E. King's Web Site
Mike Restivo
I'm responding to your impotent propaganda web site which is based upon
character assassination, inuendo and ad hominem attacks, passed off as
provable fact. I'll unveil the hoodwink that your smear has attempted with
future posts.
The first message refers to the claim that I had written, based upon
msinformation given to me by the Ontario Grand Secretary, by accident. I
had claimed that MR. M.R. Poll's Lodge was not recognized in Ontario. It
is, and this message was one of three, two publicly to Mr. Poll, which
explained how I was misinformed. I should have awaited a confirmation or
double check, but was so convinced of the Grand Secretary's certainty, that
it a double check did not appear necessary. From whom whould I double
check, other than the Grand Secretary? For continuity, I reproduce it here:
-------------------------------------------------------
FROM: Mike J. Restivo, 74347,751
TO: Nelson King, 71202,22
DATE: 07-11-96 01:24 AM
Re: Copy of: Incorrect Information
Mr. King,
Robert Davies phoned me this evening to apologize for having misread when
rendering his ruling to me over the phone, "from the wrong column" of an old
reference text, to the effect that Lodge "Germania" of the Grand Lodge of
Louisiana was not recognized. He explicitly confirmed today that that Lodge
and the Grand Lodge of Louisiana to which it belongs (there being more than
one Grand Lodge of Louisiana, according to Mr. Davies, including a
Prince-Hall Jurisdiction.) *is* recognized by the Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of
Canada in the Province of Ontario, whose members may visit and watch
Initiations into the first 3 Scottish Rite Degrees in that Grand Lodge of
Louisiana.
I thank *you* for explaining that Mike Poll's Grand Lodge is not under the
Jurisdiction of the AASR S.J., which was a point that I wanted to clarify,
as I got the impression that he *was* under the AASR S.J. and by implication
was claiming that the AASR S.J. chartered Mr. Poll's Blue Lodge to Initiate
into the first Three Degrees of the Scottish Rite, which according to
William Sizemore , who has my telephone number, is untrue. I await to be
informed if the Supreme Council of the AASR S.J. has reversed or amended Mr.
Sizemore's ruling. When I publicly asked Mr. Poll if he was under the AASR
S. J., he refused to answer.
† Sincerely,
Mike Restivo
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following messages were a consequence of Mr. M.R. Poll's public denial
that I was a regularly Initiated Mason. It is ironically fitting, that
matters of truth which I wrote to another King, Neslon, are relevant today
to you, Edward King, who needlessly omits the fact of my Masonic credentials
from your Masonic propaganda web site. I have been called worse, but am
providing the balance which Truth demands over matters of fact:
FROM: Mike J. Restivo, 74347,751
TO: Nelson King, 71202,22
DATE: 07-11-97 04:32 PM
Re: Copy of: Christianity & Masonry
Mr. King,
Regretfully, I must intrude upon your attention, as Mr. Poll has involved
you (I deduce) in his propaganda. It is not my intention to belabour you
with rhetoric, but it is necessary for you to pay close attention to
whatever you may be inadvertently drawn into. Mr. Poll is suggesting that I
was not regularly I, P, R, at The General Mercer Lodge. This lie is one of
many he is now inventing daily. A new and silly nadir of his Masonic
advocacy. I'll not attempt to tell you what to do, but am open to cool
headed discussion if desired. I live in Toronto, Ontario, and believe that
your live or lived in Agincourt. You or any other Mason is invited to my
residence to examine my Lodge certificate and demit. There will be no
follow-up to this letter, it being sent as a courtesy only. These messages
reproduced here are complete and unedited, of which Mr. Poll has copies:
----------------------------------------------------
Subj: Christianity & Masonry Section: Christianity
To: Mike J. Restivo, 74347,751 Thursday, July 10, 1997 10:11:24 AM
From: Michael R. Poll, 110046,1751 #1698489
Mr. Restivo,
>> I did not claim that the English Ritual that is worked in Ontario,
Canada is *exactly* the same in all details and minutia including the
manufacture's selected for the Lodge furnishings and regalia.<<
Backstroke .... oh how I love it when anti's do that. <BG> BTW, what is
an "English Ritual" ?? That is NOT the name of the ritual used by your
former Lodge. <BG> Oh, I do wish that you would stop trying to seem as
though you know so much. You fall MUCH further when you do this.
>>That you claim I cannot enumerate the *similarities* between my own Craft
Initiations with that of "Duncan"'s Webb work (from what I infer from
"Extract from the Annual Address of M. W. P. M. Tucker, G. M. of Vermont")
p. 276 lower part to p. 281 inclusive is too silly to be credible.<<
ROFL !! I "claim" that you know next to nothing about the ritual that you
took nearly 20 years ago and was clearly not interested in until just a few
years ago. I "claim" that you do not have the *slightest* knowledge of what
you are talking about. I *know* that you did not even give the proper name
for the rite of the lodge that you took your degrees -- *if* you really took
them.
>>You could have confirmed almost two years ago, when I gave my Masonic
credentials to Mr. Tuck, from the registers of the Grand Lodge of Ontario,
that I was properly I,P, and R, and honourably demitted. If you have
confirmed this, why do you pretend to question my Masonic experiences?<<
What makes you think that I consider your claims important enough to make a
long distance phone cal or waste a stamp ? <BG> The *only* time that I
felt the need to contact your former GL was when you came out with the
nonsense that your former GL did not recognize my Lodge. You must
understand that I do not consider you as a very good anti- mason. You write
in such a style as to turn off most people. I don't waste my time with such
writings in any manner that causes me trouble in any way. Normally your
incorrect statements are corrected by me or another Mason, you yell about it
and that is it. When you publicly involved my GL and your former GL, THEN
that was important enough for me to take action on. I simply contacted a
Mason that I know in your former jurisdiction who contacted his Grand
Secretary. The Grand Secretary, of course, corrected such an incorrect
statement and stated that he had no idea what you were talking about. Had
you made yourself a little clearer rather than trying to impress people, the
situation might have been settled a lot quicker. The only other time that I
have felt it necessary is when you made the public statement that you would
contact my GL about filing some sort of charge against me for my debates
with you. I contacted my GL and they, basically, had their laugh for the
day. <BG>
>>Stick with the Scottish Rite, you're out of your depth trying to infer I
didn't receive that which I most assuredly did. To what purpose have you
called me a liar, again falsely?<<
Oops !! <BG> You did it again. My lodge *does* work in the Scottish Rite,
but I was a Grand Lecturer over a "York" (Webb) Rite district. I was
certified in the York Rite. I am most certainly able to speak on matters of
the York Rite and I can without reservation say that the ritual contained in
"Duncan's Ritual" is NOT the same (and I mean in GREAT detail) to the ritual
worked in Louisiana.
>>I publicly wrote about my Craft experiences. I'll forego the re-post,
for now. Why play this "uninformed" act? You know exactly that I was
Initiated under the English Ritual as I told you publicly. Yet you feign
ignorance of that *fact*. You are perpetrating a deception, by your own
words. Why? You have gained only repeated correction, with proof. What
have you gained at the loss of your honour? Nothing.<<
I have your posts. I pretend nothing. You said that you were a Mason for
90 days. That is either correct or incorrect -- I don't care which as it
makes no difference (other than if you were not then you would be lying
about this). I do know that you are quite WRONG about the ritual being
called "English Ritual". Do you want to try again with its name ?
>> Are you attempting to suggest that Craft Masonry in Ontario is
irregular?<<
Now what part of my message did you twist to come up with some nonsense
like that ?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subj: Christianity & Masonry Section: Christianity
To: Michael R. Poll, 110046,1751 Friday, July 11, 1997 2:15:43 PM
From: Mike J. Restivo, 74347,751 #1699244
Part Two
Mr. Poll,
Your silly suggestions that I am not regularly I, P, and R, is a standard
tactic of yours. For any interested:
Unless one can quote the Lodge name and its number and city, which can be
verified through respective Grand Lodge registers, no one who claims to be a
Mason is one. Simple. Quotes that could just as easily been derived from
exposures are insufficient as proof of bona fides. That is how the Lewis is
separated from the cowan. I'll repost a letter to Mr. Tuck in which I give
my particulars. It is irrelevant if you missed it last year. You can see
your lie exposed now and whenever necessary in the future. Simple. Took me
10 minutes to file search and compile the piece. You didn't think that I
was going to re-write all over again did you, with rage and bluster?
No...no...no...no...no. The hard work is over. I need merely pick some of
the "best of" and re-post. <yawn> No problem, no sweat.
<<Subj: Freemasonry: Yes or No? Section: Christianity
To: Kevin M. Tuck, 75204,2712 Saturday, March 09, 1996 11:33:01 AM
From: Mike J. Restivo, 74347,751 #1353195
Dear Kevin,
It is my custom to use formal address initially and/or dialoguing with a
hostile correspondent. It is merely a mannerism of my writing style. The
Lodge into which I was entered, March 12, 1981, passed, April 10, 1981 and
raised, May 8, 1981 in the city of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, is the General
Mercer Lodge #548 of the Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Canada, Grand
Lodge of Ontario. I have my demit certificate of Nov. 23, 1981, attesting
that I resigned in good standing, signed by the W.M. and the Secretary. >>
I leave the typos as matter of historical non-revisionism. Note that the
correct description is "Grand Lodge of Canada in the Province of Ontario",
not "Grand Lodge of Ontario". This declares a lie that I refuse to be
corrected. Nonsense.
I'll further add that I'll re-post the whole affair, for the what, fourth
time <?>, but who's counting, where the Grand Secretary, Mr. Robert Davies,
accidently misinformed me by his admission. Yes, I'm giving names now.
Dishonourable charges against me do not merit any more gentlemanly restraint
on my part which may disadvantage me. Let those who you drag into your
foolish impostures be known by their real names:
I explained the matter to Nelson King, privately, at the same time I
wrote to you, publicly. He wrote no follow up to my letter. He lives in
metropolitan Toronto, as I do, (He did at least a few years ago, he may have
moved subsequently.), and I would be willing and able to drive to his
residence and show him my General Mercer Lodge certificate and demit for his
inspection. By the same token, anyone, Mason or not, may visit my residence
for a chat with me and an inspection of my materials. Furthermore, he
explained to another elsewhere, last year, that the Craft Work in Ontario is
a "type" of Emulation Ritual. I have the message, of course. Note the
qualifier "type". I was not informed in Lodge, as to the variances of Craft
Ritual, as there was no choice of Work among regular Craft Masonry in
Ontario, at least as so explained by my proposer, a former WM. I understood
that Craft Work varies in the U.S.A. and elsewhere, but not to such an
extent as to exclude it from Craft Masonry per se, that is normative Blue
Lodge Masonry, as opposed to some innovative Work, contrary to the "Ancient
Charges and Regulations" to be read to a newly installed Lodge Master:
"11. You admit that it is not in the power of any man, or body of men, to
make innovation in the body of Masonry."
As to the name of the Work in Ontario:
From the _Constitution of the Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of Canada In the
Province of Ontario_, 1980 edition:
Work authorized by Grand Lodge
5. The authorized Work is the English ritual with slight modifications
adopted by the Grand Lodge of Canada in 1859, as amended from time to time,
except where a constituent lodge was permitted to continue the Work in any
other form on condition of having submitted to the jurisdiction of Grand
Lodge."
7. No addition or alteration of the Ritual shall be made except that
authorized by the Ritual Committee
8. Lodges of this jurisdiction which confer degrees under a ritual
specially authorized by Grand Lodge but which differs from that in general
use are not permitted to confer degrees under the specially authorized form
of a ritual on candidates in other lodges not working the same ritual.
Degrees in the specially authorized ritual may be exemplified in other
lodges but they may not be conferred."
Note all those qualifiers and allowances for deviations. Such exist, but
they do not pass as the norm; That is also clear. I read no mention of
"Emulation" ritual in the Constitution of 1980 that was presented to me at
my Third Degree and in the absence of confirmation otherwise, simply
describe it as the Constitution does as "English Ritual". It may very well
be a variation of the English Emulation Ritual *then*. Of what is Worked
*now* I do not know, nor does this have any bearing upon my in Lodge
experiences when I received the Craft Degrees.
So? Is the Grand Lodge of Ontario so ignorant of their own Work according
to *you* because they do not describe it in terms of *your* pleasing.
Awwww, tooo baaad. Take your contention with them. As a courtesy, I'll
email Mr. Nelson this letter, so that he may be informed of your libel and
realize that passive acquiescence has its price, the price of allowing
irresponsible individuals to draw *them* into propaganda, which
self-promoting agenda I easily dispell. Pity. A private warning a year
ago, from informed and responsible Masons could have eliminated your
uncalculating rush to growing extremism to the point of fantastic invention
passed as truth. Sad, but what goes around comes around. Maybe you have
been cautioned, but eschewed prudence in favour of provocation. No matter.
As you know I *already* informed you of this publicly. I elaborate it
here for the benefit of any interested who might be led astray by false
disclosure.
More later...
---------------------------------------------
Take a complete survey of Mr. Poll and Mr. Ermel's communications, both
now and in the past and in the future. You are being grossly misinformed as
to so-called successes against the "anti's". Mr. Poll and those who imitate
his tactics, are becoming desperately strident to the point of outright
libel. Civil discussion unfortunately was never an option with them.
Nevertheless, just make the Pro-Masonic position clear. Simple. Writing
provable lies, a new tactic, from their own messages, is so goofy and
counterproductive, that I question their emotional state of mind.
The knowledgeable and sober-minded Masons, which I know are out there,
have vacated their responsibility to represent Freemasonry honourably and
truthfully, due to a policy of "Keep silent and it'll die down, don't add to
the flames of contention." Although well intentioned, this attitude allows
irresponsible firebrands to assume to speak with authority and in a manner
that indirectly heaps discredit upon the Order when their emotions and rage
overcome them. One must be concerned not only about anti-Masons, but about
Masons who conduct themselves anti-Masonically. I have engaged Mr. Poll for
almost two years, have file-saved all the correspondence, about a megabyte,
just *from* me alone. Make no mistake, these matters merely play into the
hands of Masonry critics and do not appear that they will go away by
themselves.
† For the Record,
Mike Restivo
------------------------------------------------------
No Mr. King, I will not be raining a flood of messages in a "fit of rage and
rant" or whatever my posts might be mischaracterized by Masonic
propagandists. It is not my intention to misuse a Newsgroup, but to provide
provable Truth in lieu of lies pro or con. More later, including a critique
of your web site.
- Mike Restivo
Ed King
> To Mr. Edward King,
>
> I'm responding to your impotent propaganda web site which is based upon
> character assassination, inuendo and ad hominem attacks, passed off as
> provable fact. I'll unveil the hoodwink that your smear has attempted with
> future posts.
Thank you for your compliments! I'd be glad to review a web site of
yours if you'd like! <smile>
> The first message refers to the claim that I had written, based upon
> msinformation given to me by the Ontario Grand Secretary, by accident.
You know, I have NO earthly idea what you're talking about here. I never
discussed Mr. Poll's lodge recognition in Ontario. What web site were you
reading anyway?
I've also waited to discuss the issue of your Masonic membership but since
you've now made it a matter that apparently IS appropriate, I'll be happy to
address it further. Are you a member of Ex-Masons for Jesus? If not, why not?
It would seem that it's an organization designed specifically for you!
As to this Masonic membership of yours, I've always had a nagging question: as
we take our Degrees, we all swear that we're not influenced by mercenary motives.
Would you care to outline for the reading audience a date when you started your
anti-Masonic activities? Was it before or after 1981 when you joined Freemasonry.
You were at the time about 33-35 years of age, correct? Hardly something that could
be called an impulsive act of a youth....yet you stayed only 90 days? Why? Did you
suddenly discover something about the Scottish Rite (your primary 'bone of contention')
in those 90 days that you were never a member of *that* organization? This whole
thing has always been a bit murky so I welcome your offer to clarify my supposed
inaccuracies.
From my perspective either you lied about your motives for becoming a Freemason OR
you became *awfully* darn smart in just 90 days. Which was it?
Now I've snipped a WHOLE BUNCH of messaging which includes messages posted
on Compuserve in their entirety since, as you've been told several times,
posting of such messages in the manner you do violates Compuserve's Terms of
Service. That's another whole issue but the facts are the facts whether you
choose to accept them or not.
> No Mr. King, I will not be raining a flood of messages in a "fit of rage and
> rant" or whatever my posts might be mischaracterized by Masonic
> propagandists.
Well, that's awfully good to hear. There's always a lot of yawning when your
name is on a post, for some reason. And maybe, just maybe, it might not be a
mischaracterization....
> It is not my intention to misuse a Newsgroup, but to provide
> provable Truth in lieu of lies pro or con.
I'm sure all of us here appreciate your consideration of newsgroup usage
conventions. Of course, like all things, I suspect much of what is truth is in
the 'Eye of the Beholder'
> More later, including a critique of your web site.
Oh, boy.... Let's see: do I get extra points for the bathing suit I wear? <s>
Bye for now,
Ed
Ed King
In a message posted to alt.freemasonry earlier today, I wrote
> I've also waited to discuss the issue of your Masonic membership but since
> you've now made it a matter that apparently IS appropriate, I'll be happy to
> address it further. Are you a member of Ex-Masons for Jesus? If not, why not?
> It would seem that it's an organization designed specifically for you!
On retrospect, I can probably answer my own question here (although I'd
certainly like to hear from you.
Perhaps you don't support the Ex-Masons for Jesus group because they think
that Catholics are just as "wrong" as Masons. That's the problem with
these folks so filled with hate and so convinced of the righteousness of
their causes, wouldn't you agree?
I don't hate you because you're a (self-described in a public forum)
Evangelical Catholic, Mr. Restivo, and I don't know why, frankly, folks
like those others would feel that way and condemn the church which you
support. It's foolish, isn't it? Maybe you could work on a web site
that talks about the hatefulness of some folks against the Catholic Church?
I'd think that would be most worthwhile....
Ed
Mike Restivo
Web site, with respect to his hate-filled and false diatribes against me. I
have not previously engaged Mr. King in ny kind of discourse. He did not
present me with his document about me, for correction of any material error.
That would have been the honourable, if not the sensible thing to do. Each
is entitled to their own opinions, but publishing lies for no reason but to
fester hate, demands correction of factual errors.
<<"To engage in the arrant pedantry of egregious sesquipedalianism (as in
this sentence) is not communication. It's showing off."
John J. Robinson, Author, historian. Referring to the methods of some
anti-Masons in his book, "A Pilgrim's Path".>>
From the outset, Mr. King tries to establish by innuendo and inference, that
I am verbose but vacuous; A windbag who does not, nor cannot prove his
claims against Freemasonry and the Scottish Rite (AASR (SJ)). This is a
lie, which only superficial dupes could accept. Why? Simple. A search on
Deja Views using the search keyword "restivo" will return abundant,
evidenced and reasoned writings from my keyboard about Freemasonry. The
reader is frequently exhorted to check for themselves, doing their own
research, to determine the facts of the matter. A thing is not true because
I wrote it, but because an objective researcher can apply the same generally
accepted rules of logic, reasoning and evidence, to come essentially to the
same findings of fact, as I. Findings of material fact is one thing. My
opinions are another. One may not share my opinions, but denial and
distortion of provable fact, by Masonic propagandists, is of another, more
sinister order, one wholly outside and beneath what would be commonly
considered gentlemanly conduct.
According to Mr. King, serious study of Freemasonry must be conducted at the
childish level, or else it is either incredible or discreditable. The logic
of his smear is obvious to anyone who has learned anything at a post
secondary institution of learning. Did the instuctors there speak in
monosyllables and accept elementary school level of performance as
satisfactory? No and no. Mr. King is perverting the symbolic arts of the
Craft by attempting to construct, and in a slipshod manner, a discredited
portrait of me, and anyone else he doesn't like. Who will it be tomorrow?
Will he be satisfied when his hatred goads a weak-minded individual to
physical violence? Ah, but responsibility and accountability are not
subsumed within the job description of "propagandist". The provacateur
merely lights the fuse and the devil take the hindmost over the
consequences, like the Orange Order in Northern Ireland and the innocent
childrens' blood that has stained its colour from orange to scarlet. Like
Joe McCarthy, Mr. King uses intimidation and lies to prove his case. Like
the other goon/enforcer Masons that I have debated over the years, he
substitutes trickery for Truth.
This is the standard deception used by rogue Masons, individuals who
appropriate to themselves the rank of enforcer. They do the dirty work of
their Grand Lodges, by intimidating all critics, both within and without
Masonry. By these works of dubious value, they might aspire to a fast track
to the 33rd Degree of the Scottish Rite and will sacrifice their honour and
Truth upon the altar of mendacity to achieve their loathsome and pathetic
ends.
E.K,<<Mike Restivo doesn't fit the 'mold' of anti-Masons when it
comes to either religious beliefs or writing methodology -
and once you've read a message from him, you'll recognize
the appropriateness of the above quote. A self-described
evangelical Catholic, his obfuscatory and sometimes
frenzied postings in various online venues have been known
to confuse even the most profound thinkers.>>
I have attended the same Roman Catholic church regularly for 46 years. My
quote was that I am Evangelical in my religious orientation, not that I
belong to some religious cult. Mr. King doesn't want readers to realize
that I am active in mainline Roman Catholicism.
Mr. King wants the reader to believe, without offering any evidence from my
writings whatsoever, that I am talk without substance. This is a lie. The
various ways in which I have considered the same subject, say, of the Order
being a Religion, and of objections to the Scottish Rite mocking Christian
symbols, theology and sacred Scripture, prove that I am not making confused
or complicated claims, but rather, I possess a surplus of examples from
which to choose to prove my points.
My dry and cerebral manner is precisely designed to repel as baseless,
charges of "ranting", "frenzied", "intemperate", and the like. Mr. King has
megabytes of my writing from which to sift some examples, even edited out of
context ones. He displays nothing but his word, that I am as he claims.
Who is he that his word, so easily seen as mendacious, is to be believed?
Where is his proof? He has none and cares not of his inadequacy, for "one
whose only tool is a mallet, sees all criticism as nails."
E.K.<< Mr. Restivo has
claimed that he is not against Masonry per se but rather
against certain parts of Masonry, specifically the Scottish
Rite and more specifically the Southern Masonic Jurisdiction.
(Is this like saying "I don't specifically object to police
officers but the ones who wear white shirts are part of an
evil cult!"???)>>
Mr. King doesn't want readers to know that I have repeatedly written that I
consider the Craft "tolerable", mostly because it makes no Christian claim,
nor abuses Christian symbols. I make criticism of the Order at large, but
reserve the far greater preponderance of my criticism for the Ancient and
Accepted Scottish Rite (Southern Jurisdiction).
The Scottish Rite Masonry advocates need the support of Blue Lodge Masons,
who uninformed of the Scottish Rite's Lectures, Humanism, anti-Clericalsim
and anti-Christian materials displayed to its members for superficial study,
react on the attack, as if they were personally wounded. The Craft
membership at large is able to be manipulated by Masonic advocates, who play
upon the sentiments of their Blue Lodge Brethren like a piano.
Mr. King's grasp of logic is a self-serving distortion of my criticisms. I
object to, using his example, police officers conducting themselves like
criminals, while claiming to be servants of Justice. It is a matter of
deception and hypocrisy exposed in certain quarters of Freemasonry; an
exposure that Scottish Rite enforcers try to silence using not fair, but
foul methods. I don't critique occult groups because they don't call
themselves Christian. It is the "wolf in sheep's clothing" aspect that I
expose, and Mr. King and his confederates don't like it, the exposure.
Mr. King dosen't want readers to know that I am a regularly demitted Master
Mason. That is, I have no Lodge affiliation, but left the Lodge of my
Initiations in good standing. Mr. King should know this as he is in contact
with those whom I have debated previously, who know this without a doubt. I
published my Masonic Initiation Certificate in the alt.freemasonry newsgroup
at 260+ k, for anyone to read last year. I'll do it again to further give
the lie to Mr. King's web site of hate.
E.K.<<His objections have, over the years, become very polished
and when first encountered, he appears extrodinarily
learned. However, displays of arrogance and condescention
cause most to lose interest quickly.>>
Mr. King's lies about arrogance and condecsention are baseless; fabricated
to add colour to his portrait of character assassination. He would have it
that I just fall to the ground in defeat, allowing my antagonists to win the
day with logical and contra-Masonic nonsense.
I give everybody a fair hearing, but the goon advocates of Freemasonry are
not interested in Truth, but in discord and the foment of hate. By being
disruptive in Compuserve Religion and Christian Fellowship Forums, the
section leaders will move an entire discussion thread off the message board.
This is how one can end a debate, when one is losing. This way, the
evidence of one's loss is removed. Slick. I documented this stunt used in
the Liberty Section of the Outdoors Forum on Compuserve. The startled Sysop
threatened to close down the Liberty Section. That was what certain Masonic
provocateurs wanted; to silence Masonic criticism. If such silence meant
the closing of a Forum Section, who care's? The perceptive will understand
the metaphor between interference in a discussion section and other civil
interference. "The errosion of everyone's liberty begins with the
diminution of the right's of society's critics." - Restivo. "A religion
that cannot accept criticism is dead already" - Paul Johnson _A History of
the Jews_, regarding Christianity's reaction to Judaism.
Mr. King is without any evidence that "most" lose interest. He is guessing
and passing that guess as truth as if he conducted some sort of large scale
survey.
E.K.<<When challenged by several Masons on CompuServe's
Religion Forum during 1997-8, Mr. Restivo admitted that he
had formed his own Martinist Order and was, in fact, a
Grand Master of such an organization.>>
That snippet is true. What Mr. King doesn't want readers to know that I
already was a past Provincial Grand Master of another established Martinist
Order; one that has no Masonic pretensions or Masonic pre-requisites and
that rank gave me to right to found another Martinist Order. Mr. Michael R.
Poll published the lie, at the time in question, that the Martinist Order
and Synarchy is a Masonic or quasi-Masonic body. A search under Alta Vista,
using the keyword "martinist" will return a number of documents that prove
that claim as a lie. He was repeatedly re-proofed, but to no avail.
The patron of the Martinist Order is Louis Claude de Saint-Martin, a
nobleman who wrote on the philosophy of religion in 18th Century France. He
founded no Order, but gave his name to circles of "Friends of Saint-Martin"
who discussed his books. He occasionally read papers among these types of
circles. L-C de Saint-Martin was a former Mason, who renounced the Lodge in
favour of the study of Christian Mysticism.
Mr. King does not want readers to know that. There are several autonomous
Martinist Orders. At one time two of them required Masonic pre-requisites,
but the Martinist Order of Lyons was absorbed into the Martinist Order of
Paris and the Masonic requirements were removed. The "Elus-Cohens" exists
in several forms, not all recognized, but the most authoritative tradition
requires Master Mason status prior to membership.
E.K.<<The story of Mr. Restivo's Martinist Order membership is instructive.
Masons discovered through web 'surfing' that there were several pages
of Martinist material bearing Mr. Restivo's name although he had never
disclosed his membership in this organization before.>>
Note that no effort was made on my part to conceal my identity. My
non-Masonic affiliations were not germane to my Masonic criticism. It's not
that I was a 32nd degree member of the Scottish Rite on one hand and
engaging in a covert conspiracy of criticism against it on the other.
Furthermore, I did not deny my affiliations and exlained them. The Masons
with whom I had been debating were intent upon cultivating and conserving
the lie, like Mr. King does on his slander site, that I am a know nothing.
They, and Mr. King struck out on point one about my Master Mason status, on
point two, that I am a student of esotericism of almost 30 years duration,
and on point three that I am practically familiar with the more esoteric
forms of orders beyond Freemasonry.
<E.K.<< When questioned,
Mr. Restivo explained that when HIS Martinist group met, they certainly
did not do things like Masons did and created an impression in readers'
minds that he was part of a large group.>>
Mr. King is deliberately confusing my membership in the Martinist Order and
Synarchy with the establishment of my own organization, which was done
firstly to secure exclusive use of the name "Rose-Croix Martinist Order" in
Ontario. Soliciting Members were not a driving force in that initiative,
nor was I, nor am I, engaged in giving false impressions. Aquiring the
skills needed to assume the position of an instructor took several years.
Masons who confuse receiving a degree with aquiring the rights and
priviledges that its name implies, cannot understand the principle of
discipleship and preparation that applies to anyone who is going to lead a
discussion group about spiritual matters. The Masonic provacateurs scoffed
at the serious deliberation that I brought to my private affairs, preferring
to heap scorn; that I didn't engage in membership drives. They might have
scoffed at Jesus Christ for only having 12 Apostles. "The tradesman that
confuses quantity for quality cannot build anything of lasting merit." -
Restivo
Le's examine Mr. King's remark that "Mr. Restivo explained that when HIS
Martinist group met, they certainly did not do things like Masons did."
That is true, but in a way to conceal some things that Mr. King doesn't want
readers to know while at the same time suggesting something not quite kosher
about RCMO work. Here's the posts involved from Compuserve:
See "Christianity/Freemasonry" message and "A Question About Masonry"
message following for the relevant quotes as these messagaes ar pertinent to
another lie published by Mr. King.
E.K.<<Later, though, Mr. Restivo
admitted that this Martinist Order had been founded some ten years
earlier and had during all that time just one member: himself! It
certainly is easy to determine what happens in an organization when
you're the only member, isn't it? We only hope that Mr. Restivo's
Martinist members don't revolt and remove him from his position as
leader! <grin> >>
Here is the type of derision that Mr. King (and Mr. Poll) trumpeted, hoping
that the superficial-minded would mistake my solemnity and reserve for
self-absorbtion.
E.K.<<In July, 1997, Mr. Restivo wrote the following message on
Compuserve's Religion Forum:
"According to the principle that, with respect to people, sweet
attracts and acerbic repels, a congenial manner can both
disarm a correspondent and elicit information from him or her
that can subsequently and profitably be used in debate.
Develop a profile of your correspondent, if possible, noting
weak points in character or thought which must be attacked,
but in such a manner as not to be noticed for the incursion(s)
that they are. The best tests are those in which the subject is
unaware of the evaluation. I could go on.">>
This quote is correct. Unfortunately for Mr. King, it completely refutes his
lie that I am arrogant and condescending. (You see, Mr. King, you must keep
track of your distortions and mischaracterizations, else you will, as you
have so nicely done on my behalf, refuted your own lie about me. Thank
you.) It's so easy refuting an antagonist who, in a rush to malign, impales
himself upon his own rack of lies.
E.K.<<Indeed this summarizes nicely the modus operandi used by
Mr. Restivo. He has joined Skip Sampson in criticizing the
way Masons provide charity>>
I asked, not on Compuserve, when Mr. Sampson was debating the Masonic
charity issue, but on alt. freemasonry, if Masons' charity might not be
inflated or used as a front for the Order. Would not men of wealth not
donate to charity anyway, and was not the the Order and Rite getting a free
ride thereby? A question, that awaits a sober and informed response. All
my messages are archived on Deja Views, for anyone's perusal. Duplicates,
where I found them, have been removed (i.e. cancelled). So it is a lie that
I joined anybody on Compuserve or anywhere else on the issue of Masonic
charity.
E.K.<< yet he provides software to
those who sell liquor, something others would find
distressing as well.>>
Not content with lolling in the gutter of calumny, Mr. King seeks to dig
himself deeper into a rancourous rut. I design and sell back office
restaurant management software which tracks the dispensation of all
beverages, both alocholic and non-alcoholic. Additionally all sales items
are tracked for inventory versus sales variance cash control purposes,
including food and hard goods. I also designed and sell the client server
point of sale system which is the front-end of a restaurant's cash
control/inventory system.
Mr. King, indifferent to his lack of knowledge of my products, or myself,
floats the innuendo that my software would cause "distress to some", in his
words. The back office software reports the discrepancies between what was
served and what was paid. No one would want a restaurant owner to supply a
patron with more liquor or food than that for which the patron was willing
to pay. Furthermore, who wants to deny the restaurateur the ability to
determine if employees are stealing from him or her or the customer? A
beverage dispensing system, POS system and accounting application inventory
module are the three principal management components of a modern high volume
licenced restaurant. The only individals that should be distressed are
thieves. Does Mr. King favour the rip-off of restaurant owners or boycott
of restaurateurs for using these cash control and inventory control methods?
Is he in favour of free flowing liquor sans pour control?
Mr. King's forays into innuendo reek venom more than reveal veracity.
E.K.<<Sometimes challenging Masons to contact his Bishop in
Toronto about his behavior, he can become belicose and
overbearing.>>
This is my favourite, and deserves detailed attention. Why Mr. King picked
this piece of intimidation is beyond me, but it serves to prove, contrary to
the bluster of Dr. Firestone, that M.R. Poll and two others tried to
threaten me, online in public; that they might or could go to my bishop and
tell him that I'm a Martinist Grand Master. The other two were mere tag
along kibitzers who may not have piled on had they known that they would
share equally the opprobrium that attaches to Mr. Michael R. Poll. Their
names have therefore been withheld to protect the stupid and the guilty
respectfully. I challenged them all to go ahead and to tell my Archbishop,
now Cardinal, that I'm "wiping the floor with the lot of you". They,
apparantly, had never dealt with an honourable man before and believed that
I must have something to hide. Their intimidation was rendered empty and
they dropped the implied threats:
----------------------------------
Subj: A Question About Masonry Section: Christianity
To: Michael R. Poll, 110046,1751 Saturday August 09 1997 12:36:42 AM
From: Mike J. Restivo, 74347,751 #1713729
Mr. Poll,
M.R.P.<<AH, back to square one and the original question. How do you claim
that Masonry is >>tolerable<< and still say these other rather nasty things
about it. You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Is
there a reason for that ?>>
Your imagination is running away with you. Are you dissatisfied that I
reserve my criticism mostly for the Scottish Rite? Is it your desire that I
criticize the Craft even more? Just who is speaking out of both sides of
the mouth now? Not unexpected given the swings of your weathervane
desperations.
M.R.P.<< Is there some reason that you do not want to come down too very
hardly on Craft Masonry and yet do not want to give up your anti position ?
Maybe because you NEEDED Craft Masonry for you to join the Martinists ?>>
Masonic qualifications have only been required by one Martinist Order
which merged with the Martinist Order of Paris in 1965. The Martinist Order
of which I am a member has never required, nor recommended Masonic
membership. It has never excluded women or individuals based on race or
ethnicity. It has never charged for Initiations. Neither it nor the
Martinist Order which I incorporated several years ago has ever
misrepresented the Holy Bible, but commended its members to be active in
their faiths. The Martinist Order of which I am Grand Master requires that
its applicants and members be Christians. It's good that you have access to
some of my Web essays.
M.R.P.<< Is that true Sar Ignatius ? Are you going to charge me again
with lying about you ? Anyone who likes can go see what you have written
at: http://www.icbl.ac.uk/~bill/Martinist.html
Gee, I wonder why you ignored my question:
>>What do you know of, say, Dormer or the Martinists ? I could join
either of these (and I might already be a member of one or both) because of
my being a Mason. What do YOU know about these organizations ?<<
I will wait for your answer before commenting further.>>
My Initiatic name is Sar Ignatius, where "Sar" is derived from Hebrew
meaning "angelic prince". It is a traditional Martinist title for the rank
of Initiator.
Martinists gather in groups to study the philosophy of religion in
general and the writings of Louis Claude de Saint-Martin in particular. I
observe that he too left Freemasonry to pursue studies of a more spiritual
and mystical nature like those of William Law, and Jacob Boehme. My studies
in Esotericism have been long and involved and have provided me with
materials and tools which put me in a position of knowledge to expose cult
deception, much to your embarrassment.
You must be unfamiliar with dealing with an honest man, Mr. Poll, with
your Brethren planning to contact my Archdiocese with reports of how I
expose their intrigues. It means that I'm having a good effect when Masons
complain to Roman Catholic authorities of my exposure of rogue Mason
propaganda. Surely you don't expect the good clerics to commend Masonic
propagandists for their anti-Roman Catholic and anti-Christian efforts? The
more Masons that call, the faster and wider a reputation I develop as a
successful contender for Christianity. Call all your Brethren and phone in
and write in. Tell them that I'm a Grand Master and "wiping the floor" with
the lot of you. <yawn>
Unlike the pretense to secrets employed by Freemasonry, I plan to employ
a simple graduation ceremony after successful completion of the equivalent
of a one year college course in the philosophy of Bible-centric
Christianity. My schedule has not permitted me much time to spent on this
project.
† Helpfully,
Mike Restivo
-------------------------------------
Subj: Christianity/Freemasonry Section: Christianity
To: Michael R. Poll, 110046,1751 Saturday August 16 1997 02:14:05 AM
From: Mike J. Restivo, 74347,751 #1717721
Mr. Poll,
M.R.P.<<I did not say that it was. Since your "Order" has no members and is
recognized by no other Martinist Order, I am not so sure that I can call it
even "Martinist." >>
I'm in no rush for members, after all I incorporated in 1984! My
schedule is up to me, and I prefer to take my time. You prefer a Masonic
complexion to a Martinist Order. That Is not nor ever was the rule. It is
not so in my case, and you are upset about it. Too bad. You asked the
question and I provided the answers, but they were too much for you to
handle, not falling within your ill-informed understanding of Martinist
groups and orders.
I said it was not "formally" recognized, but the difference is not
important for discussion sake.
M.R.P.<< The Martinist Order is, however, an Order that initiates, advances
by degrees, teaches a philosophy>>
This could well apply to post secondary institutions.
M.R.P.<< and *is* along the same *lines* as Masonry. To disagree means a
lack of knowledge of both Orders.>>
Martinist Orders do not exclude individuals on the basis of their sex or
race or ethnicity as does Freemasonry on occasion at least. They do not
charge for Initiations or extract solemn obligations upon penalty as does
Freemasonry. They do not misrepresent the Holy Bible. Does the Lodge
prominently display a picture of Jesus Christ? Some Martinist Orders,
including mine, do during their study. All include a space reserved
symbolically for both the presence of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ,
unlike both Craft and Scottish Rite. I'm unsure about the York Rite
Commandery. Martinist Orders open their proceedings in Jesus Christ's Name,
unlike Freemasonry. These are a sampling of some glaring distinctions.
† Clarifyingly,
Mike Restivo
-------------------------------
So this specifically, from the foregoing two public Compuserve forum posts,
is what Edward King didn't want readers to know from my own writings:
1. <<The Martinist Order of which I am a member has never required, nor
recommended Masonic membership. It has never excluded women or individuals
based on race or ethnicity. It has never charged for Initiations. Neither
it nor the Martinist Order which I incorporated several years ago has ever
misrepresented the Holy Bible, but commended its members to be active in
their faiths. The Martinist Order of which I am Grand Master requires that
its applicants and members be Christians. It's good that you have access to
some of my Web essays.>>
2. <<Martinist Orders do not exclude individuals on the basis of their sex
or race or ethnicity as does Freemasonry on occasion at least. They do not
charge for Initiations or extract solemn obligations upon penalty as does
Freemasonry. They do not misrepresent the Holy Bible. Does the Lodge
prominently display a picture of Jesus Christ? Some Martinist Orders,
including mine, do during their study. All include a space reserved
symbolically for both the presence of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ,
unlike both Craft and Scottish Rite. I'm unsure about the York Rite
Commandery. Martinist Orders open their proceedings in Jesus Christ's Name,
unlike Freemasonry. These are a sampling of some glaring distinctions.>>
-----------------------------------------
Subj: Christianity/Freemasonry Section: Christianity
To: Michael R. Poll, 110046,1751 Friday August 15 1997 05:52:42 PM
From: Mike J. Restivo, 74347,751 #1717525
Mr. Poll,
M.R.P.<<And the truth is that you are a Grand Master of a Martinist Order.>>
This is true.
M.R.P.<< The truth is that you are a anti- mason.>>
This is an often repeated lie.
M.R.P.<< The truth is that you claim to be a Roman Catholic.>>
I am a practicing Roman Catholic.
M.R.P.<< And the truth is that you are deceptive.>>
That is a lie.
M.R.P.<< We will also let the RCC decide if you are entitled to receive the
Sacraments based on your membership (and Grand Mastership) in a magical and
mystic organization.>>
There is no magic of any kind involved with either the O.M&S. nor
particularly my Order. That is your erroneous opinion. Both Orders study
the philosophy of Christian Mysticism. The Roman Catholic Church does
likewise in the Mystical Theology of some of its saints like Theresa of
Avila and Saint John of the Cross. Should the Church of Rome censure
*itself* because it is a mystical organization and/or its members are part
of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ? Your theological ignorance reaches
new nadirs for the sake of sleaze. It does not and cannot convince.
M.R.P.<< We will just see how much of this is acceptable with the RCC. Do
you object ?>>
I have no objection.
† Helpfully,
Mike Restivo
------------------------------------
E.K.<<if one thing about Masonry is 'wrong', then it
ALL must be wrong.>>
This is a complete fabrication; a lie without even the facade of
believability. Mr. King doesn't want readers to know the times that I have
defended Freemasonry, both on Compuserve and on alt.Freemasonry. Not
playing on the square, he doesn't know how to spin propaganda about an
honest person, like me, who does operate on the level. Even his early
remark that I mostly criticize the Scottish Rite (SJ) gives the lie to his
charge that I'm an extremist. His usage elsewhere in his smear site, quotes
me, as supportive of Freemasonry in critiquing one Pastor Janssen, as if I
were an authority or to use me as an occassion to lash out at Masonry
critics. Mr. King appears to use whatever materials at hand for his
self-serving propaganda, even if they refute his own charges. No matter, as
long as the mob, the dupes, the profane and the uninitiated, are hoodwinked
into believing a lie and led by their gut instead of their mind, by Masonic
propagandists.
E.K.<<We've often wondered why, then, they
sometimes band together, particularly with those like Mr.
Restivo. If, after all, he believes in the Pope - and (in their
mind) that's wrong, then he must be wrong as well.
Of course, they can't use this reasoning since - if Mike
Restivo was wrong, they they would be too.... See the
problem? <sigh>>>
Mr. King publishes yet another lie in his libelous litany. I had publicly
declared that I have no fellowship with those who are anti-Roman Catholic.
That separated me at once from the other Masonry critics on Compuserve.
When I had my dedicated web site at $300.00/month (ouch! Now I have a free
one.) I published the disclaimer that I would not allow links to pages or
sites that were unpatriotic to their country, anti-Jewish or anti-Roman
Catholic.
Masonic provocateurs try to exploit denonimational differences, to cause
dissention among their critics and distraction/deflection from the subject
at hand. This tactic was used repeatedly by Mr. M. R. Poll, and I rebuked
him for it several times publicly on Compuserve.
Soooo, just who twisted your arm or otherwise compelled you, Mr. King, to
make a fool of yourself by posting material, which from public postings
could be easily refuted as lies?
No one. That your Grand Lodge allows your pernicious perfidy to shame
decent Masons Internet wide, indicates that you work under Grand Lodge
sanction. Clearly there are a lot of Masons that know better who are
staining the Order for no good reason and giving abundant evidence of
intimidation and conspiracy to thwart any criticism of the Order.
Soooo, will you repair your ways? Not at all. You and your slimy ilk will
mount even more devious methods to discredit Masonic critics, all at the
expense of Truth.
As to your tactic of leveraging ISP's against Masonic critics. Here's a
point that you may have over looked in your machinations:
It takes but one Unix command in an email's header to create an "alt." type
newsgroup. Another command can destroy it. ISP's take on newsgroups to
their news server at their sole pleasure. If a given newsgroup is proving
to be more trouble for an ISP than it's worth, with email bombing
paralyzing the email server and complaints about abuse, for example, then it
will simply be removed from that ISP's news server. Simple, no hassles.
Other ISP's will do likewise, as they see fit. Your exploitation of ISP's
will only result in alt.freemasonry being self-ostracized.
"Two characteristics of fanatics are they care not whom they harm, nor
consider the consequences beyond the immediate moment." - Mike Restivo
Eugene Goldman.·.
Does he really believe anyone reads these?
<LOL>
To Mike Restivo:
Thank you for sharing.
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Eugene Goldman P.*. M.*.
W.M. Black Mountain Lodge, #845, San Diego, Ca.
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
p.m. Blackmer Lodge #442, San Diego, Ca.
Southern Ca. Research Lodge
A.A.S.R., Valley of San Diego
May Brotherly Love forever prevail,
and every moral and social Virtue cement us.
If you can read this, you have gone too far!
J. Otto Tennant
[... Massive stuff snipped ...]
>This quote is correct. Unfortunately for Mr. King, it completely refutes his
>lie that I am arrogant and condescending. (You see, Mr. King, you must keep
>track of your distortions and mischaracterizations, else you will, as you
>have so nicely done on my behalf, refuted your own lie about me. Thank
>you.) It's so easy refuting an antagonist who, in a rush to malign, impales
>himself upon his own rack of lies.
I haven't really studied this diatribe. I simply note that the above
paragraph is self-refuting.
--
J.Otto Tennant jo...@pobox.com
Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit.
Charter Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Ed King
anti-Masonic material, I'd be happy to add your entire message to my web
site on it's own page (for quickness in loading rather than simply
putting it on the page already there but with an appropriate navigational
pointer) if you'll provide permission, Mr. Restivo.
Because reprinting of such an extensive amount of material would go well
beyond the "Fair Use" doctrine of copyright law, may I have your
permission to reprint that message in its entirety?
Ed
http://www.masonicinfo.com
==========
subn...@my-dejanews.com
edk...@mint.net wrote:
> Mr. Restivo,
>
> In a message posted to alt.freemasonry earlier today, I wrote
Mr Mike Restivo, do you remember what was said on the freemason's HATE PAGE
regarding anti's supposedly answering their own posts? Here we have one of
the leaders of the masonic HATE GROUP doing what he accuses others of doing.
>
> > I've also waited to discuss the issue of your Masonic membership but since
> > you've now made it a matter that apparently IS appropriate, I'll be happy to
> > address it further. Are you a member of Ex-Masons for Jesus? If not, why not?
> > It would seem that it's an organization designed specifically for you!
>
> On retrospect, I can probably answer my own question here (although I'd
> certainly like to hear from you.
Members of the HATE GROUP, freemasonry, just can't resist a chance to attack
anyone who actually believes in the words of Christ, can they? I mean
really, as long as the mason let's masonry define their "Christ" for them and
tell them which sciptures to accept, then it's OK but if a Christian really
believes all the scriptures in the Bible they take their oaths on, then the
masonic HATE GROUP begins their dishonest and deceptive attacks.
>
> Perhaps you don't support the Ex-Masons for Jesus group because they think
> that Catholics are just as "wrong" as Masons. That's the problem with
> these folks so filled with hate and so convinced of the righteousness of
> their causes, wouldn't you agree?
Let us see who really hates.
>
> I don't hate you because you're a (self-described in a public forum)
> Evangelical Catholic, Mr. Restivo, and I don't know why, frankly, folks
> like those others would feel that way and condemn the church which you
> support. It's foolish, isn't it? Maybe you could work on a web site
> that talks about the hatefulness of some folks against the Catholic Church?
> I'd think that would be most worthwhile....
Note that the member of the HATE GROUP, known to many as freemasonry, doesn't
say he doesn't "hate" you but rather gives your being a Catholic as not the
reason he hates you.
>
> Ed
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
HK
~Slag~
ri...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35B49ABA...@iglou.com>,
HK <neth...@iglou.com> wrote:
> Humanity is a hate group.
>
> ~Slag~
>
>
--
Richard Jackson, PM
Corrigan Masonic Lodge #1103 AF&AM
Corrigan, Texas
Ed King
> Mr Mike Restivo, do you remember what was said on the freemason's HATE PAGE
> regarding anti's supposedly answering their own posts? Here we have one of
> the leaders of the masonic HATE GROUP doing what he accuses others of doing.
It's now improper to send a second message to the same person??? Have you lost
it completely???
Unlike some others here, I haven't gone out and gotten several anonymous
accounts and used *them* to talk to each other! Can you remember anyone who's
done that??? We sure can - and not that long ago either.
> Members of the HATE GROUP, freemasonry, just can't resist a chance to attack
> anyone who actually believes in the words of Christ, can they? I mean
> really, as long as the mason let's masonry define their "Christ" for them and
> tell them which sciptures to accept, then it's OK but if a Christian really
> believes all the scriptures in the Bible they take their oaths on, then the
> masonic HATE GROUP begins their dishonest and deceptive attacks.
Huh? That paragraph is so illogical as to defy description
> Note that the member of the HATE GROUP, known to many as freemasonry, doesn't
> say he doesn't "hate" you but rather gives your being a Catholic as not the
> reason he hates you.
Perhaps you could indicate whether you hate me or not, eh? What about Russ? Do
you hate Russ, subnomore? Is that acting as Christ would have you act?
It would be good, you know, if you could interject a bit more fact into your
posts from here on in! And lest I forget: ARE YOU KEN MITCHELL (Sixth Request).
I kinda doubt that your a person Mr. Restivo is looking to for support,
subnomore; in fact.... <chuckle>
Ed
ghe...@planet.eon.net
>Mr Mike Restivo, do you remember what was said on the freemason's HATE PAGE
>regarding anti's supposedly answering their own posts? Here we have one of
>the leaders of the masonic HATE GROUP doing what he accuses others of doing.
Lookie, Lookie, Hatred Kennie style ........
Didn't your momma teach you better