Cult Invades Privacy, Threatens Sysadmin!
henry
has been harassing news admins who carry the newsgroup
alt.religion.scientology, vertically spamming the group
with bogus 'testimonials' and repetitions of the phrase
"Killfiling is an act of cowardice and non-confront."
lately, they've adopted the policy that cracker buster
developed, of emailing the sysadmins of posters to
alt.religion.scientology with bogus declarations of
the 'crimes' they have committed.
in this so-called 'bomb threat,' which is either a
deliberate misattribution or a forgery, i am taken
to task for the heinous crime of threatening to hit
someone with a metaphorical stick.
this proving too tame, the bozos tacked on a line
saying "BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY TODAY!"
and forged it; or some prankish third party did it and
the cult picked it up. it doesn't look like scientology
handiwork, or their typical pathetic forgeries that are
so malformed they don't even work.
i include an email exchange between my sysadmin and
helena kobrin, most of the sysadmin's responses are
taken from a form letter he has for the nearly routine
harassment of nyx users by nut cultists and similar
pressure groups.
this cult is pursuing a policy of harassment against
the contributors to alt.religion.scientology. not
only do they engage in the more traditional kinds
of net abuse, such as vertical spamming and forgery,
they also have invented entirely new forms of abusing
the net and its participants.
here follows the exchange. it's huge. that's why they
invented these control-l's so you can bag it if you like.
---
Article 51899 of alt.religion.scientology:
Path: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu!not-for-mail
From: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Threatening email from Helena Kobrin
Date: 21 Apr 1995 21:38:24 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 495
Message-ID: <3n9tng$n...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.cs.du.edu
i include the following email exchange between my sysadmin
and helena kobrin:
---
From h...@netcom.com Fri Apr 21 09:57:28 1995
Return-Path: <h...@netcom.com>
Received: from netcom12.netcom.com by nyx.cs.du.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA24601; Fri, 21 Apr 95 09:57:21 MDT
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver. The University has neither control over nor
responsibility for the opinions or correct identity of users.
Received: by netcom12.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id IAA07342; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 08:56:52 -0700
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 08:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Helena Kobrin <h...@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Nyx user anon2c9e
To: Andrew Burt <ab...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Cc: bsto...@du.edu, jtu...@du.edu, lav...@cs.du.edu, anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu
In-Reply-To: <950420134...@cs.du.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.3.89.9504210808.A5834-0100000@netcom12>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
Dear Prof. Burt,
On Thu, 20 Apr 1995, Andrew Burt wrote:
>
> Just to clear the confusion, the user, anon2c9e, is a real user on the
> host nyx.cs.du.edu; mnemosyne.cs.du.edu is only a netnews posting host.
> Thus, there is no "anonymous remailer" involved, only a username that is
> not indicative of the user's actual name. I.e., anon2c9e is a genuine
> account, has shell access, etc. Thus is just as real as an account
> as xy...@prodigy.com or PickY...@netcom.com.
Thanks for your quick response to my message and for clearing up the type
of accounts which are on your system.
>
> Anyway, as to your request to provide information on the identity of that
> user, Nyx's policy regarding providing details of *any* account (whether a
> a named account like 'jsmith' or semi-anonymous like anon0000) is to
> provide any publicly supplied data to anyone who asks, but only to supply
> confidentially supplied data to proper law enforcement personnel.
>
>
> Therefore I would be able to supply the confidential information you requested
> to a police detective, district attorney, etc. but not directly to you.
>
>
> If you would like to have me provide the data to police, etc., they can
> contact me at 303-871-3308.
We are reporting this to the appropriate authorities and will request
that they get in touch with you.
>
> I will also submit this case through Nyx's problem resolution procedure,
> from which you'll get a form letter explaining our various policies. This
> procedures requires the user to either defend or apologize for his
> actions, or lose the account.
Thank you for this data. I have read your other message
regarding your policies and practices and the sample letter you
send to users when complaints are received. I agree that this
procedure is fine for certain situations.
I believe that the posting of which I complained has to be
treated as a very serious matter. It is not like someone
expressing an opinion that they don't like something, or saying
someone is fat or ugly or incompetent, or spamming, etc. The
horrifying event of this week in Oklahoma City highlights just
how serious a situation a bomb threat or urging people to bomb
buildings can be. I cannot conceive that there could be any
justification for such a posting, and would suggest that your
usual user warning message may not take a strong enough message
for an incitement to violence.
There are mroe than 2,000 Churches of Scientology and affiliated
organizations around the world. And Usenet postings are
available to people accessing the Internet around the world.
Therefore, this is an incitement to blow up thousands of
buildings all around the world. While I have not researched all
the laws it could violate, laws making such a threat criminal
from a variety of standpoints, including hate crimes, surely
exist in a variety of jurisdictions.
I look forward to hearing back from you on this.
Sincerely,
Helena Kobrin
From aburt Thu Apr 20 07:50:10 1995
Return-Path: <aburt>
Received: by nyx10.cs.du.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA01322; Thu, 20 Apr 95 07:50:09 MDT
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 95 07:50:09 MDT
From: aburt (Andrew Burt)
Resent-Message-Id: <950420135...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
Message-Id: <950420135...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver. The University has neither control over nor
responsibility for the opinions or correct identity of users.
Resent-From: aburt@nyx10 (Andrew Burt)
Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 07:50:08 -0600
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
Resent-To: anon2c9e
Apparently-To: anon2c9e
Status: RO
[Form letter, but don't let that fool you.] By getting this letter, someone
on the net has written me expressing a grievance about something you posted
to usenet, or a similar complaint.
Typically this means you posted something they considered "rude" or to a
group that has little or nothing to do with your subject matter.
I have sent them a copy of Nyx's free speech policy, which you should also
read (it's in the menus in the info menu, or just read the file
/nyx/info/free.speech).
As it says, I believe users who post things should stand behind their words.
My philosophical reasons for this are that the net (and human relations
in general) are fragile, and need each one of us to tend to them. When one
person selfishly acts like a twit for no good reason, it acts to tear down
what's good about humanity (and things like the net). Yet, if you have
equally strong philosophical feelings justifying your actions, then I think
they need to be heard by all concerned. In other words, stand up for what
you said, or retract it (with apologies and promises of not doing it again).
Hence, Nyx's policy on this sort of behavior is:
YOU contact each person who has "accused" you of bad behavior
AND "cc" your discussion to me so I know you have replied
and what was said.
The content of said message should be one of:
1) Thorough and iron-clad defense of why you believe
what you said was correct, appropriate, not
rude, etc. etc.; or
2) An apology and statement that you won't do it again.
Failure to send email to both me and each user whose message I forward
to you, within one week of next login after it's forwarded, will result
in your Nyx account being unvalidated (reverting to preview mode). [My
assumption being that you don't care enough to deal with it.]
Of course, if you invoke #2, and DO do it again, you'll lose your account
for being insincere. Think of it as a "three strikes and you're out" rule.
Also, making frivolous and totally irrational justifications will count as
neither #1 or #2, and result in account termination. That is, if you're
going to argue your point, you have to be rational and logical about it,
not just blabbering.
Also recall that to obtain your Nyx account you signed a contract which
included the point that you will not violate usenet etiquette. If you have
a problem with netiquette (which has evolved basically along the same
philosophical principles I adhere to), then -- leave the net.
Please remember when you post that you're not alone in the world, nor does
the world revolve around you. Put a better way, apply the "What if everybody
did this?" test to your actions. For example, if everybody posted to
newsgroups that weren't relevant (as a joke, to get attention, whatever),
we'd have no need for newsgroups, we could just lump all the tens of
thousands of messages together in one pile. And hey, no need for subject
headers, let's just have everyone read the text of ALL the messages to see
if they're interested. As for courtesy, why, if folks aren't nice to me,
that means I don't have to be nice to anyone else, right? So let's just
all be really nasty and rude to each other. If you like that idea, let's
just carry it to its natural conclusion and all kill each other; let's leave
the planet to the ants and dolphins. Yeah, right. So just remember, when
you take action X, you're setting a precedent that it's ok for ANYBODY to
do action X, in fact, you're encouraging that X be done by everybody and
often. Is that *really* the kind of world you want to live in? If you
really think about the ultimate consequences of it, I'm sure you'll say no.
Please remember that unless we bring back slavery or encourage
dictatorships, the only way humans can build civilizations is by
cooperation, which requires courtesy and common sense. Oh, by the way,
if we do bring back slavery, figure you'll be one of the slaves :-)
I'm not trying to censor anyone, just ensure that they support their beliefs.
I hope to encourage people to see past their own self-interests and lack
of concern for others. This policy allows you to have any view you
want, and express any opinion you want, in any reasonable way you want --
as long as you're willing to defend your position.
Message you need to deal with is:
>From h...@netcom.com Wed Apr 19 09:55:06 1995
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 08:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Helena Kobrin <h...@netcom.com>
Subject:
To: aburt
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9504190834.A1279-0100000@netcom7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
MESSAGE TO: bstockerdu.edu
Dear Mr. Stocker,
I am an attorney representing Church of Scientology
International.
The message which is appended at the end of this message was
sent through Denver University's anonymous remailer: mnemosyne.
cs.du.edu. This anonymous poster is promoting violence and
making what is essentially a death threat, by advocating that
people blow up their local Church of Scientology.
This is a serious matter when we are living in a world where
bombings happen far too frequently at office buildings, abortion
clinics, and other sites. It is always possible that some
lunatic will take such a suggestion seriously and act on it. I
doubt that Denver University has any interest in supporting such
a message by facilitating its anonymous posting through du.edu.
We are interested in knowing if you are able to identify the
person who made this posting, and if so, if you would provide us
with the name, so the person can be reported to the appropriate
authorities. We also would appreciate it if you would warn this
person that such postings are unacceptable and his privilege of
using your remailer will be cancelled if he makes such postings
again.
I look forward to hearing back from you on this.
Sincerely,
Helena Kobrin
***************
Xref: netcom.com alt.religion.scientology:55144
Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu!not-for-mail
From: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: copyright violation?
Date: 11 Apr 1995 22:31:53 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <3mfl3p$5...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References: <210406Z...@anon.penet.fi> <3lvjke$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <noodleD6...@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.cs.du.edu
In article <noodleD6...@netcom.com>,
Rick Sherwood <noo...@netcom.com> wrote:
[100 lines of stuff from this spamming jerk deleted]
> You mean, don't confuse me with the truth. Right, Diane.
hey, at least she doesn't quote a hundred FUCKING LINES of
stuff to FOLLOWUP with two lines of stupid zombie gibberish!
you stupid noodlehead motherfucker.
> Gosh, Diane you won't ever be confused by the truth.
that's for sure.
unlike you, the truth does not confuse diane.
evidently, it confuses you greatly.
>You won't touch it
>with a ten foot pole.
hey, give me that ten foot pole.
i'll whack the shit out of you with it.
>Woody
h
BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY TODAY!
[i break in to disavow this final statement, in all caps.
i did NOT say this in my original message, nor would i
have said such a thing.
i recall that at the time i was involved in this discussion,
there was a great deal of skullduggery involving forged
messages and control messages.
though i did write the rest of this message, i specifically
disavow the final sentence. i never said such a thing.]
From ab...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu Thu Apr 20 07:44:23 1995
Return-Path: <ab...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Received: from cs.du.edu (mnemosyne.cs.du.edu) by nyx.cs.du.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA15701; Thu, 20 Apr 95 07:43:23 MDT
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
of Denver. The University has neither control over nor
responsibility for the opinions or correct identity of users.
Received: by cs.du.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
id AA01524; Thu, 20 Apr 95 07:42:51 MDT
Message-Id: <950420134...@cs.du.edu>
From: aburt@mnemosyne (Andrew Burt)
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 07:42:51 -0600
X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.4 2/2/92)
To: h...@netcom.com
Subject: Nyx user anon2c9e
Cc: bsto...@du.edu, jtu...@du.edu, lav...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu, anon2c9e@nyx
Status: RO
I'm cc'ing this to anon2c9e, so am including your entire message with my
comments after:
> In a previous message, Helena Kobrin wrote:
> > From h...@netcom.com Wed Apr 19 09:55:06 1995
> > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 08:55:46 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Helena Kobrin <h...@netcom.com>
> > Subject:
> > To: bstocker
> > Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9504190834.A1279-0100000@netcom7>
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> >
> >
> > MESSAGE TO: bstockerdu.edu
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. Stocker,
> >
> > I am an attorney representing Church of Scientology
> > International.
> >
> > The message which is appended at the end of this message was
> > sent through Denver University's anonymous remailer: mnemosyne.
> > cs.du.edu. This anonymous poster is promoting violence and
> > making what is essentially a death threat, by advocating that
> > people blow up their local Church of Scientology.
> >
> > This is a serious matter when we are living in a world where
> > bombings happen far too frequently at office buildings, abortion
> > clinics, and other sites. It is always possible that some
> > lunatic will take such a suggestion seriously and act on it. I
> > doubt that Denver University has any interest in supporting such
> > a message by facilitating its anonymous posting through du.edu.
> >
> > We are interested in knowing if you are able to identify the
> > person who made this posting, and if so, if you would provide us
> > with the name, so the person can be reported to the appropriate
> > authorities. We also would appreciate it if you would warn this
> > person that such postings are unacceptable and his privilege of
> > using your remailer will be cancelled if he makes such postings
> > again.
> >
> > I look forward to hearing back from you on this.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Helena Kobrin
> >
> > ***************
> >
> > Xref: netcom.com alt.religion.scientology:55144
> > Path: netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu!not-for-mail
> > From: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry)
> > Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> > Subject: Re: copyright violation?
> > Date: 11 Apr 1995 22:31:53 -0600
> > Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
> > Lines: 31
> > Message-ID: <3mfl3p$5...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
> > References: <210406Z...@anon.penet.fi> <3lvjke$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <noodleD6...@netcom.com>
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.cs.du.edu
> >
> > In article <noodleD6...@netcom.com>,
> > Rick Sherwood <noo...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > [100 lines of stuff from this spamming jerk deleted]
> >
> > > You mean, don't confuse me with the truth. Right, Diane.
> >
> > hey, at least she doesn't quote a hundred FUCKING LINES of
> > stuff to FOLLOWUP with two lines of stupid zombie gibberish!
> >
> > you stupid noodlehead motherfucker.
> >
> > > Gosh, Diane you won't ever be confused by the truth.
> >
> > that's for sure.
> >
> > unlike you, the truth does not confuse diane.
> >
> > evidently, it confuses you greatly.
> >
> > >You won't touch it
> > >with a ten foot pole.
> >
> > hey, give me that ten foot pole.
> >
> > i'll whack the shit out of you with it.
> >
> > >Woody
> >
> > h
> > BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY TODAY!
> >
> >
>
Just to clear the confusion, the user, anon2c9e, is a real user on the
host nyx.cs.du.edu; mnemosyne.cs.du.edu is only a netnews posting host.
Thus, there is no "anonymous remailer" involved, only a username that is
not indicative of the user's actual name. I.e., anon2c9e is a genuine
account, has shell access, etc. Thus is just as real as an account
as xy...@prodigy.com or PickY...@netcom.com.
Second, Nyx is a free public access system; the users are not in any way
connected with the University; many are not even geographically near it.
Users identities have been validated, however (such as by submitting a
notarized form).
Anyway, as to your request to provide information on the identity of that
user, Nyx's policy regarding providing details of *any* account (whether a
a named account like 'jsmith' or semi-anonymous like anon0000) is to
provide any publicly supplied data to anyone who asks, but only to supply
confidentially supplied data to proper law enforcement personnel.
In the case of an anon0000 account, the publicly supplied data is usually
scant, as in this case.
Therefore I would be able to supply the confidential information you requested
to a police detective, district attorney, etc. but not directly to you.
I would add that this is the policy I personally keep on any system, and have
seen in place on many other systems, in order to protect the privacy of the
users (whether they use obscure user names or not). As I'm sure you can
imagine, anyone could ask for such private data, so we have to have some
reasonable policy describing under what circumstances we give that out. Nyx
users are well aware of this policy, i.e., that their privacy is protected
only to the extent that they don't violate the law.
If you would like to have me provide the data to police, etc., they can
contact me at 303-871-3308.
I will also submit this case through Nyx's problem resolution procedure,
from which you'll get a form letter explaining our various policies. This
procedures requires the user to either defend or apologize for his
actions, or lose the account.
Let me know if you need anything further.
Prof. Andrew Burt
U. of Denver, Math/Computer Science
Admin of Nyx
ab...@nyx.cs.du.edu
----
i replied to this with merely the statement that
while i had made the earlier statements, i had not
made the final statement attributed to me.
i would ordinarily be inclined to blame scientology
for the forgery, and to allege that they dummied this
up, took what is, indeed, a rather insulting and
vituperative note, and tacked that lie at the end
in order to make it look actionable.
however, right now i'm too shaken by the whole
thing to deal with writing a ringing denunciation.
this won't shut me up, whoever did it.
again, to make this so goddamn explicit that nobody
could fail to understand it, i DID NOT MAKE THAT
THREAT!
any further action anyone takes against me with regards
to this forgery i will regard as deliberate harassment,
compounded by concealment of your knowledge that i never
said this.
you know it, i know it.
h
William Barwell
Run, do not walk to your local FBI and complain that you have been framed
up by somebody for a bomb threat. Tell them you are putting them on
notice that you did not do this and wish to make plain that any more such
forgeries will be reported and action demnded because of your past
knowledge of Scientology tactics of framing people, (Paulette Cooper,
Tom Klemesrud for examples.)
I note the date is April 11th. Anybody have a site where this April 11th
post is still there? Is Homer still logging ARS? Is anybody else?
Report to Helena what you have done and warn her that any such actions on
their part doiong this sort of forgery is illegal and she should tell her
clients that their members are doing such forgeiries and this sort of
nonsense should be suppressed amonst members lest it cause more
embarressing lawsuits against CoS and cocommitant bad publicity.
>this cult is pursuing a policy of harassment against
>the contributors to alt.religion.scientology. not
>only do they engage in the more traditional kinds
>of net abuse, such as vertical spamming and forgery,
>they also have invented entirely new forms of abusing
>the net and its participants.
>
>here follows the exchange. it's huge. that's why they
>invented these control-l's so you can bag it if you like.
>
>
I would log every message I posted to ARS from here on in and
would make sure Helen Korbin and your sysop know this.
I would further more send your sysop Martin Hunt's address so he can ask
Martin Hunt if he wishes about similar stunts they have perpetrated
against him. There is a pattern here.
Another possibility. Take this stuff and send a copy to your Senators and
Congressman. Send them copies of Operation freakout and tell them that
you fear the cult will try to frame somebody here in this manner. Demand
from them that they ask the FBI to monitor ARS so such stunts cannot be done
without risk. The barratrous attitude of this nasty cult demands that
such 'pranks' be documented so that they are not tempted to do anything
to innocent people because of forgeries like this.
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Snowhare
> Dear Henry (or whatever your real name is),
Dear Vera Wallace (or whatever your real name is),
> It is bad enough that you made the posting to alt.religion.scientology
> but you did it from behind the shield of anonymity. Now, after your
> systems admin was written to by the Church's attorney complaining
> of the seriousness of your threat, you come up with the story
> that your message was a forgery.
This is provably false. Yesterday, I posted the cancellation control
message, also apparently from Henry, that was sent literally hours after
the article in dispute. It clearly states that the article was being
cancelled because it was a forgery. This was *ten days before* Helen
Cobrin made her charges to the admins at nyx, based on the headers of the
messages that have been posted here. There is no way Henry's claim of
the article being a forgery could be in response to the charge from Helen
Cobrin. It is not physically possible (unless you know of someone who
has a working time machine).
> Instead of taking the decent course of action, which would have been
> to 1) either appologize and agree not to do it again, or 2) offer your
> assistance to locate the alleged forger, you posted several other
> hatefilled postings on this newsgroup and have now attempted to
> deceive the readers of these other newgroups that you are being
> falsely victimized.
According the the information I have seen here, Henry *is* aggressively
pursuing finding out who forged the acticle. He also seems to have
*immediately* cancelled the article when he found out it existed. Which
is what I would have done if someone forged an article in *my* name. He
seems to be precisely what he appears to be - the victim of a forged
article.
Whether or not he personally continues to post (non-criminally
threatening) anti-scientology posts is utterly irrelevant to the
question at hand. He does *not* have to become a scientology fan to
pursue the forger. Your attempt to link the two is just a red herring
that attempts to obscure the issue: Did someone forge *that particular*
article, and if so, can we determine who?
--
Benjamin Franz (If that is my real name...)
henry
William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>Run, do not walk to your local FBI and complain that you have been framed
>up by somebody for a bomb threat. Tell them you are putting them on
>notice that you did not do this and wish to make plain that any more such
>forgeries will be reported and action demnded because of your past
>knowledge of Scientology tactics of framing people, (Paulette Cooper,
>Tom Klemesrud for examples.)
well, unlike the nut cult, i'm loath to drag in authorities
at the drop of a hat. in addition to that, the whole attempt
to paint me as a 'mad bomber' is so ludicrous as to defy
belief by anyone but a nut cultist.
even taken at face value, kobrin's letter is a palpable
absurdity. now that i've thought about it, i've realized
that BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY! is no more
a bomb threat or illegal than OFF THE PIGS! or any number of
violent slogans. YOU CAN HAVE MY GUN WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM
MY COLD, DEAD FINGERS springs to mind.
this is obviously not a threat to any particular individual,
or even to any particular church of scientology. on top of
that, it's obviously not a 'threat.' a 'threat' is, hypothetically,
'tomorrow, at nine a. m. i'm going to blow up rick sherwood's
home.' the bogus quote, on the other hand, doesn't indicate
any kind of intent to act on it, or any clear and present danger
to Co$.
>I note the date is April 11th. Anybody have a site where this April 11th
>post is still there? Is Homer still logging ARS? Is anybody else?
>Report to Helena what you have done and warn her that any such actions on
>their part doiong this sort of forgery is illegal and she should tell her
>clients that their members are doing such forgeiries and this sort of
>nonsense should be suppressed amonst members lest it cause more
>embarressing lawsuits against CoS and cocommitant bad publicity.
i'm actually glad they've done this. every time they harass
another user, it's made clear to thousands of people that this
is a criminal cult and no religion at all.
>I would log every message I posted to ARS from here on in and
>would make sure Helen Korbin and your sysop know this.
>I would further more send your sysop Martin Hunt's address so he can ask
>Martin Hunt if he wishes about similar stunts they have perpetrated
>against him. There is a pattern here.
i just read an account of the bizarre harassment against
martin. you will note that martin's still here. those who
are harassed by the nut cult, it seems, become loyal
opposition.
scientology must WANT enemies. it is because it follows the
warped mental processes of l. ron hubbard, a paranoid, drug-addled,
megalomanical, pathologically-lying, self-destructive idiot.
it stands to reason that scientology would be a paranoid, dogma-addled,
megalomaniacal, pathologically-lying, self-destructive, idiotic
cult.
>Another possibility. Take this stuff and send a copy to your Senators and
>Congressman. Send them copies of Operation freakout and tell them that
>you fear the cult will try to frame somebody here in this manner. Demand
>from them that they ask the FBI to monitor ARS so such stunts cannot be done
>without risk. The barratrous attitude of this nasty cult demands that
>such 'pranks' be documented so that they are not tempted to do anything
>to innocent people because of forgeries like this.
when all is said and done, we ought to gauge exactly where the
cult is going with this harassment, and log everything until then.
when the time comes, the cult will be swamped with writs and
affidavits and all sorts of evidence they will be hard-pressed
to weasel out of.
if this sort of stuff continues, it would make excellent
material for a class-action lawsuit.
you just wait, nut cultists. you'll have your waco, but you're
too pathetic and cowardly to go out like the waco cultists. you'll
just be hauled before the irs and stripped of all assets, destroyed
as a financial entity, a laughable pathetic shell of a cult.
>Pope Charles
>SubGenius Pope Of Houston
>Slack!
h
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
Vera Wallace <ve...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Scientologists normally are quite willing to forgive and forget if
>someone has made a mistake.
Yea, right.
--
My Penguin just offered me a mushroom. Who says reality isn't strange?
Petrea Mitchell
1. Is alt.religion.scientology archived anywhere?
2. If not, does anyone have any info on the semi-mythical com-
pany that's selling monthly compilations of USENET articles on CD-ROM?
If an archive of some sort can be found, it should be easy enough
to see whether the bomb threat was faked in the reply or not.
--
/ <|> <|> <pr...@mvp.com> <pr...@gm.dev.com>
Petrea Mitchell <pem...@is.nyu.edu>
"be afreud, [...] or at least you should be jung at heart." ---ikaros
"Griddle me this: what are we frying to pun?" ---Steve "FarSide" Boyd
*** Push the button... someone. :~( ***
Vera Wallace
> recently, the criminal cult by the name of 'scientology'
> has been harassing news admins who carry the newsgroup
> alt.religion.scientology, vertically spamming the group
> with bogus 'testimonials' and repetitions of the phrase
> "Killfiling is an act of cowardice and non-confront."
>
> lately, they've adopted the policy that cracker buster
> developed, of emailing the sysadmins of posters to
> alt.religion.scientology with bogus declarations of
> the 'crimes' they have committed.
>
> in this so-called 'bomb threat,' which is either a
> deliberate misattribution or a forgery, i am taken
> to task for the heinous crime of threatening to hit
> someone with a metaphorical stick.
>
> this proving too tame, the bozos tacked on a line
> saying "BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY TODAY!"
> and forged it; or some prankish third party did it and
> the cult picked it up. it doesn't look like scientology
> handiwork, or their typical pathetic forgeries that are
> so malformed they don't even work.
Dear Henry (or whatever your real name is),
It is bad enough that you made the posting to alt.religion.scientology
but you did it from behind the shield of anonymity. Now, after your
systems admin was written to by the Church's attorney complaining
of the seriousness of your threat, you come up with the story
that your message was a forgery.
I do not believe you for one second and your act of attempting
to spread this falsehood to other newsgroups is simply an attempt
to cover your ass and incite others against the Church.
Instead of taking the decent course of action, which would have been
to 1) either appologize and agree not to do it again, or 2) offer your
assistance to locate the alleged forger, you posted several other
hatefilled postings on this newsgroup and have now attempted to
deceive the readers of these other newgroups that you are being
falsely victimized.
Scientologists normally are quite willing to forgive and forget if
someone has made a mistake. On the other hand, if someone is
making serious threats which put our families and friends in peril,
we are put in the position of being bad guys becuase we resort to
making police complaints or civil litigation to protect our rights.
You know very well that calling us a "criminal cult" is only
designed to prejudice those who read your rantings. I will tell
you again, take all your evidence to the FBI and/or police and
ask them to prosecute if that it what you think. If no prosecution
occurs, then I will expect that you confess that you do not know
what you are talking about and have no facts to back your outlandish
statements.
Vera Wallace
henry
[synopsis of scientologist net-abuse deleted]
>Dear Henry (or whatever your real name is),
Dear Vera (or whatever your real name is),
>It is bad enough that you made the posting to alt.religion.scientology
>but you did it from behind the shield of anonymity. Now, after your
>systems admin was written to by the Church's attorney complaining
>of the seriousness of your threat, you come up with the story
>that your message was a forgery.
when all else fails, repeat your charges over and over again
without any evidence. we'll see the original article soon enough,
when someone finds it. until then, your baseless accusation
of 'death threats,' especially coming from a criminal cult which
is notorious for such tactics as 'operation freakout,' a systematic
pattern of threats and harassment designed to 'neutralize'
paulette cooper. what about that, cultist?
can you deny your crimes, or just make clumsy attempts to
attack anyone who points out your crimes?
>I do not believe you for one second and your act of attempting
>to spread this falsehood to other newsgroups is simply an attempt
>to cover your ass and incite others against the Church.
damn straight.
you're goddamn right i'm going to cover my ass, because it's
under fire. ok. i have seen the harassment, death threats,
harassing, frivolous lawsuits filed by the cult, and other
sleazy tactics you've used to attack the net.
i've seen your bungled raid on the home of dennis erlich.
i've seen your laughable two-on-one attempt to intimidate
grady ward by sending thugs to his house.
i've seen your threats against tarlastar, and you posting of
her name and address repeatedly.
i've seen 'rick sherwood's spamming of the group with repeated
comments against 'jdulaney.'
i've seen the court documents, i've seen photographs of the
goons you sent to grady's house, i've seen incontrovertible
evidence that calling you a 'criminal cult' is not a 'tactic.'
calling you a 'criminal cult' is a simple matter of clear,
concise communication, just as calling a canine infected
with rabies a 'mad dog' is not a tactic, but a means of
description.
that you are unable to appreciate this distinction is
yet more evidence that you are indeed a solipsistic nut-cult.
>Instead of taking the decent course of action, which would have been
>to 1) either appologize and agree not to do it again, or 2) offer your
>assistance to locate the alleged forger, you posted several other
>hatefilled postings on this newsgroup and have now attempted to
>deceive the readers of these other newgroups that you are being
>falsely victimized.
look, idiot. i'm doing my best to track this down, and am collecting
as many copies of the post from as many places as possible. i also
posted a 'sample forgery' to see what kind of irregularities
we can expect to see. the message-id is
<thisisa...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>.
if you weren't so busy trying to slander me, you'd have noticed
that i'm taking ALL APPROPRIATE STEPS.
in addition, i sent out a cancel message on the message in question.
i've shown all signs of good faith. you, on the other hand,
have lied about what any fool can see, stating that i've done
what i clearly haven't. anyone with a newsreader can go
over to alt.religion.scientology and make up their own mind
about who is a 'mad bomber' and who is a 'criminal cultist.'
your lies hold no water here.
>Scientologists normally are quite willing to forgive and forget if
HA! tell grady ward that! tell dennis erlich that! tell
paulette cooper that! tell the hundreds of people who are on
the receiving ends of your continual stream of lawsuits that!
tell martin hunt that!
tell that to the people you've harassed, intimidated, lied to,
slandered, threatened, assaulted, who's homes you've invaded,
who have received anonymous ads for funeral homes, tell that
to your sea org buddies!
>someone has made a mistake. On the other hand, if someone is
>making serious threats which put our families and friends in peril,
nobody made any threats which put anyone in peril. this
is rank, screaming hysteria. someone pulled a damn prank
on me, and wasted both our time.
you're in no danger from me, or anyone else.
the danger you're facing is that your criminal cult is
being exposed for what it is. deal with it.
>we are put in the position of being bad guys becuase we resort to
>making police complaints or civil litigation to protect our rights.
read: because we sue anyone who says anything bad about
the church of scientology, lie to judges to get bogus arrest
warrants, forge death threats in the names of our enemies.
i mean, you litigious clowns have 46 lawsuits pending right
now JUST AGAINST THE IRS alone.
and as for your claims of 'protecting your rights,' here's
a few quotes from federal judges about your cult and its
lawsuits.
* Kenneth Robinson, British Minister of Health
"The government is satisfied that Scientology is socially harmful.
It alienates members of families from each other and attributes
squalid and disgraceful motives to all who oppose it; its authoritarian
principles and practice are a potential menace to the personality
and well being of those so deluded as to become followers; above
all, its methods can be a serious danger to the health of those
who submit to them... There is no power under existing law to
prohibit the practice of scientology; but the government has
concluded that it is so objectionable that it would be right
to take all steps within its power to curb its growth."
* Judge Breckenridge, Los Angeles Superior Court
"[the court record is] replete with evidence [that Scientology]
is nothing in reality but a vast enterprise to extract the maximum
amount of money from its adepts by pseudo scientific theories...
and to exercise a kind of blackmail against persons who do not
wish to continue with their sect.... The organization clearly
is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination
seems to be a reflection of its founder, L.Ron Hubbard."
* Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Paul Breckenridge, June
1984, in the Gerry Armstrong case
"In addition to violating and abusing its own members' civil
rights, the organization over the years with its "fair game"
doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the
church whom it perceives as enemies."
>You know very well that calling us a "criminal cult" is only
>designed to prejudice those who read your rantings.
read 'em and weep, vera. not just i, but every honest
judge, jury, police officer or other government official
which has had to deal with your cult's criminal behavior has
come to the same conclusion.
i call you a criminal cult because i have evidence of your
crimes, hundreds of pages of court transcripts documenting
your cult's criminal activities. those quotes, all from
judges, are merely the smallest smattering, just from one
post by factnet. i could fill a goddamn shopping cart,
a BIG one, just with the opinions of judges about your cult.
the annals of infamy are going to have to open a new wing
just to house the history of your cult.
>I will tell
>you again, take all your evidence to the FBI and/or police and
>ask them to prosecute if that it what you think.
unlike your barratrous, criminal cult, i have a life and don't
call the cops every time my feelings are hurt.
>If no prosecution
>occurs, then I will expect that you confess that you do not know
>what you are talking about and have no facts to back your outlandish
>statements.
i have facts. i have LOADS of facts, you loon. on
alt.religion.scientology, your cult has been barraged
with so many damn facts it's hard to keep track of them!
you haven't responded to ANY factual posts, any of the
court transcripts, personal accounts, quotes from your
OWN SCRIPTURES, or rational arguments! all you've done
is scream and whine and slander your critics.
i have facts. you have none. that's why you're attempting
to slander me instead of attacking the allegations against
your church.
you know l. ron hubbard was a fraud and a pathological liar
with a paranoid personality disorder. you can't defend against
it. you don't even try.
you instead seize on some bogus non-issue like this
laughable, so-called 'bomb threat.' nevermind that
regardless of who said what, you're still a criminal
cult.
> Vera Wallace
h
Nathan J. Mehl
: this cult is pursuing a policy of harassment against
: the contributors to alt.religion.scientology. not
: only do they engage in the more traditional kinds
: of net abuse, such as vertical spamming and forgery,
: they also have invented entirely new forms of abusing
: the net and its participants.
Actually, they haven't invented anything new at all - they've just
retrofitted their tried-and-true methods of intimidation to the net,
perhaps having realized that the newfangled ones were of limited
effectiveness.
My advice: if they persist, sue the crap out of them for harassment
and perhaps defamation of character. (The fact that the post can't
be authenticated cuts both ways - they can't prove that you actually
said it any more than you can prove that you didn't.)
I'll donate to a legal defense fund in your name. Seriously.
-n
--
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
If you think I speak for my employer, they'll be happy to correct you.
Nathan J. Mehl -- BBN Planet Network Operations -- nat...@bbnplanet.com
Nathan J. Mehl
: Instead of taking the decent course of action, which would have been
: to 1) either appologize and agree not to do it again, or 2) offer your
: assistance to locate the alleged forger, you posted several other
: hatefilled postings on this newsgroup and have now attempted to
: deceive the readers of these other newgroups that you are being
: falsely victimized.
If you had read his post more carefully, you would have noticed that
it included an appeal for anyone currently archiving the group or
with access to the original post to provide evidence on his behalf.
No, he wasn't polite about it, but he's under no obligation to be.
If you dislike the way that Scientologists are treated by denizens
of the net, perhaps you should take it up with Helena Kobrin, who
managed to give your organization a spectacularly ungainly entrance.
: You know very well that calling us a "criminal cult" is only
: designed to prejudice those who read your rantings.
Do the words "raw meat" mean anything to you?
Deana Holmes
On Tue, 25 Apr 1995 rne...@MIT.EDU wrote:
> In article <3ne2ua$o...@cmcl2.nyu.edu> you write:
>
> > 1. Is alt.religion.scientology archived anywhere?
>
> Deana Holmes <mir...@xmission.com> has been archiving this
> group since mid-February. I'm cc'ing her on this message.
>
> > If an archive of some sort can be found, it should be easy enough
> >to see whether the bomb threat was faked in the reply or not.
>
> Deana, if you get a chance, can you help "henry" with this?
>
> Ron
>
I'll see what I can do. I found the original Martin Hunt "death threat",
I suppose I can find this too. :)
Deana Holmes
mir...@xmission.com
Alan W Grover
anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu wrote:
[a correspondance between Helena Kobrin, the sysadmin of nyx.cs.du.edu,
and anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu involving henry <anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu>'s
message]
henry <anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>Rick Sherwood <noo...@netcom.com> wrote:
[snip. to the point]
> >You won't touch it
> >with a ten foot pole.
>
> hey, give me that ten foot pole.
>
> i'll whack the shit out of you with it.
>
> >Woody
>
> h
> BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY TODAY!
>
> [i break in to disavow this final statement, in all caps.
> i did NOT say this in my original message, nor would i
> have said such a thing.
>
> i recall that at the time i was involved in this discussion,
> there was a great deal of skullduggery involving forged
> messages and control messages.
>
> though i did write the rest of this message, i specifically
> disavow the final sentence. i never said such a thing.]
henry,
I haven't been following your posts, and I don't know you, so this
issue is undecideable from my point of view. However, may I point out
that there is a way to verify whether you have made future
statements. You may have heard of digital signatures, which
gaurantees attribution and prevents tampering. PGP provides this
capability, and is available for most computers. Please consult the
alt.security.pgp newsgroup to find a version that works for your
system.
The rest of y'all,
Many of you, on both sides, exude suspicion and express doubt about
the identity of posters. The justification for such beliefs are not
for me to decide (translation: leave me out of the
flame-war/harrasments for now). Those of you who fear tampering with
messages (as henry claims above) should at least investigate digital
signatures (such as provided by PGP). I would encourage you, on both
sides, to use digital signatures to prevent tampering and
misattribution. The strength of digital signatures relies upon the
user following certain procedures, a discussion of these procedures
can be found in the PGP documentation (and probably in the
alt.security.pgp FAQ).
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQB1AwUBL5mKL0ZcmVkcyzihAQG7DQL7BSiwLMkntaPd9MjUK/b6iZ1q3li7GoUg
uNgWmIhHC0rDAs864WkXQxIon7K3HbCwc/KCIgRvaLs+iXPGqUyhTYv+HBFFYsRD
WONlzjjrDCm3zwsxIKdw5K5vagpFSuzW
=pqol
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
---
Alan Grover Private Citizen awgr...@msen.com
William Barwell
henry <anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>In article <3nchno$m...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
>William Barwell <wbar...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>
>>Run, do not walk to your local FBI and complain that you have been framed
>>up by somebody for a bomb threat. Tell them you are putting them on
>>notice that you did not do this and wish to make plain that any more such
>>forgeries will be reported and action demnded because of your past
>>knowledge of Scientology tactics of framing people, (Paulette Cooper,
>>Tom Klemesrud for examples.)
>
>well, unlike the nut cult, i'm loath to drag in authorities
>at the drop of a hat. in addition to that, the whole attempt
>to paint me as a 'mad bomber' is so ludicrous as to defy
>belief by anyone but a nut cultist.
No. Call the FBI. If they do something stupid like this again and it
causes propblems, it is on record that they have screwed around with
this sort of stuff and it may save you trouble. It also goes on
Scientology's permanent FBI record, so if enough such complaints about
them playing games on teh enternet build up, it may well establish this
so some poor sucker down teh line can prove these sort of occurances are
not unusual when dealing with this demented cult.
Somebody has forged a bomb threat in your name and a threat in Hunt's
name mailed to somebody else.
We know what they did to Klemesrud.
These complaints are the webs that will catch a big fat fly someday.
Or save somebody from having to fight them without proof that such things
do go on whenever LRH's bastard paranoid lie cult is criticized.
Do it. Gather the relevant posts and write a letter telling the FBI
what happened. Tell them you are sending that in as an official
complaint to cover yourself should you be set up again in the future
Because of teh outcry about teh bozos in Oklahoma and the militias,
the rules may change for FBI involvement in surveillance of groups
deemed dangerous or involved in harrasment and terrorism.
All such things should be reported on the off chance it may be important
to save somebody's ass somewhere down the line.
They have been getting by with this crap too long because everybody has
either been scared to tackle 'em or too lazy to pursue them.
Tim eto start telling them where to get off, and setting them up for teh
scrutiny they deserve.
>even taken at face value, kobrin's letter is a palpable
>absurdity. now that i've thought about it, i've realized
>that BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY! is no more
>a bomb threat or illegal than OFF THE PIGS! or any number of
>violent slogans. YOU CAN HAVE MY GUN WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM
>MY COLD, DEAD FINGERS springs to mind.
>
This one may be absurd to you, but they may well try something harder to
get out from under later to some critic. Their record for such acts
should be established before they "Paulette Cooper" somebody from ARS.
>this is obviously not a threat to any particular individual,
>or even to any particular church of scientology. on top of
>that, it's obviously not a 'threat.' a 'threat' is, hypothetically,
>'tomorrow, at nine a. m. i'm going to blow up rick sherwood's
>home.' the bogus quote, on the other hand, doesn't indicate
>any kind of intent to act on it, or any clear and present danger
>to Co$.
>
The fact that their shyster lawyer jumped on this crap to write your
sysop indeed makes it a threat. They may try again, and make it better
next time. That is the threat I speak of.
Write the FBI.
Kobrin's letter shoul dbe in their files so they kno wteh caliber of teh
bitch. She should be seen as a shyster lawyer who 'cries wolf' just to
harrass people. This must be on record.
>>I note the date is April 11th. Anybody have a site where this April 11th
>>post is still there? Is Homer still logging ARS? Is anybody else?
>>Report to Helena what you have done and warn her that any such actions on
>>their part doiong this sort of forgery is illegal and she should tell her
>>clients that their members are doing such forgeiries and this sort of
>>nonsense should be suppressed amonst members lest it cause more
>>embarressing lawsuits against CoS and cocommitant bad publicity.
>
>i'm actually glad they've done this. every time they harass
>another user, it's made clear to thousands of people that this
>is a criminal cult and no religion at all.
>
This should be made clear on record to the federal government
to.
>>I would log every message I posted to ARS from here on in and
>>would make sure Helen Korbin and your sysop know this.
>>I would further more send your sysop Martin Hunt's address so he can ask
>>Martin Hunt if he wishes about similar stunts they have perpetrated
>>against him. There is a pattern here.
>
>i just read an account of the bizarre harassment against
>martin. you will note that martin's still here. those who
>are harassed by the nut cult, it seems, become loyal
>opposition.
What do you do if the escalate this sort of tripe?
Or even get clever about it?
>
>scientology must WANT enemies. it is because it follows the
>warped mental processes of l. ron hubbard, a paranoid, drug-addled,
>megalomanical, pathologically-lying, self-destructive idiot.
>
>it stands to reason that scientology would be a paranoid, dogma-addled,
>megalomaniacal, pathologically-lying, self-destructive, idiotic
>cult.
>
>>Another possibility. Take this stuff and send a copy to your Senators and
>>Congressman. Send them copies of Operation freakout and tell them that
>>you fear the cult will try to frame somebody here in this manner. Demand
>>from them that they ask the FBI to monitor ARS so such stunts cannot be done
>>without risk. The barratrous attitude of this nasty cult demands that
>>such 'pranks' be documented so that they are not tempted to do anything
>>to innocent people because of forgeries like this.
>
>when all is said and done, we ought to gauge exactly where the
>cult is going with this harassment, and log everything until then.
>when the time comes, the cult will be swamped with writs and
>affidavits and all sorts of evidence they will be hard-pressed
>to weasel out of.
>
I want the feds to have it on record. As it happens.
It is better to have a dozen complaints on file with the FBI then a dozen
declarations from ARS critics.
Stuart Smith
In article <3nhfke$nll$1...@heifetz.msen.com>,
Alan W Grover <awgr...@garnet.msen.com> wrote:
[...]
>flame-war/harrasments for now). Those of you who fear tampering with
>messages (as henry claims above) should at least investigate digital
>signatures (such as provided by PGP). I would encourage you, on both
>sides, to use digital signatures to prevent tampering and
>misattribution. The strength of digital signatures relies upon the
I'll just add that I'd be more than happy to help anyone get set up with pgp
- - feel free to send me any questions you have on the matter (I've already
offered the same to henry)
Here's a good crypto-site to get you started, it has links to lots more..
<a href="http://www.quadralay.com/www/Crypt/Crypt.html">Quadralay Cryptography Archive</a>
- --
Baba baby mama shaggy papa baba bro baba rock a shaggy baba sister
shag saggy hey doc baba baby shaggy hey baba can you dig it baba baba
E7 E3 90 7E 16 2E F3 45 * Stuart Smith * 28 24 2E C6 03 02 37 5C
<s...@nemesis.wimsey.com> * http://www.wimsey.com/~ssmith/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBL56hEqi5iP4JtEWBAQHFQAQAlERZCFA6sLs/EQUDAs8s285ee7TJ5MVa
c/GoMZ3r/BKD7M+BMxcCChcIGjNmodQlLLGG0w6uiUyf0AzU4EpM87kMmBcMa3Us
X92y4YowLp+azR7LkTlHQWhcsYFvV9tsTG0FvjwG4mPg4jNCYtdfFM+TlWoYPN5v
cXwwxviOmMg=
=n6ZZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David L. Bergart
o henry,
o I haven't been following your posts, and I don't know you, so this
o issue is undecideable from my point of view. However, may I point out
o that there is a way to verify whether you have made future
o statements. You may have heard of digital signatures, which
o gaurantees attribution and prevents tampering. PGP provides this
o capability, and is available for most computers. Please consult the
o alt.security.pgp newsgroup to find a version that works for your
o system.
Sorry Alan, but while a valid PGP signature provides strong evidence that a
message was written by the apparent author, neither the absence of a
digital signature, nor the presence of an invalid signature, tells us
anything concrete about the identity of the actual author.
David
--
____D__a__v__i__d_____B__e__r__g__a__r__t___________________________________
bod...@ccvax.sinica.edu.tw
Tom Collins
>You know very well that calling us a "criminal cult" is only
>designed to prejudice those who read your rantings. I will tell
>you again, take all your evidence to the FBI and/or police and
>ask them to prosecute if that it what you think. If no prosecution
>occurs, then I will expect that you confess that you do not know
>what you are talking about and have no facts to back your outlandish
>statements.
"It is the position of the United States that each and every one of the
defendants herein fulfilled his duties as expected bythe Church of
Scienotlogy, that all of their criminal activities, as well as those of
all unindicted co-consiprators, were carried out in furtherance of the
very goals of their church. The very polices of the church, as reflected
by its Guardian Orders, called for the execution of massive criminal
conspiracies and rewarded the participants for their success inc arrying
out these criminal policies."
Thus, U.S. government prosecutors wrote in the sentencing memorandum to U.S.
District Judge Charles R. Richey after the conviction of Mary Sue
Hubbard, Henning Heidt, Duke Snider (not the baseball player), Gregory
Williamson, Richard Weigand, Cindy Raymond, Mitchell Hermann, Gerald
Bennet Wolfe, and Sharon Thomas.
The nine Scientologists were sentenced to prison terms of 6 months to
five years in jail. The grand jury listed cult founder L.Ron Hubbard and
22 others as unindicted co-conspirators. Mary Sue Hubbard, Ron's wife,
held the position as commodore staff guardian. The others were all senior
Guardians but for Hermann, who was a senior official until he was fired,
and Wolfe and Thomas, who were Scientology covert agents who had
infiltrated government agencies. The nine were charged with 28 counts of
conspiracy, theft, and burglary and eventually found guilty of one count
each.
All that was in the late 1970s. Current events on the horrifying,
edifying, frequently hilarious, and always entertaining alt.religion.
scientology suggest that nothing has changed in terms of cult behavior
toward its critics.
Seems like there is good precedent in the U.S. for calling the Crock of
$cn a dangerous cult.
When you go back and read again the position of the United States on this
"church," you might want to notice that the "church" has never admitted
the statements of plain fact made by prosecutors after the convictions
and wonder what the consequences must be for an organization with such a
past that cannot admit its own transgressions and ask yourself what would
be an appropriate response from Usenet when that same cult declares war
on it.
--
tom...@kaiwan.com Tom Collins
"Inside every old person is a young person wondering what happened."
--Terry Pratchett. "Babbitt was vaguely frightened." --Sinclair Lewis.
henry
In article <3nrs24$p...@castlsys.demon.co.uk>,
Steve <ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Sorry Alan, but while a valid PGP signature provides strong evidence that a
>> message was written by the apparent author, neither the absence of a
>> digital signature, nor the presence of an invalid signature, tells us
>> anything concrete about the identity of the actual author.
if the current user of the key has stated that all unsigned
articles are to be considered bogus, the only reason to send
an article _without_ a signature is if you don't HAVE the key.
>This is where the area of public key sharing comes in. If you know
>anyone on the net personally, and can work out a safe way to exchange
>your public keys (ie not via email),
this is a common misconception. there is no need to be at
all secure with the public keys. the scientologists can
have my public key if they want it. here:
- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.1
mQCNAy+aYYQAAAEEANVp9TGDO8KFO9xDL2fnZMyk8cYujrRkVK5LIA/V9figJmTT
qehYKIxeeLoTQjJqknLgxbu10SXMSfIR9hvv3ZBgT8pfbOKs2DXAqY0CWGVAAiD7
OuHnVcOlMqDO4RIBGMlWR5aItSzia4P6a8D/qjKHQTMb8oNrE9OUGUXWNqytAAUT
tB5oZW5yeSA8YW5vbjJjOWVAbnl4LmNzLmR1LmVkdT6JAJUDBRAvmmHU05QZRdY2
rK0BAUgXBAC8a+2UL9AVM/8Pua1qyKlcie1KULrICyqzKYJJ9fsqQXvK115mKEWX
9O3Q9XEe0aTtr8X783dInevGyAdoEdMsPAcTbmP1cMMIxYRv82YvP4jG2gaBelKn
fy1ksOjF/SD9e47WW+mBtdh7VWMnapofRr0xTR/oG+PDPq+/La6CTw==
=ty8n
- -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
now the secret keys, on the other hand. don't EVER EVER
let anyone get a hold of one of those.
>you can validate each other's
>keys. Then others can do the same: OK, so you might, say, have just 3
>people who've validated your key and are therefore in a position to
>say "that message WAS a forgery", but that's better than having
>absolutely no proof that it was.
a key does not guarantee an actual person at the other end
of the computer, but it does guarantee that it's likely to be
the same person or entity who originally put out the key.
it also does not guarantee that the person on the other end
of the key is trustworthy and won't later deliberately divulge
what you've revealed to them.
>Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBL6S9PNOUGUXWNqytAQEeEQQAtvqytlu6uPPGUhKSfNL3p4hcCCsG/MlY
g7TzxB8YopBCgBfY9ko8PtyvARWOjH8WFDqCESw9KV11fF+nAOkqTIfcYSKNhAhm
Ak39m5AfPEo704xziIs+cg9m/G0bcx/yGduDyX0Z3Qi5DD0w1EfHW78j1fwy4s4j
E91YyiYeTy4=
=QP59
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hillel
: $cn a dangerous cult.
In article <1995May2.0...@belvedere.sbay.org>
ro...@belvedere.sbay.org (David E. Fox) writes:
>Seems to me there is ample evidence to declare the organization an illegal
>one.
Why to use excessive force?
Just give the Co$ 10 feet of rope and a couple of computer terminals,
and it will manage to find some creative way to kill itself...
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
-- Salvor Hardin
John Sumner
: anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (henry) wrote:
: > recently, the criminal cult by the name of 'scientology'
: > has been harassing news admins who carry the newsgroup
: > alt.religion.scientology, vertically spamming the group
: > with bogus 'testimonials' and repetitions of the phrase
: > "Killfiling is an act of cowardice and non-confront."
: >
: > lately, they've adopted the policy that cracker buster
: > developed, of emailing the sysadmins of posters to
: > alt.religion.scientology with bogus declarations of
: > the 'crimes' they have committed.
: >
: > in this so-called 'bomb threat,' which is either a
: > deliberate misattribution or a forgery, i am taken
: > to task for the heinous crime of threatening to hit
: > someone with a metaphorical stick.
: >
: > this proving too tame, the bozos tacked on a line
: > saying "BLOW UP YOUR LOCAL CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY TODAY!"
: > and forged it; or some prankish third party did it and
: > the cult picked it up. it doesn't look like scientology
: > handiwork, or their typical pathetic forgeries that are
: > so malformed they don't even work.
:
: Dear Henry (or whatever your real name is),
: It is bad enough that you made the posting to alt.religion.scientology
: but you did it from behind the shield of anonymity. Now, after your
: systems admin was written to by the Church's attorney complaining
: of the seriousness of your threat, you come up with the story
: that your message was a forgery.
: I do not believe you for one second and your act of attempting
: to spread this falsehood to other newsgroups is simply an attempt
: to cover your ass and incite others against the Church.
: Instead of taking the decent course of action, which would have been
: to 1) either appologize and agree not to do it again, or 2) offer your
: assistance to locate the alleged forger, you posted several other
: hatefilled postings on this newsgroup and have now attempted to
: deceive the readers of these other newgroups that you are being
: falsely victimized.
: Scientologists normally are quite willing to forgive and forget if
: someone has made a mistake. On the other hand, if someone is
: making serious threats which put our families and friends in peril,
: we are put in the position of being bad guys becuase we resort to
: making police complaints or civil litigation to protect our rights.
: You know very well that calling us a "criminal cult" is only
: designed to prejudice those who read your rantings. I will tell
: you again, take all your evidence to the FBI and/or police and
: ask them to prosecute if that it what you think. If no prosecution
: occurs, then I will expect that you confess that you do not know
: what you are talking about and have no facts to back your outlandish
: statements.
: Vera Wallace
Hey vera i guess the truth hurts.
John Sumner
a016...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
"...When he shall die
Take him and cut him into little stars
And he will make the face of heaven so fine
That all the world will be in love with night
Bobby Kennedy
Steve
henry (anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
> In article <3nrs24$p...@castlsys.demon.co.uk>,
> Steve <ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> digital signature, nor the presence of an invalid signature, tells us
> >> anything concrete about the identity of the actual author.
> >This is where the area of public key sharing comes in. If you know
> >anyone on the net personally, and can work out a safe way to exchange
> >your public keys (ie not via email),
> this is a common misconception. there is no need to be at
> all secure with the public keys. the scientologists can
> have my public key if they want it. here:
I was thinking more of the idea of certifying public keys, as per the
"How to protect public keys from tampering" in the PGP docs, in order
that the recipient of a public key can be confident of the identity
of the owner of the key. I don't know much about it - I've only just
started using PGP myself.
> a key does not guarantee an actual person at the other end
> of the computer, but it does guarantee that it's likely to be
> the same person or entity who originally put out the key.
Presumably certification addresses that problem, to a degree?
> it also does not guarantee that the person on the other end
> of the key is trustworthy and won't later deliberately divulge
> what you've revealed to them.
No, agreed - but that's a consideration you can afford to take when
you *know* the entire contents of your email came from you.
Steve
- --
SAVE THE REV! Annoy a $cientologist!! Contribute to Dennis' Defence Fund!!!
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
stevea@ca| Cheques (non-US are OK) to Electronic | Endorse Your Cheques:
stlsys.de| Freedom Foundation, 1667 K Street, NW | DENNIS ERLICH DEFENCE FUND
mon.co.uk| Suite 801, Washington DC 20006 U.S.A. | space donated by renta.Sig
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQBVAgUBL6ffWPsT8zz+lqiRAQHXWwH8C9ObM55Gn3nMLML7P8gBDExER1IV8Tcc
66Q7rwEFYn7g/GGb2eFx3A4V+GcfCMCyon+Oghe94KDulrQC7DpwlA==
=hehT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
henry
In article <3o8n0s$d...@castlsys.demon.co.uk>,
Steve <ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>henry (anon...@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>> In article <3nrs24$p...@castlsys.demon.co.uk>,
>> Steve <ste...@castlsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> digital signature, nor the presence of an invalid signature, tells us
>> >> anything concrete about the identity of the actual author.
>
>> >This is where the area of public key sharing comes in. If you know
>> >anyone on the net personally, and can work out a safe way to exchange
>> >your public keys (ie not via email),
>
>> this is a common misconception. there is no need to be at
>> all secure with the public keys. the scientologists can
>> have my public key if they want it. here:
>
>I was thinking more of the idea of certifying public keys, as per the
>"How to protect public keys from tampering" in the PGP docs, in order
>that the recipient of a public key can be confident of the identity
>of the owner of the key. I don't know much about it - I've only just
>started using PGP myself.
now in this case i tend to trust a key AFTER a certain period of time.
if a person's postings continue to match the key and the person doesn't
pop up with a warning that a loon is impersonating them.
i certainly wouldn't spill personal info to anyone that i wouldn't have
just based on them sending me a public key unless i knew them beforehand.
in a certain sense, the internet is a network of trust, in which systems
subscribe to the advantage gained by belonging to the network and trusting
that creeps won't fuck you up.
in those cases where you can't trust to creeps behaving themselves, well
then security tends to develop in circumstances that make people paranoid.
but in the case of bogus public key announcements, i feel that most
netizens who would be subject to attack in this way also would vehemently
and immediately attack any such false claims.
i'd trust it MORE if it were a widely distributed announcement than
if i got it in email, because in the case of the email the original
entity would not see it if it were fake. however, in a public forum
the 'real' entity would no doubt have it brought to their attention in
very short order.
there are circumstances where public key spoofing could be useful, but
this group isn't one of them. i would very quickly smack the shit out of
anyone spreading bullshit public keys in my name on the group, or
dummying my .plan.
>> a key does not guarantee an actual person at the other end
>> of the computer, but it does guarantee that it's likely to be
>> the same person or entity who originally put out the key.
>
>Presumably certification addresses that problem, to a degree?
true, but who do i trust for certifying? i don't KNOW any of these
people, except for a very small sample. however, i'd generally trust
any key certified by, say, tim may or eric hughes or, to pick someone
on a.r.s., grady ward.
not because i've met them, which is the only way to be 'really'
secure, but because i trust them based on reputation. i almost
wish the cypherpunks and extropians had established a reliable
'reputation server' of some sort to keep track of these things.
>> it also does not guarantee that the person on the other end
>> of the key is trustworthy and won't later deliberately divulge
>> what you've revealed to them.
>
>No, agreed - but that's a consideration you can afford to take when
>you *know* the entire contents of your email came from you.
>Steve
h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBL6g42tOUGUXWNqytAQF0WQP/QfNbh883grwKE0V9NaoADhLSqICYIMSQ
B/w+yYoX7dlY6w/RB8b1z3EAl6m9JGFUpiEo0E+YsikNp7KUz3rRxo9aqE3ijfOf
eVBjeM1nWCOZY1inToUW7KmtSRBhjxQibFiqlcPizU6n28ZEDSnEUiX7giTY47tT
8FeSm/n9D48=
=8eUt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Sumner
: : Seems like there is good precedent in the U.S. for calling the Crock of
: : $cn a dangerous cult.
: In article <1995May2.0...@belvedere.sbay.org>
: ro...@belvedere.sbay.org (David E. Fox) writes:
: >Seems to me there is ample evidence to declare the organization an illegal
: >one.
: Why to use excessive force?
: Just give the Co$ 10 feet of rope and a couple of computer terminals,
: and it will manage to find some creative way to kill itself...
That would make me very happy to see that.
--
John Sumner
a016...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us.
I am a stranger in a even stranger
land. Say no to Rush Limbaugh.