need a definition. I look elsewhere.
>
>
> Wkipedia proponents like to use the total number of "errors" or average
> "accuracy" in relation to other sources like Britannica... but they aren't
> staying aligned with the truth by admitting that we aren't talking about
> spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors here... we're talking about
> complete fraud.
>
> http://emacsmood.livejournal.com/101766.html
>
> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
Very true. Besides, once you know who the editors and admins of
Wikipedia are, you lose even more respect. Jimbo Wales was or still is
the CEO of Boomis, a porn seach engine; the guy who controls the
article of me is Fred Bauder, just an inch under Wakes, was reprimanded
by the Colorado Supreme Court as involved in prostitution; Vivaldi is
Korey Jerome Kruse, who is according to judges an habitual offender and
just came out of jail; Tilman Hausherr is a German secret service guy,
who is pro eugenics and wants to hurt the American tourism, and so
on... Very "impressive".
>
>
>
> http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/print/brandt01212006/
> Saturday, January 21, 2006
>
> "There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic
> problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia
> Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia,
> consider themselves responsible for the content. If you don't believe
> me, then carefully read Wikipedia's disclaimer."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
Right, they defame and libel anonymously. It is unbelievable. Wikipedia
violates numerous laws.
>
>
>
> Want a sample of this crappola that people could actually, though
> unintentionally, buy into without checking other sources?
>
> June 02, 2006 http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/BUSINESS/606020422/1003/rss03
>
> " Popular Wikipedia entries, such as on President Bush, are
> continually vandalized. An entry on Wikipedia founder Jimmy
> Wales once was falsified with a reference that had him being
> shot dead.
>
> Last month, oil giant ExxonMobil's entry was altered by a disgruntled
> Internet user who changed the corporate slogan to "Robbing you
> blind" and the name of the company chairman to "J.R. Ewing."
>
> This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
> responsibility for it's accuracy.
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
Very true.
Thanks for the posting and the references, David.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Barbara Schwarz" <barbara...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
>
> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> Exactly, I always say, who gets his education from Wikipedia, is an
> idiot. I never go there when I need a definition. I look elsewhere.
I go there often, but I don't trust the vast majority of what I read. It's definitely
an 'alternative' source for comparison. I definitely stay away from the groups
and the people surrounding the place.
> > Wkipedia proponents like to use the total number of "errors" or average
> > "accuracy" in relation to other sources like Britannica... but they aren't
> > staying aligned with the truth by admitting that we aren't talking about
> > spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors here... we're talking about
> > complete fraud.
> >
> > http://emacsmood.livejournal.com/101766.html
> >
> > http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html
> >
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
>
> Very true. Besides, once you know who the editors and admins of
> Wikipedia are, you lose even more respect. Jimbo Wales was or still is
> the CEO of Boomis, a porn seach engine; the guy who controls the
> article of me is Fred Bauder, just an inch under Wakes, was reprimanded
> by the Colorado Supreme Court as involved in prostitution; Vivaldi is
> Korey Jerome Kruse, who is according to judges an habitual offender and
> just came out of jail; Tilman Hausherr is a German secret service guy,
> who is pro eugenics and wants to hurt the American tourism, and so
> on... Very "impressive".
A lot of that is news to me... but the faults of Wiki have been obvious
for some time.
> > http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/print/brandt01212006/
> > Saturday, January 21, 2006
> >
> > "There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic
> > problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia
> > Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia,
> > consider themselves responsible for the content. If you don't believe
> > me, then carefully read Wikipedia's disclaimer."
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
>
> Right, they defame and libel anonymously. It is unbelievable. Wikipedia
> violates numerous laws.
But no one is in charge to be accused.... convenient, eh?
> > This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
> > responsibility for it's accuracy.
> >
> > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
>
> Very true.
>
> Thanks for the posting and the references, David.
NP & YW.... it was quick Googling... and there's tons more.
DM
Dr Zen
<barbara...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>> <alic...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1156802759.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> The public would be better off banning WikiPedia. Any publicly editable
>> data base is not to be trusted.
>
>I absolutely agree.
You agree that it should be banned?
> Wikipedia has policies that remind me to those of
>the STASI and KGB. There is no free speech.
So it should be banned?
> Somebody informed me that
>he wrote friendly about me and told them to respect my privacy and that
>they should delete the article on me, and he was immediately banned.
He wasn't actually there to be constructive then?
> He
>never attacked anybody nor did he use legal threats, the big no no
>within the Wikipedia cult. They deny people's constitutional rights.
What constitutional right? The right to be a nutter anywhere you
choose?
>And they beg for donations! This cult is abusive and above the law and
>asks other people to donate money!
It's entirely constrained by the law. You wouldn't expect the owner of
the New York Times to carry your opinions, would you?
>
>Wikipedia has gang members. They cooperate amongst themselves what goes
>in the article and what not.
Well yes, of course.
> They decide which article should be
>deleted and which not.
Should no articles be deleted?
> They ban those who disagree with them.
>
Well, no. I disagree with them a lot and I've never been banned. I
doubt I ever will be, although there are plenty of geeky schoolboys
who get upset at adult conversation, so you never know. But if you are
just a fuckhead, what can you expect? It's a website that is willing
to ban fuckheads.
>I read a posting of a person who informed that Wikipedia covered even
>for Nazis.
What does that sentence mean? Wikipedia is strongly biased against
Nazis. It is strongly pro-Zionist.
>I read a Wikipedia commentary by Jimbo Wales, in which he wrote that it
>basically doesn't matter what's on Wikipedia about President Bush as he
>has no time to read it.
No, that isn't what he said but it's true enough that Jimbo is more
worried about people who are likely to sue him than people who aren't.
>
>Wikipedia is not about the truth.
It doesn't claim to be.
What is the truth anyway? On most issues, there are at least two or
three.
> They are also afraid to make
>research.
No. They disallow research that is not printed elsewhere. There's
nothing sinister in an encyclopaedia's doing that.
>They just collect libel and rumors and defamation from other
>places and collect them to Wikipedia as "the truth".
Yes, sometimes they do.
> It is completely
>unprofessional.
It's not made by professionals.
> They allow vanity articles (as that of Tilman Hausherr)
>or Karin Spaink, the "Cardinal" of the "Church" of Euthanasia cult and
>other vanity articles. These articles are mainly written by these
>people themselves.
>
Yes, so what? Who else would write them?
>> "Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the same thing as an encyclopedia: it's
>> an experiment to see if accuracy can be arrived at through consensus."
>
>>
>> ... And it isn't working very well.
>> http://www.aetherometry.com/antiwikipedia/Section_I.html
>
>You are right, it does not work, as that "consensus" is just by certain
>gang members it is not by the public. The public, if it does agree, is
>being banned.
Well, only certain elements of the public.
>>
>>
>> Because of the massive number of lawsuits against Wikipedia, an enormous
>> number of pages have been forced to carry the heading, "This page is currently
>> under dispute over it's content accuracy". "This Article or section may require
>> cleanup", and other disclaimers. It's becoming a real sore on every teacher's
>> ass in the country for a few years now - that being a publicly editable database,
>> Wikipedia is subject to containing completely falsified or highly biased and/or
>> misleading information.
>>
>> http://courseblog.cs.princeton.edu/spring06/wws528f/?p=68
>
>Exactly. Wikipiggi removed already one defamatory article about me with
>which I was harassed for a year!
It's not exactly harassing you, is it? A short article, repeating
otherwise available facts? Not terribly oppressive.
> And the "new" article turns out to be
>the same defamatory thing as the other one. As they banned me, they
>guess around and defame me with all kinds of crazy theories in the talk
>pages. It is a shame. It is completely unprofessional.
Articles tend to be less accurate the less important the people they
are about are.
Anyway, if you didn't like the article, you should have done what
anyone sensible would do. Get ten people to sign up and falsify the
article bit by bit. No one gives enough of a fuck about you to put up
a big fight.
>>
>>
>> The problem is so blatant, that various Wikipedia foreign sites are being shut
>> down by the respective governments to prevent the imparting of fraudulent
>> information to the public.
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060119-6013.html
>>
>> http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedianewsisraelcensorship48480706.html
>
>I am glad that more and more people are looking through this scam
>called Wikipedia.
It's just a pity most are crackers.
>>
>>
>>
>> The big problem, is that students (and other inquisitive minds) are also
>> generally too lazy to find a library or other printed reference materials as
>> sources, so they sit behind their computers and take the easy way out...
>> believing that what they read in 'the 'pedia' is the truth. In the US, a great
>> number of teachers are currently refusing to accept Wiki as a reference
>> on research papers. It's a known issue that it contains false information
>> as a result of being publicly editable.
>>
>> It's so easy to commit fraud on Wikipedia, that it's often the brunt of
>> practical jokes...
>> http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=infotech&sc=&id=16057&pg=2
>> <same story> http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/roush/posts.aspx?id=15974
>
>Exactly, I always say, who gets his education from Wikipedia, is an
>idiot. I never go there when I need a definition. I look elsewhere.
Does anyone get their education from Wikipedia? I thought most places
had schools.
>>
>>
>> Wkipedia proponents like to use the total number of "errors" or average
>> "accuracy" in relation to other sources like Britannica... but they aren't
>> staying aligned with the truth by admitting that we aren't talking about
>> spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors here... we're talking about
>> complete fraud.
>>
>> http://emacsmood.livejournal.com/101766.html
>>
>> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html
>>
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
>
>Very true. Besides, once you know who the editors and admins of
>Wikipedia are, you lose even more respect.
That's silly.
> Jimbo Wales was or still is
>the CEO of Boomis, a porn seach engine; the guy who controls the
>article of me is Fred Bauder, just an inch under Wakes, was reprimanded
>by the Colorado Supreme Court as involved in prostitution
So what?
> Vivaldi is
>Korey Jerome Kruse, who is according to judges an habitual offender and
>just came out of jail; Tilman Hausherr is a German secret service guy,
>who is pro eugenics and wants to hurt the American tourism, and so
>on... Very "impressive".
Who the fuck are those people?
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/print/brandt01212006/
>> Saturday, January 21, 2006
>>
>> "There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic
>> problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia
>> Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia,
>> consider themselves responsible for the content. If you don't believe
>> me, then carefully read Wikipedia's disclaimer."
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
>
>Right, they defame and libel anonymously. It is unbelievable. Wikipedia
>violates numerous laws.
No, it doesn't. It rather smartly avoids breaking them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Want a sample of this crappola that people could actually, though
>> unintentionally, buy into without checking other sources?
>>
>> June 02, 2006 http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/BUSINESS/606020422/1003/rss03
>>
>> " Popular Wikipedia entries, such as on President Bush, are
>> continually vandalized. An entry on Wikipedia founder Jimmy
>> Wales once was falsified with a reference that had him being
>> shot dead.
>>
>> Last month, oil giant ExxonMobil's entry was altered by a disgruntled
>> Internet user who changed the corporate slogan to "Robbing you
>> blind" and the name of the company chairman to "J.R. Ewing."
>>
>> This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
>> responsibility for it's accuracy.
>>
>> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
>
>Very true.
>
>Thanks for the posting and the references, David.
>
>Barbara Schwarz (Looking for the original Mark [Marty] Rathbun. No
>impostor, please!)
>
>http://www.thunderstar.net/~schwarz/lrh/fbidocs.html
Is this one of the nutter scientologists that so enliven some
Wikipedians' lives?
Wikipedia is shit. No question. But it would be worse if you ran it.
Stilllov...@myway.com
David Morgan (MAMS) schrieb:
> "Barbara Schwarz" <barbara...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> >
> > David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>
> > Exactly, I always say, who gets his education from Wikipedia, is an
> > idiot. I never go there when I need a definition. I look elsewhere.
>
> I go there often, but I don't trust the vast majority of what I read. It's definitely
> an 'alternative' source for comparison. I definitely stay away from the groups
> and the people surrounding the place.
Well, somebody has to watch Wikipiggi. :)
>
> > > Wkipedia proponents like to use the total number of "errors" or average
> > > "accuracy" in relation to other sources like Britannica... but they aren't
> > > staying aligned with the truth by admitting that we aren't talking about
> > > spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors here... we're talking about
> > > complete fraud.
> > >
> > > http://emacsmood.livejournal.com/101766.html
> > >
> > > http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20051212.html
> > >
> > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
> >
> > Very true. Besides, once you know who the editors and admins of
> > Wikipedia are, you lose even more respect. Jimbo Wales was or still is
> > the CEO of Boomis, a porn seach engine; the guy who controls the
> > article of me is Fred Bauder, just an inch under Wakes, was reprimanded
> > by the Colorado Supreme Court as involved in prostitution; Vivaldi is
> > Korey Jerome Kruse, who is according to judges an habitual offender and
> > just came out of jail; Tilman Hausherr is a German secret service guy,
> > who is pro eugenics and wants to hurt the American tourism, and so
> > on... Very "impressive".
>
> A lot of that is news to me... but the faults of Wiki have been obvious
> for some time.
My personal experience is that good people are being blocked and the
rotten folks can continue. It is esp. bad when they defame people.
>
>
> > > http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/print/brandt01212006/
> > > Saturday, January 21, 2006
> > >
> > > "There is a problem with the structure of Wikipedia. The basic
> > > problem is that no one, neither the Trustees of Wikimedia
> > > Foundation, nor the volunteers who are connected with Wikipedia,
> > > consider themselves responsible for the content. If you don't believe
> > > me, then carefully read Wikipedia's disclaimer."
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer
> >
> > Right, they defame and libel anonymously. It is unbelievable. Wikipedia
> > violates numerous laws.
>
> But no one is in charge to be accused.... convenient, eh?
Exactly. It is illegal. I don't understand that Jimbo Wales and the
Wikipedia Board came away with this sofar. But I think they are playing
Russian roulette. They will shot in their own heads one day.
>
>
> > > This (Wikipedia) will never be a reliable source until someone takes
> > > responsibility for it's accuracy.
> > >
> > > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1900708,00.asp
> >
> > Very true.
> >
> > Thanks for the posting and the references, David.
>
>
> NP & YW.... it was quick Googling... and there's tons more.
>
> DM
What do you mean with NP & YW?
Barbara Schwarz
David Morgan (MAMS)
<Stilllov...@myway.com> wrote in message news:1156910065....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
No problem and you're welcome. ;-)
David Morgan (MAMS)
>
> > "Barbara Schwarz" <barbara...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> > >
> > > David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> >
> > > Exactly, I always say, who gets his education from Wikipedia, is an
> > > idiot. I never go there when I need a definition. I look elsewhere.
> >
> > I go there often, but I don't trust the vast majority of what I read. It's definitely
> > an 'alternative' source for comparison. I definitely stay away from the groups
> > and the people surrounding the place.
>
>
> Well, somebody has to watch Wikipiggi. :)
What I see is that biased people with personal ideas they'd like to push on
civilization, are attempting to do the editing. Most of them probablt far too
young to have any business there.
I visited WikiPedia 4 times today (on extremely controversial issues, like 911,
vote fraud, etc) and every single page I visited had a disclaimer as to the
validity of it's content.
Crozo
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Baby Bro" <psllv...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
> So, I guess for the meanwhile, Kruse will be found spewing his hate on
> Usenet and Wikipggi.
And people call this place "reference material" ?!?
Barbara Schwarz
Baby Bro wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> Barbara Schwarz wrote:
>
> > ::::::::In the real grande scheme of things, none of this will matter
> > one iota in a thousand years, and in 100,000 years, or 1 billion years
> > from now, in a history of the universe, I would suspect that the entire
> > planet Earth and our solar system will be relatively unimportant.
> > Heck, even the entire Milky Way Galaxy is sort of insignificant and
> > unimportant. It really only matters to people that happen to be alive
> > right now and want to learn more about a topic that they've heard
> > about. And I would put forth than many folks on the Internet are
> > curious to learn more about Ms. Schwarz's vast FOIA records persuits,
> > her large numbers of frivilous lawsuits, and her posting of her life
> > story on Usenet. Why are people interested? Probably for the same
> > reason people look at train wrecks and say "Wow".
> > [[User:Vivaldi|Vivaldi]] ([[User talk:Vivaldi|talk]]) 07:09, 21 August
> > 2006 (UTC)
> >
> >
> > KOREY KRUSE (VIVALDI) IS A BUM. SINCE MORE THAN A DECADE HE IS IN
> > TROUBLE WITH THE LAW. THE JUDGE CALLED HIM AN HABITUAL OFFENDER. HE
> > COULD WORK BUT HE DOESN'T, HAS AS GOOD AS NO CENT AND NEEDS PUBLIC
> > DEFENDERS TO GET HIM OUT OF CRIMINAL LEGAL TROUBLES. HE WAS ORDERED BY
> > A COURT TO UNDERGO PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION.
>
> OFFENDER" by Judge Trigg. The info is here, including the court website
> which shows Kruse was given 270 days in jail and 1 year on probation:
>
> Go to - http://www.jococourts.org/ and then paste this case number of
> 02TC12061 into the case number form and hit the enter key.
There you have the train wreck. He also stole pool cues and wrote
numerous false checks.
>
> > AND HE CALLS ME OF ALL PEOPLE A TRAIN WRECK? IT ALSO SHOWS THAT KRUSE
> > WANTS THIS ARTICLE SOLELY TO MISINFORM ABOUT ME AND HARASS ME.
>
> Kruse has obsessed over you for more than one year on Wikipedia. He
> really appears to have not much else to do except help to create a
> harassment and smear article in order to get your name #1 in a Google
> ranking. That's what it's all about for him. And that's not much of a
> life.
What a shame. Remember when you found that website that says that he is
looking for a girlfriend? He can't get any as he doesn't leave his
crummy place and he makes no money. No woman likes a guy who has to
sell porn mags on e-bay to make money.
>
> I suppose one day if Mr. 'Booze Kruse' ever decides to get a job and a
> life, then you won't be so important to him any longer. Pity he can't
> do so now. But I suppose he's still got a lot of growing up to do, even
> though he's 35 years old now.
He acts as if he would be mindwise still in puperty. Some people never
mature in mind, it is a pity.
>
> So, I guess for the meanwhile, Kruse will be found spewing his hate on
> Usenet and Wikipggi. And as side trips, Kruse will no doubt be found
> lurking about in the shadows with his digital camera harassing
> Scientologists at their missions. What a life...
Life of a habitual offender creep.
Thanks, for posting facts, Baby Bro.
--
Barbara Schwarz (Looking for the original Mark [Marty] Rathbun. No
impostor, please!)
http://www.thunderstar.net/~schwarz/lrh/fbidocs.html
--
(I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities.)
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
Read the pages on terrorist-friendly Andreas Heldal-Lund (arrested for
harassment):
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/lund/Lund04.html
Wikipedia defamation scribbler and pro eugenics Tilman Joerg Hausherr,
linked to the fanatical German secret service OPC, enemy of the USA
wants to hurt American tourism.
http://www.parishioners.org/extremists/hauser1.html
http://www.alarmgermany.org/tilman.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/8962a9830812112f?hl=en&
Barbara Schwarz
Baby Bro wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> ~baby bro~
They are reference material for rumour and lies. The Internet should be
the highway of information but it is not as you can trust not much, in
other words, it is a waste of time, and that waste of time is causes by
people like Kruse and Hausherr
and Orsini and other hate mongers.
Peter Widmer
Ach ja, die schizophrene Psychobarbie halluziniert im Delirium :-)
Peter
--
Peter Widmer <pwi...@quicknet.ch>
3802 Waldegg <http://www.pewid.ch>