letter to AOL, for TOS violation over Xenuu
MSU94
posts on the aol clam board when it was up, under a name of Xenuu. I did
not make that many, but was trying to illustrate the absurdity of Scientology
by being absurd in some satirical postings. A scientologist filed a complaint
with AOL, not over what was in the messages, but over "Impersonation" by
the Xenuu screen name. HAHA Impersonating a galactic emperor..How Silly.
But they refused to removed the violation (3 and your account is deleted). I
had some satirical information in the profile making fun of Xenuu, and
illustrating
how silly it is.
I have asked again, for them to remove the violation, and here is the letter.
-----------
I am requesting AGAIN that the TOS violation for the Xenuu screen name be
rescinded.
I was never told exactly why or what in it was against TOS, I was just
given the vague term "Impersonation". Never was a real person impersonated in
any way by Xenuu. There was humorous and satirical information on "Xenu", the
"galactic emperor" in scientology who supposedly according to L Ron Hubbard and
Scientology, banished billions of aliens to earth millions of years ago and
killed them with nuclear weapons.
There are many other profiles that satire Xenu in the profiles, or have a
screen name with Xenu in it. Scientologists have a long history of harassing or
even sueing critics, and yes, I am a critic of scientology. One of them though
I should be silenced for satiring the Xenu story in the profile for Xenuu.
They have filed lawsuits against people who have posted the Xenu story on the
internet.
To give me a TOS violation for impersonation is really silly and ridiculous,
esp just because a scientolgist whines that my profile "impersonates" a
galactic emperor from Scientology. What about all the others? They were not
given orders to delete those screen names.
AOL has just played into the hands of a cult famous for trying to silence
critics, and free speech. My Xenuu profile was satire, not impersonating a
real person, even if the Scientologists think Xenu is real. For that, you
should be embarassed.
TFC VP
Sorry, didn't know that hadn't been handled...I'll get back to you
Patricia
Rebecca Hartong
says...
>
> To give me a TOS violation for impersonation is really silly and ridiculous,
> esp just because a scientolgist whines that my profile "impersonates" a
> galactic emperor from Scientology. What about all the others? They were not
> given orders to delete those screen names.
It *is* really silly to give you a TOS violation on the grounds that you
were "impersonating" someone!
The grounds on which the TOS violation ought to have been given is that
you were posting to a Scientology fellowship board using a screen name
which is offensive to Scientologists *by design.*
--
Rebecca Hartong
MSU94
>you were posting to a Scientology fellowship board using a screen name
>which is offensive to Scientologists *by design.*
If that offends them, that is their fault for being
so easily offended. Besides, if you ask
a scieno, they usually disavow Xenu, saying
it is some lie made up by critics.
The intent of Xenuu was satire. Not to offend, but if they are so easy to
offend, sounds like they have a problem, not me
Rebecca Hartong
says...
> >The grounds on which the TOS violation ought to have been given is that
> >you were posting to a Scientology fellowship board using a screen name
> >which is offensive to Scientologists *by design.*
>
> If that offends them, that is their fault for being
> so easily offended.
Ha! I love that kind of reasoning. If I call you an asshole and you
protest, my response is going to be that it's all your fault for being so
damned easily offended. ;-) See? I can do anything I want! If anyone
protests-- it's *their* fault!
> Besides, if you ask
> a scieno, they usually disavow Xenu, saying
> it is some lie made up by critics.
So they're not entitled to be offended, huh? Whether they understand
that Xenu is an actual part of Hubbard's cosmology or not, most of them
still realize that the only reason it's ever brought up in public is to
embarrass and humiliate Scientologists.
> The intent of Xenuu was satire.
What, pray tell, is the purpose of satirizing someone's "applied
religious philosophy" on their fellowship board-- if not to offend?
Regardless of your intent (and I sincerely doubt that you didn't know the
Xenuu name would offend Scientologists), the fact that your "satire"
*did* offend ought to show you that it wasn't appropriate for that forum.
> Not to offend, but if they are so easy to
> offend, sounds like they have a problem, not me
Uh huh. That's the sort of thing one often hears from the little bullies
on the playground, too.
--
Rebecca Hartong
Podkayne-Xenu
Andrew) wrote:
> In <MPG.10e1eb033...@enews.newsguy.com> har...@erols.com
(Rebecca Hartong) writes:
>
> >The grounds on which the TOS violation ought to have been given is that
> >you were posting to a Scientology fellowship board using a screen name
> >which is offensive to Scientologists *by design.*
>
> It's hardly offensive. Most $cientologists would have never heard of Xenu,
> and the rest certainly don't worship it. I think "embarrassing" is probably
> a more appropriate word than "offensive".
There was another Xenu who posted regularly too
--
2,4,6,8 who do we enturbulate? Xenu! Xenu! Xenu!
Read more Heinlein
Nick Andrew
>The grounds on which the TOS violation ought to have been given is that
>you were posting to a Scientology fellowship board using a screen name
>which is offensive to Scientologists *by design.*
It's hardly offensive. Most $cientologists would have never heard of Xenu,
and the rest certainly don't worship it. I think "embarrassing" is probably
a more appropriate word than "offensive".
Nick.
--
Zeta Internet SP4 Fax: +61-2-9233-6545 Voice: 9231-9400
G.P.O. Box 3400, Sydney NSW 1043 http://www.zeta.org.au/
Rk22168
Scully3428
No, the people who work at AOL are idiots. My mother called them thinking she
needed to get an IP number for AOL to work an Internet program -- they didn't
know what she was talking about.
Lori Ann Chauvette (SP4) *** Scul...@yahoo.com *** Lori Ann's Own Little Play
Place -- http://members.aol.com/scully3428/index.htm
With New Sections on "Scream", "South Park", and Movie Reviews!
Coming Eventually: SP Times
Tommy
> > >you were posting to a Scientology fellowship board using a screen name
> > >which is offensive to Scientologists *by design.*
> >
> > so easily offended.
>
> Ha! I love that kind of reasoning. If I call you an asshole and you
> protest, my response is going to be that it's all your fault for being so
> damned easily offended. ;-) See? I can do anything I want! If anyone
> protests-- it's *their* fault!
MSU was not calling *anyone an asshole. Strawman.
>
> > Besides, if you ask
> > a scieno, they usually disavow Xenu, saying
> > it is some lie made up by critics.
>
> So they're not entitled to be offended, huh?
Everyone is "entitled" to be offended. KKK members are entitled to be
offended if I call them rascist morons. This does not make them any less
rascist morons.
> Whether they understand
> that Xenu is an actual part of Hubbard's cosmology or not, most of them
> still realize that the only reason it's ever brought up in public is to
> embarrass and humiliate Scientologists.
>
> > The intent of Xenuu was satire.
>
> What, pray tell, is the purpose of satirizing someone's "applied
> religious philosophy" on their fellowship board-- if not to offend?
What is the purpose of satirizing *anything*? Should satire require the
approval and sanction of thore satirized to be allowed? And who sits on
the satire approval board? You? Puhlease!
> Regardless of your intent (and I sincerely doubt that you didn't know the
> Xenuu name would offend Scientologists), the fact that your "satire"
> *did* offend ought to show you that it wasn't appropriate for that forum.
>
> > Not to offend, but if they are so easy to
> > offend, sounds like they have a problem, not me
>
> Uh huh. That's the sort of thing one often hears from the little bullies
> on the playground, too.
> --
> Rebecca Hartong
I'm sure MSU didn't mean to terrrorize the weak and powerless
institution of $cientology on the internet playground.
Tommy
--
"Bluntly, we are out to replace medicine in the next three years."
L.Ron Hubbard - 1952
Chris Sutor
:>Is Steve Case a Scientologist?
: No, the people who work at AOL are idiots. My mother called them thinking she
: needed to get an IP number for AOL to work an Internet program -- they didn't
: know what she was talking about.
Aol seems like the online equivelant of Burger King.
: Lori Ann Chauvette (SP4) *** Scul...@yahoo.com *** Lori Ann's Own Little Play
: Place -- http://members.aol.com/scully3428/index.htm
: With New Sections on "Scream", "South Park", and Movie Reviews!
: Coming Eventually: SP Times
--
COBALTatTIGERDENdotCOM I'd really like a New World Order, but
----==============---- I can only afford a slightly used one.
now with 10% real *****************************************
fruit juice! Don't blame me, I voted for Richard Dangerous
Rebecca Hartong
> Rebecca Hartong wrote:
> > > If that offends them, that is their fault for being
> > > so easily offended.
> >
> > Ha! I love that kind of reasoning. If I call you an asshole and you
> > protest, my response is going to be that it's all your fault for being so
> > damned easily offended. ;-) See? I can do anything I want! If anyone
> > protests-- it's *their* fault!
>
> MSU was not calling *anyone an asshole. Strawman.
No, analogy.
> > So they're not entitled to be offended, huh?
> Everyone is "entitled" to be offended. KKK members are entitled to be
> offended if I call them rascist morons. This does not make them any less
> rascist morons.
What does this have to do with whether making offensive posts (or using
offensive screen names) on AOL message boards deserves to be rewarded
with a TOS warning?
> > What, pray tell, is the purpose of satirizing someone's "applied
> > religious philosophy" on their fellowship board-- if not to offend?
>
> What is the purpose of satirizing *anything*? Should satire require the
> approval and sanction of thore satirized to be allowed? And who sits on
> the satire approval board? You? Puhlease!
Again, what does this have to do with AOL message boards? Clearly, AOL
feels entitled to determine whether "satire" is appropriate on fellowship
message boards.
> I'm sure MSU didn't mean to terrrorize the weak and powerless
> institution of $cientology on the internet playground.
AOL is not the internet. That people so often make the mistake of
referring to it as such demonstrates very clearly why discussions such as
this one keep coming up.
--
Rebecca Hartong
NoScieno
says...
> Is Steve Case a Scientologist?
>
God help us if he was. The Co$ would be bankrolled for the next
millenium if so.
--
NoScieno accepts NoMail (spam block) Try "Thynkr"(same.isp)
Lisa Chabot
>>Is Steve Case a Scientologist?
>
>needed to get an IP number for AOL to work an Internet program -- they didn't
>know what she was talking about.
This is pretty common. Er, or at least, I've had a similar problem with
Netcom: my local DNS stuff was down, but if I had an IP address I could
telnet there. I called and asked, got back, "Oh, I'm not allowed to
tell you that." Just a x.d. IP address--for any netcom*.netcom.com.
I explained I just wanted the computery networky number etc etc, and
that's public information. No go. (These were the days when ISPs wouldn't
tell you their real physical addresses, as opposed to their billing addresses,
for fear of, who knows, bomb threats?) So, I called a friend and he
looked up a reasonable one.
The phone drones are frequently not well-trained. I don't much like
to blame them, just their bosses, for not thinking it's good to
have useful people on the phones, and for not helping their employees
by giving them adequate training in general concepts in the field.
.
.
.
--
non-spam can be sent to lsc at this ISP
"What I mean by a shifty eye," continued Miss Marple, "is the kind
that looks very straight at you and never looks away or blinks."
Nick Andrew
>Aol seems like the online equivelant of Burger King.
No, the online equivalent of Teletubbies - everybody is expected to smile
and play happily with each other - and anybody who causes mischief is taken
behind the camera and shot.
MSU94
>and play happily with each other - and anybody who causes mischief is taken
>behind the camera and shot.
>
>Nick.
Oh..not those Teletubbies..They are nearly as
evil as barney..lol. Some day, we will be rid of
them gibberish speaking antenna-heads, along with Hanson, Spice Girls, Barney,
Backstreet girls, and the Co$.
That is my idea of a clear planet!!
Oh..and still no response from American
Online TOS yet.
Dave Bird
>>No, the online equivalent of Teletubbies - everybody is expected to smile
>>and play happily with each other - and anybody who causes mischief is taken
>>behind the camera and shot.
>
>evil as barney..lol. Some day, we will be rid of
he is currently on alt.meditation, I believe:
"gibberish speaking antenna-head" describes him quite well IMO.
>them gibberish speaking antenna-heads, along with Hanson, Spice Girls, Barney,
>Backstreet girls, and the Co$.
>
>That is my idea of a clear planet!!
--
|-+-|
|
//////\\\
/ (~) (~) \ "Sometimes, Barmpot, your deductive processes
[( / \ {)]} truly amaze me."
\ ._. .-. / : --Captain Hastings, in
\_=====_/ Hercule Barmpot: The Case of the Missing Marbles