The whole Fishman thing
Martin G. V. Hunt
Juli Lawrence (ju...@i1.net) writes:
> I am trying to follow the Steve Fishman story....and I'm more confused
> than ever.
>
> Is there a web page or does someone have a synopsis of what has happened
> to date?
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Well, if the whole thing interests you your best bet to understand it
is to read his book, Lonesome Squirell, and then do a dejanews search for
the posts on the subject and read those by the ars regulars and Steve's
responces (if any.)
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
Have you ever tried to serve papers on a meme?
It's like trying to nail Jello to the ceiling. -Jeff Bell
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <juli-17059...@bel-240.i1.net>, Juli Lawrence writes:
>P.S. Here's what I understand so far:
>Steve was in the CoS organization and did some illegal things for CoS. He
>got caught and spent some time in prison. Now he's left CoS and is telling
>all.
Yes: and suing them over things they did to him.
>However...people are now questioning his sincerity,
>
Um, no. I don't think anyone doubts he is sincerely against CoS.
Some people have questioned the sort of tactics he might use
e.g. outing clam spokespeople, and his accuracy [in outing the
WRONG addresses of innocent namesakes: sort of our very own
opeeration foot-bullet].
Added to that he wrote a book of
his experiences called the ''Lonesome Squirrel'' and people
are asking obvious questions like ''is this supposed to be
a factual record: for instance you say Jose Soap was fat and
fair-haired and lived in LA at the time, but I heard he was
thin and dark-haired and lived in Alaska.'' They aren't
trivial differences because they matter to his case, and
to the history of events in the Church. I don't know who's
right and who's wrong. There ARE discrepancies: *I* don't
know whether they're minor and accidental in an accurate
account, or whether the thing is a work of fiction
and should have been called that from the outset.
>even going so far
>as to call him a plant from the group.
>
I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool.
Look, try reading the Web.
/x/clam/lynx/lynx1.html is the big index
/x/clam/lynx/quickref.html is the line-per-page index.
You will find STEVE FISHMAN'S webpage in there
including the Lonesome Squirrel [it's very large!]
On KARIN SPAINK's page you will find
the FISHMAN AFFIDAVIT from his case.
--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on (alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----, ++++++++++++(/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
SOse278720
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
From: Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 20:58:01 +0100
Message-ID: <M9HnysCJ...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
In article <juli-17059...@bel-240.i1.net>, Juli Lawrence writes:
>P.S. Here's what I understand so far:
>Steve was in the CoS organization and did some illegal things for CoS. He
>got caught and spent some time in prison. Now he's left CoS and is
telling
>all.
Yes: and suing them over things they did to him.
>However...people are now questioning his sincerity,
<snip>
>even going so far
>as to call him a plant from the group.
>
I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
READ BELOW, FOR ENLIGHTENMENT:
Subject: Re: Hypnosis induction was successfully used to clarify recall in
Lonesome Squirrel
From: inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)
Date: 18 May 1996 19:21:03 -0700
Message-ID: <319e80ab...@news.primenet.com>
David Gerard <f...@suburbia.net> wrote:
>inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>>see...@ix.netcom.com (h3) wrote:
>
>>> [I]n any event, i take
>>> your assertions here to mean that you intended Lonesome Squirrel
>>> to be as factual and honest an account of your experience with
>>> scientology as you can present?
>DENNIS:
>> A yes or no will do, Steve.
>>[Aside - I personally am examining the possibility that the whole deal
>>is a fig-newton of Steve's obviously fertile imagination, and that,
>>based on that possibility, he may be OSA's Trojan Horse.]
>> If I'm thinkin' it, shouldn't I tell ya? Am I outta line, buddy?
David:
>(raises hand)
Mmmm. Yes, David.
>Did any of the legal cases between the Church and Fishman ever happen?
Yes.
>Are they still happening?
Yes.
>Why? As cover?
Perhaps to establish that Fishman is a liar and a criminal. Perhaps
to set precedent.
You have never known people like Fishman (those who have dirty
tricked the cult's enemies and done crimes *for* the scienos) to
flip-flop? I certainly have. Enough times to notice similarities.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
SOse278720
Subject: Re: Let me put it this way ...
From: Steve Fishman <xe...@ix.netcom.com>
Date: 18 May 1996 02:45:52 GMT
Message-ID: <4njdl0$c...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) writes:
> Faithful Reader,
> You may be wondering about my recent Change of Opinion(tm) about Mr.
> Fishman. Let me put it this way:
> If Fishman were Slammin' n Scamin' in this, my church.
*Your* church, Dennis; I like that!
STEVE F.
This is a newsgroup. It is NOT a church.
DENNIS:
> That is to say, lying, misrepresenting himself, or painting the
> scienokult as worse than it *actually is*, for personally gain,
> or, really any twisted reason, I would need no help from the scienos
> to discredit him. Double-quick. And that dime may already have been
> dropped. (not by me)
STEVE F:
Where is your proof for ANY of these accusations?
DENNIS:
> It's just being a good net.citizen. Z'nit?
STEVE:
A good net citizen would never accuse anyone of these crimes
without any proof.
DENNIS:
> If he's gonna behave we will soon know.
And have you stopped beating *your* wife, Dennis? (Hmm...that's pretty
apropos, at that.)
STEVE F>
I am in charge of my own behavior, I always will be. I am glad
that in the real world you are not the judge of it.
DENNIS:
> I know that's a ho'lotta 'ifs'.
You said it, Dennis.
DENNIS:
(just like in the loathsome
> rodent's tail)
STEVE F.
I don't know why you are putting yourself in the unenviable
position of being the number one selectee for Scientology's
witness list, but if you have a valid reason why, I would
like to know.
I know you do not believe my opinion, but the Church of
Scientology has FAR WORSE than I wrote about in my book.
If you disagree, tell it to the families of David Sandweiss,
Noah Lottick, Susan Meister and all the others who committed
suicide or were murdered.
--- Steve Fishman
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <dennis....@support.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
???????????????????
Sorry, Dennis, I really think you should be ashamed of yourself. If you
are responding to a "ho'lotta if's", it seems to me the rational and
humane response is not a "Change of Opinion(tm)" but a supension of
judgment until you have the facts.
Change of opinion (with the exception, perhaps, of your trademarked
brand) customarily_and I think correctly_ results from knowledge, not
supicion.
Particularly if you have supposedly been the person's "friend" (though
apparently we have different definitions of that word).
In fact, what first drew me into this contretemps with you was seeing that
you justified your careless swipes at Fishman's veracity in the name of
"friendship" (the post was to Martin, I believe)
.
Now, in my book, friends do not spread unsubstantiated rumors about
their friends, particularly as if they were facts. Period.
I don't even know Fishman, believe it or not. You obviously have met
him, talked with him, exchanged confidences with him, and called yourself
his friend; and now, with nothing but a bunch of "ifs" as justification
(I'm deliberately omitting Lonesome Squirrel as "evidence") you sell him
down river. God preserve me from "friends" like you.
Perhaps the fact of his having written a "self-dead-agenting" book like
Lonesome Squirrel makes people think he has no reputation to lose, and
that it's OK to lob mud at him.
I have been trying to separate truth from fiction or careless assumption
in the matter of Steven's truthfulness on this newsgroup, for the past
week, and I have yet to turn up, after repeated challenges and requests
for information, a single instance of deliberate falsehood on his part.
Particularly given this fact, I see no reason to for anyone to
vociferously maintain in public that he is scamming the newsgroup, not
telling the truth, etc, unless there is solid evidence for such claims.
Obviously any research that is thought to be necessary will be done, but
hopefully without extraneous insult and premature condemnation.
I would like to point out, Dennis, that whenever anyone on this group
carelessly or maliciously perpetuates the story that you were and are a
physically abusive person, you make sure that it stops right there. As
indeed you should; even with all your care there will always be someone,
when the subject comes up, who says, "Oh, that was just when he was in the
Church_ he's reformed now." And you have to start all over again to
dispel the rumor that you *were* a vicious and physically abusive person.
Is that fun, Dennis? Is that something you think others should have to go
through? Is that something you are going to make damned *sure* others go
through? It seems so.
I don't know what's put this bug up your ass, but I think it's time for
you to sit back and think about what if these "ifs" *aren't*, in fact
true? Which mistake would you rather have made, looking back on
(hypothetical) Judgment Day_ that you gave someone the benefit of the
doubt and were subsequently proved wrong, or that you energetically set
about to drag your friend's name in the mud, only to find out that he was
innocent? Your pick, Dennis.
and a few lines of pure rant:
Oh, and by the way, your scieno roots are showing. You're sure you were
never an Ethics officer? Why do I get the feeling Fishman's just been
declared?
Wow, that's gotta be a first: a double SP. Church of Scamitology, and
Church of Erlichology_or is it Dennisology?
I must say that the atmosphere of your "church" is getting a little
oppressive; guess I'll go hang out with the SPs like Fishman, where I can
breathe easier.
(end of rant)
And just one more thing, Dennis_ This isn't *like* you.
What's up????
Steve O.
Temporary FishFlack
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Quotation for Big Sis_ Cassio in Shakespeare's *Othello*:
"Reputation, reputation, reputation_O, I ha' lost my reputation, I ha'
lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial. My
reputation, Iago, my reputation."
Uh-oh: "Iago"; he should *not* be confiding in Iago.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
Juli:
>>even going so far
>>as to call him a plant from the group.
OSteve:
>I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool.
Just as anyone who asserts the above was not a possibility, really
better be able to show us the facts that back up such certainty. Ie.
how do you <excuse the caps> KNOW? Do you use a particular method to
arrive at such certainty?
>READ BELOW, FOR ENLIGHTENMENT:
/
What is this? Your eye-catching billboard? Then you go on to
include a bunch of header. Take a driver's ed course. Learn the
rules. Get a license.
>Subject: Re: Hypnosis induction was successfully used to clarify recall in
>Lonesome Squirrel
>From: inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)
>Date: 18 May 1996 19:21:03 -0700
>Message-ID: <319e80ab...@news.primenet.com>
SFingW?
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>Sorry, Dennis,
Thanks for the apology. What's it for?
>I really think you should be ashamed of yourself.
In a lotta ways I am.
>If you
>are responding to a "ho'lotta if's", it seems to me the rational and
>humane response is not a "Change of Opinion(tm)" but a supension of
>judgment until you have the facts.
Didn't you say this somewhere else? And didn't I answer that I'd
changed my opinion about believing Steve without verifying what he
says independently?
Don't bother yourself trying to "fix" the way I go about changing my
mind. It's not mental condition that needs to be addressed,
thankyouverymuch. I try to be open-minded and never so opinionated
that I couldn't be induced to change my opinion if presented with a
greater perspective on a question.
> Change of opinion (with the exception, perhaps, of your trademarked
>brand) customarily_and I think correctly_ results from knowledge, not
>supicion.
If I'm reading this right, you are making an very ugly accusation
about the results of my voicing facts and opinions in this public
forum. Is that what you meant? If so, I am compelled to request that
you cease such defamation, or face the consequences.
> Particularly if you have supposedly been the person's "friend" (though
>apparently we have different definitions of that word).
Undoubtedly. More's the blessing.
>In fact, what first drew me into this contretemps with you was seeing that
>you justified your careless swipes at Fishman's veracity in the name of
>"friendship" (the post was to Martin, I believe)
Well, what am I supposed to say. I like(d) Steve. He's kind of a
funny guy. I felt/feel that a vast majority of his ideas, at least
the ones that he expresses, are truly goofy. I won't go into details.
That'd be another story.
> Now, in my book, friends do not spread unsubstantiated rumors about
>their friends, particularly as if they were facts. Period.
It's enough to have to read your posts. I ain't buyin no steenkin
book.
> I don't even know Fishman, believe it or not.
Have you ever lied to me yet?
>You obviously have met
>him, talked with him, exchanged confidences with him, and called yourself
>his friend; and now, with nothing but a bunch of "ifs" as justification
>(I'm deliberately omitting Lonesome Squirrel as "evidence") you sell him
>down river. God preserve me from "friends" like you.
I did answer this! (its all coming back to me now)
<ELatella mode = ON> "Nevermind"
SOse278720
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
Message-ID: <319f5313...@news.primenet.com>
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
Juli:
>>even going so far
>>as to call him a plant from the group.
OSteve:
>I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool.
Just as anyone who asserts the above was not a possibility, really
better be able to show us the facts that back up such certainty. Ie.
how do you <excuse the caps> KNOW? Do you use a particular method to
arrive at such certainty?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pace, Dennis, you got the wrong guy. 'Twuzzen me. Here's the way it
should read:
Juli:
>>even going so far
>>as to call him a plant from the group.
DAVE BIRD:
>I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How could you think I would say that, Dennis? It would obviously be a
lie, since you know I know it's been said. And I wouldn't say the second
half, either, because I know you've said it, and I don't think you're a
fool.
Steve O.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <4nmd6l$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, SOse278720
<sose2...@aol.com> writes
>
>>even going so far
>>as to call him a plant from the group.
>>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This was posed and mailed was it (annoying habit not to specify)?
OK, I hadn't seen those articles.
I think David is just wildly wrong, which happens to us all
sometimes, and Dennis points this out to him....
...but suggests Steve might flipflop in future.
Well, Dennis has more background than me,
but somehow this doesn't ring true to me at all.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
Juli:
>>>even going so far
>>>as to call him a plant from the group.
OSteve:
>>I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool.
Me:
> Just as anyone who asserts the above was not a possibility, really
>better be able to show us the facts that back up such certainty. Ie.
>how do you <excuse the caps> KNOW? Do you use a particular method to
>arrive at such certainty?
SteveO:
>Pace, Dennis, you got the wrong guy. 'Twuzzen me.
Sorry. Figure out how to quote and trim d*mn headers out of your
posts.
>Here's the way it should read:
>
>Juli:
>>>even going so far
>>>as to call him a plant from the group.
>
>DAVE BIRD:
>>I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool
SO:
>How could you think I would say that, Dennis?
Bad formatting of your posts and the words they contain.
>It would obviously be a lie, since you know I know it's been said.
'It' being, accusations that Fishman is an OSA plant? No, I don't
think anyone has said that. I know I haven't. So I don't, in fact,
know that you know that 'it's' been said. I know you are trying to
make it seem as if that is what Steve is being accused of, but it
isn't.
Accusations are different. Like, "Lyman Spurlock raped so-and-so,
on (date), at (location)."
*That* is an accusation.
>And I wouldn't say the second half, either, because I know you've said it,
Ah, but I haven't. I have, however, had cause to wonder why Steve
would misrepresent the veracity of events described in the Rodent's
Tail.
>and I don't think you're a fool.
So glad to hear it.
Your double-talk posting style kinda reminds me of a combination of
a couple of other fools, Whipsnapper's logic and WW Bogsworth/Danzig's
formatting. They both talk in circles, too.
Diane Richardson
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>Subject: Re: Let me put it this way ...
>From: Steve Fishman <xe...@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: 18 May 1996 02:45:52 GMT
>Message-ID: <4njdl0$c...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
>inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) writes:
>DENNIS:
>> If he's gonna behave we will soon know.
>And have you stopped beating *your* wife, Dennis? (Hmm...that's pretty
>apropos, at that.)
And just who is accusing whom of dead-agenting here?
hmmmmm.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Diane Richardson
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>Subject: Re: Let me put it this way ...
>From: Steve Fishman <xe...@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: 18 May 1996 02:45:52 GMT
>Message-ID: <4njdl0$c...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
>inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) writes:
[snip]
>Sorry, Dennis, I really think you should be ashamed of yourself. If you
>are responding to a "ho'lotta if's", it seems to me the rational and
>humane response is not a "Change of Opinion(tm)" but a supension of
>judgment until you have the facts.
> Change of opinion (with the exception, perhaps, of your trademarked
>brand) customarily_and I think correctly_ results from knowledge, not
>supicion.
That's a thoroughly specious statement and not supported by reality.
Many times (perhaps most times) people are unable to gain all the
facts required to render a knowledgeable judgment about something.
When this occurs (say, as in a political situation like the Whitewater
deals), people can either suspend judgment or form an opinion based on
their own observations.
While we would *all* like to know every bit of information surrounding
the alleged rape of Lisa Van Schaick by Lyman Spurlock, to which
Steven Fishman claims to have been an accomplice, there is very little
likelihood that we will *ever* acquire all the necessary facts
relevant to the situation.
There may be U.S. voters who refuse to vote in the upcoming
Presidential election because they haven't yet got all of the
*knowledge* they need to make a decision about Whitewater.
But I'll guarantee that far more people will vote, trusting the
opinion they've reached from analyzing the few facts they know
tempered with their own observations of the personalities and the
situation involved.
That's precisely what I am doing here with Steven Fishman. I don't
doubt that others are doing the same as well.
> Particularly if you have supposedly been the person's "friend" (though
>apparently we have different definitions of that word).
Some friends prove by their actions not to be worthy of friendship.
At times there are principles far greater than mere friendship that
must be honored. Surely you must realize that.
>In fact, what first drew me into this contretemps with you was seeing that
>you justified your careless swipes at Fishman's veracity in the name of
>"friendship" (the post was to Martin, I believe)
>.
> Now, in my book, friends do not spread unsubstantiated rumors about
>their friends, particularly as if they were facts. Period.
> I don't even know Fishman, believe it or not. You obviously have met
>him, talked with him, exchanged confidences with him, and called yourself
>his friend; and now, with nothing but a bunch of "ifs" as justification
>(I'm deliberately omitting Lonesome Squirrel as "evidence") you sell him
>down river. God preserve me from "friends" like you.
>Perhaps the fact of his having written a "self-dead-agenting" book like
>Lonesome Squirrel makes people think he has no reputation to lose, and
>that it's OK to lob mud at him.
No one is lobbing mud at him. The man has brought this upon himself.
Any rational observer of Fishman's posts over the last month or so
will readily admit to this. Fishman's posts became more and more
frenzied, less and less factual, and literally *reeked* of hysteria.
Fishman's posts have done nothing to harm the cult; rather, the only
thing his posts have done is attract attention to himself. When faced
with the inevitable *negative* attention such tactics are bound to
produce, Fishman and friends begin a frenzy of "attack, never defend"
posts against anyone *daring* to question the "hero" of this
newsgroup.
This newsgroup is not alt.fan.fishman. This newsgroup is
alt.religion.scientology.
>I have been trying to separate truth from fiction or careless assumption
>in the matter of Steven's truthfulness on this newsgroup, for the past
>week, and I have yet to turn up, after repeated challenges and requests
>for information, a single instance of deliberate falsehood on his part.
The only person who can honestly state whether Fishman has
deliberately lied or merely inadvertently erred is Fishman himself.
You are asking others to prove Fishman's motives, which is, of course,
impossible.
Whether Fishman deliberately lied or mistakenly erred does not make
one bit of difference in its effect, which is to lower the credibility
of *all* critics posting to this newsgroup.
> Particularly given this fact, I see no reason to for anyone to
>vociferously maintain in public that he is scamming the newsgroup, not
>telling the truth, etc, unless there is solid evidence for such claims.
>Obviously any research that is thought to be necessary will be done, but
>hopefully without extraneous insult and premature condemnation.
Who do you propose is doing this "necessary research" that is
"obviously" being done? The ARSCC?
>I would like to point out, Dennis, that whenever anyone on this group
>carelessly or maliciously perpetuates the story that you were and are a
>physically abusive person, you make sure that it stops right there. As
>indeed you should; even with all your care there will always be someone,
>when the subject comes up, who says, "Oh, that was just when he was in the
>Church_ he's reformed now." And you have to start all over again to
>dispel the rumor that you *were* a vicious and physically abusive person.
>Is that fun, Dennis? Is that something you think others should have to go
>through? Is that something you are going to make damned *sure* others go
>through? It seems so.
Just one minute here. The fact of the matter is that Steven Fishman
has been *unable* to answer the questions put before him. Rather than
answer the questions raised by his inaccuracies, Mr. Fishman utilizes
the worn-out "attack the attackers" cult ploy. Mr Fishman has yet to
vindicate himself of *any* of the questions raised.
>I don't know what's put this bug up your ass, but I think it's time for
>you to sit back and think about what if these "ifs" *aren't*, in fact
>true? Which mistake would you rather have made, looking back on
>(hypothetical) Judgment Day_ that you gave someone the benefit of the
>doubt and were subsequently proved wrong, or that you energetically set
>about to drag your friend's name in the mud, only to find out that he was
>innocent? Your pick, Dennis.
Steven Fishman has been given more than "the benefit of the doubt"
here. He has been excused over and over again for blatant
misstatements and inaccuracies that would have caused howls of outrage
if uttered by a Scientologist[tm].
>and a few lines of pure rant:
[gratuitious flames deleted]
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Eddie Wolfe
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>
> In article <juli-17059...@bel-240.i1.net>, Juli Lawrence writes:
> >P.S. Here's what I understand so far:
> >Steve was in the CoS organization and did some illegal things for CoS. He
> >got caught and spent some time in prison. Now he's left CoS and is telling
> >all.
> Yes: and suing them over things they did to him.
>
> >However...people are now questioning his sincerity,
> >
> Some people have questioned the sort of tactics he might use
> e.g. outing clam spokespeople, and his accuracy [in outing the
> WRONG addresses of innocent namesakes: sort of our very own
> opeeration foot-bullet].
>
> Added to that he wrote a book of
> his experiences called the ''Lonesome Squirrel'' and people
> are asking obvious questions like ''is this supposed to be
> a factual record: for instance you say Jose Soap was fat and
> fair-haired and lived in LA at the time, but I heard he was
> thin and dark-haired and lived in Alaska.'' They aren't
> trivial differences because they matter to his case, and
> to the history of events in the Church. I don't know who's
> right and who's wrong. There ARE discrepancies: *I* don't
> know whether they're minor and accidental in an accurate
> account, or whether the thing is a work of fiction
> and should have been called that from the outset.
>
> >as to call him a plant from the group.
> >
David and Julie Mayo, and Dennis Erlich are considering the possibility
that Steve Fishman (and his book?) could be a "Trojan Horse."
I agree that this is foolish. There are apparently no limits to some
people's "skepticism," or is it called paranoia at that point?
> Look, try reading the Web.
> /x/clam/lynx/lynx1.html is the big index
> /x/clam/lynx/quickref.html is the line-per-page index.
>
> You will find STEVE FISHMAN'S webpage in there
> including the Lonesome Squirrel [it's very large!]
>
> On KARIN SPAINK's page you will find
> the FISHMAN AFFIDAVIT from his case.
>
>
Sister Clara
In article <31A118...@wnstar.com>
Eddie Wolfe <Ewo...@wnstar.com> wrote:
> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> >
> > In article <juli-17059...@bel-240.i1.net>, Juli Lawrence writes:
> > >even going so far
> > >as to call him a plant from the group.
> > >
> > I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool.
>
> David and Julie Mayo, and Dennis Erlich are considering the possibility
> that Steve Fishman (and his book?) could be a "Trojan Horse."
>
> I agree that this is foolish. There are apparently no limits to some
> people's "skepticism," or is it called paranoia at that point?
It is called whatever you wish. Suffice it to say that when I observe three
people who were in the higher reaches of the cult for a long time, are in a
position to know just what form OSA tactics may take, and have personal
knowledge of OSA methodologies through the attacks launched against
themselves, make a suggestion, I jolly well listen.
What personal experience can YOU bring to bear on this debate?
--
Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX
Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
This posting is copyright of the First Church of Juicyology.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Suffice it to say that when I observe three
>people who were in the higher reaches of the cult for a long time, are in a
>position to know just what form OSA tactics may take, and have personal
>knowledge of OSA methodologies through the attacks launched against
>themselves, make a suggestion, I jolly well listen.
Sis,
Whatever their postition on the tek is, and despite their apparent
lack of humility and twisted humor we are really lucky to have David
and Julie sharing with us on the newsgroup. They live in CONSTANT
fear. They have a lot to lose and they have alread lost a lot.
David is, without any doubt, the world's leading expert on Hubbard
Brand (tm) Brainwashing. They were both as far on the inside of the
cult as anyone could possibly get and escape. Neither of them ever
engaged in any of the activities that Steve Fishman did. I have never
heard an unkind word said about Julie (none could, really) and David,
despite having been a kind of (you should excuse the expression) 'cold
fish' earlier, has become someone who I could easily defend.
I really appreciate them being here and sharing. They've been
through a lot of grief they didn't deserve.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <31A118...@wnstar.com>, Eddie Wolfe writes:
>> >even going so far
>> >as to call him a plant from the group.
>> >
>> I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool.
>
>David and Julie Mayo, and Dennis Erlich are considering the possibility
>that Steve Fishman (and his book?) could be a "Trojan Horse."
>I agree that this is foolish. There are apparently no limits to some
>people's "skepticism," or is it called paranoia at that point?
The Loathsome Swivel may or may not be erronous (about events of
which I have no direct knowledge).
Howver: I could just conceivably be wrong--nobody is infallible--but I
find the idea Steve is a 'mole' complete paranoid rubbish.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <31a25c7c...@news.primenet.com>, "Rev. Dennis L Erlich"
<inF...@primenet.com> writes
>Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Suffice it to say that when I observe three
>>people who were in the higher reaches of the cult for a long time, are in a
>>position to know just what form OSA tactics may take, and have personal
>>knowledge of OSA methodologies through the attacks launched against
>>themselves, make a suggestion, I jolly well listen.
>
Even when what they say is contrary to common sense, and their
pronouncements have ceased to accord with the published evidence
they relied on in earlier statements? Sounds like ad hominem to me,
or the reverse [argument from authority]. I do pay some attention
to WHAT is being said, not just by whom.
>
> Sis,
>
> Whatever their postition on the tek is, and despite their apparent
>lack of humility and twisted humor we are really lucky to have David
>and Julie sharing with us on the newsgroup. They live in CONSTANT
>fear. They have a lot to lose and they have alread lost a lot.
>
> David is, without any doubt, the world's leading expert on Hubbard
>Brand (tm) Brainwashing. They were both as far on the inside of the
>cult as anyone could possibly get and escape. Neither of them ever
>engaged in any of the activities that Steve Fishman did. I have never
>heard an unkind word said about Julie (none could, really) and David,
>despite having been a kind of (you should excuse the expression) 'cold
>fish' earlier, has become someone who I could easily defend.
>
> I really appreciate them being here and sharing. They've been
>through a lot of grief they didn't deserve.
>
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <dennis....@support.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
Yes, I second every word of what you say about the Mayo's good
character. However, I do not equate this with saying that they
must always be correct: the correctness of their statements are
to be assessed by logic and evidence relating to those statements.
This is the fundamental problem in saying EITHER that someone [e.g.
Hubbard] is invariably correct, OR in dead-agenting i.e. refusing to
address the speaker's arguments and substituting personal attacks.
I give these as general examples of what is wrong here.
I prefer people to argue to the statements, not the speaker's
character whether good or bad: please yourself, but I will take
more notice when things are done this way, and I suspect most
lurkers feel the same way.
Xenu's Sister
On Wed, 22 May 1996, Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> I prefer people to argue to the statements, not the speaker's
> character whether good or bad:
What's funny, if you can call any of this funny, is that
Fishman DA'd *himself* into the ground well before LS
appeared. And yet, here are *critics* who are taking it to
another level, rather than the clams. It's strange how
things work out, isn't it? Steve really has nowhere to
go but up!
> please yourself, but I will take
> more notice when things are done this way, and I suspect most
> lurkers feel the same way.
This semi-lurker certainly does. As far as I'm concerned, this
whole Fishman discussion/debate turned into a mere DA when
Dennis started calling LS "Loathsome Squirrel" and "Rodent's
Tail" and other colorful terms. Fully expecting to see him
call Steve "Flatfish" or something similar next, I, with much
regret, put Dennis into my killfile.
Oh, it won't last. I *like* Dennis, and usually think he's
tres cool, but this is too much. There's something going
on that most of us are not privy to, and it's just become
personal politics. That's how I see it, and I really don't
want to hear it. When things deteriorate into name-calling,
and accusations of critics being OSA, that's it for me.
I'm tuning the entire affair, and everybody involved (which
includes, regrettably, Diane, Sister C and TarlaStar), out.
I have *enormous* respect for those people, but I'm not
going to be their lemming any more than I'll be Steve's
or anybody else's lemming. I don't want to make enemies.
I think people generally like me, and I'm usually pretty
good-natured, but I've had enough and I needed to speak
out.
Vickie
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
Xenu's Sister <vic...@miso.wwa.com> wrote:
>I'm tuning the entire affair, and everybody involved (which
>includes, regrettably, Diane, Sister C and TarlaStar), out.
<chuckle> You can say that again.
>I have *enormous* respect for those people, but I'm not
>going to be their lemming any more than I'll be Steve's
Are you sure?
>or anybody else's lemming.
Oh, please be my lemming, Sis.
>I don't want to make enemies.
Enemy = pain. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
>I think people generally like me,
I usedta did. But calling me on the Loathsome Bit, when I've never
enagaged in calling scienos, clams ... that hurt. <sniff> And the
killfile thing. You tryin' ta break my heart, girl.
>and I'm usually pretty
>good-natured, but I've had enough and I needed to speak
>out.
Hey. Hurt me somemore. Maybe I'll learn to get off on it.
SOse278720
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 19:55:06 +0100
Message-ID: <a44e...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
In article <31A118...@wnstar.com>
Eddie Wolfe <Ewo...@wnstar.com> wrote:
> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> >
> > In article <juli-17059...@bel-240.i1.net>, Juli Lawrence
writes:
> > >even going so far
> > >as to call him a plant from the group.
> > >
> > I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a
fool.
>
> David and Julie Mayo, and Dennis Erlich are considering the possibility
> that Steve Fishman (and his book?) could be a "Trojan Horse."
>
> I agree that this is foolish. There are apparently no limits to some
> people's "skepticism," or is it called paranoia at that point?
It is called whatever you wish. Suffice it to say that when I observe
three
people who were in the higher reaches of the cult for a long time, are in
a
position to know just what form OSA tactics may take, and have personal
knowledge of OSA methodologies through the attacks launched against
themselves, make a suggestion, I jolly well listen.
What personal experience can YOU bring to bear on this debate?
--
Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX
Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
This posting is copyright of the First Church of Juicyology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't know of a personal experience he can bring, Sister Clara,
but based on the fact that Dennis repeatedly referred to me as Scieno,
OSA, and Trojan Horse, I am seriously predisposed to take such
allegations from him with a couple of tons of salt.
When I suggested Dennis could check me out with Mike Godwin if he didn't
trust me, he replied, "I don't play that game."
In addition, I thought Dave Bird's subsequent exchange with Dennis,
regarding the lack of *any* previous examples of "flip-flopping" such as
Dennis is suggesting , plus a well-reasoned argument as to why it would be
highly unlikely, carried much greater weight with me than Dennis's dark
hints, ranting, etc....
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>based on the fact that Dennis repeatedly referred to me as Scieno,
>OSA, and Trojan Horse,
Post the articles where I did, you lying sack o shit.
Steve Fishman
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) writes:
> sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
> >based on the fact that Dennis repeatedly referred to me as Scieno,
> >OSA, and Trojan Horse,
> Post the articles where I did, you lying sack o shit.
Is it me, or do all ministers talk like this?
---Steve Fishman
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
Steve Fishman <xe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Is it me, or do all ministers talk like this?
It's you, turd.
If you want absolution you need to confess to what you've been doing
here and feel some remorse for deceiving the clueless wogs. Until
then, you and the rest of your scam are gonna be greeted with
refutation at every turn.
Take that to the bank.
[p/m]
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
Steve Fishman <xe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If name calling makes you happy, go for it.
Lying sack of shit.
>I do not need or want absolution.
So be it.
>Calling people on this newsgroup "clueless wogs" doesn't enhance
>you. It is demeaning and insulting to many.
Deceiving them and keeping them clueless is your goal. You will not
succeed.
>Better to search within for the source of your upset and start
>confronting it with good reality and truth.
Fuck you, turd.
>Better yet, write up your own autobiography. There's always
>room for the "Lonesome Informer".
Your loathsome pack of lies is enough, Steve.
Accuse a man of rape and then duck out cause your lawyer told you.
You are exactly the scum you have portrayed yourself as. In that you
were truthful.
Now answer up to the rest of the lies you've told the newsgroup.
Eddie Wolfe
Sister Clara wrote:
>
> In article <31A118...@wnstar.com>
> Eddie Wolfe <Ewo...@wnstar.com> wrote:
>
> > Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <juli-17059...@bel-240.i1.net>, Juli Lawrence writes:
>
> > > >even going so far
> > > >as to call him a plant from the group.
> > > >
> > > I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool.
> >
> > David and Julie Mayo, and Dennis Erlich are considering the possibility
> > that Steve Fishman (and his book?) could be a "Trojan Horse."
> >
> > I agree that this is foolish. There are apparently no limits to some
> > people's "skepticism," or is it called paranoia at that point?
>
> It is called whatever you wish. Suffice it to say that when I observe three
> people who were in the higher reaches of the cult for a long time, are in a
> position to know just what form OSA tactics may take, and have personal
> knowledge of OSA methodologies through the attacks launched against
> themselves, make a suggestion, I jolly well listen.
OSA certainly could use "trojan horse" tactics. But they have not
provided a single reason, opinion, fact or otherwise to back that up.
Furthermore, just because they were "higher-up" in the church, does not
mean that they knew every department and mission that took place.
> What personal experience can YOU bring to bear on this debate?
I've been in the church for the last 8 years. From what experience in the
church do you form _your_ opinions?
If you'd been in it, especially in the Sea Org, you'd know that 18 hours
a day are spent working on and worrying about YOUR OWN post and stats.
Gossip gets around as it does anywhere, but the Mayos are most qualified
to discuss what occured in C/Sing and Erlich is apparently most qualified
to know what went on in course rooms. Few people have any extensive
knowledge of what goes/went on in other divisions.
Or didn't you know that?
Eddie Wolfe
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>
> >> >even going so far
> >> >as to call him a plant from the group.
> >> >
> >> I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool.
> >
> >David and Julie Mayo, and Dennis Erlich are considering the possibility
> >that Steve Fishman (and his book?) could be a "Trojan Horse."
> >I agree that this is foolish. There are apparently no limits to some
> >people's "skepticism," or is it called paranoia at that point?
>
> which I have no direct knowledge).
>
> Howver: I could just conceivably be wrong--nobody is infallible--but I
> find the idea Steve is a 'mole' complete paranoid rubbish.
Then you are clearly an OSA plant like me. Or at the very least, it can
not be ruled out.
Steve Fishman
inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) writes:
> Steve Fishman <xe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Is it me, or do all ministers talk like this?
> It's you, turd.
If name calling makes you happy, go for it.
> If you want absolution you need to confess to what you've been doing
> here and feel some remorse for deceiving the clueless wogs. Until
I do not need or want absolution.
Calling people on this newsgroup "clueless wogs" doesn't enhance
you. It is demeaning and insulting to many.
Better to search within for the source of your upset and start
confronting it with good reality and truth.
Better yet, write up your own autobiography. There's always
room for the "Lonesome Informer".
With Best Wishes,
Steve Fishman
SOse278720
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
Date: 23 May 1996 21:23:03 -0700
Message-ID: <31a5378...@news.primenet.com>
Steve Fishman <xe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>If name calling makes you happy, go for it.
Lying sack of shit.
>I do not need or want absolution.
So be it.
>Calling people on this newsgroup "clueless wogs" doesn't enhance
>you. It is demeaning and insulting to many.
Deceiving them and keeping them clueless is your goal. You will not
succeed.
>Better to search within for the source of your upset and start
>confronting it with good reality and truth.
Fuck you, turd.
>Better yet, write up your own autobiography. There's always
>room for the "Lonesome Informer".
Your loathsome pack of lies is enough, Steve.
Accuse a man of rape and then duck out cause your lawyer told you.
You are exactly the scum you have portrayed yourself as. In that you
were truthful.
Now answer up to the rest of the lies you've told the newsgroup.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
~~~~~
It's hard to believe, but you really *are* trying to goad a man who has a
very important court case in progress into endangering his case by
discussing it on this publiic forum, at a time when his lawyer has told
him not to, solely in order to satisfy some agenda of your own, disguised
as an obligation he is apparently supposed to have to 'fess up to the
newsgroup.
(oh,yeah, that's the "church" motif)
SOse278720
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 21:13:19 -0700
Message-ID: <31A537...@wnstar.com>
Sister Clara wrote:
>
> In article <31A118...@wnstar.com>
> Eddie Wolfe <Ewo...@wnstar.com> wrote:
>
> > Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <juli-17059...@bel-240.i1.net>, Juli Lawrence
writes:
>
> > > >even going so far
> > > >as to call him a plant from the group.
> > > >
> > > I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a
fool.
> >
> > David and Julie Mayo, and Dennis Erlich are considering the
possibility
> > that Steve Fishman (and his book?) could be a "Trojan Horse."
> >
> > I agree that this is foolish. There are apparently no limits to some
> > people's "skepticism," or is it called paranoia at that point?
>
> It is called whatever you wish. Suffice it to say that when I observe
three
> people who were in the higher reaches of the cult for a long time, are
in a
> position to know just what form OSA tactics may take, and have personal
> knowledge of OSA methodologies through the attacks launched against
> themselves, make a suggestion, I jolly well listen.
OSA certainly could use "trojan horse" tactics. But they have not
provided a single reason, opinion, fact or otherwise to back that up.
Furthermore, just because they were "higher-up" in the church, does not
mean that they knew every department and mission that took place.
> What personal experience can YOU bring to bear on this debate?
I've been in the church for the last 8 years. From what experience in the
church do you form _your_ opinions?
If you'd been in it, especially in the Sea Org, you'd know that 18 hours
a day are spent working on and worrying about YOUR OWN post and stats.
Gossip gets around as it does anywhere, but the Mayos are most qualified
to discuss what occured in C/Sing and Erlich is apparently most qualified
to know what went on in course rooms. Few people have any extensive
knowledge of what goes/went on in other divisions.
Or didn't you know that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hi, Freewolf,
Tonight, I was going over old postings to satisfy Dennis's demand that I
post proof that he accused Steve of being OSA (I guess his contention now
will be that these aren't accusations, just speculation_too bad people
reading them may have missed some of these fine distinctions).
At any rate, I looked more carefully than I had previously at a comment of
his to David Gerard_wait, I've got it somewhere:
DENNIS:
"You have never known people like Fishman (those who have dirty
tricked the cult's enemies and done crimes *for* the scienos) to
flip-flop? I certainly have. Enough times to notice similarities"
~~~~~~~~
Do you see what he's saying? That he's known cult operatives to
flip-flop; in fact he's known enough cases so he can measure Steve's
behavior against theirs.
This implies that he is qualified to judge (certainly more so than us
"clueles wogs", anyway) whether Steven has flip-flopped.
Trouble is, a coupla days later Dave Bird was asking for *one* example
of a scieno who had genuinely "flip-flopped",( not just signed a
recantation) and Dennis couldn't come up with one.
Does this mean Dennis was trying to get the people here to believe him on
something he's *not* qualified to speculate on, and for that purpose was
abusing the truth?
He should be able to list those members he's known to flip-flop, or back
off on this stance of ars ethics officer, 'cause someone who plays fast
and loose with the truth when it suits him to do so is certainly not
entitled to judge anyone else for supposedly doing the same thing.
Steve O.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) writes:
> sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>
>>based on the fact that Dennis repeatedly referred to me as Scieno,
>>OSA, and Trojan Horse,
>
> Post the articles where I did, you lying sack o shit.
Does Steve O also need to post the articles where you call him a lying
sack o shit, Dennis?
I suppose you could say this was meant to be a funny post on your part,
but the fact is, it is most definetly not funny, Dennis. Your post above
looks angry and hateful. I hope Steve O has the sense to respond to you
calmly and quietly, thus setting apart his own rationality and
reasonableness that I have seen in all of his posts to this newsgroup
thus far.
ttyl,
martin.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
Have you ever tried to serve papers on a meme?
It's like trying to nail Jello to the ceiling. -Jeff Bell
Martin G. V. Hunt
>
>>Is it me, or do all ministers talk like this?
>
> It's you, turd.
Is this really neccessary, Dennis, this choice of words? Steve O
doesn't appear to need to use them to deliver his arguments and
ideas, or at least, not as much.
> If you want absolution you need to confess to what you've been doing
> here and feel some remorse for deceiving the clueless wogs. Until
> then, you and the rest of your scam are gonna be greeted with
> refutation at every turn.
I wonder if we should really call our audience clueless wogs; after all,
they apparently didn't join a cult, as we did, Dennis, and stayed in it
for, in my case, two years, and for you, much longer.
I'm going to speak plainly here; it seems to me that the longer someone
is in Scientology, the less rational they become. I think that this
is apparent, and can be seen in the Usenet posts of several long-term
Scientologists. I know the cult affected my reasoning, and I was not
in it that long, and ended up walking out. I know many people did not
walk out, but were either thrown out or declared during the early 80s;
would these people still be in the cult today if things hadn't gone as
they did during that mission-holder's meeting, and the subsequent fall-out?
> Take that to the bank.
>
> [p/m]
>
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <dennis....@support.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
ttyl,
Martin G. V. Hunt
SOse278720 (sose2...@aol.com) writes:
> From: Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
>>
>>It is called whatever you wish. Suffice it to say that when I observe three
>>people who were in the higher reaches of the cult for a long time, are in
>>a position to know just what form OSA tactics may take, and have personal
>>knowledge of OSA methodologies through the attacks launched against
>>themselves, make a suggestion, I jolly well listen.
Don't put too much faith in argument from authority; argument from facts
is generally much stronger. Dennis and the Mayos may know a great deal
about Scientology, but if they were to tell me something that contradicted
what I know, I wouldn't believe them.
>> What personal experience can YOU bring to bear on this debate?
Steve O has had experience in Scientology, apparently, from what he
said agreeing with one of the outpoints Dennis and the Mayos raised
in an earlier post. Still, don't leave it to those who "know";
everyone has something to contribute, I believe. I think some of the
most perceptive things ever said about Scientology have been said by
non-Scientologists; they bring a fresh and often very healthy point
of view to the subject, and I wouldn't dismiss them as "non-experts".
Also, if we take the "expert/authority" view of things, then we
must concede Homer and Koos carry a lot of weight in their respective
descriptions of Scientology, but I think you would agree that their
views are often very wrong, sometimes amusingly so.
> I don't know of a personal experience he can bring, Sister Clara,
> but based on the fact that Dennis repeatedly referred to me as Scieno,
> OSA, and Trojan Horse, I am seriously predisposed to take such
> allegations from him with a couple of tons of salt.
Could an ars archivist please find and post these? I only remember
Dennis Erlich calling Steve O a "lying sack o[f] shit".
> When I suggested Dennis could check me out with Mike Godwin if he didn't
> trust me, he replied, "I don't play that game."
I wish Dennis would clarify this; what is that supposed to mean, if
anything? Is Mike Godwin supposed to be an OSA plant as well, and
therefore an unreliable source?
> In addition, I thought Dave Bird's subsequent exchange with Dennis,
> regarding the lack of *any* previous examples of "flip-flopping" such as
> Dennis is suggesting , plus a well-reasoned argument as to why it would be
> highly unlikely, carried much greater weight with me than Dennis's dark
> hints, ranting, etc....
I agree that rumours and allegations don't carry as much weight as
reasoned arguments or factual data. Dennis appears to be going through
a very rough time at the moment, and I'm not sure why; I hope he pulls
through, and gets back to his normal, good-humoured self.
You're seeing the worst of him, without the benefit of the best; give
him a chance, and perhaps his will regain his composure and his common
sense.
TarlaStar
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>It's hard to believe, but you really *are* trying to goad a man who has a
>very important court case in progress into endangering his case by
>discussing it on this publiic forum, at a time when his lawyer has told
>him not to, solely in order to satisfy some agenda of your own, disguised
>as an obligation he is apparently supposed to have to 'fess up to the
>newsgroup.
>(oh,yeah, that's the "church" motif)
What a load of horseshit. The guy posted plenty of stuff here; for
months, he posted. He puts up a several HUNDRED page book, and when
someone calls him on inaccuracies, all of a sudden he trots out a
lawyer who tells him to be QUIET? What planet did you just arrive
from, Bubba? He didn't HAVE to say jack-shit about ANY of this, he
could have settled his court cases and NEVER mentioned it. NO, Mr.
Fishman brought this shit up first, and now that he's being asked to
support his statements he runs behind the word "lawyer" like a little
child running behind his mother.
***Reverend Mutha Tarla Star***
As long as men keep thinking with their dicks,
women will keep fucking with their heads.
//www.ionet.net/~bmyers/homepage.html
Sister Clara
In article <4o4aqm$7...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>
> SOse278720 (sose2...@aol.com) writes:
> > From: Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
> >>
> >>It is called whatever you wish. Suffice it to say that when I observe three
> >>people who were in the higher reaches of the cult for a long time, are in
> >>a position to know just what form OSA tactics may take, and have personal
> >>knowledge of OSA methodologies through the attacks launched against
> >>themselves, make a suggestion, I jolly well listen.
>
> Don't put too much faith in argument from authority; argument from facts
> is generally much stronger. Dennis and the Mayos may know a great deal
> about Scientology, but if they were to tell me something that contradicted
> what I know, I wouldn't believe them.
And have they Martin? You have not as yet said to any of them that they are
wrong about something you specifically KNOW about, have you? If you have,
then clearly I have missed it. Care to remind me and anyone else who may not
have seen this take place?
>
> >> What personal experience can YOU bring to bear on this debate?
>
> Steve O has had experience in Scientology, apparently, from what he
> said agreeing with one of the outpoints Dennis and the Mayos raised
> in an earlier post. Still, don't leave it to those who "know";
> everyone has something to contribute, I believe. I think some of the
> most perceptive things ever said about Scientology have been said by
> non-Scientologists; they bring a fresh and often very healthy point
> of view to the subject, and I wouldn't dismiss them as "non-experts".
> Also, if we take the "expert/authority" view of things, then we
> must concede Homer and Koos carry a lot of weight in their respective
> descriptions of Scientology, but I think you would agree that their
> views are often very wrong, sometimes amusingly so.
I was talking about "OSA methodologies" Martin. I was not in the cult and I
do not see how I would be able to say anything particularly "perceptive"
about those methodologies when it comes to disputed facts.
Who else was in the position of Dennis and the Mayos to make judgements as
to the veracity of claims about OSA behaviour? Have they had their
judgements challenged by anyone is such a position?
Were YOU there, Martyn?
>
> > I don't know of a personal experience he can bring, Sister Clara,
> > but based on the fact that Dennis repeatedly referred to me as Scieno,
> > OSA, and Trojan Horse, I am seriously predisposed to take such
> > allegations from him with a couple of tons of salt.
>
> Could an ars archivist please find and post these? I only remember
> Dennis Erlich calling Steve O a "lying sack o[f] shit".
>
> > When I suggested Dennis could check me out with Mike Godwin if he didn't
> > trust me, he replied, "I don't play that game."
>
> I wish Dennis would clarify this; what is that supposed to mean, if
> anything? Is Mike Godwin supposed to be an OSA plant as well, and
> therefore an unreliable source?
>
> > In addition, I thought Dave Bird's subsequent exchange with Dennis,
> > regarding the lack of *any* previous examples of "flip-flopping" such as
> > Dennis is suggesting , plus a well-reasoned argument as to why it would be
> > highly unlikely, carried much greater weight with me than Dennis's dark
> > hints, ranting, etc....
Amazing how you can become an expert just by reading documents and
affidavits, don't you think?
Tell you what, Martin. At some point I will tell you what Scientology is
really about, indeed I will lecture you on the point. After all, what do you
know? You were only in it, after all.
I will watch with interest your reaction the first time that Dave tells you
that you are wrong about an aspect of Scientology with which you were/are
familiar <grin>.
>
> I agree that rumours and allegations don't carry as much weight as
> reasoned arguments or factual data. Dennis appears to be going through
> a very rough time at the moment, and I'm not sure why; I hope he pulls
> through, and gets back to his normal, good-humoured self.
Perhaps he is exasperated seeing previously level-headed critics desperately
wanting to carry on believing Fishman when all the evidence points to
significant anomolies in his story.
>
> You're seeing the worst of him, without the benefit of the best; give
> him a chance, and perhaps his will regain his composure and his common
> sense.
If I were Dennis, I would be offended by your presumption here.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) writes:
> Steve Fishman <xe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>If name calling makes you happy, go for it.
>
> Lying sack of shit.
>
>>I do not need or want absolution.
>
> So be it.
>
>>Calling people on this newsgroup "clueless wogs" doesn't enhance
>>you. It is demeaning and insulting to many.
>
> Deceiving them and keeping them clueless is your goal. You will not
> succeed.
>
>>Better to search within for the source of your upset and start
>>confronting it with good reality and truth.
>
> Fuck you, turd.
>
>>Better yet, write up your own autobiography. There's always
>>room for the "Lonesome Informer".
>
> Your loathsome pack of lies is enough, Steve.
Dennis, you frequently ask if you're out of line here, and solicit
answers. Well, IMO, you're out of line.
ttyl,
martin.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Eddie Wolfe (Ewo...@wnstar.com) writes:
> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:
>>
>> In article <31A118...@wnstar.com>, Eddie Wolfe writes:
>> >> >even going so far
>> >> >as to call him a plant from the group.
>> >> >
>> >> I don't think that has been said--anyone who said that would be a fool.
>> >
>> >David and Julie Mayo, and Dennis Erlich are considering the possibility
>> >that Steve Fishman (and his book?) could be a "Trojan Horse."
>> >I agree that this is foolish. There are apparently no limits to some
>> >people's "skepticism," or is it called paranoia at that point?
>>
>> The Loathsome Swivel may or may not be erronous (about events of
>> which I have no direct knowledge).
>>
>> Howver: I could just conceivably be wrong--nobody is infallible--but I
>> find the idea Steve is a 'mole' complete paranoid rubbish.
>
> Then you are clearly an OSA plant like me. Or at the very least, it can
> not be ruled out.
Well, you both may want to determine what your CP Level is as a result of
posting to this newsgroup:
****************************
CP (Critical Persons) Levels v1.0:
==================================
CP0: Being called out by a "critic" for merely supporting another's
ideas as expressed in a post to ars.
CP1: Being flamed by a "critic" for no reason in responce to a polite,
non-flaming post of yours on ars.
CP2: Being called a derogatory name or having your name altered during
an ad hominem attack by a "critic" on ars.
CP3: Being told you're a liar by a "critic" on ars.
CP4: Being labelled a Scientology Office of Special Affairs (OSA) spy,
patsy, or plant by a "critic" on ars.
CP5: Being gang-bang "criticized" by at least 6 "critics" at once in
a thread on ars.
CP6: Being told to leave the ars newsgroup by a "critic" for expressing
your opinions.
CP7: Having a legitimate post of yours to ars cancelled by a censorious
"critic".
CP8: Having your ISP contacted by a self-righteous "critic" over the
content of your posts to ars.
CP9: Having your account yanked due to having your ISP contacted by a
self-righteous "critic" over the contents of your posts to ars.
Additional Awards, Crosses, Clusters, Bars, and Ribbands:
=========================================================
CP1 with Bar: If the language used is particularly foul and abusive.
CP2 with Bar: If the label is used repeatedly, ie more than ten times, by
one "critic", or if two of more "critics" use the same term.
CP3 with Cluster: If you can satisfactorily proove that you were telling
the truth with documentary evidence.
CP4 with Blue terry-cloth Ribbon: If the labeller is Dennis Erlich.
CP5 with Cross: If the gang-bang "criticizing" goes on for over 100 posts
or one month, and you stick to it and don't blow ars.
CP7 with Bar: If you have had more than one post to ars so cancelled.
CP9 with Iron Cross: If you have had more than one ISP account so yanked.
Notes:
======
These awards do not apply to posts which are off-topic cross-posted junk
or spam or binaries, with the exception of CP7, in which case the awarded
level is marked so: "CP7-binary".
It is frowned upon for two critics to jokingly assault each other in
such a manner as to artificially boost their CP level, and levels may
be suspended for such behavior by an ad hoc CP levels committee
comprised of legitimate CP levels holders.
A CP level holder should not get into a flame war with "critics", as
this will only raise the "critic's" CP level! A polite note made after
the paragraph which contains CP boosting material is suggested thanking
the "critic" for so kindly raising your CP status.
Martin G. V. Hunt
TarlaStar (bmy...@ionet.net) writes:
> sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>
>>It's hard to believe, but you really *are* trying to goad a man who has a
>>very important court case in progress into endangering his case by
>>discussing it on this publiic forum, at a time when his lawyer has told
>>him not to, solely in order to satisfy some agenda of your own, disguised
>>as an obligation he is apparently supposed to have to 'fess up to the
>>newsgroup.
>
>>(oh,yeah, that's the "church" motif)
>
> What a load of horseshit. The guy posted plenty of stuff here; for
> months, he posted. He puts up a several HUNDRED page book, and when
> someone calls him on inaccuracies, all of a sudden he trots out a
> lawyer who tells him to be QUIET? What planet did you just arrive
> from, Bubba? He didn't HAVE to say jack-shit about ANY of this, he
> could have settled his court cases and NEVER mentioned it. NO, Mr.
> Fishman brought this shit up first, and now that he's being asked to
> support his statements he runs behind the word "lawyer" like a little
> child running behind his mother.
Does anyone have Steve's Lawyer's name and phone number? I wouldn't
be too too hard to verify this one thing with a simple phone call.
Ob. rabid "critic" note: No, this doesn't mean I have a florrid
love affair going with Steve. ;-)
Martin G. V. Hunt
Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) writes:
> In article <4o4aqm$7...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
> av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>
>>
>> SOse278720 (sose2...@aol.com) writes:
>> > From: Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
>> >>
>> >>It is called whatever you wish. Suffice it to say that when I observe three
>> >>people who were in the higher reaches of the cult for a long time, are in
>> >>a position to know just what form OSA tactics may take, and have personal
>> >>knowledge of OSA methodologies through the attacks launched against
>> >>themselves, make a suggestion, I jolly well listen.
>>
>> Don't put too much faith in argument from authority; argument from facts
>> is generally much stronger. Dennis and the Mayos may know a great deal
>> about Scientology, but if they were to tell me something that contradicted
>> what I know, I wouldn't believe them.
>
> And have they Martin? You have not as yet said to any of them that they are
> wrong about something you specifically KNOW about, have you? If you have,
> then clearly I have missed it. Care to remind me and anyone else who may not
> have seen this take place?
Hypothetically, of course.
>> >> What personal experience can YOU bring to bear on this debate?
>>
>> Steve O has had experience in Scientology, apparently, from what he
>> said agreeing with one of the outpoints Dennis and the Mayos raised
>> in an earlier post. Still, don't leave it to those who "know";
>> everyone has something to contribute, I believe. I think some of the
>> most perceptive things ever said about Scientology have been said by
>> non-Scientologists; they bring a fresh and often very healthy point
>> of view to the subject, and I wouldn't dismiss them as "non-experts".
>> Also, if we take the "expert/authority" view of things, then we
>> must concede Homer and Koos carry a lot of weight in their respective
>> descriptions of Scientology, but I think you would agree that their
>> views are often very wrong, sometimes amusingly so.
>
> I was talking about "OSA methodologies" Martin. I was not in the cult and I
> do not see how I would be able to say anything particularly "perceptive"
> about those methodologies when it comes to disputed facts.
Well, you could read over the critical books; they have a fair amount
of this information set down, and since it's in print, and has been for
some time, it should be fairly well verified or refuted.
> Who else was in the position of Dennis and the Mayos to make judgements as
> to the veracity of claims about OSA behaviour? Have they had their
> judgements challenged by anyone is such a position?
>
> Were YOU there, Martyn?
I thought you were giving up the name-calling? Last time, you apologised
for it, but here you are, doing it again.
I didn't read the rest of your post, as I assumed it was just more of
the same. Come back when you've learned to be an adult, and we'll talk,
OK?
ttyl,
martin.
TarlaStar
>be too too hard to verify this one thing with a simple phone call.
It's nice that Mr. Fishman is willing to give us the names and phone
numbers of his lawyer and his psychiatrist. There's just one leetle
problem with this....It's called patient/client confidentiality. I
don't think that Mr. Fishman's lawyer could do much beyond confirm
that Fishman is or is not his client. I don't think Dr. Geertz could
even do that much. See, it's really easy for him to give out these
names, 'cause neither one of them is able to confirm or deny
anything...they are bound by professional ethics. But you go ahead and
try it. Sorry, I can't help with the phone number. I don't save posts
from a.r.s.
TarlaStar
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>CP8: Having your ISP contacted by a self-righteous "critic" over the
> content of your posts to ars.
>CP9: Having your account yanked due to having your ISP contacted by a
> self-righteous "critic" over the contents of your posts to ars
Sarcasm? I don't think so. I think you're a hypocrite Martin. You play
by two sets of rules; one for the clams, one for the critics. When the
clams do something unethical, you complain, but when a critics does
EXACTLY the same thing, you applaud. I may be self-righteous. I AM
right. At least I'm not two-faced.
Sister Clara
In article <4o64d0$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>
>
> > Who else was in the position of Dennis and the Mayos to make judgements as
> > to the veracity of claims about OSA behaviour? Have they had their
> > judgements challenged by anyone is such a position?
> >
> > Were YOU there, Martyn?
>
> for it, but here you are, doing it again.
>
> I didn't read the rest of your post, as I assumed it was just more of
> the same. Come back when you've learned to be an adult, and we'll talk,
> OK?
Name-calling? :-)
Where's the "name", Martin? Are you sure that you are not reading something
into my question that is not there?
And then YOU say that I have not learned to be an adult?
pot-kettle-black
Stop being so over-sensitive.
<grin>
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <4o63l7$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, "Martin G. V. Hunt"
<av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>CP (Critical Persons) Levels v1.0:
>==================================
>
>CP0: Being called out by a "critic" for merely supporting another's
> ideas as expressed in a post to ars.
>
>CP1: Being flamed by a "critic" for no reason in responce to a polite,
> non-flaming post of yours on ars.
>
>CP2: Being called a derogatory name or having your name altered during
> an ad hominem attack by a "critic" on ars.
>
>CP3: Being told you're a liar by a "critic" on ars.
>
>CP4: Being labelled a Scientology Office of Special Affairs (OSA) spy,
Nice one :0) XEMU, CP4 (it's been said once so far,
as a joke (I hope))
Joshua Lowe
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) writes:
> here and feel some remorse for deceiving the clueless wogs. Until
> then, you and the rest of your scam are gonna be greeted with
> refutation at every turn.
Excuse me? "Clueless wogs", Dennis?
At least I never was clueless enough to get sucked into a criminal cult
that thinks little alien-ghosts inhabit my body.
Let alone become a prominent staff member.
Posted and mailed.
--
"With the wind in your hair of a thousand places
Climb on the back and we'll for for a ride in the sky."
Joshua J. Lowe bo...@newworld.bridge.net
Diane Richardson
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
[snip]
>It's hard to believe, but you really *are* trying to goad a man who has a
>very important court case in progress into endangering his case by
>discussing it on this publiic forum, at a time when his lawyer has told
>him not to, solely in order to satisfy some agenda of your own, disguised
>as an obligation he is apparently supposed to have to 'fess up to the
>newsgroup.
You've said some pretty stupid things here, but this definitely tops
them all.
Steven Fishman CHOSE to discuss these matters on this public forum.
No one forced the man to post dozens upon dozens of posts here over
the past couple of months. No one forced the man to place a 600-page
doument on his web page. Fishman did this himself, of his own
volition.
Fishman only stopped discussing these matters on this public forum
when people began questioning the accuracy and authenticity of his
claims. No lawyer in his right mind would tell Fishman to stop
discussing these matters at this point -- it does nothing to benefit
his client and does a great deal to harm his credibility.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
bo...@news.bridge.net (Joshua Lowe) wrote:
>Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) writes:
>> here and feel some remorse for deceiving the clueless wogs. Until
>> then, you and the rest of your scam are gonna be greeted with
>> refutation at every turn.
>
>Excuse me? "Clueless wogs", Dennis?
Sorry. I wasn't referring to you, Joshua. However, from the couple
of posts you've inflicted on me today, I'm beginning to see why you
might think I was. ;)
>At least I never was clueless enough to get sucked into a criminal cult
>that thinks little alien-ghosts inhabit my body.
<sniff> You hurted my feeling.
>Let alone become a prominent staff member.
I'm sure you have every reason in the world to think highly of
yourself. Whereas it is quite true that I only have just one or two,
being an ex-delusionary scieno staff member and all.
I'm really sorry if I failed to attribute to you the full measure of
respect you so richly feel you deserve.
But I really wasn't referring to you at all.
Joshua Lowe
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine (da...@xemu.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >CP4: Being labelled a Scientology Office of Special Affairs (OSA) spy,
: > patsy, or plant by a "critic" on ars.
:
:
: Nice one :0) XEMU, CP4 (it's been said once so far,
: as a joke (I hope))
Cool. But what if the person that says you're CoS then later retracts
their statement and apologizes? Felix Tilley mistook me for being a
CoStooge when I first delurked, but then he was gracious enough to post an
apology when he saw he was mistaken. Am I still CP4?
SP3, CP4. Neat, movin' on up.
--
"..it's so full of obsessed fanatics with an inflated ego who grossly
over-estimate their importance to the world that it's not funny."
- Rob J. Nauta on alt.religion.scientology
Joshua J. Lowe -/- bo...@newworld.bridge.net
Sister Clara
In article <4o7rvn$6...@news.bridge.net>
bo...@news.bridge.net (Joshua Lowe) wrote:
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) writes:
>
> > here and feel some remorse for deceiving the clueless wogs. Until
> > then, you and the rest of your scam are gonna be greeted with
> > refutation at every turn.
>
>
> Excuse me? "Clueless wogs", Dennis?
>
> At least I never was clueless enough to get sucked into a criminal cult
> that thinks little alien-ghosts inhabit my body.
>
> Let alone become a prominent staff member.
But you were clueless enough to be completely taken in by Fishman.
At least Dennis' cluelessness about the cult he entered (which he has always
openly acknowledged) was in the past.
You retain your cluelessness despite the free and widely scattered clues
that we have been offering you for weeks.
David Mayo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 23 May 1996 21:23:03 -0700, inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)
wrote:
>Steve Fishman <xe...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>>Better to search within for the source of your upset and start
>>confronting it with good reality and truth.
Can I say, "Look who's talking?" Mr. Fishman.
[...]
>
> Now answer up to the rest of the lies you've told the newsgroup.
Including those you told about me and about my wife --or is that too much
to ask of you. Maybe you should consult with Koos first and then get back
to us (referring to today's Koosian post "RI-579i" quoting Fishman!!!).
Oh my.
Rev. David Mayo
"We can still change course before we reach the event horizon." (last
transmission from Ron's Twin Inspectors)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMafUy+mCyCdNXuVZAQHh8AP+LxOMLhfsLMD9ucAj0dObI3KfywhRWIb/
chSFZn59vm8C6MhdG4ChTuHBVEJogpFQfm0SjMwD5b79OIkSySg987+g1Mn1tzjL
4eZcJeF4eCUl7iL4kXv4XgVdVMyHNlvj0AFFNlOAj2ohYbUji8sg7BPrZ0/5Ulvu
M+j5wM9OVUU=
=AwiB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Mayo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 25 May 1996 01:26:54 GMT, ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>It's hard to believe, but you really *are* trying to goad a man who has
a
>>very important court case in progress into endangering his case by
>>discussing it on this publiic forum, at a time when his lawyer has told
>>him not to, solely in order to satisfy some agenda of your own,
disguised
>>as an obligation he is apparently supposed to have to 'fess up to the
>>newsgroup.
>
>You've said some pretty stupid things here, but this definitely tops
>them all.
I second that, "sose278720". BTW, Fishman was "trying to goad" (to
borrow your phrase) me into discussing a matter that had been the subject
of RTC litigation against me --or didn't you notice. Never mind, there's
been another development in that case, last week.
I'll post that information real soon --unless I'm suddenly constrained by
my lawyers. I don't think I will be though. I wonder why?
>
>Steven Fishman CHOSE to discuss these matters on this public forum.
>No one forced the man to post dozens upon dozens of posts here over
>the past couple of months. No one forced the man to place a 600-page
>doument on his web page. Fishman did this himself, of his own
>volition.
>
>Fishman only stopped discussing these matters on this public forum
>when people began questioning the accuracy and authenticity of his
>claims. No lawyer in his right mind would tell Fishman to stop
>discussing these matters at this point -- it does nothing to benefit
>his client and does a great deal to harm his credibility.
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@neont.com
>
>
Rev. David Mayo
Ne'er truer words were spoke:
"Actually, as Steve Fishman correctly pointed out to me,
'Mayo is at the Tone Level of
.375 (making amends, selectively high toned
but without responsibility).
As you know, those at this band
give the impression of being at 1.1 [covert hostility],
but with the glee of irresponsibility,
the most one can say is
that there are bursts of selectively high toned elements
projecting the manifestation of covert hostility.
David Mayo is much below that, as indicated. [Quote from Steve]'"
(Absolutably Koos)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMafau+mCyCdNXuVZAQGx3AQAjMd2tJuyskHIVnRht5QG8s0jUlRur9cq
XF+uo25EWzTV8Ppb7JSFrnwF48bkqci6viQiZLcVcjMoPr/g+G80WI+Y4neyQRgk
32HMV83cRIYpiftXVmoVwER2PG3VV/5Dx3yAg/BIP05PS1mmT0ILjUYF3vUenlXg
fpQKPkzCM6k=
=h5dF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Steve Whitlatch
>
Oh Fishhhhhmannnnn, there you are. Yes, we have been looking
for you. You naughty boy. Now then.
1) Do you claim that Lonesome Squirrel is a true and
factual account of whatever it is supposed to be about?
or
2) Do you admit that you elaborated on some things that
did happen and invented a whole bunch more?
or
3) Something else
In the name of the great spirit of anti-scientology
activities, Answer please.
(posted only. i dunno how to do both in trn)
Steve Whitlatch
Steve Whitlatch
In article <4o46fc$6...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Martin G. V. Hunt <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>I'm going to speak plainly here; it seems to me that the longer someone
>is in Scientology, the less rational they become. I think that this
>is apparent, and can be seen in the Usenet posts of several long-term
>Scientologists. I know the cult affected my reasoning, and I was not
>in it that long, and ended up walking out. I know many people did not
>walk out, but were either thrown out or declared during the early 80s;
>would these people still be in the cult today if things hadn't gone as
>they did during that mission-holder's meeting, and the subsequent fall-out?
>
I am glad you brought that up, because I have wondered
the same thing.
And somehow this thought fits with what you brought up.
You know how lots of people try to dominate other people?
Well, that's what staff members do to each other! They
treat each other like shit!
For those who have never seen it, believe me, non-scientologists
do not allow themselves to be abused like that.
For those who have seen the screaming, the humiliation, the
stupid orders, the stupid scientology court system, the stupid
clapping for ron's stupid picture ("sending power to ron"), the
way the staff is controlled through terror and intimidation, etc.
. . . why did YOU tolerate it? Just think about it.
I'm not yet ready to post the reasons I tolerated the abuse.
If you feel you need to know, e-mail me. I'll tell as best
I can.
steve Whitlatch
Martin G. V. Hunt
TarlaStar (bmy...@ionet.net) writes:
>
> Sarcasm? I don't think so. I think you're a hypocrite Martin. You play
> by two sets of rules; one for the clams, one for the critics. When the
> clams do something unethical, you complain, but when a critics does
> EXACTLY the same thing, you applaud. I may be self-righteous. I AM
> right. At least I'm not two-faced.
Maybe you're not Janus, but you sure can't take a joke, can you?
Who said you were immune from my wit, dear? ;-) I would be more
likely to be "two-faced" if I spared critics from my barbs. Isn't it
hypocritical to jest (or joust?) the clams, while leaving the "critics"
to go their merry way?
Nay! Let it not be said I'm a hypocrite! Dennis, Diane, You Yourself
are all Fair Game for my wit now, oh ye unlucky wights!
HAND!
CP (Critical Persons) Levels v1.0:
==================================
CP0: Being called out by a "critic" for merely supporting another's
ideas as expressed in a post to ars.
CP1: Being flamed by a "critic" for no reason in responce to a polite,
non-flaming post of yours on ars.
CP2: Being called a derogatory name or having your name altered during
an ad hominem attack by a "critic" on ars.
CP3: Being told you're a liar by a "critic" on ars.
CP4: Being labelled a Scientology Office of Special Affairs (OSA) spy,
patsy, or plant by a "critic" on ars.
CP5: Being gang-bang "criticized" by at least 6 "critics" at once in
a thread on ars.
CP6: Being told to leave the ars newsgroup by a "critic" for expressing
your opinions.
CP7: Having a legitimate post of yours to ars cancelled by a censorious
"critic".
CP8: Having your ISP contacted by a self-righteous "critic" over the
content of your posts to ars.
CP9: Having your account yanked due to having your ISP contacted by a
Notes:
======
--
Martin G. V. Hunt
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine (da...@xemu.demon.co.uk) writes:
> In article <4o63l7$o...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, "Martin G. V. Hunt"
> <av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>>CP (Critical Persons) Levels v1.0:
>>==================================
>>
>>CP0: Being called out by a "critic" for merely supporting another's
>> ideas as expressed in a post to ars.
>>
>>CP1: Being flamed by a "critic" for no reason in responce to a polite,
>> non-flaming post of yours on ars.
>>
>>CP2: Being called a derogatory name or having your name altered during
>> an ad hominem attack by a "critic" on ars.
>>
>>CP3: Being told you're a liar by a "critic" on ars.
>>
>>CP4: Being labelled a Scientology Office of Special Affairs (OSA) spy,
>> patsy, or plant by a "critic" on ars.
>
>
> as a joke (I hope))
Thank you! Enjoy your new status as a CP4; an exhalted rank, to be
sure! ;-)
You are the fifth person to spot their CP level. All CPs, no matter
what their level, are encouraged to place it in their .sigs as
a badge of honour.
ttyl,
martin.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Joshua Lowe (bo...@news.bridge.net) writes:
> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine (da...@xemu.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : >CP4: Being labelled a Scientology Office of Special Affairs (OSA) spy,
> : > patsy, or plant by a "critic" on ars.
> :
> :
> : Nice one :0) XEMU, CP4 (it's been said once so far,
> : as a joke (I hope))
>
> Cool. But what if the person that says you're CoS then later retracts
> their statement and apologizes? Felix Tilley mistook me for being a
> CoStooge when I first delurked, but then he was gracious enough to post an
> apology when he saw he was mistaken. Am I still CP4?
>
> SP3, CP4. Neat, movin' on up.
You are the sixth person to spot their CP level; wear it in pride,
brother! ;-)
You raise an interesting point; perhaps this should be the first
amendment? How say you all? I shall abide by your decision in
a most democratic manner as befits someone no longer riding the
bus! ;-)
After a retraction, does the level stand?
Martin G. V. Hunt
Welcome to "Spot the DA"! Can anyone spot the DA used by Tarla
in the following paragraph in a follow-up to the sarcastic CP
levels post?
TarlaStar (bmy...@ionet.net) writes:
> Sarcasm? I don't think so. I think you're a hypocrite Martin. You play
> by two sets of rules; one for the clams, one for the critics. When the
> clams do something unethical, you complain, but when a critics does
> EXACTLY the same thing, you applaud. I may be self-righteous. I AM
> right. At least I'm not two-faced.
Yes, folks! That's right; it's a complete reversal of what I
actually stand for and have done! This is really called the twisting
ploy, a tactic I developed a long time ago and designed to anger
the clams into making a blunder.
Of course, what the CP levels mean is that I am now *not* being a
"hypocrite", as Tarla has blatantly falsely accused me of. No;
now I am applying the same methods of wit (well, I try), sarcasm
and humour on the critics themselves that I have long applied
to the clams. Of course, this is a 180 from "hypocritical",
as is plainly obvious.
Has anyone seen me applaud the critics, like Dennis, Diane and
Tarla for doing something unethical? No; of course not! This
is the DA inside the twister ploy. What I actually did was a 180
from this DA; I called the critics mentioned above on their unethical
abuse of Steve Fishman.
How well did you do? Well, count up the points; there's going to
be a give-away for the poster who spots the most DA used by
critics; count one point for each instance of DA, and of course,
there can be more than one DA in each post!
ttyl,
martin. <are we having fun yet?>
TarlaStar
av...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Martin G. V. Hunt) wrote:
>TarlaStar (bmy...@ionet.net) writes:
>>
>> Sarcasm? I don't think so. I think you're a hypocrite Martin. You play
>> by two sets of rules; one for the clams, one for the critics. When the
>> clams do something unethical, you complain, but when a critics does
>> EXACTLY the same thing, you applaud. I may be self-righteous. I AM
>> right. At least I'm not two-faced.
>Maybe you're not Janus, but you sure can't take a joke, can you?
>Who said you were immune from my wit, dear? ;-) I would be more
>likely to be "two-faced" if I spared critics from my barbs. Isn't it
>hypocritical to jest (or joust?) the clams, while leaving the "critics"
>to go their merry way?
>Nay! Let it not be said I'm a hypocrite! Dennis, Diane, You Yourself
>are all Fair Game for my wit now, oh ye unlucky wights!
>HAND!
Oh sure I can take a joke. It just has to be funny first. Martin, you
have every right to disagree with the conclusions that I have come to;
after all, my perceptions of things are naturally going to be
different than yours. In the spirit of jest...
DELUDED PERSON LIST:
Level DP1: you think that the CoS is a bunch of nice intelligent
people who were tricked.
Level DP2: you secretly wonder if Koos isn't REALLY getting inside
people's heads and start wearing a tin hat to post to a.r.s.
Level DP3: No matter how outrageous or illogical,You accept every
statement from a former Scientologist as fact, 'cause if they say that
they hate the church, they must be telling the truth.
Level DP4: Even when there are conflicts about the facts among
critics, you always support the most vehement ex CoSer against the
Church because if they hate the Church; they must be telling the
truth.
Level DP5: fnord You learn to read with blinders.fnord
Level DP6: You forgo your usual ethical behavior in order to support
the questionable critic.
Level DP7: You send them money.
Level DP8: you buy a catlitter box to carry around so that you can
bury your head in the sand at any moment.
Level DP9: You believe Steven Fishman.
HAND
SOse278720
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
From: David Mayo <ma...@lightlink.com>
Date: 26 May 1996 02:17:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4o8t1o$5...@light.lightlink.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat, 25 May 1996 01:26:54 GMT, ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>It's hard to believe, but you really *are* trying to goad a man who has
a
>>very important court case in progress into endangering his case by
>>discussing it on this publiic forum, at a time when his lawyer has told
>>him not to, solely in order to satisfy some agenda of your own,
disguised
>>as an obligation he is apparently supposed to have to 'fess up to the
>>newsgroup
DIANE:
>Steven Fishman CHOSE to discuss these matters on this public forum.
>No one forced the man to post dozens upon dozens of posts here over
>the past couple of months. No one forced the man to place a 600-page
>doument on his web page. Fishman did this himself, of his own
>volition.
>
>Fishman only stopped discussing these matters on this public forum
>when people began questioning the accuracy and authenticity of his
>claims. No lawyer in his right mind would tell Fishman to stop
>discussing these matters at this point -- it does nothing to benefit
>his client and does a great deal to harm his credibility.
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@neont.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As is a matter of public record, Fishman obtained his current
representation, Ford Greene, as of 4/30/96. Previous to that he had been
pro se, which would explain, perhaps, why he was so very thoughtless and
improvident as to discuss matters related to his court case on a public
forum_something I have not noticed Dennis, David Mayo, or anyone else on
ars with court cases pending, doing.
Soon after Steve obtained representation, he was apparently instructed, as
anyone might have predicted, to refrain from such public discussion.
What seems amazing and incomprehensible to me is that anyone would
question either the likelihood or the importance of such a step.
For Diane to confidently assert the following:
"No lawyer in his right mind would tell Fishman to stop
discussing these matters at this point -- it does nothing to benefit
his client and does a great deal to harm his credibility."
makes me wonder where I have been all this time, to have remained unaware
that Diane is a *lawyer*, and thus competent to discuss such issues and
confidently relegate Ford Greene's tactics to the looney bin, where they
obviously belong.
Steve O.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>As is a matter of public record, Fishman obtained his current
>representation, Ford Greene, as of 4/30/96. Previous to that he had been
>pro se, which would explain, perhaps, why he was so very thoughtless and
>improvident as to discuss matters related to his court case on a public
>forum_something I have not noticed Dennis, David Mayo, or anyone else on
>ars with court cases pending, doing.
Another f-ing lie!
I have discussed *every* aspect of my case, down to minute details
and speculation regarding varying interpretations of the law. The
*only* thing I have not discussed about the case is what goes on
between me and MoFo. That would endanger attorney/client privilege.
The rest has been discussed on ars for months. Wtf have you been,
SO?
>Soon after Steve obtained representation, he was apparently instructed, as
>anyone might have predicted, to refrain from such public discussion.
Accuse a man of rape and then go silent? That's called 'doing the
duck and run'. It don't play all that well on the net, SO.
Martin G. V. Hunt
>>be too too hard to verify this one thing with a simple phone call.
>
> It's nice that Mr. Fishman is willing to give us the names and phone
> numbers of his lawyer and his psychiatrist. There's just one leetle
They are available? Great; who wants to phone these numbers?
> problem with this....It's called patient/client confidentiality. I
> don't think that Mr. Fishman's lawyer could do much beyond confirm
> that Fishman is or is not his client. I don't think Dr. Geertz could
> even do that much. See, it's really easy for him to give out these
> names, 'cause neither one of them is able to confirm or deny
> anything...they are bound by professional ethics. But you go ahead and
Well, we won't know without phoning, will we? Couldn't hurt to try.
Ted? Do you the numbers? Maybe someone in USA could do it; it would
be cheaper that way, and perhaps it's better if the person who suggested
it didn't do the phoning.
> try it. Sorry, I can't help with the phone number. I don't save posts
> from a.r.s.
ttyl,
martin.
Koos Nolst Trenite
25 May 1996
RI-579i 'David Mayo is very RIGHT and very BLIND - Why'
from Ambassador for Mankind (Ron's Inspector)
Message # RI-579i for Internet
David Mayo is only covering up
his most vicious and long-duration crimes on Scientologists.
His crimes
of letting L. Ron Hubbard go to pieces,
of letting Pat Broeker go to pieces,
of letting Mary Sue go to pieces,
etc.
etc.
His crimes
of refusing to detect and handle David Miscavige,
of supporting the vicious Ethics and Justice System.
His crimes
of supporting the execution of
almost ALL of L. Ron Hubbard's evil intentions,
instead of auditing these out, which he was supposed to do.
If there is somebody who did NOT and
does NOT confront or look at the being L. Ron Hubbard, and
if there is someone who did NOT and
does NOT confront or look at the being David Miscavige,
then it is David Mayo.
David Mayo confronted THEM least of all,
and Mayo rather went running around a pole for six months
(this is not a joke, David Mayo went actually, with his body,
running around a pole for six months or something,
in 1982 or thereabouts, in California,
on the orders of David Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard).
Mayo even lost some teeth, because of that,
I'm informed, or something like that.
Well, also that (the 'running program',
specially designed by LRH to drive David Mayo batty [crazy])
did not help David Mayo
to confront L. Ron Hubbard, nor David Miscavige.
In fact it is about as "out-Tech" as you can go
as a Scientologist, but David Mayo did it.
Shows you how high his confront
of Miscavige and L. Ron Hubbard was!
And now Mayo wants to convince others
that KOOS is not confronting L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige,
and that KOOS is "out-Tech",
and that KOOS is fully effect of Miscavige!
You see, he has to make himself totally and completely RIGHT.
And therefore anyone else is of course completely wrong.
And that's what David Mayo is, he is 'RIGHT'.
No wonder that Mayo could not confront
the evil intentions of L. Ron Hubbard and Miscavige,
let alone audit them out,
because he apparently SHARES their insanities!
David Mayo wanted to be driven around the pole for six months
by L. Ron Hubbard.
Mayo was told
that it was a new Technology developed by L. Ron Hubbard
called the "running program",
and in blind obedience to L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige,
David Mayo actually did this six months running around the pole
in the true conviction
that this would save Mankind and himself.
Well, it drove him not only around the pole, of course.
And that's where he still is,
as regards confronting David Miscavige
and confronting the being L. Ron Hubbard.
And so, David Mayo has to tell everybody
that
Koos could not possibly confront David Miscavige,
and that
Koos could not possibly confront the being L. Ron Hubbard.
You see, that makes it totally RIGHT
for David Mayo that HE did NOT confront those beings:
Nobody could have confronted L. Ron Hubbard.
Nobody could have confronted David Miscavige.
Nobody could have removed David Miscavige, either.
So what are they shouting,
David Mayo
and his LSD-soaked friend Homer,
(and his Co-Sea Org-slave Allen Wright,
a devoted unconditional admirer
and errand-boy for L. Ron Hubbard)
what do they all say?
They say: "Koos is Nobody".
So now you know my name,
and now you know
WHO confronted the being L. Ron Hubbard, and
WHO confronted David Miscavige, and
WHO removed David Miscavige.
And when David Mayo and the other cowards he calls his friends,
call me Nobody,
then THEY don't have to admit
that THEY themselves were and are very big cowards
who didn't and still don't dare to look,
neither at the being L. Ron Hubbard,
nor at the history of David Miscavige.
I guess this proves
what the credibility of David Mayo is,
when he says
"Koos has not removed Miscavige
but Koos is total effect of Miscavige".
It also serves as yet another example of many examples,
about what sources the drugs-advocate Homer Wilson Smith chooses
to gain certainty about himself
and about the world around him.
The baseness and ugliness of David Mayo's behavior
is underlined by the fact that
- if Mayo would have wanted any knowledge at all -
he would have examined the most extensive data
I have submitted publicly
about David Miscavige and his past,
and about L. Ron Hubbard and his past and present,
in hundreds of RI-Bulletins.
Yet David Mayo states
"Koos is deluded", "Koos is the effect of David Miscavige",
and he HAS to state that,
and he HAS to ignore
all the work and publications of Koos
about these very precise subjects,
describing very precise incidents,
IN ORDER TO BE RIGHT.
There are some people here,
and they are RIGHT,
no matter how wrong they are,
no matter what proof you submit: THEY ARE RIGHT.
And they are all connected to L. Ron Hubbard.
One is L. Ron Hubbard himself, who is RIGHT.
He put Miscavige on post, and that is RIGHT,
so Miscavige is still on post, you see!
And David Mayo did not detect David Miscavige
and handle Miscavige, when he still could have,
and that is RIGHT.
So nobody else could either.
And David Mayo did not detect and handle
L. Ron Hubbard's insanities, when he still could have,
and that is RIGHT.
So also nobody else could have.
And David Mayo did not detect and handle
Mary Sue's insanities, not Jane Kember's,
not Geoff Shervell's, not Richard Reiss's,
not Ray Mithoff's, and not Marc Yager's, etc., etc., etc.
So David Mayo is RIGHT, very right, now,
for CONTINUING his destructive acts on Scientologists,
for CONTINUING to refuse to look.
I could slam a whole pack of session-summaries into his face,
but it wouldn't help, because he wouldn't look.
MAYO CAN'T BE WRONG!
In his recent writings,
Mayo doesn't get above covert hostility.
Actually, as Steve Fishman correctly pointed out to me,
Mayo is at the Tone Level of
".375 (making amends, selectively high toned
but without responsibility).
As you know, those at this band
give the impression of being at 1.1 [covert hostility],
but with the glee of irresponsibility,
the most one can say is
that there are bursts of selectively high toned elements
projecting the manifestation of covert hostility.
David Mayo is much below that, as indicated. [Quote from Steve]"
See also RI-536i 'A talk with Koos on L. Ron Hubbard's secrets'
of 12 Apr 1996,
exposing Allen Wright, Bill Robertson, David Mayo and others,
and exposing L. Ron Hubbard himself, of course.
And one thing David Mayo
and his psychedelic friend, Homer Wilson Smith,
have always enforced
(and are right NOW enforcing as well,
by order or intention of L. Ron Hubbard):
DON'T LOOK AT KOOS - BECAUSE IT MIGHT MAKE YOU SANE!
Koos Nolst Trenite - Ambassador for Mankind
Copyright 1995, 1996 by Koos Nolst Trenite
references:
RI-183i 'Super Criminal Miscavige's Crimes on MSH and PB' 19 May 95
RI-415i 'How LRH is destroying Scientology' of 15 Dec 1995
RI-416i 'LRH "Being in harmony with Miscavige"' of 15 Dec 95
RI-417i 'LRH Fused with Miscavige' of 19 Dec 1995
RI-40i 'The Miscavige-97-Bi-Yrs-Ago-Inc - EP' of 19 Dec 94
RI-41i 'The Miscavige-97-Bi-Yrs-Ago-Inc - I' of 18 Dec 94
RI-42i 'The Miscavige-97-Bi-Yrs-Ago-Inc - II' of 18 Dec 94
RI-43i 'The Miscavige-97-Bi-Yrs-Ago-Inc - III' of 16 Dec 94
RI-44i 'The Miscavige-97-Bi-Yrs-Ago-Inc - IV' of 15 Dec 94
RI-101i 'Cancellation of False ...OT Certificates' 7 Mar 1995
RI-104i 'All Miscavige Orders Cancelled' of 12 Mar 1995
RI-190i 'Fake Miscavige, the Evil Marc Yager's Plot' 22 May 95
RI-363i 'John Travolta now on Miscavige' of 17 Nov 1995
RI-428Ri 'The whole of RTC is fake, according to LRH' 28 Dec 95
RI-489i 'L. Ron Hubbard's Big Loss of David Miscavige' 22 Feb 96
RI-500i 'Ray Mithoff replaced David Miscavige' of 5 Mar 1996
RI-483i 'What Went...Wrong since 1966 in Scn - Summary' 16 Feb 96
RI-485i 'LRH's ACTUAL Condition in January 1986' of 17 Feb 96
RI-275i 'Mithoff KNEW that Miscavige was an SP' 26 Oct 95)
RI-316Ri 'The Rightness of Vicious Anti-[Ex-]Scnists' rev. 23 Dec 95
RI-410Ri 'Quod licet Iovi...' of 15 Dec 1995, rev. 20 Feb 96
RI-ACT-101R 'Old Agreements with Suppressives' of 17 July 1995
RI-ACT-136 'Homer's (n+1)th Psychotic Break...' of 13 Apr 96
RI-ACT-138 'Letting others destroy themselves - Homer' 22 Apr 96
RI-ACT-139 'Homer is screaming at or hiding from help' 2 May 96
RI-50RQi 'RI-xxxi series Archive - Content and Use' 28 Dec 94
Revised and Replaced on 6 March 1996
These and other RI-Bulletins can be obtained
(with WWW-browser) at
ftp://thetics.europa.com/outgoing/adams/RI
ftp://thetics.europa.com/outgoing/adams/RI/ACT
(with ftp) at
thetics.europa.com/outgoing/adams/RI
thetics.europa.com/outgoing/adams/RI/ACT
SOse278720
Repost_in response to repeated requests:
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT COUNTERCORRECTION(tm)_LONESOME SQUIRREL!!!!
From: sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720)
Date: 24 May 1996 07:25:56 -0400
Message-ID: <4o46c4$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Subject: Re: LaVenda Van
Schaick -- are you out there?
From: inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)
Date: 15 May 1996 09:52:02 -0700
Message-ID: <319a084b...@news.primenet.com>
cdem...@gate.net (Rev. Gypsy Joker At The People's Republic of
Frobnia) wrote:
ref...@neont.com (Diane Richardson) writes:
>: >I also believe the same about the "Celsio and Maria" posts that
>: >have appeared on this newsgroup.
Rev:
>Dianne, come now, I have always respected you as a critic but this seems
>to be nothing but some sort of a low ad homeniem to discredit Steve. I
>don't know who "Maria" was (maybe that occured during my net.vacation),
DENNIS:
The Maria story checks sufficiently with my sources.
>but that Celsio chap appeared to be some sort of low troll.
DENNIS:
Right, but perhaps a purposeful one.
>Do you have
>any evidence that Celsio = Steve? Personally, I *REALLY* doubt it. I've
>been writing and editing for sometime now and as much asomeone else"
little bits of style and certain phrases
always
>seem to blow their cover.
DENNIS:
If Steve were helping OSA, they'd have no trouble setting up
additional account/personnas for him. This is precisely what he was
expert in doing, after all.
>None of this was evident to me in Celsio's post.
>If you've got evidence that Celsio is Fishman post it, otherwise please
>stick to the facts.
DENNIS:
It just seemed that the Celsiothing was supposed to be provocative
and (re)stimulate some male aggression hormones. Perhaps get people
to take stupid actions or promote flames.
>: Why are you being so vicious? What is your motive?
>:
>: >That is my opinion. It comes suspiciously close to the same sort
>: >of activity which landed Mr. Fishman in jail for obstruction of
>: >justice. Steve Fishman claimed that he was ordered by the "Church"
>: >of Scientology[tm] to commit those deceptions in the past, arranging
>: >to have threatening phone calls made to his home and other such
>: >actions.
>:
>: That is all in the court records, Diane.
>:
>: By the way, I am very suspicious of any "critic" who uses the [tm]
after
>: the word Scientology. Could you really be a Scientology plant who has
>: gained the trust of many people on this newsgroup in order to gather
>: intelligence for OSA?
Likelyhood of Diane being anything other than she seems: 1%. But
it's that one percent that'll getcha.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: LaVenda Van
Schaick -- are you out there?
From: inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)
Date: 15 May 1996 09:52:03 -0700
Message-ID: <319a0746...@news.primenet.com>
David Mayo <ma...@lightlink.com> wrote:
Sherilyn or Martin:
>>I believe the Mayos have pointed out one or two descriptions of people
>>and details of location and organization that don't match up well with
>>their own recollections. How significant this is I cannot say.
David:
> Was just details ...
>>Now, despite the lack of solid evidence, I have received a number of
>>emails from people who really should know, indicating that Steven could
>
>Really, really, really, should know? But they don't come out and say so.
DENNIS:
David, OSA's trying to assert that Steve had no "official" contact
with HeadQuarters. Ie, that he wasn't a cofs operative.
>>_only_ have been in the cult at the time he says he was. He knows too
>>well what happened for it to be a fake. And I have the word of people
DENNIS:
No, Steve had plenty of contact with them and was run by the scienos
as a money-machine to defraud millions of dollars of shareholder's
money out of large corporations involved in class-action litigation.
His operation, lowering the value of corporations by making them pay
nonexistent Plaintiffs (cofs), fits perfectly with the "work" of the
(peel-your) Fleshback Brothers market manipulations during the same
period (I bet), and the poodle - Bayback - Gerbino moves in other
markets.
They have to get rid of the cash somehow. Get it into the system in
some "clean" way. Just like cocaine distributers.
>Did Fishman say that Lyman Spurlock raped or was involved in the rape? I
>missed that part of this thread.
DENNIS:
Yea, David. He said that Lyman raped LaVenda's sister.
>>whom I greatly trust, like Ron Newman, who say that Lavenda appeared to
>>be a real person, and did not post like Steve did at the time.
>Even _I_ know she's a real person. So is Lyman Spurlock. I think he's
>probably going to get a lot more real, too. Unfortunately.
DENNIS:
Somehow this has become a somewhat serious issue. It got a reading
on my BSdetect Unit(tm). Is it possible that Steve is trying to drag
us all into a Conspiracy to Commit Libel case?
That'd mean ...
>>Evidence is slowly mounting up. Be patient.
>Rather rapidly, I'd say.
DENNIS:
And just so I am clear about this: Steve is infinitely more likely
to have flip-flopped back into being scieno-controlled in my opinion,
than you are, David. But you knew that.
>David Mayo
>What do a few facts matter when you're travelling at the speed of light
>towards the event horizon of a black hole!
DENNIS:
I like your sayings, David. They bore right into poor defenseless
little scieno-brains. But you're cheating by using your sUpeR pOwerZ
on them.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Hypnosis induction was successfully used to clarify recall in
Lonesome Squirrel
From: inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)
Date: 18 May 1996 10:47:01 -0700
Message-ID: <319e052c...@news.primenet.com>
see...@ix.netcom.com (h3) wrote:
> [I]n any event, i take
> your assertions here to mean that you intended Lonesome Squirrel
> to be as factual and honest an account of your experience with
> scientology as you can present?
>
>-- see...@ix.netcom.com
DENNIS:
A yes or no will do, Steve.
[Aside - I personally am examining the possibility that the whole deal
is a fig-newton of Steve's obviously fertile imagination, and that,
based on that possibility, he may be OSA's Trojan Horse.]
If I'm thinkin' it, shouldn't I tell ya? Am I outta line, buddy?
Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
<dennis....@support.com>
<inF...@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: Hypnosis induction
was successfully used to clarify recall in Lonesome Squirrel
From: inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)
Date: 18 May 1996 19:21:03 -0700
Message-ID: <319e80ab...@news.primenet.com>
David Gerard <f...@suburbia.net> wrote:
>inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich) wrote:
>>see...@ix.netcom.com (h3) wrote:
>
>>> [I]n any event, i take
>>> your assertions here to mean that you intended Lonesome Squirrel
>>> to be as factual and honest an account of your experience with
>>> scientology as you can present?
DENNIS:
>> A yes or no will do, Steve.
>>[Aside - I personally am examining the possibility that the whole deal
>>is a fig-newton of Steve's obviously fertile imagination, and that,
>>based on that possibility, he may be OSA's Trojan Horse.]
>> If I'm thinkin' it, shouldn't I tell ya? Am I outta line, buddy?
David:
>(raises hand)
DENNIS:
Mmmm. Yes, David.
>Did any of the legal cases between the Church and Fishman ever happen?
DENNIS:
Yes.
>Are they still happening?
DENNIS:
Yes.
>Why? As cover?
DENNIS:
Perhaps to establish that Fishman is a liar and a criminal. Perhaps
to set precedent.
You have never known people like Fishman (those who have dirty
tricked the cult's enemies and done crimes *for* the scienos) to
flip-flop? I certainly have. Enough times to notice similarities.
SOse278720
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
Message-ID: <31a88d47...@news.primenet.com>
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>As is a matter of public record, Fishman obtained his current
>representation, Ford Greene, as of 4/30/96. Previous to that he had been
>pro se, which would explain, perhaps, why he was so very thoughtless and
>improvident as to discuss matters related to his court case on a public
>forum_something I have not noticed Dennis, David Mayo, or anyone else on
>ars with court cases pending, doing.
DENNIS:
"Another f-ing lie!
I have discussed *every* aspect of my case, down to minute details
and speculation regarding varying interpretations of the law. The
*only* thing I have not discussed about the case is what goes on
between me and MoFo. That would endanger attorney/client privilege."
~~~~
Sorry, Dennis, I wasn't thinking; it's true that you alone, (except for
Fishman) out of *all* the litigation that has been seen involving people
on a.r.s., have discussed matters relating to your case extensively. You
*did* at that time have excellent representation, andth it (your case
seems relatively cut-and-dried).
What I am saying is that you (collective) do not, would not (I expect) and
should not (I sincerely believe) post things *that your lawyer has
instructed you not to*, related to your cases.
Certainly, in recent months you, Dennis, have frequently omitted fair- use
quotes of Scientological materials from your postings, with the note,"
(snipped to save MoFo work)".
ME:
>Soon after Steve obtained representation, he was apparently instructed,
as
>anyone might have predicted, to refrain from such public discussion.
DENNIS:
Accuse a man of rape and then go silent? That's called 'doing the
duck and run'. It don't play all that well on the net, SO.
~~~~~~~~
Well, I guess there are more important things in life than having a hit
show on the net, esp.given that public opinion is such a proverbially
fickle thing.
Meanwhile, I will say it again: I consider it unfair, unethical, and
irresponsible to attempt to goad a person (*any* person) into possibly
prejudicing his case which is pending in a court of law, by disobeying his
lawyer and making statements in a public forum which could be read by
*absolutely anyone*, including, for example, Scieno lawyers_ the
repercussions of such disobedience being obviously impossible to predict.
Steve O.
(i'm posting this a second time 'cos it hsn't shown up on my reader: sorry
if anyone gets it twice)
SOse278720
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT COUNTERCORRECTION(tm)_LONESOME SQUIRREL!!!!
From: sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720)
Message-ID: <4o46dj$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
DENNIS:
You have never known people like Fishman (those who have dirty
tricked the cult's enemies and done crimes *for* the scienos) to
flip-flop? I certainly have. Enough times to notice similarities
???????????????????????????
I just realized what you were saying here, Dennis_that *you* have known
people to flip-flop (i.e. you have personal knowledge of "people like
Fishman" flip-flopping.) That's odd...when Dave Bird challenged you to
give one example of such a phenomenon you couldn't come up with one.
Have you or have you not known "people like Fishman" to flip-flop? If so,
please post specific info_ if not, please explain why you said you did.
And "enough times to notice similarities?" There better be a few.
Otherwise it will look as though you invented knowledge and experience
you did not have in order to back up an empty allegation about Fishman.
SOse278720
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
From: inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)
Date: 26 May 1996 10:06:01 -0700
Message-ID: <31a88d47...@news.primenet.com>
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>As is a matter of public record, Fishman obtained his current
>representation, Ford Greene, as of 4/30/96. Previous to that he had been
>pro se, which would explain, perhaps, why he was so very thoughtless and
>improvident as to discuss matters related to his court case on a public
>forum_something I have not noticed Dennis, David Mayo, or anyone else on
>ars with court cases pending, doing.
DENNIS:
"Another f-ing lie!
I have discussed *every* aspect of my case, down to minute details
and speculation regarding varying interpretations of the law. The
*only* thing I have not discussed about the case is what goes on
between me and MoFo. That would endanger attorney/client privilege."
~~~~
Sorry, Dennis, I wasn't thinking; it's true that you alone, (except for
Fishman) out of *all* the litigation that has been seen involving people
on a.r.s., have discussed matters relating to your case extensively. You
*did* at that time have excellent representation, and apparently they saw
no problem with it (your case seems relatively cut-and-dried).
What I mean to say is that you (collective) do not, would not (I expect)
and should not (I sincerely believe) post things *that your lawyer has
instructed you not to*, related to your cases.
Certainly, in recent months you, Dennis, have frequently omitted fair- use
quotes of Scientological materials from your postings, with the note,"
(snipped to save MoFo work)".
ME:
>Soon after Steve obtained representation, he was apparently instructed,
as
>anyone might have predicted, to refrain from such public discussion.
DENNIS:
Accuse a man of rape and then go silent? That's called 'doing the
duck and run'. It don't play all that well on the net, SO.
~~~~~~~~
Well, I guess there are more important things in life than having a hit
show on the net, particulalrly given that public opinion is such a
Eddie Wolfe
Sister Clara wrote:
>
> In article <4o4aqm$7...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>> > SOse278720 (sose2...@aol.com) writes:
> > > From: Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>
> > >>
> > >>It is called whatever you wish. Suffice it to say that when I observe three
> > >>people who were in the higher reaches of the cult for a long time, are in
> > >>a position to know just what form OSA tactics may take, and have personal
> > >>knowledge of OSA methodologies through the attacks launched against
> > >>themselves, make a suggestion, I jolly well listen.
> >
> > Don't put too much faith in argument from authority; argument from facts
> > is generally much stronger. Dennis and the Mayos may know a great deal
> > about Scientology, but if they were to tell me something that contradicted
> > what I know, I wouldn't believe them.
>
> And have they Martin? You have not as yet said to any of them that they are
> wrong about something you specifically KNOW about, have you? If you have,
> then clearly I have missed it. Care to remind me and anyone else who may not
> have seen this take place?
Martin said: " but if they were to tell me something that contradicted
> > what I know, I wouldn't believe them."
> >
> > >> What personal experience can YOU bring to bear on this debate?
> >
> > Steve O has had experience in Scientology, apparently, from what he
> > said agreeing with one of the outpoints Dennis and the Mayos raised
> > in an earlier post. Still, don't leave it to those who "know";
> > everyone has something to contribute, I believe. I think some of the
> > most perceptive things ever said about Scientology have been said by
> > non-Scientologists; they bring a fresh and often very healthy point
> > of view to the subject, and I wouldn't dismiss them as "non-experts".
> > Also, if we take the "expert/authority" view of things, then we
> > must concede Homer and Koos carry a lot of weight in their respective
> > descriptions of Scientology, but I think you would agree that their
> > views are often very wrong, sometimes amusingly so.
>
> I was talking about "OSA methodologies" Martin. I was not in the cult and I
> do not see how I would be able to say anything particularly "perceptive"
> about those methodologies when it comes to disputed facts.
>
> Who else was in the position of Dennis and the Mayos to make judgements as
> to the veracity of claims about OSA behaviour? Have they had their
> judgements challenged by anyone is such a position?
I wasn't aware that Dennis and the Mayos were in a position to know about
OSA behavour. (At least not from the inside.)
> Were YOU there, Martyn?
>
> >
> > > I don't know of a personal experience he can bring, Sister Clara,
> > > but based on the fact that Dennis repeatedly referred to me as Scieno,
> > > OSA, and Trojan Horse, I am seriously predisposed to take such
> > > allegations from him with a couple of tons of salt.
> >
> > Could an ars archivist please find and post these? I only remember
> > Dennis Erlich calling Steve O a "lying sack o[f] shit".
> >
> > > When I suggested Dennis could check me out with Mike Godwin if he didn't
> > > trust me, he replied, "I don't play that game."
> >
> > I wish Dennis would clarify this; what is that supposed to mean, if
> > anything? Is Mike Godwin supposed to be an OSA plant as well, and
> > therefore an unreliable source?
> >
> > > In addition, I thought Dave Bird's subsequent exchange with Dennis,
> > > regarding the lack of *any* previous examples of "flip-flopping" such as
> > > Dennis is suggesting , plus a well-reasoned argument as to why it would be
> > > highly unlikely, carried much greater weight with me than Dennis's dark
> > > hints, ranting, etc....
>
> Amazing how you can become an expert just by reading documents and
> affidavits, don't you think?
>
> Tell you what, Martin. At some point I will tell you what Scientology is
> really about, indeed I will lecture you on the point. After all, what do you
> know? You were only in it, after all.
>
> I will watch with interest your reaction the first time that Dave tells you
> that you are wrong about an aspect of Scientology with which you were/are
> familiar <grin>.
>
> >
> > I agree that rumours and allegations don't carry as much weight as
> > reasoned arguments or factual data. Dennis appears to be going through
> > a very rough time at the moment, and I'm not sure why; I hope he pulls
> > through, and gets back to his normal, good-humoured self.
>
> Perhaps he is exasperated seeing previously level-headed critics desperately
> wanting to carry on believing Fishman when all the evidence points to
> significant anomolies in his story.
Steve O., Martin Hunt, myself, and others have never claimed that
Fishman's book is completely true. I wonder why you would say we did.
> >
> > You're seeing the worst of him, without the benefit of the best; give
> > him a chance, and perhaps his will regain his composure and his common
> > sense.
>
> If I were Dennis, I would be offended by your presumption here.
>
> --
> Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX
>
> Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
> This posting is copyright of the First Church of Juicyology.
--
1ľ
Sherilyn
In article <4ociqa$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, SOse278720
<sose2...@aol.com> writes
>
>Repost_in response to repeated requests:
Could you explain why you posted this? It looked like a lot of badly
edited extracts from posts I already have on my newsbase.
It would have helped if you could have provided some commentary
alt.religion.scientology posters: defeat the spam, adopt the Sheri convention.
1) Cross-post to talk.religion.misc
2) Include the word Xenu in your subject header.
For information about what the cult of scientology is doing to your right of
free speech on the Net:
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
No fancy graphics, no crap. Just solid information. More hits!
NOTS from Sherilyn's WWW page:
http://www.icon.fi/~marina/sherilyn/
"Unethical..aiding in distribution of NOTS" -Joshua Lowe.
Joshua Lowe
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) wrote:
: Sorry. I wasn't referring to you, Joshua. However, from the couple
: of posts you've inflicted on me today, I'm beginning to see why you
: might think I was. ;)
My mistake, then. I assumed since I am a wog, and I believed what Steve
said, I must therefore be one of the people you refer to. I guess there
was critera that I didn't take into account.
So who are the clueless wogs, then?
: >At least I never was clueless enough to get sucked into a criminal cult
: >that thinks little alien-ghosts inhabit my body.
:
: <sniff> You hurted my feeling.
It wasn't meant as an insult, it was meant as a statement of fact. You're
quick with the whip, Dennis. One of the whipping boys just wanted to
remind you of the old scars on your own back.
: >Let alone become a prominent staff member.
:
: I'm sure you have every reason in the world to think highly of
: yourself. Whereas it is quite true that I only have just one or two,
: being an ex-delusionary scieno staff member and all.
My violin is in the shop.
My point was that not only are you getting disproportionately hostile
towards Fishman, your hostility is rapidly spreading to people who
believe(d) him.
: But I really wasn't referring to you at all.
And I'm compelled to ask you again, who are you referring to?
Joshua Lowe
Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: But you were clueless enough to be completely taken in by Fishman.
You actually compare falling for possible falsehoods mixed with truth to
falling for the spew of the CoS? That's a stretch if there's ever been
one.
: At least Dennis' cluelessness about the cult he entered (which he has always
: openly acknowledged) was in the past.
I'm very busy questioning what has happened. I am much more wary of
Fishman right now, but I haven't made up my mind yet. It certainly looks
bad, I will gladly say that.
But an OSA plant? It'll take real, solid, tangible proof before I even
consider it seriously.
: You retain your cluelessness despite the free and widely scattered clues
: that we have been offering you for weeks.
They're not enough to make a decision to totally disregard Steve, though.
Not enough to make me start calling people "lying sacks of shit" and other
names.
Tell me, doesn't the clueless wog line strike you as just a _tiny_ bit
ironic?
Sherilyn
In article <31AA40...@wnstar.com>, Eddie Wolfe <Ewo...@wnstar.com>
writes
>Sister Clara wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree that rumours and allegations don't carry as much weight as
>> > reasoned arguments or factual data. Dennis appears to be going through
>> > a very rough time at the moment, and I'm not sure why; I hope he pulls
>> > through, and gets back to his normal, good-humoured self.
>>
>> Perhaps he is exasperated seeing previously level-headed critics desperately
>> wanting to carry on believing Fishman when all the evidence points to
>> significant anomolies in his story.
>
>Steve O., Martin Hunt, myself, and others have never claimed that
>Fishman's book is completely true. I wonder why you would say we did.
Logic error.
Syllogism I: Fishman cannot be believed
Syllogism II: Fishman's book is completely true
Note that the negation of Syllogism II is not the same as the assertion
of Syllogism I.
alt.religion.scientology posters: defeat the spam, adopt the Sheri convention.
1) Cross-post to alt.religion.scientology.xenu and/or talk.religion.misc
2) If you don't have alt.religion.scientology.xenu yet, ask for it--it has
been discussed in alt.config.
3) Include the word Xenu in your subject header.
4) If you use netscape, sort threads by author, so you can easily select spam
posts and mark them as read.
Sister Clara
In article <4of8s8$8...@news.bridge.net>
bo...@news.bridge.net (Joshua Lowe) wrote:
> Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : But you were clueless enough to be completely taken in by Fishman.
>
> You actually compare falling for possible falsehoods mixed with truth to
> falling for the spew of the CoS? That's a stretch if there's ever been
> one.
No stretch. There were any number of people handing out clues as to
Fishman's unreliability but some chose to ignore and dispute them. Who was
there to dissuade Dennis from joining the cult?
It is one thing to have no clue - it is quite another to reject clues when
they are freely given.
> : At least Dennis' cluelessness about the cult he entered (which he has always
> : openly acknowledged) was in the past.
>
> I'm very busy questioning what has happened. I am much more wary of
> Fishman right now, but I haven't made up my mind yet. It certainly looks
> bad, I will gladly say that.
One of the sad things about this internal war of the flames is that people
find it that much more difficult to shift their positions - on the contrary,
their views become hardened.
There are no winners and losers here Joshua. It does not make me "happy" to
see people having real doubts about Fishman's accounts. The truth is more
important than the personalities who fight to establish it. It is more
important than the feelings of you, me, Fishman, Dennis, Freewolf, Diane and
all the other participants in this debate.
And there is a great deal more to come out, I am sure.
>
> But an OSA plant? It'll take real, solid, tangible proof before I even
> consider it seriously.
I think this is rapidly becoming an ars myth. I believe the quote was that
Fishman might possibly be an "OSA Trojan Horse". Now I may be guilty of
being nit-picking here (hi Dave!) but a Trojan Horse is different from a
"plant" in my view. It all lies in how much the person at the centre of all
this might know about the extent of manipulation that is going on.
Mind you, it was only a speculation after all and difficult at this stage to
establish one way or another.
>
> : You retain your cluelessness despite the free and widely scattered clues
> : that we have been offering you for weeks.
>
> They're not enough to make a decision to totally disregard Steve, though.
> Not enough to make me start calling people "lying sacks of shit" and other
> names.
Point taken.
>
> Tell me, doesn't the clueless wog line strike you as just a _tiny_ bit
> ironic?
>
Just button-pressing, Joshua. I tend to find the expression quite amusing
but maybe that is because I acknowledge that Dennis has many more clues than
I have when it comes to the cult. <grin>
I think it is time to lower the temperature in this debate.
--
Sister Clara - SP4 - Magpie - LoX
Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy
alt.religion.scientology - Open for business as usual
SOse278720
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 12:20:48 +0100
Message-ID: <a65cd...@holsoft.demon.co.uk>>
CLARA:
:And there is a great deal more to come out, I am sure.
~~~~~
You said it, Sis. Be interesting...
JOSHUA:
> But an OSA plant? It'll take real, solid, tangible proof before I even
> consider it seriously.
CLARA:
"I think this is rapidly becoming an ars myth. I believe the quote was
that
Fishman might possibly be an 'OSA Trojan Horse'"
~~~~~~
No myth, Clara. That was simply *one* particular quote of several _and
even the article you're referring to, quoted by Dave Bird, also contained
a suggestion by Dennis that Steve had "flip-flopped," a term that
obviously implies a *knowing* collaboration, not a state of dupedom.
I'm mentioning this in the interests of getting the facts straight. You
can look it up, if you like. In response to Dennis's scatologically
charged challenges, I reposted all relevant posts that I found,
*un*edited, as per his order, save for clarification of the speaker, where
necessary.
This I posted twice, in response to requests to repost it (Sherilyn
suggested I should repost it *again*A references, but I think anyone who
wants the info can find it; it's there. I posted it as Dennis requested
it: unedited.)
It is apparent if you read the posts, that in no case does Dennis come out
and say "I accuse you, Steve Fishman, of being an OSA plant" He merely
suggests, insinuates, as you say, "speculates"_ while at the same time
suggesting that he, Dennis, has experience and expertise (some apparently
invented for the occasion) that should lend special weight to his
"speculations."
JOSHUA:
Tell me, doesn't the clueless wog line strike you as just a _tiny_ bit
> ironic?
CLARA:
"Just button-pressing, Joshua. I tend to find the expression quite amusing
<snip>
~~~~~~
I think what Joshua was referring to, and what struck me, also, was
Dennis's apparently automatic and instinctive use of the term.
One of the things that has troubled me most in this debate has been
seeing Dennis resort to scientology tactics (always attack, never defend,
never fear to hurt others in a just cause, discredit critics, etc.) while
continually referring to his expertise and superior knowledge of
Scieno-dom, and aligning himself strongly with David Mayo (this is
absolutely nothing against David Mayo, whom I greatly respect_ I'm
specifically referring to the effect of such an alignment on Dennis's
self-identification at this stage).
The references to a.r.s as a church, and particularly when using that
"church" as a forum in which to denounce (declare?) Steve Fishman, also
trouble me, and for similar reasons. "Wog" churches are normally not used
for such activities, at least in this day and age.
And concomitantly, I've noticed an exacerbation of Scieno-type
personality traits: arrogance, intolerance of differing opinions,
paranoia, the feeling that only he has the right answer. I am not the only
one to notice an apparent regression on Dennis's part, I hope only
temporary.
Which provides the ground from which such a phrase ("clueless wogs")
springs easily and automatically. Joshua is by no means the only one to
have objected to his use of the phrase, BTW.
Sorry to beat into the ground a point that Joshua's post made so lightly
and elegantly, but you didn't seem to get it. (And if you weren't
thinking any of this, Joshua, I apologize for involving you in my mental
machinations.)
And I certainly don't expect you to agree with anything I just said,
Clara. Just airing my views on a public forum.
Obviously anyone interested has only to reread the relevant postings from
the past couple of weeks, and form their own opinion.
CLARA:
I think it is time to lower the temperature in this debate.
~~~~~~
As I think has been suggested by many critics for several weeks now. Glad
we agree on this. :->
Steve O.
CP*6*
(with blue terry-cloth ribband)
.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
[snipt: a lot of dennis this and dennis that - idiots like SO be
discussing what I did and didn't say, as well as what I *really* meant
for the next few centuries, no doubt]
> One of the things that has troubled me most in this debate ...
[goes on to list several]
Look, Steve. It's obvious that you're fos and can't take a joke.
So I suggest that you try the patented SubGenius cure. I think it's
just right for your condition.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
><tap, tap> May I cut in?
Sure, Barbara.
[snip - stunning grasp of admittedly complex personage]
>I have to say that I see *no* change in Dennis.
I don't either. My beliefs have not changed substantially (except
in relation to my loss of faith in the merican legal system) so why
would my words or actions?
>He has always exhibited,
>from time to time, negative and unpleasant traits such as abrasive
>sarcasm, rudeness, intolerance, and paranoia.
What a load of cr-p, you brainwashed OSA stooge, you!
>(He shares those
>characteristics with a fair number of people who have stuck it out here
>for several years, but I suppose that's beside the point.) Dennis is the
>same Dennis I've observed for as long as I've been reading this newsgroup.
That's because I don't have any buddy thetans giving me more
personalities.
>And in a way that's an amazing achievement,
As far as I'm concerned, it is. A lesser man would have gotten an
assault rifle and ... well, nevermind.
>since the man has been over
>the past two years stripped naked by the invidious strategies of
>scientology, such as suborning his ex-wife in order to buy her rights to
>have his assets seized in lieu of disputed child-support payments, and
>deprived of every form of privacy.
Privacy is an highly overrated civil right that delusory americans
still think they have.
>The man is jobless, homeless, under
>relentless attack by an immoral and immensely rich corporation that is
>without scruples; and now, with the death of his father, he is without
>family.
Hey, my mom's still alive and well. We love and support each other.
She's not going anywhere. Priscilla and Dr. Ed Coates are kinda like
surrogate parents, too.
>He is not, however, without friends (and don't you ever forget that,
>Dennis Erlich!).
<blush> I won't Barbara. I promise. And thanks for the kind
thoughts. [p/m]
Ceon Ramon
<tap, tap> May I cut in?
In article <4oi9fp$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
SOse278720 <sose2...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>JOSHUA:
>> But an OSA plant? It'll take real, solid, tangible proof before I even
>> consider it seriously.
>
>CLARA:
>"I think this is rapidly becoming an ars myth. I believe the quote was
>that
>Fishman might possibly be an 'OSA Trojan Horse'"
>
>~~~~~~
>No myth, Clara. That was simply *one* particular quote of several _and
>even the article you're referring to, quoted by Dave Bird, also contained
>a suggestion by Dennis that Steve had "flip-flopped," a term that
>obviously implies a *knowing* collaboration, not a state of dupedom.
It's trivially easy to be misunderstood in this medium, so I want to make
it clear up front that I'm not trying to be quarrelsome or impugn anyone's
integrity. Martin earlier characterized me as a "Dennie," or a Dennis
Erlich groupie. The fact is rather that I hate to see people
misunderstood and then the misunderstandings perpetuated; I'm not so much
a groupie as an Interferring Sort, aka a Buttinski.
I've been reading Dennis's postings for almost two years now. While I am
_in fact_ more or less a clueless wog (and the characterization doesn't
bother me in the least), I have gained a fair amount of factual background
and an appreciation for the character of those whose articles I've been
reading for that length of time. I seldom post, so it wouldn't be
surprising if people don't have a similar feeling for my own integrity.
So, lash away if you feel so inclined, although I'd prefer it if you
didn't.
("Yes, yes; will you never get to the _point_!") I agree with Clara. I
think that this characterization of *someone* claiming that Steve Fishman
is an OSA plant has gained much more credibility than it deserves. I
honestly do not believe that anyone has stated this, and when Dennis
referred to a "Trojan Horse" I understood him to mean that OSA might be
using Steve as a tool, all unbeknownst to Steve himself. I certainly
didn't read it as a statement of belief that Steve was a mole, or a
double-agent.
Dennis also free-associates a lot, and I thought when he segued from
speculating that Steve was a tool to references of ex-Scientologists who
have "flip-flopped" that this was one of those unlinked associations. I
believe that you, Steve O, asked him to name one person who had
flip-flopped; I can certainly remember Kim Baker doing this. While she
didn't exactly rush whole-heartedly back into the arms of the cult, she
did, for whatever reasons seemed good and sufficient to her at the time,
swear out two separate affidavits that were intended to be used against
Dennis in his current litigation and to cause serious damage to his case.
This was after she had come into a.r.s. and received a lot of praise and
support both public and private, and while I wouldn't be surprised if
Dennis were way beyond ever feeling betrayed, I'm sure he felt he'd been
played for a sucker.
And yes, I imagine he does know others who have flip-flopped back and
forth, causing a great deal of misery in the process. And I don't think
it's really fair to ask him to elaborate on that assertion, as you would
be asking him to name names and give details that would then doubtlessly
be further shredded and more demands for even more details made. This
wouldn't do anyone any good, not you, not me, and least of all Dennis.
>I'm mentioning this in the interests of getting the facts straight. You
>can look it up, if you like. In response to Dennis's scatologically
>charged challenges
Oh, really; when did we get so prim around here? (henri? *henri*?
Where's that dratted boy!)
, I reposted all relevant posts that I found,
>*un*edited, as per his order, save for clarification of the speaker, where
>necessary.
>
> This I posted twice, in response to requests to repost it (Sherilyn
>suggested I should repost it *again*A references, but I think anyone who
>wants the info can find it; it's there. I posted it as Dennis requested
>it: unedited.)
>
>It is apparent if you read the posts, that in no case does Dennis come out
>and say "I accuse you, Steve Fishman, of being an OSA plant"
That's right. He did not. And neither did David Mayo, who was also
falsely characterized as making that claim.
He merely
>suggests, insinuates, as you say, "speculates"_ while at the same time
>suggesting that he, Dennis, has experience and expertise (some apparently
>invented for the occasion) that should lend special weight to his
>"speculations."
What do you mean by "some apparently invented for the occasion"?
I personally have little doubt that Dennis knows what he's talking about.
Maybe he shouldn't make such speculations or offer hints that he's not
prepared to support with details, but I can see why he'd be reluctant to
give out those details, details that would implicate real living
individuals. The fact that he doesn't want to follow in Steve Fishman's
rash footsteps by producing the names of actual people is quite
understandable, especially since those names very likely would mean
nothing to us.
>JOSHUA:
> Tell me, doesn't the clueless wog line strike you as just a _tiny_ bit
>> ironic?
>
>CLARA:
>"Just button-pressing, Joshua. I tend to find the expression quite amusing
><snip>
I think a good many of us ARE clueless wogs.
>I think what Joshua was referring to, and what struck me, also, was
>Dennis's apparently automatic and instinctive use of the term.
Well, Steve, I don't see that this speculation has any more credibility
than Dennis's speculation that Fishman is being used by OSA as a
tool. It's just your personal impression. I think Dennis was using the
phrase "clueless wogs" out of a mixture of exasperation and irony,
probably heavy on the exasperation factor.
> One of the things that has troubled me most in this debate has been
>seeing Dennis resort to scientology tactics (always attack, never defend,
>never fear to hurt others in a just cause, discredit critics, etc.) while
>continually referring to his expertise and superior knowledge of
>Scieno-dom, and aligning himself strongly with David Mayo (this is
>absolutely nothing against David Mayo, whom I greatly respect_ I'm
>specifically referring to the effect of such an alignment on Dennis's
>self-identification at this stage).
What I've gathered from reading this (highly addictive) newsgroup for
close on two years now is that Scientology is a cult that does extensive
and very serious damage to its members, and that in the process of drawing
away from its beliefs and practices there are certain tags and shorthand
phrases that stick in one's vocabulary the way spinach sticks to the
teeth. Dennis _does_ use "scieno-speak" sometimes, but he does it
deliberately and for the purpose of irony. When Dennis posts, he
identifies most of his audience as those of us who have been here for a
long time and understand his use of language. This is a mistake in a way
because of the newbies, but the newbies have to take care of themselves to
some extent. Those who like Dennis have been here for a long time can't
be expected to continuously gloss their posts. There's an embarrassment
of riches in the way of Web pages.
As for aligning himself with David Mayo, of course he aligns himself with
David Mayo. They're brothers in experience. They understand each other
in a way that you and I never could, or would want to (being "clueless
wogs" and all :-)). What is it you find so sinister about this?
> The references to a.r.s as a church, and particularly when using that
>"church" as a forum in which to denounce (declare?) Steve Fishman, also
>trouble me, and for similar reasons. "Wog" churches are normally not used
>for such activities, at least in this day and age.
Come on: do you really believe that Dennis thinks of a.r.s. as a *church*?
That's sarcasm. I'd be surprised if Dennis can even think of a *church*
as a church any more.
> And concomitantly, I've noticed an exacerbation of Scieno-type
>personality traits: arrogance, intolerance of differing opinions,
>paranoia, the feeling that only he has the right answer. I am not the only
>one to notice an apparent regression on Dennis's part, I hope only
>temporary.
I have to say that I see *no* change in Dennis. He has always exhibited,
from time to time, negative and unpleasant traits such as abrasive
sarcasm, rudeness, intolerance, and paranoia. (He shares those
characteristics with a fair number of people who have stuck it out here
for several years, but I suppose that's beside the point.) Dennis is the
same Dennis I've observed for as long as I've been reading this newsgroup.
And in a way that's an amazing achievement, since the man has been over
the past two years stripped naked by the invidious strategies of
scientology, such as suborning his ex-wife in order to buy her rights to
have his assets seized in lieu of disputed child-support payments, and
deprived of every form of privacy. The man is jobless, homeless, under
relentless attack by an immoral and immensely rich corporation that is
without scruples; and now, with the death of his father, he is without
family.
He is not, however, without friends (and don't you ever forget that,
Dennis Erlich!).
>Which provides the ground from wch such a phrase ("clueless wogs")
>springs easily and automatically. Joshua is by no means the only one to
>have objected to his use of the phrase, BTW.
I don't know... try not to be so touchy. I've been called worse things.
>Sorry to beat into the ground a point that Joshua's post made so lightly
>and elegantly, but you didn't seem to get it. (And if you weren't
>thinking any of this, Joshua, I apologize for involving you in my mental
>machinations.)
Uh... what's the point that Joshua made lightly and elegantly? That he
doesn't appreciate being called a clueless wog? That Dennis appeared to
speculate that Fishman was being used by OSA?
>And I certainly don't expect you to agree with anything I just said,
>Clara. Just airing my views on a public forum.
Me, too. Hope you don't mind that I cut in. It's been a rough dance, but
then Arthur Murray never promised to teach me the Highland reel.
Postscript to Martin: Since I was drawn to a.r.s. by news in the original
net.abuse group about Dennis's home being raided, and since I followed
that information over here, perhaps you can in future refer to me not as a
groupie but as a camp follower.
Were I a groupie I'd be yours, sweetie. Living up the road a piece as you
do, you're really much more convenient. :-)
--Barbara
h3
In article <4oi9fp$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, sose2...@aol.com
(SOse278720) wrote:
[clip]
> No myth, Clara. That was simply *one* particular quote of several _and
> even the article you're referring to, quoted by Dave Bird, also contained
> a suggestion by Dennis that Steve had "flip-flopped," a term that
> obviously implies a *knowing* collaboration, not a state of dupedom.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you write dictionaries for a living, yes? otherwise, i suggest
you consult one.
> I'm mentioning this in the interests of getting the facts straight. You
> can look it up, if you like. In response to Dennis's scatologically
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> charged challenges, I reposted all relevant posts that I found,
> *un*edited, as per his order, save for clarification of the speaker, where
> necessary.
it's a big word. did you look it up, too? does it really fit
the post?
> This I posted twice, in response to requests to repost it (Sherilyn
> suggested I should repost it *again*A references, but I think anyone who
> wants the info can find it; it's there. I posted it as Dennis requested
> it: unedited.)
>
> It is apparent if you read the posts, that in no case does Dennis come out
> and say "I accuse you, Steve Fishman, of being an OSA plant" He merely
> suggests, insinuates, as you say, "speculates"_ while at the same time
> suggesting that he, Dennis, has experience and expertise (some apparently
> invented for the occasion) that should lend special weight to his
> "speculations."
let's see: the chief cramming officer of scientology (at one time)
has no expertise. well, that ought to put a lot of minds at ease in
hemet and clearwater.
[clip]
>
> One of the things that has troubled me most in this debate has been
> seeing Dennis resort to scientology tactics (always attack, never defend,
> never fear to hurt others in a just cause, discredit critics, etc.) while
> continually referring to his expertise and superior knowledge of
amply demonstrated, although sometimes updated by more recent information
> Scieno-dom, and aligning himself strongly with David Mayo (this is
> absolutely nothing against David Mayo, whom I greatly respect_ I'm
> specifically referring to the effect of such an alignment on Dennis's
> self-identification at this stage).
they do seem to agree on practices, and to the extent they share
knowledge, it's substance. but perhaps you hadn't noticed a fairly
sharp edge to their discussions about what 'tech' David may or may
not advocate. both the agreements and disagreements, btw, give
credibility to both. damned amazing, when you think about it.
as far as Dennis' self identification .... bwahahahahaha. you're
smoking something. he's always been a curmudgeony old bear in a
blue bathrobe, and he'll always be that way, i do believe.
so you greatly respect David Mayo? care to explain a little more?
might explain your bias against Dennis a bit. what's the arrangement?
> The references to a.r.s as a church, and particularly when using that
> "church" as a forum in which to denounce (declare?) Steve Fishman, also
> trouble me, and for similar reasons. "Wog" churches are normally not used
> for such activities, at least in this day and age.
bwahaha! you've blown it here. maybe the sub-genii can explain.
a.r.s a church! humph! bob will be *most* displeased (or is it
pleased, i can never remember).
> And concomitantly, I've noticed an exacerbation of Scieno-type
> personality traits: arrogance, intolerance of differing opinions,
> paranoia, the feeling that only he has the right answer. I am not the only
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> one to notice an apparent regression on Dennis's part, I hope only
> temporary
where the fuck did you dig that projection up from! cite us
the sequence of posts that demonstrate that amazing fact not in
evidence. the attack grows ever more blatant and obvious!
> Which provides the ground from which such a phrase ("clueless wogs")
> springs easily and automatically. Joshua is by no means the only one to
> have objected to his use of the phrase, BTW.
BTW, for you clueless wogs (like me), he uses the phrase (if he
does at all) in satire. maybe you have to have a clue to understand
it?
> Sorry to beat into the ground a point that Joshua's post made so lightly
> and elegantly, but you didn't seem to get it. (And if you weren't
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> thinking any of this, Joshua, I apologize for involving you in my mental
> machinations.)
ROFL!!! mental machinations indeed. i hope they didn't involve
any physical accoutrements that might be damaged. <doubled over, gasping>
pot. kettle. black! (and a new acronym: PKB!).
> And I certainly don't expect you to agree with anything I just said,
> Clara. Just airing my views on a public forum.
<gasping still> please do continue. i wouldn't miss it for the world!
> Obviously anyone interested has only to reread the relevant postings from
> the past couple of weeks, and form their own opinion.
amen, brother! amen!
> CLARA:
> I think it is time to lower the temperature in this debate.
i'm sorry. i think i may have slipped a little here.
mea culpa. i beg forgiveness. and i do agree, sister.
btw, steveo, i do believe you are an honest poster in what you think
and say. i think you are missing the point on some of the discussion
here, and i am taking you somewhat to task for it. YMMV, of course,
and you may choose to return the favor. i do believe it is particularly
dangerous in terms of accuracy to think you understand the motives or
beliefs of *any* other person. people are complex and unarticulated
phenomenon. the most you can do is observe their actions and patterns
of behavior, and work from those. unless you are an extremely
perceptive and well-trained psychiatrist, perhaps.
-- see...@ix.netcom.com
the freedom cognition is: the bridge to total freedom is a mock-up
SOse278720
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
Message-ID: <31acc69a...@news.primenet.com>
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
<snip>
> One of the things that has troubled me most in this debate ...
[goes on to list several]
<snip>
Glad to see you're taking my helpful missive so seriously, Dennis. I knew
you could be depended on not to let your ego get in the way of rigorous
self-examination.
Also, on behalf of those of us (by which I mean me & my BTs, of course)
who, unlike Barbara, *had* noticed some disturbing changes in you in the
past few weeks, I just want to say "Welcome back, old grouchy Dennis!" I
think I detect that that particularly mean and vicious Body Thetan who had
you in his thrall of late has finally blown.
So whadja use, the Thetan Hand? And I hope you made him tow the crosstown
bus back up to the road before he blew totally!
Steve O.
PS: Don't forget to tell Xenu's little sister, so she can take you out of
her killfile.
Sister Clara
In article <4oivgk$o...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>
ce...@u.washington.edu (Ceon Ramon) wrote:
> I have to say that I see *no* change in Dennis. He has always exhibited,
> from time to time, negative and unpleasant traits such as abrasive
> sarcasm, rudeness, intolerance, and paranoia. (He shares those
> characteristics with a fair number of people who have stuck it out here
> for several years, but I suppose that's beside the point.) Dennis is the
> same Dennis I've observed for as long as I've been reading this newsgroup.
> And in a way that's an amazing achievement, since the man has been over
> the past two years stripped naked by the invidious strategies of
> scientology, such as suborning his ex-wife in order to buy her rights to
> have his assets seized in lieu of disputed child-support payments, and
> deprived of every form of privacy. The man is jobless, homeless, under
> relentless attack by an immoral and immensely rich corporation that is
> without scruples; and now, with the death of his father, he is without
> family.
>
> He is not, however, without friends (and don't you ever forget that,
> Dennis Erlich!).
>
That sums up my feelings on this matter totally (as indeed did the entire
post from which I have shamelessly lifted these two paragraphs).
Dennis is, and always will be, simply Dennis. His posts are idiosyncratic
and little different in style and vocabulary (!) than they were 18 months
ago when I first joined the newsgroup. People who affect to see some kind of
change in his posts are those who want to find some change in them to
explain why they are on one side of the fence on various current issues and
Dennis is on the other. That is my speculation, for what it is worth.
Those who try to assert that Dennis is still under the direct influence of
his Scientology past in terms of his current mental state and attitude are
being thoroughly mischievous (if not worse).
I could not give a damn if someone chooses to categorise me as a "Denny" or
similar.
I would wear that badge with immense pride.
Rev. Dennis L Erlich
Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote: [p/m]
>I could not give a damn if someone chooses to categorise me as a "Denny" or
>similar.
I will be your crosstown bus, you sweet thing.
>I would wear that badge with immense pride.
That's so nice. But you don't gotta wear no steenkin baadge.
Sister Clara
In article <4ojt8t$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
> Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
> From: inF...@primenet.com (Rev. Dennis L Erlich)
> Date: 29 May 1996 15:00:03 -0700
> Message-ID: <31acc69a...@news.primenet.com>
>
> sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > One of the things that has troubled me most in this debate ...
>
> [goes on to list several]
>
> <snip>
>
> Glad to see you're taking my helpful missive so seriously, Dennis. I knew
> you could be depended on not to let your ego get in the way of rigorous
> self-examination.
Your braindead quoting mechanism is really irritating. I had to go and dig
out the original Dennis post to find out what on earth you were responding
to.
Your missive was anything BUT helpful, Sose. You simply took another
opportunity to attack Dennis Erlich. When I asked you in e-mail to explain
why you appeared to be targetting Diane you failed to respond.
This time I will ask you in the public forum.
Why are you so obviously targetting Dennis Erlich? You long ago stopped
debating any issues, you simply started making a number of accusations about
Dennis.
What is your purpose here?
>
> Also, on behalf of those of us (by which I mean me & my BTs, of course)
> who, unlike Barbara, *had* noticed some disturbing changes in you in the
> past few weeks, I just want to say "Welcome back, old grouchy Dennis!" I
> think I detect that that particularly mean and vicious Body Thetan who had
> you in his thrall of late has finally blown.
What ARE you talking about?
>
> So whadja use, the Thetan Hand? And I hope you made him tow the crosstown
> bus back up to the road before he blew totally!
Is this supposed to be amusing?
>
> Steve O.
>
> PS: Don't forget to tell Xenu's little sister, so she can take you out of
> her killfile.
Did Xenu's Sister killfile Dennis? I am sure that she had her reasons.
Still, SteveO, you will be happy to know that I have absolutely NO intention
of plonking you.
You are too damned amusing.
Sherilyn
>
>It is apparent if you read the posts, that in no case does Dennis come out
>and say "I accuse you, Steve Fishman, of being an OSA plant"
Not the spin Steve O puts on this (below).
Nevertheless, it is the nearest to a retraction we will get from him.
>He merely
>suggests, insinuates, as you say, "speculates"_ while at the same time
>suggesting that he, Dennis, has experience and expertise (some apparently
>invented for the occasion) that should lend special weight to his
>"speculations."
IOW he did not claim that Steve Fishman was an OSA agent.
One more myth laid to rest.
I mock up my reactive mind six times before breakfast at Milliways.
Sherilyn
In article <4oivgk$o...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, Ceon Ramon
<ce...@u.washington.edu> writes
> I
>think that this characterization of *someone* claiming that Steve Fishman
>is an OSA plant has gained much more credibility than it deserves. I
>honestly do not believe that anyone has stated this, and when Dennis
>referred to a "Trojan Horse" I understood him to mean that OSA might be
>using Steve as a tool, all unbeknownst to Steve himself. I certainly
>didn't read it as a statement of belief that Steve was a mole, or a
>double-agent.
This was my reading, and the idea that someone suggested Steve Fishman
was a double agent struck me as completely unfounded. Despite a lot of
minispamming (in news AND email) of words Dennis actually said, no one
has succeeded in characterising what he said as what they claimed he
said.
>
>flip-flopped; I can certainly remember Kim Baker doing this. While she
>didn't exactly rush whole-heartedly back into the arms of the cult, she
>did, for whatever reasons seemed good and sufficient to her at the time,
>swear out two separate affidavits that were intended to be used against
>Dennis in his current litigation and to cause serious damage to his case.
Zegel who worked with David Mayo flipflopped in the sense that they
persuaded him to make a fourth tape disowning Mayo. Nibbs was famous
for his flipflops. Paulette signed an affidavit which looked
suspiciously like a flipflop (though she's disqualified for not being a
scientologist).
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <CMbUOYHHLVrxEwU$@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <4oi9fp$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, SOse278720
><sose2...@aol.com> writes
>
>>
>>It is apparent if you read the posts, that in no case does Dennis come out
>>and say "I accuse you, Steve Fishman, of being an OSA plant"
>
>Not the spin Steve O puts on this (below).
No, Dennis suggests as a possibility to be taken seriously
i.e. not simply as an obvious joke
that Steve could be "OSA's Trojan Horse."
Why anyone should retract having reported that,
when it was in fact said, is beyond me.
--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on (alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----, and on page (/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <sb+vbtHR...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>n article <4oivgk$o...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, Ceon Ramon
><ce...@u.washington.edu> writes
>> I
>>think that this characterization of *someone* claiming that Steve Fishman
>>is an OSA plant has gained much more credibility than it deserves. I
>>honestly do not believe that anyone has stated this, and when Dennis
>>referred to a "Trojan Horse" I understood him to mean that OSA might be
>>using Steve as a tool, all unbeknownst to Steve himself. I certainly
>>didn't read it as a statement of belief that Steve was a mole, or a
>>double-agent.
>
>This was my reading, and the idea that someone suggested Steve Fishman
>was a double agent struck me as completely unfounded. Despite a lot of
>minispamming (in news AND email) of words Dennis actually said, no one
>has succeeded in characterising what he said as what they claimed he
>said.
Ah. And when dennis said that Steve ''might have done a flipflop'',
he was talking about beach footwear or morning calisthenics?
--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on (alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----, and on page (/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"They're drowning my Doggie in the poo-ul, those Clams with the..."
Sherilyn
In article <cXA5LhAn...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird---St Hippo of
Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>>was a double agent struck me as completely unfounded. Despite a lot of
>>minispamming (in news AND email) of words Dennis actually said, no one
>>has succeeded in characterising what he said as what they claimed he
>>said.
>
>Ah. And when dennis said that Steve ''might have done a flipflop'',
>he was talking about beach footwear or morning calisthenics?
No he was saying Steve might have done a flipflop. Do you have a
problem with that?
I have noticed that we appear to have a personality conflict, Dave. We
always seem to end up in pointless arguments. I mean no disrepect to
you when I say I do not have time for this, so have decided to killfile
you as a safeguard against further cluttering up the group with posts
that are of no interest to anyone.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <E$8$ydAaU2...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <cXA5LhAn...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird---St Hippo of
>Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <sb+vbtHR...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
>><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>the idea that someone suggested Steve Fishman
>>>was a double agent struck me as completely unfounded. Despite a lot of
>>>minispamming (in news AND email) of words Dennis actually said, no one
>>>has succeeded in characterising what he said as what they claimed he
>>>said.
>>
>>Ah. And when dennis said that Steve ''might have done a flipflop'',
>>he was talking about beach footwear or morning calisthenics?
>
>No he was saying Steve might have done a flipflop. Do you have a
>problem with that?
>
>I have noticed that we appear to have a personality conflict, Dave. We
>always seem to end up in pointless arguments. I mean no disrepect to
>you when I say I do not have time for this, so have decided to killfile
>you as a safeguard against
So it will only be everyone else on the newsgroup who reads--while baby
has his fingers in his ears--that there is some inconsistency in asking
someone to WITHDRAW a statement that Dennis said Steve may have changed
sides, in light of Dennis's statement s that Steve (a) may be OSA's
Trojan Horse &(b) may have done a flipflop. These statements were made.
They might conceiveably [though I very much doubt it myself] even
be correct. But it is simply insane to tell people to retract the
statement that they were made, when they in fact were made.
--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on (alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----, and on page (/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
______________________________________________________
"L.Ron Hubbard is the P.T.Barnum of religious leaders"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Margaret Huffstickler
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine (da...@xemu.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <CMbUOYHHLVrxEwU$@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
: <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
: >In article <4oi9fp$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, SOse278720
: ><sose2...@aol.com> writes
: >
: >>
: >>It is apparent if you read the posts, that in no case does Dennis come out
: >>and say "I accuse you, Steve Fishman, of being an OSA plant"
: >
: >Not the spin Steve O puts on this (below).
: No, Dennis suggests as a possibility to be taken seriously
: i.e. not simply as an obvious joke
: that Steve could be "OSA's Trojan Horse."
: Why anyone should retract having reported that,
: when it was in fact said, is beyond me.
:
: --Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
SOse278720
Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 22:31:06 +0100
Message-ID: <E$8$ydAaU2...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
In article <cXA5LhAn...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird---St Hippo of
Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <sb+vbtHR...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>the idea that someone suggested Steve Fishman
>>was a double agent struck me as completely unfounded. Despite a lot of
>>minispamming (in news AND email) of words Dennis actually said, no one
>>has succeeded in characterising what he said as what they claimed he
>>said.
>
>Ah. And when dennis said that Steve ''might have done a flipflop'',
>he was talking about beach footwear or morning calisthenics?
No he was saying Steve might have done a flipflop. Do you have a
problem with that?
I have noticed that we appear to have a personality conflict, Dave. We
always seem to end up in pointless arguments. I mean no disrepect to
you when I say I do not have time for this, so have decided to killfile
you as a safeguard against further cluttering up the group with posts
that are of no interestI always thought killfiling was more of a personal
choice , as a safeguard against further cluttering up your newsfeed with
posts that are of no interest to *you*.
How public-spirited of you to do it for the benefit of the whole group.
Thank you, Sherilyn!
Steve O.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Rev. Dennis L Erlich (inF...@primenet.com) writes:
> Sister Clara <cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote: [p/m]
>
>>I could not give a damn if someone chooses to categorise me as a "Denny" or
>>similar.
>
> I will be your crosstown bus, you sweet thing.
No! Don't do it! He's a maniac, I tell you!
BTW, YM "dennie", HTH.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
Have you ever tried to serve papers on a meme?
It's like trying to nail Jello to the ceiling. -Jeff Bell
Martin G. V. Hunt
Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) writes: (In dennie mode)
> Your braindead quoting mechanism is really irritating. I had to go and dig
> out the original Dennis post to find out what on earth you were responding
> to.
>
> Your missive was anything BUT helpful, Sose. You simply took another
> opportunity to attack Dennis Erlich. When I asked you in e-mail to explain
> why you appeared to be targetting Diane you failed to respond.
Attack? Attack the Great Man (tm)? Horrors! What can we do! <slaps face>
> This time I will ask you in the public forum.
>
> Why are you so obviously targetting Dennis Erlich? You long ago stopped
> debating any issues, you simply started making a number of accusations about
> Dennis.
Targetting Dennis? What a nasty fellow! Did he call Dennis a lying
sack o[f] shit or something? We have to stop this rebellious
insurrection at once! If anyone says anything impolite about the
Great Man (tm), let's jump on him and flame the "two-faced" bastard off the
group! We must have control here! We must all "paddle in the same
direction as Dennis", or else!
> What is your purpose here?
He's an OSA spy, I tell you! He's a lying sack o[f] shit as well, and
probably worse! Have you seen what he did over in the AOL folders?
Well, he posted articles critical of Scientology! Horrors!
> What ARE you talking about?
>
> Is this supposed to be amusing?
Horrors! He's attacking the Red Queen! After him, after him; shut
him up!
Rich Burroughs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[posted and mailed]
On 1 Jun 1996 10:58:56 -0400, sose2...@aol.com (SOse278720) wrote:
> From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
[snip]
> No he was saying Steve might have done a flipflop. Do you have a
> problem with that?
>
> I have noticed that we appear to have a personality conflict, Dave. We
> always seem to end up in pointless arguments. I mean no disrepect to
> you when I say I do not have time for this, so have decided to killfile
> you as a safeguard against further cluttering up the group with posts
> that are of no interestI always thought killfiling was more of a personal
> choice , as a safeguard against further cluttering up your newsfeed with
> posts that are of no interest to *you*.
>
> How public-spirited of you to do it for the benefit of the whole group.
>
> Thank you, Sherilyn!
Hey, Steve, how about you doing something for the benefit of the
group and get a fucking newsreader that handles attributions. I
believe that only those last two lines of the post are actually yours,
but I'm only able to guess because I had already seen Sher's post.
News doesn't always arrive in order.
Please fix this. Your attributions are so hard to follow, that I will be
forced to add you to my killfile soon...
Rich
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMbCtloT0GKfZRA/9AQFcTAP/WtSI9V4x4P1MbwxNoST7HAeNBg5nFX2r
mJgI2EqhHq8D3LpK8LDkuDDNfDY3T6RjgHSZcxeKN+yYVmwPydHh4qmkpOoPkwkz
qUNfTlY5XGnkU9gnvsSyzCx1NxyQyBUiwAinANKmfEk5gDVQsXT0p/Ry/ScWKcqN
RjXfln7ExNg=
=WxOz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
SOse278720
Honest, I don't think it's *all* my fault, the way my posts get diced up
in transit (OSA marauders, mbe? :->)
Anyway, even tthough this one was just my usual snide little remark, I
decided to repost it (wouldn't want to waste those snide little
remarks...)
.Subject: Re: The whole Fishman thing
From: Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 22:31:06 +0100
Message-ID: <E$8$ydAaU2...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>
In article <cXA5LhAn...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird---St Hippo of
Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <sb+vbtHR...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>the idea that someone suggested Steve Fishman
>>>was a double agent struck me as completely unfounded. Despite a lot of
>>>minispamming (in news AND email) of words Dennis actually said, no one
>>>has succeeded in characterising what he said as what they claimed he
>>>said.
>>
>>
>>Ah. And when dennis said that Steve ''might have done a flipflop'',
>>?he was talking about beach footwear or morning calisthenics?
SHERI:
>No he was saying Steve might have done a flipflop. Do you have a
>problem with that?
>I have noticed that we applict, Dave. We
>always seem to end up in pointless arguments. I mean no disrepect to
>you when I say I do not have time for this, so have decided to killfile
>you as a safeguard against further cluttering up the group with posts
>that are of no interest to anyone.
~~~~~
How interesting: I always thought killfiling was more of a personal
choice , as a safeguard against further cluttering up your newsfeed with
posts that are of no interest to *you*.
How public-spirited of you to do it for the benefit of the whole group.
Thank you, Sherilyn!
Steve O.
Martin G. V. Hunt
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine (da...@xemu.demon.co.uk) writes:
> In article <CMbUOYHHLVrxEwU$@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
> <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <4oi9fp$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, SOse278720
>><sose2...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>>
>>>It is apparent if you read the posts, that in no case does Dennis come out
>>>and say "I accuse you, Steve Fishman, of being an OSA plant"
>>
>>Not the spin Steve O puts on this (below).
>
> No, Dennis suggests as a possibility to be taken seriously
> i.e. not simply as an obvious joke
> that Steve could be "OSA's Trojan Horse."
>
> Why anyone should retract having reported that,
> when it was in fact said, is beyond me.
Maybe they're operating on the theory that if enough bullshit is thrown
on the wall, some will stick?
I think many people are just stupid enough that when they hear something
repeated a few dozen times, they begin to believe it.
Freimann
In article <4ojt8t$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, sose2...@aol.com
(SOse278720) wrote:
I am just the victim - of the evil reaction - to my only good intentions..
************** FREIMANN BODDHISATVA **************
Teacher for Neo-Buddhism & Rational Humanism
a small section of the homepage is about that at:
http://www.bda.de/bda/nat/fgap
The rest is fancy colors and pretty pictures,
our profession: ARTS
**************************************************
James J. Lippard
>In article <cXA5LhAn...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird---St Hippo of
>Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <sb+vbtHR...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
>><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>the idea that someone suggested Steve Fishman
>>>was a double agent struck me as completely unfounded. Despite a lot of
>>>minispamming (in news AND email) of words Dennis actually said, no one
>>>has succeeded in characterising what he said as what they claimed he
>>>said.
>>
>>Ah. And when dennis said that Steve ''might have done a flipflop'',
Given the content of _Lonesome Squirrel_, you do well to ask.
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57 35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04
Cornelius Krasel
Sherilyn (Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> Paulette signed an affidavit which looked
> suspiciously like a flipflop (though she's disqualified for not being a
> scientologist).
Err, I don't think that I know this one. Care to post it?
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP3 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */
Sherilyn
In article <4p46h4$d...@power5.rz.uni-hohenheim.de>, Cornelius Krasel
<kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de> writes
>Sherilyn (Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>> Paulette signed an affidavit which looked
>> suspiciously like a flipflop (though she's disqualified for not being a
>> scientologist).
>
>Err, I don't think that I know this one. Care to post it?
Unfortunately, no. Someone dcc'd it to me once on irc, but I cannot
locate it now. From memory, it was a carbon copy D/A attack against her
counsel, blaming him for all manner of crimes and saying he put her up
to it.
It looked _very_ like Kim's affidavit against Wollersheim.
Very 1984-ish.
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <LOHWPbAs...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Unfortunately, no. Someone dcc'd it to me once on irc, but I cannot
>locate it now. From memory, it was a carbon copy D/A attack against her
>counsel, blaming him for all manner of crimes and saying he put her up
>to it.
>
>It looked _very_ like Kim's affidavit against Wollersheim.
And very like the standard pattern for any "flip-flop" i.e.
not that any person has blown OSA and become a critic then
gone bactk to their old hat working in a sustained and loyal
way on projects, but rather that someone has been subjected
to immense pressure until they cave in long enough to sign
a statement prewritten for them by OSA implicating whover OSA
wants implicated [Ziegel -> Mayo, Baker -> Erlich]; that this
is about all you can get out of a short-term cave-in; and,
nine times out of ten, the person concerned will repudiate
the lies they have signed. Even if there has been a financial
settlement and gagging agreenment which will bankrupt them,
they still often rebel and reoudiate what they have been coerced
into signing.
--Regards, Woof Woof, Glug Glug--
X E M U * Who Drowned theJUDGe's Dog ?
s p 4 \ |\ answers on (alt.religion.scientology!
/~~~~~~~ @----, and on page (/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html
-;'^';,_,-;^; : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
Mark Heaney
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 23:39:40 +0100, Sherilyn
<Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Sherilyn wrote:
>>> Paulette signed an affidavit which looked
>>> suspiciously like a flipflop (though she's disqualified for not
>>> being a scientologist).
>>
> Cornelius Krasel writes:
>>Err, I don't think that I know this one. Care to post it?
>>Sherilyn wrote:
>Unfortunately, no. Someone dcc'd it to me once on irc, but I cannot
>locate it now. From memory, it was a carbon copy D/A attack against her
>counsel, blaming him for all manner of crimes and saying he put her up
>to it.
>
>It looked _very_ like Kim's affidavit against Wollersheim.
>
>Very 1984-ish.
AFAIK, the only affadavit that Paulette Cooper signed that could even
vaguely be considered as a flip-flop was the one where she admitted
that she did not have personal, direct knowledge of some of the
events portrayed in _Scandal_. If anyone has her two part post from
a month or two ago "Why you're wrong about me", please re-post it as
she discusses this issue.
I have no idea what affadavit Sherilyn is talking about and have my
doubts that such a document exists. If she did write something
slamming Flynn, I wouldn't call it a flip-flop. From everything
I've read, Flynn gave good cause for some of his former clients to
be pissed at him.
Of course, I could be misremembering completely.
Mark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBMbcOTN36bir1/qfZAQF0agL+M7bJem79XPVHFU6eI5WFRKF23XSXHOXm
LZusDjoU2KwpQ+Wj3Y3ISNpEZ4YGvbSDcqIQjp8Eyfp6+j2R+ZrdDJpKhKDj9rTE
tlaj3dMq7pzPeoRWuCBXya3T3zmwntT8
=zDqb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Heaney sn...@starburst.cbl.cees.edu
PGP Key fingerprint = BB D8 9B 07 51 87 05 AC 47 7B F2 4F A6 AB 1A CD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think therefore I think I am.
Marina Chong
On Thu, 06 Jun 1996 17:00:04 GMT apt...@super.zippo.com (Mark Heaney) wrote in
article <31b6cf63...@snews2.zippo.com>:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Wed, 5 Jun 1996 23:39:40 +0100, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>Sherilyn wrote:
>>>> Paulette signed an affidavit which looked
>>>> suspiciously like a flipflop (though she's disqualified for not
>>>> being a scientologist).
>>>
>
>> Cornelius Krasel writes:
>>>Err, I don't think that I know this one. Care to post it?
>
[snip]
>
>AFAIK, the only affadavit that Paulette Cooper signed that could even
>vaguely be considered as a flip-flop was the one where she admitted
>that she did not have personal, direct knowledge of some of the
>events portrayed in _Scandal_. If anyone has her two part post from
>a month or two ago "Why you're wrong about me", please re-post it as
>she discusses this issue.
[snip]
I've posted them in another thread.
Meanwhile, the articles in question can be found at:
http://www.icon.fi/~marina/essays/index.htm
Regards
M
--
Marina Chong SP4(*), KoX, GGBC#13, Joker/Degrader
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientology is an abusive cult that responds to criticism with harassment,
barratrous lawsuits, home invasions, intimidation and conspiracy to murder.
Usenet: alt.religion.scientology
World Wide Web: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/home.html
Marina's Manor: http://home.pacific.net.sg/~marina/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the First Electronic Church of SCAMIZDAT!
mar...@singnet.com.sg mar...@pacific.net.sg mar...@amazing.com
Diane Richardson
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <LOHWPbAs...@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn
><Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>Unfortunately, no. Someone dcc'd it to me once on irc, but I cannot
>>locate it now. From memory, it was a carbon copy D/A attack against her
>>counsel, blaming him for all manner of crimes and saying he put her up
>>to it.
>>
>>It looked _very_ like Kim's affidavit against Wollersheim.
>And very like the standard pattern for any "flip-flop" i.e.
>not that any person has blown OSA and become a critic then
>gone bactk to their old hat working in a sustained and loyal
>way on projects, but rather that someone has been subjected
>to immense pressure until they cave in long enough to sign
>a statement prewritten for them by OSA implicating whover OSA
>wants implicated [Ziegel -> Mayo, Baker -> Erlich]; that this
>is about all you can get out of a short-term cave-in; and,
>nine times out of ten, the person concerned will repudiate
>the lies they have signed. Even if there has been a financial
>settlement and gagging agreenment which will bankrupt them,
>they still often rebel and reoudiate what they have been coerced
>into signing.
I should point out that the declaration Paulette Cooper swore out for
the "Church" of Scientology[tm] was done *years* (perhaps as much as a
decade) after the harassment ceased.
We may choose to excuse Kim Baker's activity on insufferable pressure,
but that certainly can't be Paulette Cooper's excuse. She settled out
of court with the cult, signed over (for a second time) the rights to
"The Scandal of Scientology," and most likely shafted a number of
other litigants involved in the lawsuit at the time.
I doubt if we'll ever hear the facts behind *that* story, however.
Let me know if you'd like to see Paulette Cooper's declaration
reposted here. I'll be glad to oblige.
Diane Richardson
ref...@neont.com
Martin G. V. Hunt
Sherilyn (Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk) writes:
> In article <4p46h4$d...@power5.rz.uni-hohenheim.de>, Cornelius Krasel
> <kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de> writes
>>Sherilyn (Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>> Paulette signed an affidavit which looked
>>> suspiciously like a flipflop (though she's disqualified for not being a
>>> scientologist).
>>
>>Err, I don't think that I know this one. Care to post it?
>
> Unfortunately, no. Someone dcc'd it to me once on irc, but I cannot
> locate it now. From memory, it was a carbon copy D/A attack against her
> counsel, blaming him for all manner of crimes and saying he put her up
> to it.
>
> It looked _very_ like Kim's affidavit against Wollersheim.
>
> Very 1984-ish.
Diane posted this to ars; ask her to repost it or send it.
ttyl,
martin.