earthlink.net
WESFAGER
Tom Klemesrud
I believe Scientologists still control the majority of the stock.
Tom Klemesrud SP6
KoX
tall...@storm.ca
Which, of course, does not mean that 'scientology' controls Earthlink.
Actually, I think if you figure out percentages, George 'Not a Scientologist,
Just a Guy with a Heck of a Lot of Money' Soros probably owns more stock than
just about anyone other than Sky Dayton.
You know, having spent a fair amount of time tracking WISE businesses and
scn-affiliated enterprises, I've read a lot of financial records, seen a lot
of SEC filings and generally poked around in the mud. I've yet to find
*anything* to suggest that Earthlink is directly influenced by the CoS in
the way that, say, Digital Lightwave may be.
Earthlink is not a WISE company, nor is Sky Dayton. Sky Dayton does not turn
up on the Super POwer donor list, and I'm not sure what his current IAS
ranking is. And finally, nobody has managed to demonstrate a single instance
of Earthlink behaving in a way that would suggest that it is 'controlled' by
the CoS/ Nothing. Nada. Zilch. In fact, critics who have ELNK acounts have
reported no harrassment from management as a reuslt of their activities.
From talking to former ELNK employees, I get the impression that, at the
beginning, the company was run by LRH principles using admin tech. At that
time, many of the non-technical staffers were, in fact, scientologists. As
ELNK grew, so did the number of employees, and the wog to scn ratio increased
substantially. As far as I understand, the company no longer uses admin tech,
which makes sense to me. It's highly unlikely that the company would have been
able to thrive as well as it has if Dayton and co. were attempting to use 'the
tech' on a large scale.
As for ELNK's financials - yes, it's still losing money, but if you compare
its record with that of another ISP like Mindspring, it is in no way
anomalous, given the turbulence of the industry. The Sprint deal shows that at
least one major company feels that ELNK is a good enough risk to invest some
serious cash in the company. I assume that the beancounters at Sprint would
have done their homework, and if they had found financial irregularities,
would have taken a pass on the ELNK deal.
The upshot is that Earthlink is owned by Sky Dayton, who is a scientologist.
That is not analogous to being controlled by scientology. How can I put this
in as succinct a manner as possible? There's nothing to see here. Move along.
If you want to check out a scn-affiliated company with extremely questionable
financials, there is Digital Lightwave, or ATEG.
If anyone has any evidence that ELNK is being 'controlled' by scientology -
or, for that matter, is behaving in an illicit way either as a corporate
entity, or as an ISP, by all means post it. But if not, I do wish that we
could stop speculating over what evil lurks in the heart of Sky, and tarring
all scientologist-owned companies with the same brush. There are a million
scams in the WISE city. This isn't one of them.
K
jbwebb
>
> In article <35E51575...@prodigy.net>, Tom Klemesrud <klem...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >WESFAGER wrote:
> >>
> Which, of course, does not mean that 'scientology' controls Earthlink.
>
> Actually, I think if you figure out percentages, George 'Not a Scientologist,
> Just a Guy with a Heck of a Lot of Money' Soros probably owns more stock than
> just about anyone other than Sky Dayton.
Hey Kady, you hot bitch:
Isn't Soros notoriously anticult? At one point I wanted to get a
petition on ARS written and submitted to him to sponsor a full page anti
COS ad in USA Today.
Take care
Joni
tall...@storm.ca
Actually, that's a damned interesting question. Given his penchant for social
causes, I bet you that if he's not already anti-cult, he could probably be
persuaded. Maybe a project for the ARSCC outreach crew.
>
>Take care
>Joni
K
Tilman Hausherr
(tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
>You know, having spent a fair amount of time tracking WISE businesses and
>scn-affiliated enterprises, I've read a lot of financial records, seen a lot
>of SEC filings and generally poked around in the mud. I've yet to find
>*anything* to suggest that Earthlink is directly influenced by the CoS in
>the way that, say, Digital Lightwave may be.
>
>Earthlink is not a WISE company, nor is Sky Dayton. Sky Dayton does not turn
>up on the Super POwer donor list, and I'm not sure what his current IAS
>ranking is. And finally, nobody has managed to demonstrate a single instance
>of Earthlink behaving in a way that would suggest that it is 'controlled' by
>the CoS/ Nothing. Nada. Zilch. In fact, critics who have ELNK acounts have
>reported no harrassment from management as a reuslt of their activities.
These critics were very low profile. That "goonybird" critic deleted her
web page after only a few days. Another critic "Brett" has left
earthlink long ago.
>From talking to former ELNK employees, I get the impression that, at the
>beginning, the company was run by LRH principles using admin tech. At that
>time, many of the non-technical staffers were, in fact, scientologists. As
>ELNK grew, so did the number of employees, and the wog to scn ratio increased
>substantially. As far as I understand, the company no longer uses admin tech,
>which makes sense to me. It's highly unlikely that the company would have been
>able to thrive as well as it has if Dayton and co. were attempting to use 'the
>tech' on a large scale.
>
>As for ELNK's financials - yes, it's still losing money, but if you compare
>its record with that of another ISP like Mindspring, it is in no way
>anomalous, given the turbulence of the industry. The Sprint deal shows that at
>least one major company feels that ELNK is a good enough risk to invest some
>serious cash in the company. I assume that the beancounters at Sprint would
>have done their homework, and if they had found financial irregularities,
>would have taken a pass on the ELNK deal.
>
>The upshot is that Earthlink is owned by Sky Dayton, who is a scientologist.
>That is not analogous to being controlled by scientology. How can I put this
>in as succinct a manner as possible? There's nothing to see here. Move along.
>If you want to check out a scn-affiliated company with extremely questionable
>financials, there is Digital Lightwave, or ATEG.
>
>If anyone has any evidence that ELNK is being 'controlled' by scientology -
>or, for that matter, is behaving in an illicit way either as a corporate
>entity, or as an ISP, by all means post it.
(...)
> There are a million
>scams in the WISE city. This isn't one of them.
I agree with all of the above (that's why I deleted some), and I have
also ansvered e-mail questions similarly, i.e that his business is
clean; nevertheless "Sky" Dayton is a member of the hate group of
scientology, so I'd rather avoid "testing" what would happen if he had
to chose between honesty and his hate group. This is not his fault - one
can blame the past activities of scientologist businesses in the last
decades. (And it is *still* happening). As a scientologist, he would put
you and me in an isolation camp like scientology recommends, if
opportunity was there. But it isn't there, so "Sky" Dayton is a
businessman, a very smart and successful businessman. But not the kind
of guy I would trust. Like I would also not do business with a known
neo-nazi, even if I know he keeps his nazi stuff out of the company.
The same attitude works the opposite way. I am sure that scientologists
would rather pay $495 for a commercial link checker instead of using
"Xenu's Link Sleuth" for free - because they wouldn't trust me, i.e.
would not be sure if I had a troyan horse in it. (There isn't, of
course, but why should they believe me? As a scientology critic I am a
criminal)
MSNBC viewers take note - Sunday, August 30: "Earthlink CEO Sky Dayton"
- A profile of Earthlink's CEO, Sky Dayton, whose firm's sales have
increased 99 percent over the past year.
--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
Rob Clark
>As for ELNK's financials - yes, it's still losing money, but if you compare
>its record with that of another ISP like Mindspring, it is in no way
>anomalous, given the turbulence of the industry. The Sprint deal shows that at
>least one major company feels that ELNK is a good enough risk to invest some
>serious cash in the company. I assume that the beancounters at Sprint would
>have done their homework, and if they had found financial irregularities,
>would have taken a pass on the ELNK deal.
Mindspring has just within the past couple months announced the first quarter of
black ink. it is now a money-maker, unlike Earthlink, nyah, nyah.
otherwise i agree. the lingering gossip about Earthlink is mostly unfounded.
i recall even back in '95, before such speculation became rampant, Earthlink
kicked off vera wallace for repeating her outing of tarlastar.
rob
sne...@my-dejanews.com
enough. There has been speculation about Earthlink/CoS connections since it's
inception. I am in a fairly unique position of being substantially better
informed than most of you in regards to Earthlink. I can say this because I
worked there for a little under 3 years. I worked there from almost the very
beginning. I know what happens inside.
In describing this to you, I am undoubtedly compromising my identity to
anyone who knows me from Earthlink, including several Scientologists. Some
of them read this news group. While I value my privacy, I don't feel
threatened by Earthlink, or the CoS as a result of my speaking about my
experiences with Earthlink. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide what
that means.
I started working at Earthlink in approximately January of 1995. Earthlink
had about 1500 subscribers at the time. By the time I left in September of
1997 to pursue better job opportunities, there were about 400,000
subscribers. I believe I was the 9th employee. I was the first
non-scientologist. I was told in no uncertain terms before beginning
employment there that Earthlink practiced the LRH Tech. I was at various
times during the first 6 months, or so of my employment there approached by
Scientologists, who tried to recruit me. I told them I wasn't interested,
and none of them ever asked again. I was never asked to take a comm course
by Earthlink or any Earthlink Officers, such as Sky, or other supervisory
staff, unlike a previous company I had worked at. Earthlink, and Earthlink's
employees were both very respectful about it. I was body-routed by a
Fundamentalist Christian while I was there too. It happens. During the
early months, the Tech was applied throughout the company. 75%, or more of
the staff were Scientologists. As time went on, that percentage gradually
decreased. Earthlink was rapidly becoming a very successul ISP in the Los
Angeles area, and was interested in becoming national. Earthlink was *never*
to my knowledge discriminatory of non-scientologists in their hiring
practices. During the early months, most of the people were Scientologists,
because most of the employees had been recommended by other employees, and
the like, but no one was ever not hired because they weren't Scientologist.
Sky isn't a stupid man. He knew damn well that he couldn't make Earthlink
into a successful company by only hiring Scientologists. There just aren't
enough skilled, technically minded Scientologists to satisfy the demand for
quality employees in a company growing by 10% *per week*.
While I never made public my opposition to Scientology while working there,
I did express this belief with a number of other people there who shared my
views. One of them even later went on to become a Scientologist. He knew
explicitly that I, and a number of other people were critical of Scientology,
yet I was never threatened, ratted out, or anything else. This person is
still very friendly with me to this day. Some of them read ARS. My reasons
for not making my beliefs publically known were that A.) Religious
discussion does not belong in the workplace. B.) I had no desire to
alienate myself, or others in the workplace.
I had several friends at Earthlink who were Scientologists. Due to my
recent picketing activities, *some* no longer speak with me. They have
disconnected. This is a their own failing, as a person. After engaging in
these picketing activities, I was even offered an opportunity to return to my
job at Earthlink. Obviously my being publically critical of the CoS must not
weigh too heavily against me, as far as Earthlink is concened, huh? Note
that there is a *very* large distinction that needs to be drawn between what
a number of individual Scientologists at Earthlink think of me, and what
Earthlink thinks of me.
Never, did I see any evidence of interference in Earthlink's affairs from
the CoS, or any of its representatives. Never did I see any indication of
any cooperation between the CoS, and Earthlink. Never did I even see a CoS
representative, aside from a few people who were both Earthlink employees by
day, and auditors, or whatnot by night. What they practice outside of work
is their concern. Never was I made to feel that if I did not take a comm
course, go to a sermon with a Scientologist, or read the Basic Study Manual,
that my job was threatened. As long as I did my job, Earthlink didn't care
what I believed personally.
Never has any evidence come forth detailing actual connections between the
CoS, and Earthlink. The closest anyone has come is ridiculous "There is no
proof, so they must be hiding something" comments, and only slightly more
credible "Several big investors are Scientologists, and IAS donors." This
does not make for a conspiracy. It's no surprise that the early investors
were Scientologists. They were people who ran in the same circles as Sky!
They were immediately accessible to him. They had something in common with
him. They were easier people for him to talk to. They were more likely to
be receptive to him, because of what they shared in common. If you want to
argue that Earthlink was bankrolled by the CoS, show me, and everyone else
the money. Being bankrolled by a Scientologist just isn't the same thing as
being bankrolled by Scientology. I can't emphasize this enough.
That being said, if anyone wants to discuss this issue with me, you can
feel free to email me. Ask anyone who goes on #scientology for my email
address, or drop by, and talk to me. I'd put it in here, but I try to avoid
being spammed.
And now, commentary below:
In article <6s3ot8$j...@enews1.newsguy.com>,
tall...@storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
> In article <35E51575...@prodigy.net>, Tom Klemesrud
<klem...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >WESFAGER wrote:
> >>
> >> There wassome talk that the clams old earthlink.net. Do the scios
> >> still own it or not?
> >>
> >> Wes Fager
> >
> >I believe Scientologists still control the majority of the stock.
Wrong. Sprint owns 30% of Earthlink stock, with an option to buy another
9% that they had to exercise within a certain period of time. If memory
serves they bought it. In 3 years they have the option to purchase Earthlink
outright. That's *far* more than any other shareholder by more than a factor
of 3. Last I heard, Sprint was not a CoS affiliated company. George Soros
is also one of Earthlink's largest shareholders, possessing just over 10% of
Earthlink's stock. That means that those *two* investors alone hold just a
tad under 50% of Earthlink's stock. Public shareholders, and many other
people own more than enough stock to *VERY* clearly establish that the 3
major Scientologist shareholders, Sky Dayton, Kevin O'Donnell, and Reed
Slatkin (I may have missed a few smaller ones) do *NOT* have a controlling
interest in Earthlink, or even close to one. Note that Sprint's original 30%
stock purchase only included a 10% voting interest, but the point still
remains. Scientologists don't have a controlling interest in Earthlink, much
less the CoS. This is *fact*.
>
> Which, of course, does not mean that 'scientology' controls Earthlink.
Precisely.
>
> Actually, I think if you figure out percentages, George 'Not a Scientologist,
> Just a Guy with a Heck of a Lot of Money' Soros probably owns more stock than
> just about anyone other than Sky Dayton.
I believe Soros actually owns slightly more than Sky, but they are fairly
close. Tallulah can probably correct me on this if I'm wrong. I don't have
the filings in front of me. Sprint owns more than both of them combined.
>
> You know, having spent a fair amount of time tracking WISE businesses and
> scn-affiliated enterprises, I've read a lot of financial records, seen a lot
> of SEC filings and generally poked around in the mud. I've yet to find
> *anything* to suggest that Earthlink is directly influenced by the CoS in
> the way that, say, Digital Lightwave may be.
Ya know, this is what's weird. There's been this rabid speculation about
Earthlink, and it's CoS connections since it's inception. Yet *no one* has
ever actually produced any evidence of any tampering by the CoS. The best
anyone has been able to come up with is "Sky is a Scientologist!" Now,
wasn't Mindspring started by a Fundamentalist Christian? I hate to use CoS's
tired analogy, but go figure..it actually applies here. Does that make
Mindspring a Fundy-Front-Group? (hey..I like the sound of that..) Obviously
not.
Some people love a good conspiracy theory, and just aren't willing to let
facts stand in the way of a good fish story.
>
> Earthlink is not a WISE company, nor is Sky Dayton. Sky Dayton does not turn
> up on the Super POwer donor list, and I'm not sure what his current IAS
> ranking is. And finally, nobody has managed to demonstrate a single instance
> of Earthlink behaving in a way that would suggest that it is 'controlled' by
> the CoS/ Nothing. Nada. Zilch. In fact, critics who have ELNK acounts have
> reported no harrassment from management as a reuslt of their activities.
>
> From talking to former ELNK employees, I get the impression that, at the
> beginning, the company was run by LRH principles using admin tech. At that
> time, many of the non-technical staffers were, in fact, scientologists. As
> ELNK grew, so did the number of employees, and the wog to scn ratio increased
> substantially. As far as I understand, the company no longer uses admin tech,
> which makes sense to me. It's highly unlikely that the company would have been
> able to thrive as well as it has if Dayton and co. were attempting to use 'the
> tech' on a large scale.
This is accurate. When I first started working at Earthlink it was totally
run by LRH tech. There were staff meetings to talk about Stats every
Friday..Stats were turned in by 2pm on Thursday. Conditions were assigned to
the company. CSW's were filled out. KR's were written. It *was* run by LRH
Tech. In fact in my job interview, I was informed of this, and was asked if
this was acceptable to me. Some time later, the "system" became more, and
more unwieldy as the number of 'wogs' in proportion to Scientologists
increased. The tech broke down. Earthlink slowly abandoned it. While there
are certainly still a few Scientologists working at Earthlink, some in fairly
high positions who are Scientologists, this is not tantamount to control by
CoS. I have no doubt that they apply the tech to themselves. This is there
perogative. If they wanna assign themselves a Danger Condition for the week,
that's their thing. However, this in no way means that Earthlink is run by
LRH Tech. The closest thing I've seen recently to the LRH Tech is the
suggestion that all employees have a dictionary. While this is something
most Scientologists do, and LRH Tech advocates, this is hardly a "new" idea.
The Dictionary is *not* an LRH Tech Dictionary. I dunno if it's an Oxford
either..but lets just say it doesn't have "Dev-T" in it.
>
> As for ELNK's financials - yes, it's still losing money, but if you compare
> its record with that of another ISP like Mindspring, it is in no way
> anomalous, given the turbulence of the industry. The Sprint deal shows that at
> least one major company feels that ELNK is a good enough risk to invest some
> serious cash in the company. I assume that the beancounters at Sprint would
> have done their homework, and if they had found financial irregularities,
> would have taken a pass on the ELNK deal.
Mindspring is a glaring exception in the large ISP business. It's about the
*only* large ISP, aside from AOL that actually turns a profit. All the telco
run ISPs are intended to be loss leaders. Worldnet doesn't make a dime on
it's dialup services.
>
> The upshot is that Earthlink is owned by Sky Dayton, who is a scientologist.
> That is not analogous to being controlled by scientology. How can I put this
> in as succinct a manner as possible? There's nothing to see here. Move along.
> If you want to check out a scn-affiliated company with extremely questionable
> financials, there is Digital Lightwave, or ATEG.
No, Earthlink is owned by shareholders. Sky is one of them. So is Soros. So
is Sprint. So are who knows how many other 'wogs'.
>
> If anyone has any evidence that ELNK is being 'controlled' by scientology -
> or, for that matter, is behaving in an illicit way either as a corporate
> entity, or as an ISP, by all means post it. But if not, I do wish that we
> could stop speculating over what evil lurks in the heart of Sky, and tarring
> all scientologist-owned companies with the same brush. There are a million
> scams in the WISE city. This isn't one of them.
I've been watching this Earthlink speculation since it began. I lurked on
ARS during the Vera fiasco. I've seen outright declarations in the past by
various people that Earthlink was a "CoS owned company" (Note that Larry
Gentry, an employee of Earthlink's assertions to TNX that Earthlink was a
"Scientology Company" were actually his attempt to convey that it was run by
LRH tech, and was inhabited by mostly Scientologists. Anyone actually
thinking about this for a second would realize that he obviously wouldn't
have said "Hey! Earthlink is owned by the CoS!" (CSI, or some other tentacle
of the hydra) ), and that it was a front-organization for the CoS, and was
'probably' managed behind the scenes by CoS. I've never once seen anyone
provide any evidence of any of these allegations. If people were upset over
how Earthlink refused to cancel Vera immediately, remember that Earthlink was
considered a haven for all spammers, and net-bad-guys at the time. This was
a failing of Earthlinks, but had absoulutely nothing to do with Scientology.
It was just a bad business decision, and foolish PR move. Yes, I know
scientology.org, and a whole wealth of other domain names were registered
through Earthlink with Earthlink employees being some of the contacts. This
is a fairly standard procedure in the ISP business when registering domains.
Just because CoS chose to give it's business to an ISP that was at the time
owned by some of it's believers, doesn't mean that Earthlink was managed by
CoS. How many thousands of businesses register their domains through
Earthlink. Does that mean Earthlink has any control over how those companies
do business? Obviously not. If the IHR registered it's domain through
Earthlink, does that mean Earthlink is affiliated with the IHR, or has any
interest, or stake in the IHR? Obviously not. The facts are that no one has
ever provided any evidence whatsoever of any CoS tampering, or preferential
treatment towards CoS by Earthlink. If anyone has any, I'd sure love to see
it.
That's all for now. If I left anything out, I'd be more than happy to
elaborate, or discuss my history with Earthlink.
Snefru
"Charge is the electronic bing-bang that hits the PC in the blonk..."
--L.Ron "huh?" Hubbard
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
jbwebb
> >>
> >> In article <35E51575...@prodigy.net>, Tom Klemesrud
> > <klem...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >> >WESFAGER wrote:
> >> >>
> >
> >
> >> Which, of course, does not mean that 'scientology' controls Earthlink.
> >>
> >> Just a Guy with a Heck of a Lot of Money' Soros probably owns more stock than
> >> just about anyone other than Sky Dayton.
> >
> >
> >Isn't Soros notoriously anticult? At one point I wanted to get a
> >petition on ARS written and submitted to him to sponsor a full page anti
> >COS ad in USA Today.
>
> Actually, that's a damned interesting question. Given his penchant for social
> causes, I bet you that if he's not already anti-cult, he could probably be
> persuaded. Maybe a project for the ARSCC outreach crew.
Maybe that's how he got involved in with Earthlink in the first place,
they pulled him in. Who knows? I can't remember exactly why I felt
Soros would be the ONE man who would pay money for an ad in USA. I
suppose this was a few years ago, before Minton, or before his largesse
became well known.
>
> >
> >Take care
> >Joni
Tilman Hausherr
Clark) wrote:
>otherwise i agree. the lingering gossip about Earthlink is mostly unfounded.
>i recall even back in '95, before such speculation became rampant, Earthlink
>kicked off vera wallace for repeating her outing of tarlastar.
This is unclear - it was not sure whether she was kicked or left
voluntarly.
sne...@my-dejanews.com
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
> In <3605c508...@news.mindspring.com>, xe...@mindspring.com (Rob
> Clark) wrote:
>
> >otherwise i agree. the lingering gossip about Earthlink is mostly unfounded.
> >i recall even back in '95, before such speculation became rampant, Earthlink
> >kicked off vera wallace for repeating her outing of tarlastar.
>
> This is unclear - it was not sure whether she was kicked or left
> voluntarly.
Vera was most definitely kicked off. I remember the incident well. Larry
Gentry, the person who sent the email message stating that she was no longer
an Earthlink subscriber was the person who was in charge of cancelling
accounts at the time. Larry Gentry canceled her account.
Snefru
>
> --
> Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
> til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos
>
> Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Nico Garcia
WESFAGER <wesf...@aol.com> wrote:
>There wassome talk that the clams old earthlink.net. Do the scios
>still own it or not?
The founder Sky Dayton and, at last check, the chief sys-admin Brian
Wanger are still very active $cientologists.
Brian was partly responsible for the growth of this newsgroup by trying
to threaten Dennis Erlich into silence with the threat of secrets culled
from Dennis's "Pre-Clear" or $cientology confessional folder.
--
Nico Kadel-Garcia, ne' Garcia
ra...@tiac.net
<PGP is obviously a good idea: look at who objects to it.>
Rob Clark
i hope you don't mind if i repost it whenever this fish story comes back around
again. (i have been responding with annoyance to this urban legend for 3 years,
despite watching earthlink and the situation in general like a hawk, i have seen
absolutely zilch in the way of cultic behavior out of earthlink.)
[">" marks deleted to appease posting-ratio nazi]
David Gerard
wrote:
:I agree with all of the above (that's why I deleted some), and I have
:also ansvered e-mail questions similarly, i.e that his business is
:clean; nevertheless "Sky" Dayton is a member of the hate group of
:scientology, so I'd rather avoid "testing" what would happen if he had
:to chose between honesty and his hate group.
We need an Operation Clambake mirror on Earthlink.
--
http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/ AGSF Unit 0|4 http://suburbia.net/~fun/
Stop JUNK EMAIL Boycott AMAZON.COM http://mickc.home.mindspring.com/index1.htm
"ObQuestion - why is my good friend the Y2K cobol programmer selling all his
goods, buying gold, guns & food and moving his family to a place in the
mountains? And trying to convince me to do the same?" - Tom ONeil
her...@earthlink.net
> >There wassome talk that the clams old earthlink.net. Do the scios
> >still own it or not?
>
> Wanger are still very active $cientologists.
>
> Brian was partly responsible for the growth of this newsgroup by trying
> to threaten Dennis Erlich into silence with the threat of secrets culled
> from Dennis's "Pre-Clear" or $cientology confessional folder.
His name isn't Brian Wanger, and he's not the chief sys-admin. In fact
he's not a sysadmin at all. He started out as Earthlink's VP Operations, and
has changed positions within the company several times. He was never "chief
sys-admin".
Please please please people..Get your damn facts straight before you open
your mouth.
> --
> Nico Kadel-Garcia, ne' Garcia
> ra...@tiac.net
> <PGP is obviously a good idea: look at who objects to it.>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Steve A
> In article <6s787r$7...@news-central.tiac.net>,
> ra...@shell1.tiac.net (Nico Garcia) wrote:
> > In article <199808270043...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > WESFAGER <wesf...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >There wassome talk that the clams old earthlink.net. Do the scios
> > >still own it or not?
> >
> > The founder Sky Dayton and, at last check, the chief sys-admin Brian
> > Wanger are still very active $cientologists.
> >
> > Brian was partly responsible for the growth of this newsgroup by trying
> > to threaten Dennis Erlich into silence with the threat of secrets culled
> > from Dennis's "Pre-Clear" or $cientology confessional folder.
>
> His name isn't Brian Wanger, and he's not the chief sys-admin. In fact
> he's not a sysadmin at all. He started out as Earthlink's VP Operations, and
> has changed positions within the company several times. He was never "chief
> sys-admin".
>
> Please please please people..Get your damn facts straight before you open
> your mouth.
To be fair to those who may have made mistakes on the subject, your
arrival here is the very first opportunity many of us will have had to
hear the real story from the horse's mouth.
Thanks for that, and please be understanding of the output of hundreds
of rumour mills, working on overtime around the world...
--
Steve A, SP4++, GGBC, KBM, Unsalvageable PTS/SP #12,
pitiable little Dennie (plD) #1
Banned by Windows 1984 ScienoSitter (2e+isp)
"Where don't they want you to go today?" - http://www.xenu.net
Nico Garcia
> > The founder Sky Dayton and, at last check, the chief sys-admin Brian
> > Wanger are still very active $cientologists.
> >
> > Brian was partly responsible for the growth of this newsgroup by trying
> > to threaten Dennis Erlich into silence with the threat of secrets culled
> > from Dennis's "Pre-Clear" or $cientology confessional folder.
>
> His name isn't Brian Wanger, and he's not the chief sys-admin. In fact
> he's not a sysadmin at all. He started out as Earthlink's VP Operations, and
> has changed positions within the company several times. He was never "chief
> sys-admin".
"It wasn't Brian. That wasn't his job. That's not his job anymore."
Whom do you *THINK* I was talking about?
Alba Tross
>There wassome talk that the clams old earthlink.net. Do the scios
>still own it or not?
>
>Wes Fager
I beleive Sky Dayton, the founder and CEO of Earthlink stil is a
scientologist. I've heard various rumors ranging from "he's never
been real active in SCN" to rumors about heavy handed use of Tech in
the company, but I dont know how true any of them are.
What I DO know is this:
I posted some stuff to alt.binaries.scientolgy a few weeks ago which
earned me the honor of a Ho'gram. I tried canceling the post, but
apparently earthlink' does not allow users to isue cancel messages, so
I emailed the news administrator asking them to issue a cancel for me.
Basically I got a note from them saying Kobrin was out of luck, which
leads me to the conclusion that even if Sky is a clam, the company
itself is not active scientologist.
Below are a coiuple of excerpts from my discussion with Kobrin and the
News administrator
THe HoGram:
---------------------
Date sent: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Helena Kobrin <h...@netcom.com>
Subject: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials
To: john...@cyberdude.com
Dear Mr. Galt:
We represent the L. Ron Hubbard Library exclusive licensee of the
copyright to the unpublished work by Mr. Hubbard entitled "Revolt in
the Stars".
We have been informed that you have made a newsgroup posting of
this work available to others through a zip file without the
authorization of our client. The message ID for this posting is:
Message-ID: <35abeff4...@news.earthlink.net>
The header is attached below.
By posting our client's copyrighted works on a newsgroup you are
committing copyright infringement in violation of United States
copyright law. We demand that you cancel this posting immediately.
We also demand that you destroy any and all copies of this work in
your possession.
<snip>
-----------------------------
From the News AdminDate sent:
-------------------
Fri, 17 Jul 1998 21:05:23 -0700
To: "Chris Walker" <cybe...@earthlink.net> (by way of
e-Support <sup...@earthlink.net>)
From: Luther 1362 <sup...@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials
Dear Chris,
Thanks for the mail.
You will need to mail this particular individual explaining, that it
is not possible for us to delete an already posted message.
This is a simple fact of the way that newsgroups work.
They obviously spend their time policing groups and should be well
aware of this. The reason that Newsgroups exist, is for individuals
to have a forum to discuss thier views and share thoughts and ideas
that may otherwise be be drowned, destroyed or otherwise legally
supressed by those with the loudest bark, the most lobbyists or the
most powerful lawyers.
Good luck.
If you have any further needs, don't hesitate to visit:
http://www.earthlink.net/assistance/support.html
http://help.earthlink.net/
Or email us here at:
mailto:sup...@earthlink.net
------------------------------------
<snip>
ska...@postoffice.pacbell.net
> On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 23:55:09 GMT, her...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > His name isn't Brian Wanger, and he's not the chief sys-admin. In fact
> > he's not a sysadmin at all. He started out as Earthlink's VP Operations, and
> > has changed positions within the company several times. He was never "chief
> > sys-admin". Please please please people..Get your damn facts straight before
> you open your mouth.
>
> To be fair to those who may have made mistakes on the subject, your
> arrival here is the very first opportunity many of us will have had to
> hear the real story from the horse's mouth. Thanks for that, and please be
> understanding of the output of hundreds of rumour mills, working on overtime
> around the world...
Gee, you're not going to blame Scientology for causing you to create and spread
rumors??? Now, that's unusual......
>
>
sne...@my-dejanews.com
Nico Garcia <ra...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
> her...@earthlink.net writes:
>
> > > The founder Sky Dayton and, at last check, the chief sys-admin Brian
> > > Wanger are still very active $cientologists.
> > >
> > > Brian was partly responsible for the growth of this newsgroup by trying
> > > to threaten Dennis Erlich into silence with the threat of secrets culled
> > > from Dennis's "Pre-Clear" or $cientology confessional folder.
> >
> > he's not a sysadmin at all. He started out as Earthlink's VP Operations,
and
> > has changed positions within the company several times. He was never "chief
> > sys-admin".
>
>
> Whom do you *THINK* I was talking about?
I know *exactly* who you're talking about. Brian Wenger. He was still never
a chief sysadmin. During the very early days, he had a very limited exposure
to the sysadmin side of things at all. At the time he arrived there were 2
other people who did the majority of the sysadmin work. While Brian Wenger
was the VP of Operations, and as a result in charge of the system
administrators, he was no more of one than Sky. He's no longer VP
Operations, he's now doing research type stuff. This in reality is a very
minor issue, but I think serves to point out how ill informed, and out of
touch with reality the ARS Earthlink Rumor Mill is.
P.S. Apologies for accidentally posting the last message from an alternate
account. I do the dejanews thing to avoid spam, and hose myself up after the
first week. Go figure.
Snefru
>
> --
> Nico Kadel-Garcia, ne' Garcia
> ra...@tiac.net
> <PGP is obviously a good idea: look at who objects to it.>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
dro...@lightlink.com
> >
> > In article <35E51575...@prodigy.net>, Tom Klemesrud
<klem...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > >WESFAGER wrote:
> > >>
>
> > Which, of course, does not mean that 'scientology' controls Earthlink.
> >
Scientologist,
> > Just a Guy with a Heck of a Lot of Money' Soros probably owns more stock
than
> > just about anyone other than Sky Dayton.
>
>
> Isn't Soros notoriously anticult? At one point I wanted to get a
> petition on ARS written and submitted to him to sponsor a full page anti
> COS ad in USA Today.
Soros is in favor of liberalizing drug laws, although he's not in favor of
decriminalizing drugs alltogether. (I don't know if he'd decriminalize any of
the currently-illegal drugs, though his stance seems geared towards at least
decriminalizing the medical use of marijuana.) I believe he's also funded
right-to-die organizations. (I know most of what I know about Soros'
philanthropic activities from an article last year in Time; much of what I
remember is fuzzy.) Probably _both_ of these stances are enough to make him an
SP if they wanted to...
Here's a question that I haven't seen anyone answer: Why _did_ the big-money
donors put money in Earthlink? Does Sky have an ability to put on the charm?
The fact that he's a Scientologist might explain partly why big-money
Scientologists became early investors, but it can't be the only, or even the
major one; it can't explain why Soros, and later Sprint invested heavily.
(Soros was a major victim in a much-publicized charity fraud some years ago,
but I imagine he's gotten more savvy since then.) It seems that Dayton had
big ambitions for the ISP from early on; was it just his (and others?)
ability to pitch his "vision thing"? His having run a successful coffee house
probably helped, although I'm not sure how the experience of running that
kind of business translates into running a successful ISP. Did they start
bringing in successful managers before or after big money (Scientologist and
"wog") started being invested?
> Take care
> Joni
Peace,
<> David
http://www.lightlink.com/drogers/
-------------
"People, who eat people, are the loneliest people in the world!"
烹arbara Streisand, slightly skewed
dro...@lightlink.com
sne...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <3695e1cc....@news.snafu.de>,
> til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
> > In <3605c508...@news.mindspring.com>, xe...@mindspring.com (Rob
> > Clark) wrote:
> >
> > >otherwise i agree. the lingering gossip about Earthlink is mostly
unfounded.
> > >i recall even back in '95, before such speculation became rampant,
Earthlink
> > >kicked off vera wallace for repeating her outing of tarlastar.
> >
> > This is unclear - it was not sure whether she was kicked or left
> > voluntarly.
>
> Vera was most definitely kicked off. I remember the incident well. Larry
> Gentry, the person who sent the email message stating that she was no longer
> an Earthlink subscriber was the person who was in charge of cancelling
> accounts at the time. Larry Gentry canceled her account.
Most of my fears about Earthlink's security have been calmed in the last two
years. One of those reasons is the hiring of Dan Farmer
(http://www.earthlink.net/company/mgmt/farmer.html); I very much doubt that
he would be part of a company that he suspected would become a tool for a
criminal enterprise. And if he was naive at first, he shouldn't be after a
year and a half (or however long he's been with the company).
An Earthlink account is probably more secure than an account with almost any
other ISP, even for critics.
> Snefru
Nico Garcia
> > > His name isn't Brian Wanger, and he's not the chief sys-admin. In fact
> > > he's not a sysadmin at all. He started out as Earthlink's VP Operations,
> and
> > > has changed positions within the company several times. He was never "chief
> > > sys-admin".
> >
> > "It wasn't Brian. That wasn't his job. That's not his job anymore."
> >
> > Whom do you *THINK* I was talking about?
>
> I know *exactly* who you're talking about. Brian Wenger. He was still never
> a chief sysadmin. During the very early days, he had a very limited exposure
> to the sysadmin side of things at all. At the time he arrived there were 2
> other people who did the majority of the sysadmin work. While Brian Wenger
> was the VP of Operations, and as a result in charge of the system
> administrators, he was no more of one than Sky. He's no longer VP
> Operations, he's now doing research type stuff. This in reality is a very
> minor issue, but I think serves to point out how ill informed, and out of
> touch with reality the ARS Earthlink Rumor Mill is.
I see. I mis-spelled his name. Therefore there was no such person as I
described, and he didn't use culled material from Dennis's $cientology
confessional folder to try and threaten him into silence. Nope, never
happened.
"These aren't the droids you're looking for".
Oh, and the job description of "chief sys-admin". Nope, he wasn't
that. He was the guy who gave them their orders, and made the
technical administrative decisions, and was (by your own admission) VP
of Operations in the early days.
But that's not a chief sys-admin. Nope.
For strangers to this tactic, this is what L. Ron Hubbard called
"acceptable truth". Rather than addressing the issue, (Sky Dayton's
and Brian W*e*nger's membership in $cientology and Brian's successful
shooting himself in the publicity foot by trying to threaten Dennis),
or describing what the *CURRENT* state of Mr. Wenger's job is, you
seem to be doing all you can to discredit the claim by examining
everything *ELSE*.
It's very easy to say "oh, they're a big successful company, how
can you say they're run by a cult?" It's harder to point to specific
policies that bely such a state.
Are they $cientology run? According to their own sales droids, no. In
the early days they used Hubbard Tech, and somewhere along the line
have discarded it. Do I believe the sales droids? Yes, with some
uncertainty.
> P.S. Apologies for accidentally posting the last message from an alternate
> account. I do the dejanews thing to avoid spam, and hose myself up after the
> first week. Go figure.
You need "procmail" to do appropriate filtering. I recommend it.
Nico Garcia
> early on that it was all about Marketing. Earthlink was always about
> spending massive amounts of money on marketing their services. This, far
> more than "service levels" is what propelled Earthlink to the top of it's
> field. While Mindspring, then Earthlink's only real competitor outside of
Bingo. Earthlink has always run off of *investment capital*, on
selling "Make Million$ on the Information $uperhighway". I don't
believe their service has been able to keep up: the difficulties with
spamming from them, both email and Usenet, have illustrated the difficulty.
> AOL decided to slow down the marketing push to concentrate on profitability,
> Earthlink continued the marketing drive, and as such is still not profitable
> but has nearly twice as many members. Earthlink plans to continue to market
> the hell out of their service until the market becomes saturated, and it's
> difficult to attract new subscribers, even if it means taking a loss. The
And that's when the house of investment cards will collapse, if this week's
stock difficulties haven't already done it.
> As for why the big money donors invested, Earthlink is a dominant player in
> the ISP market. Earthlink, and Mindspring are the biggest independant ISPs
> out there. ISPs are much sought after property right now. Earthlink was a
> logical choice. If you look at their financials, the fact that Earthlink is
> still not in the black isn't such a bad thing. Look at their growth. It's
Pyramid scheme, about to bottom out.
> quite obvious that if Earthlink decided to slow it's aggressive marketing
> practices, they'd be in the black instantly. I believe last quarter they
> were only $4.5 million in the red.
Nope: the stock market has slaughtered them this week....
sne...@my-dejanews.com
dro...@lightlink.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> Here's a question that I haven't seen anyone answer: Why _did_ the big-money
> donors put money in Earthlink? Does Sky have an ability to put on the charm?
> The fact that he's a Scientologist might explain partly why big-money
> Scientologists became early investors, but it can't be the only, or even the
> major one; it can't explain why Soros, and later Sprint invested heavily.
> (Soros was a major victim in a much-publicized charity fraud some years ago,
> but I imagine he's gotten more savvy since then.) It seems that Dayton had
> big ambitions for the ISP from early on; was it just his (and others?)
> ability to pitch his "vision thing"? His having run a successful coffee house
> probably helped, although I'm not sure how the experience of running that
> kind of business translates into running a successful ISP. Did they start
> bringing in successful managers before or after big money (Scientologist and
> "wog") started being invested?
>
<snip>
My own opinion is that Sky, while totally lacking in any technical skills
is an excellent salesman. He has charisma, and he's really good at coming
across as a guy with "vision". Sky is a phenomenally likeable guy. He's
very easy to talk with, and has been marketed as "That Earthlink Prodigy"
since Earthlink's inception. Again in my opinion, the primary reason for
Earthlink's massive success, and incredible growth was that Sky realized
early on that it was all about Marketing. Earthlink was always about
spending massive amounts of money on marketing their services. This, far
more than "service levels" is what propelled Earthlink to the top of it's
field. While Mindspring, then Earthlink's only real competitor outside of
AOL decided to slow down the marketing push to concentrate on profitability,
Earthlink continued the marketing drive, and as such is still not profitable
but has nearly twice as many members. Earthlink plans to continue to market
the hell out of their service until the market becomes saturated, and it's
difficult to attract new subscribers, even if it means taking a loss. The
idea is that when the market reaches a saturation point, and ISPs actually
have to fight with each other for customers, Earthlink would ostensibly be
far ahead of the pack numbers wise. Well over 80% of the country is still a
virgin market, and Earthlink wants them all.
As for why the big money donors invested, Earthlink is a dominant player in
the ISP market. Earthlink, and Mindspring are the biggest independant ISPs
out there. ISPs are much sought after property right now. Earthlink was a
logical choice. If you look at their financials, the fact that Earthlink is
still not in the black isn't such a bad thing. Look at their growth. It's
quite obvious that if Earthlink decided to slow it's aggressive marketing
practices, they'd be in the black instantly. I believe last quarter they
were only $4.5 million in the red.
Snefru
>
> Peace,
>
> <> David
>
> http://www.lightlink.com/drogers/
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
tall...@storm.ca
<snip-hack-snip-hack>
>
>For strangers to this tactic, this is what L. Ron Hubbard called
>"acceptable truth". Rather than addressing the issue, (Sky Dayton's
>and Brian W*e*nger's membership in $cientology and Brian's successful
>shooting himself in the publicity foot by trying to threaten Dennis),
>or describing what the *CURRENT* state of Mr. Wenger's job is, you
>seem to be doing all you can to discredit the claim by examining
>everything *ELSE*.
>
>It's very easy to say "oh, they're a big successful company, how
>can you say they're run by a cult?" It's harder to point to specific
>policies that bely such a state.
And it's apparently even harder to point to specific policies, or even
incidents, that imply such a state, because so far, neither you nor anyone
else has been able to do it.
Brian Wenger, VP of operations, posted material from Dennis' folder. Was he
doing this whilst wearing his Earthlink employee hat, or his CoS toady hat? It
would seem to be the latter, since at that time, Brian was also posting the
pro-scn a.r.s. FAQ and generally trying to put himself forward as the
unofficial Official Scientology Spokesperson on the group. (This was in the
days before Andrew Milne, as I recall.)
Just because an Earthlink employee, who is also a scientologist, and
apparently one acting at the behest of the CoS to some degree, did this does
not mean that Earthlink endorsed his actions, or was even aware of it at the
time. It's not evidence of any kind of *company* policy, one way or another.
It's evidence that a) Brian Wenger is a jerk and b) the CoS has zero ethics
when it comes to strategically releasing confidential information to attack
its enemies. We *knew* that.
>Are they $cientology run? According to their own sales droids, no. In
>the early days they used Hubbard Tech, and somewhere along the line
>have discarded it. Do I believe the sales droids? Yes, with some
>uncertainty.
I'd also just like to add that using Hubbard Tech is not synonymous with being
the ISP minion of choice for OSA. Even if Earthlink *did* still use Hubbard
Tech - hell, even if it was a WISE company - that, in and of itself, would
not be enough to prove conclusively that the company is involved in dirty
dealings on behalf of the CoS.
Neither Digital Lightwave nor ATEG are WISE companies, and at least one is
being accused - in court, no less - of letting the CoS proper exercise extreme
infiluence over the day to day management of the company itself. And don't
even get me started on Norton Karno, who may or may not even be a
scientologist, but seems to be in the thick of the most lucrative - and
unscrupulous - business scams involving scn-related entities.
K
sne...@my-dejanews.com
I never once made any assertion that Brian Wenger wasn't involved in the
posting of information culled from Dennis's PC Folder. Your implications to
the contrary are uncalled for. I was correcting your ill informed comments
regarding Brian Wenger, and his position at Earthlink. Additionally, the
incident you now bring attention to wasn't even a part of the original
message. Why did you feel the need to insert it now?
>
> "These aren't the droids you're looking for".
>
> Oh, and the job description of "chief sys-admin". Nope, he wasn't
> that. He was the guy who gave them their orders, and made the
> technical administrative decisions, and was (by your own admission) VP
> of Operations in the early days.
The simple fact is: Brian Wenger was not Chief Sysadmin any more than Sky
was. Sky was the CEO. Since he was also above the sysadmins, does this make
him "Chief Sysadmin" as well? Brian Wenger was simply not a Chief Sysadmin.
Furthermore, your original allegation was that Brian Wenger *is* the chief
sysadmin "at last check". This is what I was correcting. Please do not
attempt to twist this into something else in order to justify your
misinformation.
>
> But that's not a chief sys-admin. Nope.
Very good. You're learning.
>
> For strangers to this tactic, this is what L. Ron Hubbard called
> "acceptable truth". Rather than addressing the issue, (Sky Dayton's
> and Brian W*e*nger's membership in $cientology and Brian's successful
> shooting himself in the publicity foot by trying to threaten Dennis),
> or describing what the *CURRENT* state of Mr. Wenger's job is, you
> seem to be doing all you can to discredit the claim by examining
> everything *ELSE*.
Ooh! Do I get accused of being OSA next? I was giving you, and everyone
else the some actual information regarding Earthlink, and in this situation
Brian Wengers past, and current position(s) there. I was correcting your
errors. Is this a problem for you? The issue was *NOT* Brian Wengers
membership in Scientology. The issue was Brian Wengers past, and current
positions within Earthlink. Please re-read your original message:
Message-ID: <6s787r$7...@news-central.tiac.net>. Your attempts to alter the
thread into a "Dennis issue" are inappropriate. Furthermore, I explicitly
stated both what Brian Wengers past, and current position(s) within Earthlink
were/are. Unlike yourself, who's assertions are based on rabid speculation,
and rumor mongering, I do have the facts about this, and many other
situations regarding Earthlink. In the future, I would appreciate it if
*you* would stick to my original comments regarding the issue, and not
attempt to insert Dennis Erlich DA material into the issue further down the
line in a twisted attempt to justify your misinformation.
>
> It's very easy to say "oh, they're a big successful company, how
> can you say they're run by a cult?" It's harder to point to specific
> policies that bely such a state.
I never once said, or implied either of these things. I described how
Earthlink was a big successful company, and also asserted that there was a
complete, and total dearth of evidence of cult involvement in Earthlink
affairs. These are two *ENTIRELY* seperate assertions that you have combined
together inappropriately. You are falsely attributing statements to me that
were not made, nor implied by me. If you, or anyone has any actual evidence
that Earthlink is being, or has been at any time controlled by the CoS,
please come forth with it. Enquiring minds want to know.
>
> Are they $cientology run? According to their own sales droids, no. In
> the early days they used Hubbard Tech, and somewhere along the line
> have discarded it. Do I believe the sales droids? Yes, with some
> uncertainty.
What do sales-droids have to do with this? What the hell are you talking
about? Earthlink has since ceased the use of LRH Tech. The fact that a sales
droid will *also* tell you this doesn't make it untrue. In answering your
question, "Are they $cientology run?" I would have to say no, they aren't.
Not only is the CoS not involved with the management of Earthlink, the group
of Scientologist investors who possess stock in Earthlink don't collectively
have a majority interest in Earthlink. If anyone controls Earthlink, it
would be Sprint, Soros, and Sky, the 3 largest shareholders. Sky's position
as Chairman obviously also grants him a significant amount of power, although
he is not involved in the day-to-day operations of the company anymore. That
is Garry Betty's job as President, and I believe now CEO as well.
>
> > P.S. Apologies for accidentally posting the last message from an alternate
> > account. I do the dejanews thing to avoid spam, and hose myself up after
the
> > first week. Go figure.
>
> You need "procmail" to do appropriate filtering. I recommend it.
I'd rather not get it than have to filter it, hence dejanews for USENET. It
suits my needs fairly well to date..
Snefru
>
> --
> Nico Kadel-Garcia, ne' Garcia
> ra...@tiac.net
> <PGP is obviously a good idea: look at who objects to it.>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Geoff Burling
>
>I know *exactly* who you're talking about. Brian Wenger. He was still never
>a chief sysadmin. During the very early days, he had a very limited exposure
>to the sysadmin side of things at all. At the time he arrived there were 2
>other people who did the majority of the sysadmin work.
I guess ``sysadmin" remains an honorable profession, & still gathers
more respect than better-paying jobs like ``VP of Marketing". So
Wenger decided to assume to cloak of the first title when he decided
to attack Rev Erlich.
> While Brian Wenger
>was the VP of Operations, and as a result in charge of the system
>administrators, he was no more of one than Sky. He's no longer VP
>Operations, he's now doing research type stuff.
When I was doing tech support for Netscape (but was in the employ of a
separate company), I had the experience of meeting a certain
individual who was responsible for managing technical support. He was
a true pointy-haired manager clone. When I met Matt Ouilette (& I
apologize for mangling your name) in LA, we had a lot of laughs
sharing stories about him.
Wenger reminds me of this idiot from Netscape. (A free clue to any
senior executive at Netscape reading this: get rid of this moron, &
you might start winning the battle agaisnt Microsloth.)
> This in reality is a very
>minor issue, but I think serves to point out how ill informed, and out of
>touch with reality the ARS Earthlink Rumor Mill is.
>
Actually, I think there is a lot more to the antipathy towards
Earthlink than you might suspect, Snefru. An acquaintence of mine had
to deal with some true weirdness from their domain in regards to one
critic . . .
I'm being deliberately vague here, but from what I've been told, in
the early days Earthlink was used as one point of attack on A.R.S.: if
someone posted to this newsgroup, they were dealt with thru being
subscribed to any number of then existent gay porno spam mailing
lists. However, the strange thing about said mailing lists is that the
maintainers are very eager to unsubscribe anyone who wants off -- &
was able to point my contact to the source of subscription. In simple
words, someone with access to a computer running sendmail at Earthlink
was subscribing CoS critics to lists like this.
He was able to get this to stop by threatening to publicize this
activity, which suggests that the person responsible was doing with
without the consent -- or even knowledge -- of Sky Dayton. And he
admits that things definitely improved once Harris was brought on to
deal with spam & other email abuses.
Thus, I doubt the speculation about Earthlink & the CoS will ever end.
Geoff
Olympic-Class Bore
To email me, remove the obvious.
sne...@my-dejanews.com
> > spending massive amounts of money on marketing their services. This,
far
> > more than "service levels" is what propelled Earthlink to the top of it's
> > field. While Mindspring, then Earthlink's only real competitor outside
of
>
> selling "Make Million$ on the Information $uperhighway". I don't
> believe their service has been able to keep up: the difficulties with
> spamming from them, both email and Usenet, have illustrated the difficulty.
Perhaps you aren't aware that virtually every independant ISP of any
significant size was funded by venture capital. Perhaps you also aren't aware
that virtually none of them have yet to turn a profit? I suppose they're all
part of the same Grand Conspiracy?
You're certainly entitled to your beliefs. I'm not interested in arguing the
merits of Earthlink's levels of service, or what their uptimes look like in
comparison to other ISPs. It's really not of interest to me, or I'm sure the
majority of this newsgroup.
>
> > AOL decided to slow down the marketing push to concentrate on profitability,
> > Earthlink continued the marketing drive, and as such is still not profitable
> > but has nearly twice as many members. Earthlink plans to continue to market
> > the hell out of their service until the market becomes saturated, and it's
> > difficult to attract new subscribers, even if it means taking a loss. The
>
> And that's when the house of investment cards will collapse, if this week's
> stock difficulties haven't already done it.
Now, I'm no stock expert, but last I checked, Earthlink has already
completed it's IPO, and a secondary offering. Earthlink has a substantial
amount of cash on hand to the tune of over $100 million. The price of the
stock does not affect their revenue stream. A rough stock market won't
affect their bottom line unless they tried another offering which is unlikely
in the near future, considering the substantial amount of cash they have
on-hand.
>
> > As for why the big money donors invested, Earthlink is a dominant player
in
> > the ISP market. Earthlink, and Mindspring are the biggest independant ISPs
> > out there. ISPs are much sought after property right now. Earthlink was a
> > logical choice. If you look at their financials, the fact that Earthlink is
> > still not in the black isn't such a bad thing. Look at their growth.
It's
>
> Pyramid scheme, about to bottom out.
I think you forgot to include evidence to support your allegations of MLM
style marketing being practiced by Earthlink. The closest thing imaginable
in Earthlinks history to MLM is "Refer a friend, get a free month." This
hardly qualifies Earthlink as a pyramid scheme. Now you're drifting from
wild baseless speculation into sheer fantasies.
>
> > quite obvious that if Earthlink decided to slow it's aggressive marketing
> > practices, they'd be in the black instantly. I believe last quarter they
> > were only $4.5 million in the red.
>
> Nope: the stock market has slaughtered them this week....
First of all, the stock market has little to nothing to do with Earthlinks
recurring revenue from subscriber fees, websites, and whatnot. This, and the
cash on hand is what they operate out of. The low value of the stock this
week has absolutely zero impact on Earthlink's revenue. If you were to
peruse Earthlink's quarterly reports, I'm sure you'd find that the figures
add up nicely regarding their ability to find black ink, should they reduce
their marketing budget somewhat. Should you be interested, I suggest you
look at <http://sec.yahoo.com/e/l/e/elnk.html> . Second of all, the stock
market as a whole took a pretty bad beating this week. AOL plunged 14
5/16ths today. I suppose that means AOL is a pyramid scheme that's on the
verge of collapse as well? First of all, one bad week on the stock exchange
is hardly going to send all of the thousands upon thousands of publically
traded companies that took a beating into the poor house. But now we're
talking about economics, which is hardly appropriate in
alt.religion.scientology.
Since this portion of the thread has now deviated significantly from
anything having to do with Scientology, I'm going to end my participation in
this portion of it, unless it has something to do with Scientology. If you'd
like to discuss the marvels of the Stock exchange, or anything else in email,
please feel free to contact me. I'd be more than happy to share what I do
know.
John C. Randolph
-> Most of my fears about Earthlink's security have been calmed in the last
two
-> years. One of those reasons is the hiring of Dan Farmer
-> (http://www.earthlink.net/company/mgmt/farmer.html); I very much doubt
that
-> he would be part of a company that he suspected would become a tool for a
-> criminal enterprise. And if he was naive at first, he shouldn't be after a
-> year and a half (or however long he's been with the company).
Well, Dan's rep as a security expert is well-known, but it does not follow
that Dan's integrity sets the standard for the other Earthlink managers.
Earthlink brought him in to fight the spammers *after* it was made very clear
to Earthlink that they'd damned well better do something about spamming, or
suffer the usenet death penalty.
I would expect that Dan's tenure at Earthlink means that it would be more
difficult to crack an Earthlink machine than a typical ISP's server, but that
in *no* way ensures that the Clams have no access to the contents of user's
accounts. Dan's certainly not the only person at Earthlink with the root
passwords.
AFAIC, Earthlink is owned and managed by members of a criminal nut-cult, it
has been the launching pad for a number of attacks on this newsgroup, it only
clamped down on spammers once it saw revenues threatened, and I wouldn't
trust Sky Dayton any farther than I would trust Phil Lawlor or Sanford
Wallace.
-> An Earthlink account is probably more secure than an account with almost
any
-> other ISP, even for critics.
Nah, they're still running UNIX.
-jcr
--
"Although UNIX is more reliable, NT may become more reliable with time"
- Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, US Navy.
Where is the line between mere incompetence and actual treason? -jcr
Nico Garcia
> I never once made any assertion that Brian Wenger wasn't involved in the
>posting of information culled from Dennis's PC Folder. Your implications to
>the contrary are uncalled for. I was correcting your ill informed comments
>regarding Brian Wenger, and his position at Earthlink. Additionally, the
>incident you now bring attention to wasn't even a part of the original
>message. Why did you feel the need to insert it now?
No, you just went after all the other details (such as spelling Brian's
last name) to discredit the claim of Brian's violation of the cult's
published policy of "no, we never use that secret material against you,
even though it's been testified to by our ex-members in court repeatedly,
nope, couldn't happen".
> The simple fact is: Brian Wenger was not Chief Sysadmin any more than Sky
>was. Sky was the CEO. Since he was also above the sysadmins, does this make
>him "Chief Sysadmin" as well? Brian Wenger was simply not a Chief Sysadmin.
>Furthermore, your original allegation was that Brian Wenger *is* the chief
>sysadmin "at last check". This is what I was correcting. Please do not
>attempt to twist this into something else in order to justify your
>misinformation.
My last check was Earthlink's own staff at trade shows about two years ago.
What *EXACTLY* was your source for knowledge of Brian's responsibilities
at the time?
>Ooh! Do I get accused of being OSA next? I was giving you, and everyone
>else the some actual information regarding Earthlink, and in this situation
>Brian Wengers past, and current position(s) there. I was correcting your
No, you were denying the veracity of my data.
>errors. Is this a problem for you? The issue was *NOT* Brian Wengers
>membership in Scientology. The issue was Brian Wengers past, and current
>positions within Earthlink. Please re-read your original message:
The issue was whether Earthlink is a $cientology run company. Brian Wenger,
Sky Dayton, and their former head of research Philip Gale were all
$cientologists.
Of course, Philip had apparently left the cult and died jumping out of
an MIT window on L. Ron Hubbard's birthday....
>> It's very easy to say "oh, they're a big successful company, how
>> can you say they're run by a cult?" It's harder to point to specific
>> policies that bely such a state.
>
>I never once said, or implied either of these things. I described how
>Earthlink was a big successful company, and also asserted that there was a
>complete, and total dearth of evidence of cult involvement in Earthlink
>affairs. These are two *ENTIRELY* seperate assertions that you have combined
>together inappropriately. You are falsely attributing statements to me that
>were not made, nor implied by me. If you, or anyone has any actual evidence
>that Earthlink is being, or has been at any time controlled by the CoS,
>please come forth with it. Enquiring minds want to know.
And your description was an attempt to convey an impression of innocence
that is questionable: certainly the early days of the company were
run on Hubbard Tech, according to Earthlink's own staff of the time.
What it is right now requires new testimony from current staff, not
your repeated assertion "I don't got no proof, they must not of done
that, ha-yuk-ha-yuk!"
>> Are they $cientology run? According to their own sales droids, no. In
>> the early days they used Hubbard Tech, and somewhere along the line
>> have discarded it. Do I believe the sales droids? Yes, with some
>> uncertainty.
>
>What do sales-droids have to do with this? What the hell are you talking
>about? Earthlink has since ceased the use of LRH Tech. The fact that a sales
>droid will *also* tell you this doesn't make it untrue. In answering your
>question, "Are they $cientology run?" I would have to say no, they aren't.
Wonderful. Your knowledge is based on using them as an ISP, employment,
knowledge of the staff, or wishful thinking?
>> You need "procmail" to do appropriate filtering. I recommend it.
>
>I'd rather not get it than have to filter it, hence dejanews for USENET. It
>suits my needs fairly well to date..
I find the filtering works better: it lets me receive traffic I want
at a publicly posted address. But to each their own.
Nico Garcia
>In article <xy9pvdg...@shell1.tiac.net>,
> Perhaps you aren't aware that virtually every independant ISP of any
>significant size was funded by venture capital. Perhaps you also aren't aware
>that virtually none of them have yet to turn a profit? I suppose they're all
>part of the same Grand Conspiracy?
No, the publicly listed big ones are failing to turn profits. A number of
small, tightly run ones are doing quite well, and the mid-level providers
are making a killing.
But many of them right now *ARE* pyramid schemes: they, like Earthlink,
are relying on unlimited growth for their income estimates and their
stock was (as of last week) vastly over-valued.
> Now, I'm no stock expert, but last I checked, Earthlink has already
>completed it's IPO, and a secondary offering. Earthlink has a substantial
>amount of cash on hand to the tune of over $100 million. The price of the
>stock does not affect their revenue stream. A rough stock market won't
>affect their bottom line unless they tried another offering which is unlikely
>in the near future, considering the substantial amount of cash they have
>on-hand.
Without the stock value, their investment capital will dry up. New equipment
and services will be impossible, especially with the scare going on in
the market.
>I think you forgot to include evidence to support your allegations of MLM
>style marketing being practiced by Earthlink. The closest thing imaginable
>in Earthlinks history to MLM is "Refer a friend, get a free month." This
>hardly qualifies Earthlink as a pyramid scheme. Now you're drifting from
>wild baseless speculation into sheer fantasies.
Investment capital is sometimes used to pay high dividends to the previous
round of investors, encouraging futther investment: it's illegal, but
it's a common scam. In a high growth market such as Internet services,
it can continue for quite some time with a good sales department.
> First of all, the stock market has little to nothing to do with Earthlinks
>recurring revenue from subscriber fees, websites, and whatnot. This, and the
>cash on hand is what they operate out of. The low value of the stock this
>week has absolutely zero impact on Earthlink's revenue. If you were to
It's killed venture capital. And their revenue is not enough to pay
expenses: they rely on the investment monies to stay afloat, just
as a lot of other ISP's are doing right now in the extremely competitive
market.
>look at <http://sec.yahoo.com/e/l/e/elnk.html> . Second of all, the stock
>market as a whole took a pretty bad beating this week. AOL plunged 14
>5/16ths today. I suppose that means AOL is a pyramid scheme that's on the
>verge of collapse as well? First of all, one bad week on the stock exchange
Nah, AOL had already reached market saturation and is now dealing with it.
>is hardly going to send all of the thousands upon thousands of publically
>traded companies that took a beating into the poor house. But now we're
No, just the investment pyramid schemes that just bottomed out.
> Since this portion of the thread has now deviated significantly from
>anything having to do with Scientology, I'm going to end my participation in
>this portion of it, unless it has something to do with Scientology. If you'd
>like to discuss the marvels of the Stock exchange, or anything else in email,
>please feel free to contact me. I'd be more than happy to share what I do
>know.
Fair enough.
Nico Garcia
John C. Randolph <jcr.r...@this.phrase.idiom.com> wrote:
> dro...@lightlink.com may or may not have said:
>-> Most of my fears about Earthlink's security have been calmed in the last
>two
>-> years. One of those reasons is the hiring of Dan Farmer
>-> (http://www.earthlink.net/company/mgmt/farmer.html); I very much doubt
>that
>-> he would be part of a company that he suspected would become a tool for a
>-> criminal enterprise. And if he was naive at first, he shouldn't be after a
>-> year and a half (or however long he's been with the company).
>
>Well, Dan's rep as a security expert is well-known, but it does not follow
>that Dan's integrity sets the standard for the other Earthlink managers.
>Earthlink brought him in to fight the spammers *after* it was made very clear
>to Earthlink that they'd damned well better do something about spamming, or
>suffer the usenet death penalty.
And secure systems do not prevent root access from being exercised by
your own staff (such as Brian Wenger).
>AFAIC, Earthlink is owned and managed by members of a criminal nut-cult, it
>has been the launching pad for a number of attacks on this newsgroup, it only
>clamped down on spammers once it saw revenues threatened, and I wouldn't
>trust Sky Dayton any farther than I would trust Phil Lawlor or Sanford
>Wallace.
I'd trust Sky farther, but that's because he's smart enough to understand
enlightened self-interest.
>-> An Earthlink account is probably more secure than an account with almost
>any
>-> other ISP, even for critics.
>
>Nah, they're still running UNIX.
Don't get me started on DOS security problems....
James J. Lippard
Nico Garcia <ra...@shell1.tiac.net> wrote:
>In article <6sg5d7$kcc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <sne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>In article <xy9pvdg...@shell1.tiac.net>,
>
>>significant size was funded by venture capital. Perhaps you also aren't aware
>>that virtually none of them have yet to turn a profit? I suppose they're all
>>part of the same Grand Conspiracy?
>
Not all. (MindSpring is an exception.)
>small, tightly run ones are doing quite well, and the mid-level providers
>are making a killing.
[...]
>Investment capital is sometimes used to pay high dividends to the previous
>round of investors, encouraging futther investment: it's illegal, but
>it's a common scam. In a high growth market such as Internet services,
>it can continue for quite some time with a good sales department.
Most Internet stocks pay no dividends. (I can't think of any that do,
except for established large corporations like AT&T, MCI, and Sprint.)
--
Jim Lippard lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: B130 7BE1 18C1 AA4C 4D51 388F 6E6D 2C7A 36D3 CB4F
aaspa...@primenet.com
Rob Clark
>In article <6sf961$j8c$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> dro...@lightlink.com wrote:
>> Here's a question that I haven't seen anyone answer: Why _did_ the big-money
>> donors put money in Earthlink? Does Sky have an ability to put on the charm?
[big snip]
> As for why the big money donors invested, Earthlink is a dominant player in
>the ISP market. Earthlink, and Mindspring are the biggest independant ISPs
>out there. ISPs are much sought after property right now. Earthlink was a
>logical choice. If you look at their financials, the fact that Earthlink is
>still not in the black isn't such a bad thing. Look at their growth. It's
>quite obvious that if Earthlink decided to slow it's aggressive marketing
>practices, they'd be in the black instantly. I believe last quarter they
>were only $4.5 million in the red.
however, i would argue mindspring is still far the superior ISP, for those who
have it in their area. mindspring, somewhat like earthlink, uses PSInet for
connectivity in locations they have not yet placed their own POPs. mindspring
has also always been anti-spam, and always been a "good neighbor" in the
internet community. anyone who has ever spammed from mindspring has found
themselves on the street with their ass spinning quite quickly.
earthlink has now taken up the spam banner themselves, but still have a mixed
record at best on the issue, and seem generally clueless on the issue. they are
at least now, finally, trying. but i far more appreciate the ISP which never
*needed* to be LARTed into shape, over the one that had to be dragged kicking
and screaming away from its spam-habit.
i have heard horror stories about earthlink's tech support that would curl your
toes, and i have never heard anything but good reports from mindspring
customers. in fact, in over a year, i have NEVER ONCE heard a SINGLE busy
signal, ever. of course i am in one of their sparser regions, but from reading
the network service reports, it appears that mindspring takes busy signals
seriously, and the response to any chronic condition of this sort is to add more
lines.
i get the impression earthlink is far more interested in getting more customers
than in serving the ones they have. i would prefer not to be a sucker in this
way, but sadly it is "good business" to behave in such a manner as bill gates
and other would-be monopolists have shown us.
i am getting increasingly off-topic, however.
>Snefru
rob
sne...@my-dejanews.com
ra...@shell1.tiac.net (Nico Garcia) wrote:
> In article <6sflad$2f5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <sne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >posting of information culled from Dennis's PC Folder. Your
implications to
> >the contrary are uncalled for. I was correcting your ill informed
comments
> >regarding Brian Wenger, and his position at Earthlink. Additionally,
the
> >incident you now bring attention to wasn't even a part of the original
> >message. Why did you feel the need to insert it now?
>
> last name) to discredit the claim of Brian's violation of the cult's
> published policy of "no, we never use that secret material against you,
> even though it's been testified to by our ex-members in court repeatedly,
> nope, couldn't happen".
Silly, I didn't object to the portion regarding Brian Wenger's posting of
Dennis's PC info, because I had no problem with that portion of your post! I
merely corrected you on the portions of your post that were incorrect. I
*never* made any attempt to deny that Brian Wenger did any of this, nor
condone his actions in doing it. I merely chose not to comment on that
portion of the post, as I had no objection to it. You've chosen to latch
onto this fragment of your post that I had no reason to object to as a
justification for the rest of your post consisting of blatant misinformation.
>
> > The simple fact is: Brian Wenger was not Chief Sysadmin any more than Sky
> >was. Sky was the CEO. Since he was also above the sysadmins, does this make
> >him "Chief Sysadmin" as well? Brian Wenger was simply not a Chief Sysadmin.
> >Furthermore, your original allegation was that Brian Wenger *is* the chief
> >sysadmin "at last check". This is what I was correcting. Please do not
> >attempt to twist this into something else in order to justify your
> >misinformation.
>
> My last check was Earthlink's own staff at trade shows about two years ago.
> What *EXACTLY* was your source for knowledge of Brian's responsibilities
> at the time?
2 years ago, I still worked closely with him on a regular basis. Up until 11
months ago, we both still worked in the IT division, and saw each other on a
daily basis, and conversed often. I was exquisitely aware of his position,
and responsibilities. Now that I've established my qualifications, where are
yours? I can back up my assertions, how do you plan to back up your
fantasies?
>
> >Ooh! Do I get accused of being OSA next? I was giving you, and everyone
> >else the some actual information regarding Earthlink, and in this situation
> >Brian Wengers past, and current position(s) there. I was correcting your
>
> No, you were denying the veracity of my data.
That's because your data was incorrect, silly!
>
> >errors. Is this a problem for you? The issue was *NOT* Brian Wengers
> >membership in Scientology. The issue was Brian Wengers past, and current
> >positions within Earthlink. Please re-read your original message:
>
> The issue was whether Earthlink is a $cientology run company. Brian Wenger,
> Sky Dayton, and their former head of research Philip Gale were all
> $cientologists.
No, that wasn't the issue. You've changed your story about what you
"perceived" to be the issue several times now. First it was Wengers posting
of Dennis' PC material, now it's about you claiming that Earthlink is a
Scientology run company. Maybe you should re-read your posts, and attempt to
determine what exactly it is that you're thinking. As for Earthlink being a
Scientology run company, I've posted what I know on the issue. You can
choose to accept the information coming from someone who has actual real life
experience with the issue, or you can continue to fabricate information in an
effort to keep the rumor mill well fed. Fact, or Fiction..take your pick.
>
> Of course, Philip had apparently left the cult and died jumping out of
> an MIT window on L. Ron Hubbard's birthday....
Yes. I remember it well. I knew Phil Gale too. I worked with him. Why does
he suddenly have something to do with this thread? Was he just the next
straw^H^H^H^H^Hname you pulled out of a hat?
>
> >> It's very easy to say "oh, they're a big successful company, how
> >> can you say they're run by a cult?" It's harder to point to specific
> >> policies that bely such a state.
> >
> >I never once said, or implied either of these things. I described how
> >Earthlink was a big successful company, and also asserted that there was a
> >complete, and total dearth of evidence of cult involvement in Earthlink
> >affairs. These are two *ENTIRELY* seperate assertions that you have combined
> >together inappropriately. You are falsely attributing statements to me that
> >were not made, nor implied by me. If you, or anyone has any actual evidence
> >that Earthlink is being, or has been at any time controlled by the CoS,
> >please come forth with it. Enquiring minds want to know.
>
> And your description was an attempt to convey an impression of innocence
> that is questionable: certainly the early days of the company were
> run on Hubbard Tech, according to Earthlink's own staff of the time.
Yah, as you may recall me stating just about a week ago. I never denied
Earthlink used the LRH Tech in the beginning. What I've denied (although
tangential to where this silly thread has been dragged), is that there has
been *ANY* evidence that the CoS meddled in Earthlink's affairs, or ran
Earthlink behind the scenes. If you would like to question the CoS's
involvement, or lack thereof in Earthlink affairs, please put forth evidence
to back up your claims. If you cannot provide evidence to back up your
claims of "questionability", then you have no leg to stand on. Why do you
have such difficulty backing up your claims? Again, my qualifications
consist of having worked there from almost the very beginning, and for almost
3 years after that. I know all of the Earthlink employees that have been
mentioned here personally, with the sole exception of Jay Vaughn, Sky's
original partner. My information comes from experience. Where does yours
come from again?
>
> What it is right now requires new testimony from current staff, not
> your repeated assertion "I don't got no proof, they must not of done
> that, ha-yuk-ha-yuk!"
Ohh, so my information coming from my long term employment up until last
September, and my close personal friendships with a multitude of current
Earthlink employees, and the information obtained from them regarding current
Earthlink affairs is probably all just a clever OSA ruse? Earthlink must
have secretly converted back to LRH Tech in the past several months, right?
Furthermore the fact that no proof exists does not mean that a conspiracy
exists to hide the truth. Let me introduce you to a concept commonly called
Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation, all else being equal is probably
the correct one. Now, lets look..Hrm..we have "Earthlink is a vast
conspiracy being run, and operated by the CoS behind the scenes, and has
marvelously been able to conceal all evidence of such a partnership..." Or,
we have "No evidence exists, because there is no such partnership." You're
drifting further, and further away from reality, and rationale with each
passing post to this thread. I really think if you stopped to think about
what you were saying instead of just spewing invective trying to milk
anything you can for an opportunity to blast Earthlink, completely ignorant
to the idea that just *maybe* you don't have a clue what you're talking about
regarding Earthlink..then you'd realize that I'm entirely right here.
>
> >> Are they $cientology run? According to their own sales droids, no. In
> >> the early days they used Hubbard Tech, and somewhere along the line
> >> have discarded it. Do I believe the sales droids? Yes, with some
> >> uncertainty.
> >
> >What do sales-droids have to do with this? What the hell are you talking
> >about? Earthlink has since ceased the use of LRH Tech. The fact that a
sales
> >droid will *also* tell you this doesn't make it untrue. In answering your
> >question, "Are they $cientology run?" I would have to say no, they aren't.
>
> Wonderful. Your knowledge is based on using them as an ISP, employment,
> knowledge of the staff, or wishful thinking?
My knowledge of Earthlink is based on my experiences working there for nearly
3 years. You were gonna tell me what your "experience" was based on? On
second thought, don't. You're bound, and determined to stick to your
baseless fantasies, and you're totally uninterested in letting reality get in
the way.
dro...@lightlink.com
Did say. Of course, I don't PGP sign my messages.
[snip]
> AFAIC, Earthlink is owned and managed by members of a criminal nut-cult,
AFAIC... As Far As I Care? Whatever. Don't let reality get in the way of what
you prefer to believe. Works wonders for the Scientologists. <G>
it
> has been the launching pad for a number of attacks on this newsgroup,
"Vera Wallace" _was_ canned. Brian Wenger hasn't attacked this ng for some
time now. I can't think of any others.
The people who attacked this ng from EarthLink could have chosen any ISP. If
they all chose AOL, would you be blaming AOL for it? Do you _really_ think
EarthLink screens its prospective members beforehand to determine whether
they're going to be doing anything nefarious with their accounts? Or is this
just guilt by association?
it only
> clamped down on spammers once it saw revenues threatened,
"Enlightened self-interest". The sin in that is...?
and I wouldn't
> trust Sky Dayton any farther than I would trust Phil Lawlor or Sanford
> Wallace.
Your perogative.
Peace,
<> David
http://www.lightlink.com/drogers/
-------------
"People, who eat people, are the loneliest people in the world!"
烹arbara Streisand, slightly skewed
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Martin Hunt
goon...@usa.net (Alba Tross) wrote:
>To: "Chris Walker" <cybe...@earthlink.net> (by way of
>e-Support <sup...@earthlink.net>)
>From: Luther 1362 <sup...@earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Materials
>
>Dear Chris,
>
>Thanks for the mail.
>
>You will need to mail this particular individual explaining, that it
>is not possible for us to delete an already posted message.
>
>This is a simple fact of the way that newsgroups work.
>
>They obviously spend their time policing groups and should be well
>aware of this. The reason that Newsgroups exist, is for individuals
>to have a forum to discuss thier views and share thoughts and ideas
>that may otherwise be be drowned, destroyed or otherwise legally
>supressed by those with the loudest bark, the most lobbyists or the
>most powerful lawyers.
>
>Good luck.
>
>If you have any further needs, don't hesitate to visit:
>http://www.earthlink.net/assistance/support.html
>http://help.earthlink.net/
>
>Or email us here at:
>mailto:sup...@earthlink.net
If this is legit, it proves that one admin in this large company
(how many employees?) has a good sense of ethics. What it doesn't
prove is how reliable the Scientology staff members at the company
are:
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 96 17:07:14 PST
Message-Id: <960307010...@toad.com>
Subject: remailers, govmnts, and the Co$
From: <cwa...@jovanet.com>
To: <cyphe...@toad.com>
It's one thing that the government runs remailers and they're just really
not nice for doing that and all, but what about other
people/organizations?
I applied for a job at Earthlink in Los Angeles last year, around may or
june. they had been small ISP, but growing fast. they were established by
a 24(?) yr old wizz kid named Sky about july or so of 1994 and were
hiring. they had given me great service aand i was excited about getting
into 'the business'. I went for an interview and talked with the 3 VPs at
the time. I did not talk to sky, the owner. first guy tells me they are
running the biz based on the principles of the church of scientology.
humm.. hands me a huge book published by them. i read the inscription in
the front. "To Sky, happy birthday, love dad". this guy says he's in the
Co$. I talk to the next 2 guys. they have been hired from all over the
country, moved out here and they both tell me they are in the Co$ too.
all 3 VP and the "owner" are tied into the Co$. i turned down their offer
and got another ISP.
I thot back. the thing with anon.penet in finland and the Co$ had been a
couple months before Earthlink started into business. I have watched them
grow incccedibly fast with a huge advertising budget. Read a Wired
magazine or any other computer mag. they're advertising in it. they've
gone national. they're everywhere.
Does Earthlink exist as a reaction to the net controversy and the Co$? I
donno. Are they really owned by the Co$? I donno. Does the Co$ have
access to all the mail that comes across their servers? i donno. Am I
gonna get sued because of this note? I donno.
are you listening?
Conrad Walton
http://www.industrial-artworks.com/
-------------
INDUSTRIAL ARTWORKS | POB 2815, El Segundo, CA 90245 | 1-310-640-3365
--
Have you ever brought your group into disrepute?
***
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 95 02:02:20 PST
From: "Larry C. Gentry" <gen...@earthlink.net>
Message-Id: <23349....@earthlink.net>
X-Minuet-Version: Minuet1.0_Beta_17A
X-POPMail-Charset: English
To: tn...@netcom.com
Subject: Re: TNX: Cool Sites
Sender: owner...@netcom.com
On Thu, 9 Mar 1995 15:08:07 -0500,
VTS...@aol.com <VTS...@aol.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
>At this point, I think the simplest thing to do to access The Net, as far as
>a WEB Browser is concerned, is to get online with Prodigy. Also, they will be
>changing thier e-mail rate structure at the end of this month and enabling
>picture and sound file capabilities for those members with properly equipped
>machines (like Mine). Yes, I believe they do have full Mac support!
(This is technical, and it's even a commercial, but I define my terms:>)
Wayne,
Of course I must disagree on this one :-). I'm the Technical Services
Manager for a service provider. But this time I'm not just carrying my own
placard (sign). In two or three weeks, EarthLink Network (Scn-owned
service provider) is GOING NATIONAL! (Hope this wasn't a secret :-(
Oh, well;->)
We will have an 800 number so you can connect from anywhere in the USA, and
the rumor is we will be able to *beat* any current 800# pricing.
We sell Internet-in-a-Box now as part of the setup package, plus there are
some other goodies I can't mention yet. IBOX virtually installs and runs
with no further attention, and includes every piece of Net software you
need, plus you can choose whatever software you want from all the programs
available, because you are connected directly to the Net.
We have Scientologists on every major post and nearly all others. We *are*
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
generally recognized as one of the highest quality service providers in
Southern California. Of course, we have our own user hats, plus online and
telephone tech support to make sure you get up and running immediately, and
stay that way.
Not too mention you get a FREE Web page of your own with your account (that
sits on our server and is always accessible whether you are online or
not). If you want to create your own large Web site, you can for about $25
a month.
I have an idea, for instance, of creating a Scn artist's Web site. It
could have not only creative writings, but visual arts, and yes, even music
and videos. If we all had accounts at EarthLink, we could CSW to combine
the free pages into a Web site, with everyone having space for their
works, at no additional cost. (We could also do this elsewhere).
As for supporting machines, what would you like to use? A PC running DOS
or Windows, or a Mac?. Or maybe a Sun running UNIX? No problem. How fast
do you want to run? 28,800 bps, or *1,000,000* bps? It's up to you. Do
you want to put your whole company of 250 people on the net with one
connection? Fine.
Sorry for the commercial guys -- but it's for your own good :-)
:->larry
DEFINITIONS:
[snipped definitions of bps, browsers, BTW, FTP, Gopher,
online services, service providers, SUN, UNIX, Web, and Web site,
but I'll leave this one in:]
* CSW = Completed Staff Work (see definition in Modern Management
Technology Defined, by L Ron Hubbard)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Larry C. Gentry * WRITER * gen...@earthlink.net 818.545.7321
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Art derives a considerable part of its beneficial exercise from
flying in the face of presumption." -- Henry James
***
Message-Id: <m0s2Jyd...@moon.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 95 07:46 PDT
X-Sender: gen...@earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tn...@netcom.com
From: gen...@earthlink.net (Larry Gentry)
Subject: Re: TNX-Censorship
Sender: owner...@netcom.com
>I have written Steve Porter privately but publically want to go on record to
>say that I hope undue censorship doesn't creep into TNX.
Since I prompted this thread, then I want to end it.
(JUST KIDDING, REALLY :-)))
I really do agree on the censorship thing. I had to laugh at the TA, and
myself for ending up in the position of censor (What!!) It definitely isnt'
my beingness (as you'll see if you ever read my screenplays - or if you read
my movie list). I've never been accused of being politically correct, *or*
sweetness and light -- just ask my wife :-)
I also agree that if anyone, such as myself, has a complaint, it should be
directed to the moderator. I stand corrected on that.
In replying to Rachel privately, I realized what prompted my post voting to
end the thread. I felt it was a KSW point. I probably jumped the gun
somewhat, but if there was a chance the speculation about this guy was true,
I really did feel that such a thread was out of place on TNX. Without that
consideration, who cares? But once it was out there, the only thing to do
was get the data, which I didn't see happening.
I've also ended up in the middle of the whole Internet "censorship" issue on
my post at work, which may have had some effect. I am the DTS for EarthLink
Network, the Scn-owned service provider in Los Angeles, and I have to deal
with the complaints that come in about our subscribers who post
advertisements (known affectionately as "spam") or otherwise out-Netiquette
messages publicly, particularly to the Usenet newsgroups.
(for my own chapter on Netiquette, you can browse to
http://www.earthlink.net/total_access/ and click on Introduction to the
Internet. Actually, I wrote almost everything on our new Total Access site
:-) Go see and tell me what you think.)
Censorship is an extremely hot issue out there where the bank can literally
run unchecked except for a sort of Wild West justice. The only way it works
is that enough people decide they've had enough from somebody, so they
overwhelm his email box with nasty replies ("flames") and complain loudly to
the system manager where he connects to the net.
I am left in the position of judge and jury on these guys -- even cancelling
their account as a last resort.
That type of thing is what is prompting extremist (usually non-Interneters)
legislators to try to pass laws to censor and control electronic comm. You
may not know that in Canada the police are now busting into private homes
and confiscating the computer equipment of people who have pornographic
material on their hard drive that was obtained via phone lines. People are
going to jail over this. That's one government's idea of censoring the
Net. It's rather scary actually. And that's Canada!
In fact, I'd be interested in getting some viewpoints on this -- where is
censorship justified, if ever?
Try dealing with this one -- a Scientologist posts publicly the real name
and phone number of a highly vocal anti-Scientologist who has chosen to
remain anonymous. On the Net, privacy is considered sacrosanct, and
"outing" someone is an extreme violation of Netiquette, resulting in
numerous flames and demands that the Scientologist's account be cancelled.
You are a service provider, bound by principle to enforce the agreements.
Yet.....
It's sometimes a rickety fence I find myself trying to balance upon :-)
:>larry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Larry Gentry *WRITER* gen...@earthlink.net 818.545.7321
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<grin> "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog or cat are not
the better for it." --Abraham Lincoln
***
Message-Id: <m0s30wX...@moon.earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 95 05:39 PDT
X-Sender: gen...@earthlink.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tn...@netcom.com
From: gen...@earthlink.net (Larry Gentry)
Subject: Re: TNX Org Boarding
Sender: owner...@netcom.com
> > patron. The used car purchasing would have to be sent to your Div IV
> > tech area, where the car is inspected and prepped for sale. But the
> > purchase seems best to fit in Dept 8, otherwise it seems to put too
> > much emphasis on the used car purchase, which is not the VFP.
>
> > Dan Sigal
>
>Clearly the detail of buying the car is a Treasury function, but there is a
>post for the person who finds the cars to buy. I didn't see this as a Div III
>function (Energy, Adjustment, Body ["provides services and supplies necessary
>to maintain the organisation"]).
>
>Then again, I suppose a car to be sold *is* an asset...
>
The car is an asset, but in accounting (and I think production) terms it is
inventory. This is like buying books and reselling them, other than the
fact you are repairing the cars. It sort of crosses into manufacturing at
that point.
I don't know if Bridge's org board has a "buyer" post, since they are a
publisher. Might be something to check.
In any case, it's a technical (broad definition) matter, this buying of
cars. It requires the technical expertise of evaluating the condition of
automobiles at least, and possibly knowledge of the market (unless someone
else provides the list of acceptable models to purchase), which would place
the post in Div 4, and I would see it in Dept 10, assuming refurbishing is
in Dept 11 (don't know).
Basically, the staff member is doing what we all do -- PO for the things we
need in our area. If Tech Services needs cars in order to deliver it's
product, then it POs for them. Every staff member does his own POs, though
he may not place the order.
Purchasing is the result of a purchase order approved in FP. The PO is
funded by Div 3. In a secular company, who actually makes the purchase
(Disbursements or the originator) depends, I think.
In our company (EarthLink - Internet service provider), the technical people
do the physical ordering of equipment, software, etc, because of the
complexity and the specialized knowledge involved.
I would imagine that the buyer would usually deliver the check to the seller
of the car, assuming he physically goes and gets the car, but this may be a
type of car purchasing I'm not familiar with.
There's my .02 on it.
:>larry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Larry Gentry *WRITER* gen...@earthlink.net 818.545.7321
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<grin> "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog or cat are not
the better for it." --Abraham Lincoln
***
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.invest.stocks
Path: news.islandnet.com!frii.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!worldnet.att.net!ix.netcom.com!tomklem
From: tom...@netcom.com (Tom Klemesrud)
Subject: Re: EarthLink going public this month
Message-ID: <tomklemE...@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <rnewman-1201...@mfd-dial2-27.cybercom.net> <tomklemE...@netcom.com> <bill-ya02408000R...@sc1.scconsult.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 21:33:05 GMT
Lines: 102
Sender: tom...@netcom3.netcom.com
Xref: news.islandnet.com alt.religion.scientology:250321 misc.invest.stocks:160695
Bill Stewart-Cole (bi...@scconsult.com) wrote:
: In article <tomklemE...@netcom.com>, tom...@netcom.com (Tom
: Klemesrud) wrote:
: > I need to see the SEC filing.
: That place to find it is http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/srch-edgar?earthlink
: That yields a list of about a dozen filings. They paint an interesting tale
: of multiple planned IPO's and cancellations, misfiled forms, and shattered
: plans.
: >Is there an 80% immediate dilution?
: Not quite. It appears that the offering constitutes 21% of the total
: post-offering outstanding shares, but the outstanding shares will include a
: large number of shares (almost as much as the 2 million being offered)
: which can come from conversions of debt to equity by outside parties (such
: as PSI and UUNet) and by current qand former employees. If I am reading the
: latest registration correctly, 'insiders' will hold a bit under 60% of the
: company after the offering, assuming the offering goes smoothly and the
: convertibles are converted, which is likely at the offering price.
: I've got to say thaat totally apart from their putative CoS connections
: (which grow more tenuous all the time as ownership is diluted) EarthLink is
: not a company I'd put a dime into. They are still a money-losing entity and
: their service is at the mercy of PSI and UUNet, neither one of which is
: sure to always see the relationship with EarthLink as beneficial. Either
: could reassess the deal and see themselves in the position of selling a
: competitor services at a preferred price, and exercise their option to show
: EarthLink the door. The 'Risk Factors' section of the filing might as well
: say something like "The sun might rise tromorrow, adversly affecting our
: 24-hour darkness service which we resell under contract from God." It says
: *almost* as scary things already. The business model seems badly flawed to
: me, and I can't imagine how they think their whole operation is worth the
: $100,000,000+ the IPO implies.
Thank you for the info. From a recent SEC filing, the stock will
come out at around $15.00 per share: "...This represents an immediate
increase in the net tangible book value of $2.88 per share to existing
stockholders, and an immediated dilution of $11.94 per share to new
investors purchasing shares of Common Stock in this offering..."
I'm interest in playing this stock--but it'd be on the short-sell
side. (Perhaps I'll Sell Short at $15 and buy back at $4.00... $5.00 to
be safe).
Sky D. Dayton's 1,500,000 shares purchased at "the weighted average
per share purchase pric[e]" of $.0006 per share: Sky's $900 investment
will become $22,500,000 at $15 dollars per share. Hey, nobody said that
Scientologists don't have a way with money.
Fellow Scientologist founder, and IAS donator, Reed E. Slatkin:
942,157 shares @ $.0.84/share, turns a $791,412 investment into
$14,132,355.
Fellow Scientologist founder, and IAS Donator, Kevin M. O'Donnell:
942,152 shares @ $.084/share, turns a $791,408 investment into
$14,132,280.
What is interesting from the first offering, and this offering is
what changed: Warren Musser of Safeguard Scientific [NYSE:SFE] has
apparently dropped out of the deal. (We still don't know if the is the
same Musser that was a debtor to the Hon. Ron Whyte family).
A new interest has come into the deal:
Quantum Industrial Partners LDC
c/o Curacao Corporation Company N.V.
Kaya Flamboyan 9
Willemstad, Curacao
Netherlands Antilles
(Who's this? Is this where the "Freewinds" is moored?)
They have 673,063 "shares beneficially owned prior to and after
the offering."
And, the law firm of Michael Levin--Hon. Ron Whyte's former law clerk,
with personal knowledge of RTC v Netcom--Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich &
Rosati, of Palo Alto, CA; is not listed in the filing this time.
This law firm had considered doing pro bono defense work for Erlich,
but declined after finding a "conflict of Interest." Wilson, Sonsini
represented Earthlink Network in its first SEC offering.
What's funny is Earthlink Network, Inc. (NASQ:ELNK) has the audacity to
come out at a price _higher_ than Netcom On-line Communications
(NASQ:NETC)--a company that the Scientology cult sued for copyright
infringement, because they were two levels upstream from dissident
Scientology Minister Dennis Erlich <dennis....@support.com>.
But, by suing Netcom of San Jose, CA, they were also able to get the case
into the sympathetic--to the cult--court of his Hon. Ron Whyte; Federal
District Judge of San Jose, CA; though, Scientology has since secretly
settled with Netcom, leaving the venue improper--as argued by Morrison
& Forester for Erlich in a recent hearing.
Tom Klemesrud SP6
KoX
***
From: smok...@ix.netcom.com (Neal Hamel)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Scientology plays race card - Earthlink & CCHR PT II
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 04:21:46 GMT
Organization: Serious Cybernetics Corporation
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <32ffed5...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pas-ca8-14.ix.netcom.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Feb 10 10:20:51 PM CST 1997
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/32.339
Xref: news.islandnet.com alt.religion.scientology:255693
In a previous post on 2/6/97 with nearly the same header I posted the
following:
quote
-A couple of weeks ago a colleague of mine at work mentioned that he/she
-changed his/her ISP to Earthlink. I mentioned Earthlink's scientology
-ownership. My colleague was surprised, but I assured my colleague that
-there was no real evidence that Earthlink was using their services to
-recruit for scientology. But I warned that it was possible.
-My colleague lives in a zip-code that is predominately African-American.
-My colleague has _never_ had any connection with scientology nor has
-he/she ever been on any of their mailing lists.
-Yesterday my colleague received a CCHR mailing aimed at African-Americans.
-In it was a letter from and a CCHR booklet entitled "Psychiatry's
-Betrayal" across the top and in *big* red letters down the side is
-written, "CREATING RACISM".
endquote
I was not sure when I posted the above information that this person had
been targeted because of their Earthlink subscription. Several people
also commented on this.
New facts. My colleague is good friends with their mailman. Such a piece
of mail in that neighborhood is unusual because it looked like something
else. So unusual in fact that my colleague and the mailman discussed it
the next day. The mailman had remembered that mail and was curious about
it. He stated to my colleague that no one else on his *entire* route was
sent that envelope from CCHR.
I feel this is pretty darn close to a positive fact that Earthlink has at
least a deal with the scienos to provide information about a certain type
of subscriber. To wit: Internet subscribers in this person's neighborhood
(south-central Los Angeles) are few and far between. It is entirely
probable that the scienos are looking to influence the more affluent
blacks.
-Neal H.
Sorry for the over-long quote, but there's some misconceptions
being spread about Earthlink here, some attempt to white-wash their
cult management. Anyone have that post from the chap that worked
for them for smoe time, and had to leave because of all the Hubbard
Tek [tm] being applied at work?
I think Earthlink is still in the stage that totally fun company
in Clearwater was in until recently; too much Scientology influence.
The company was called "our internet site" by Marie Gale, OT 7 and
an executive at CCHR; by "our" she meant Scientology's. It was founded
by a Scientologist, Sky Dayton. It has Scientologists on staff, and
Scientology investors. There are almost *no* critical webpages on
Earthlink, despite their size. I would not hesitate in calling
Earthlink a Scientology company. Maybe they aren't a WISE company,
but they're still run by Scientologists and profitting Scientology.
THose enormous profits for the original Scientology investors,
where does that cash go? To IAS donations? I urge critics to not
support this company; I've questioned Sky's ethics before, and all
he did was diss me in a newspaper article, dismissing my questions
about the cult connection at his company. Does Earthlink still have
the infamous "three strikes you're out" UCE/UBE policy? There's
only one chance for spammers: spam, and you're gone. Support this
company, and you support Scientology. Invest in it, and you invest
in Scientology. Get an account with them, and always wonder about
just how secure your email really is. Mr. walker sounds very decent,
but what if Brian Wanker is overseeing your account? And how much
would you trust Mr. Walton's three VPs? How about Mr. Gentry? Would
you trust *him* reading your email? Frankly, Earthlink does not have
the ethics to be trusted, and I would never have an account with
them until they've come clean on the cult connection. I'd like to
see a clear statement from Sky about Scientology's behaviour on
the net. I'm certain Mr. Walker would not approve, but I'd like to
hear this from Sky, instead of a sneering D/A attack and a change
the topic no-answer, followed by TR-lie and an acceptible truth,
which is all I've gotten from him to date. His evasive title-
changing at the company reminds me of his mentor's efforts along
these lines, and doesn't inspire confidence in the man or his
company, Scientology's company.
--
Cogito, ergo sum.
"Scientology is evil to the core." - Jesse Prince, former core
Scientologist.
http://www.islandnet.com/~martinh/prince/prince.htm
Nico Kadel-Garcia
>> My last check was Earthlink's own staff at trade shows about two years ago.
>> What *EXACTLY* was your source for knowledge of Brian's responsibilities
>> at the time?
>
>2 years ago, I still worked closely with him on a regular basis. Up until 11
>months ago, we both still worked in the IT division, and saw each other on a
>daily basis, and conversed often. I was exquisitely aware of his position,
>and responsibilities. Now that I've established my qualifications, where are
>yours? I can back up my assertions, how do you plan to back up your
>fantasies?
Hmm. The difficulty of your using aliases: I was not aware of your
former position at earthlink, only that you posted from there.
I've just changed my account to ra...@world.std.com: TIAC was being
amazingly braindead about the news.admin.net-abuse mail bombing.
>> The issue was whether Earthlink is a $cientology run company. Brian Wenger,>> Sky Dayton, and their former head of research Philip Gale were all
>> $cientologists.
>
>No, that wasn't the issue. You've changed your story about what you
>"perceived" to be the issue several times now. First it was Wengers posting
No, I've stuck to my guns on it. I'm not going to let a mis-spelling
of Brian's name confuse the issue of whether he and the rest of his cult
have a big say, which they pass along to $cientology.
>of Dennis' PC material, now it's about you claiming that Earthlink is a
>Scientology run company. Maybe you should re-read your posts, and attempt to
>determine what exactly it is that you're thinking. As for Earthlink being a
Maybe you should. I've described the *HISTORY*. You've been claiming
"you know nuthin', and besides they're too successful to be a cult
business".
Neither is correct.
>Scientology run company, I've posted what I know on the issue. You can
>choose to accept the information coming from someone who has actual real life
>experience with the issue, or you can continue to fabricate information in an
>effort to keep the rumor mill well fed. Fact, or Fiction..take your pick.
Or I can take your information with the block of salt it deserves of
an active or former employee of a company run by $cientologists in its
early history. Doesn't mean you fib, but it calls your opinions about
earthlink into a question. This is especially true since the cult trains
people to lie, and to skirt the truth in the face of an investigation of
any kind.
>> Of course, Philip had apparently left the cult and died jumping out of
>> an MIT window on L. Ron Hubbard's birthday....
>
>Yes. I remember it well. I knew Phil Gale too. I worked with him. Why does
>he suddenly have something to do with this thread? Was he just the next
>straw^H^H^H^H^Hname you pulled out of a hat?
Another early high level Earthlink employee with strong $cientology ties.
Completely relevant to the conversation.
>> And your description was an attempt to convey an impression of innocence
>> that is questionable: certainly the early days of the company were
>> run on Hubbard Tech, according to Earthlink's own staff of the time.
>
>Yah, as you may recall me stating just about a week ago. I never denied
>Earthlink used the LRH Tech in the beginning. What I've denied (although
>tangential to where this silly thread has been dragged), is that there has
>been *ANY* evidence that the CoS meddled in Earthlink's affairs, or ran
>Earthlink behind the scenes. If you would like to question the CoS's
And you attended how many of the early board meetings? Or the private
skittles and beer discussions that many companies have among their
upper level staff to address issues before their board meetings?
Lack of proof is not itself proof. It's *good*, but there seems to be
a lack of *positive* proof. The cult has pulled so many illegal fast
ones that I'd be extremely wary of this situation. It only takes one
bureaucrat with root access to nab the dump tapes with your PGP keys,
for example, or one terminal monitor to grab your PGP signature.
>> What it is right now requires new testimony from current staff, not
>> your repeated assertion "I don't got no proof, they must not of done
>> that, ha-yuk-ha-yuk!"
>
>Ohh, so my information coming from my long term employment up until last
>September, and my close personal friendships with a multitude of current
>Earthlink employees, and the information obtained from them regarding current
>Earthlink affairs is probably all just a clever OSA ruse? Earthlink must
Now, this is *GOOD*. I didn't know where your data was coming from.
That is much better than both my previous suspicions (based on limited
observations and reports from outside), and even your previous posts
(since you didn't mention that you actually worked there in what I saw).
>Furthermore the fact that no proof exists does not mean that a conspiracy
>exists to hide the truth. Let me introduce you to a concept commonly called
True. And this is why I'm curious to hear your personal experience.
What *WAS* your job title there?
>Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation, all else being equal is probably
>the correct one. Now, lets look..Hrm..we have "Earthlink is a vast
>conspiracy being run, and operated by the CoS behind the scenes, and has
>marvelously been able to conceal all evidence of such a partnership..." Or,
>we have "No evidence exists, because there is no such partnership." You're
How about "snefru's evidence of no involvement is questionable due to
a long history of lying by the cult"? It's *evidence*: but I actually
trust the reports from random staffers more for evidence of the general
management style of the place.
>My knowledge of Earthlink is based on my experiences working there for nearly
>3 years. You were gonna tell me what your "experience" was based on? On
>second thought, don't. You're bound, and determined to stick to your
>baseless fantasies, and you're totally uninterested in letting reality get in
>the way.
Not at all. I simply refuse to let assertion from someone whom I haven't
developed a strong trust in sway me without stronger evidence. I'll let
them make me question the beliefs, of course.
--
Nico Kadel-Garcia
ra...@world.std.com
tall...@storm.ca
>In article <6sflad$2f5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <sne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>>posting of information culled from Dennis's PC Folder. Your implications to
>>the contrary are uncalled for. I was correcting your ill informed comments
>>regarding Brian Wenger, and his position at Earthlink. Additionally, the
>>incident you now bring attention to wasn't even a part of the original
>>message. Why did you feel the need to insert it now?
>
>last name) to discredit the claim of Brian's violation of the cult's
>published policy of "no, we never use that secret material against you,
>even though it's been testified to by our ex-members in court repeatedly,
>nope, couldn't happen".
Actually. from my reading of his original post, he merely corrected you on the
name itself (although I guess 'Wanger' could have been a tongue in cheek
deliberate misspelling of our buddy Brian's last name), as well as his
position at Earthlink. I must have missed the part where he used this to
in any way discredit the claim that Wenger posted confidential PC material
from Dennis' forward. Perhaps you'd like to paste that into this thread, for
convenience sake?
>> The simple fact is: Brian Wenger was not Chief Sysadmin any more than Sky
>>was. Sky was the CEO. Since he was also above the sysadmins, does this make
>>him "Chief Sysadmin" as well? Brian Wenger was simply not a Chief Sysadmin.
>>Furthermore, your original allegation was that Brian Wenger *is* the chief
>>sysadmin "at last check". This is what I was correcting. Please do not
>>attempt to twist this into something else in order to justify your
>>misinformation.
>
>My last check was Earthlink's own staff at trade shows about two years ago.
>What *EXACTLY* was your source for knowledge of Brian's responsibilities
>at the time?
See below.
>
>>Ooh! Do I get accused of being OSA next? I was giving you, and everyone
>>else the some actual information regarding Earthlink, and in this situation
>>Brian Wengers past, and current position(s) there. I was correcting your
>
>No, you were denying the veracity of my data.
Yes, which was - and is - apparently incorrect. Brian Wenger was not chief
sysadmin.
>The issue was whether Earthlink is a $cientology run company. Brian Wenger,
>Sky Dayton, and their former head of research Philip Gale were all
>$cientologists.
Right. This does not establish in any way that Earthlink is a 'scientology-run
company', and, given the points made earlier in this thread by someone who
would know, having worked there for nearly three years, it would seen that it
is not. It was a company that was run by LRH tech, but is no longer, and has
some scientologists in senior positions, but by no means an all-scientologist
workforce.
>Of course, Philip had apparently left the cult and died jumping out of
>an MIT window on L. Ron Hubbard's birthday....
And this has exactly *what* to do with this thread?
>And your description was an attempt to convey an impression of innocence
>that is questionable: certainly the early days of the company were
>run on Hubbard Tech, according to Earthlink's own staff of the time.
Right, which would include the guy you're currently arguing with, who worked
at Earthlink at the time. Being run by Hubbard-tech does not mean that a
company is run by the Church of Scientology <tm>, and according to all
available sources - including someone with contacts within the company itself
- it is no longer even run by LRH tech. Of what, then, is ELNK 'guilty'?
>What it is right now requires new testimony from current staff, not
>your repeated assertion "I don't got no proof, they must not of done
>that, ha-yuk-ha-yuk!"
Errr ... I think you're *really* better read this thread more carefully ...
>>What do sales-droids have to do with this? What the hell are you talking
>>about? Earthlink has since ceased the use of LRH Tech. The fact that a sales
>>droid will *also* tell you this doesn't make it untrue. In answering your
>>question, "Are they $cientology run?" I would have to say no, they aren't.
>
>Wonderful. Your knowledge is based on using them as an ISP, employment,
>knowledge of the staff, or wishful thinking?
.. because if you did, you wouldn't make statements like that, that suggest
you are gravely unaware of the context of the discussion :)
Hint - the person with whom you are arguing made a lengthy post several days
ago in which he explained *exactly* on what his knowledge is based. You might
read it, and save us all a lot of time and pointless bickering. It wouldn't
mean you have to take his word on Earthlink's status as a scn-run company, but
it would save you asking questions that have been thoroughly answered before
you started posting to this thread.
And, btw, neither you nor anyone else has provided any evidence that Earthlink
- the company, not one of its more hamfisted OSA public toady employees, not
one of its subscribres - has been behind even one attack on a.r.s. or scn
critics. That would. to my mind, be more useful in making your point than your
current strategy of accusing those who disagree with you of harbouring agendas
and making statements that they don't have and didn't say.
K
tall...@storm.ca
<snip>
>>No, that wasn't the issue. You've changed your story about what you
>>"perceived" to be the issue several times now. First it was Wengers posting
>
>No, I've stuck to my guns on it. I'm not going to let a mis-spelling
>of Brian's name confuse the issue of whether he and the rest of his cult
>have a big say, which they pass along to $cientology.
>
>>of Dennis' PC material, now it's about you claiming that Earthlink is a
>>Scientology run company. Maybe you should re-read your posts, and attempt to
>>determine what exactly it is that you're thinking. As for Earthlink being a
>
>Maybe you should. I've described the *HISTORY*. You've been claiming
>"you know nuthin', and besides they're too successful to be a cult
>business".
>
>Neither is correct.
Okay. Other than the fact that ELNK was started by a scientologist, was
originally run by Hubbard tech and employed the notorious Brian Wenger, what
do you 'know' that would *prove* that the CoS has an influence over the day
to day operations of the company?
I'm not talking scientology beliefs, or Hubbard tech, or giving big cash
donations to the IAS (although oddly, Sky Dayton's name doesn't show up on any
of the major donor lists - perhaps one of our IAS archivists could tell us
exactly what his status is?). I'm talking about the cult actively controlling
what goes on at ELNK, and so far, I've not seen evidence that it is.
>>Scientology run company, I've posted what I know on the issue. You can
>>choose to accept the information coming from someone who has actual real life
>>experience with the issue, or you can continue to fabricate information in an
>>effort to keep the rumor mill well fed. Fact, or Fiction..take your pick.
>
>Or I can take your information with the block of salt it deserves of
>an active or former employee of a company run by $cientologists in its
>early history. Doesn't mean you fib, but it calls your opinions about
>earthlink into a question. This is especially true since the cult trains
>people to lie, and to skirt the truth in the face of an investigation of
>any kind.
Ugh. So because someone once worked at ELNK,. they can't be trusted, because
the religious orientation of their former employers is to train people to lie?
Are you accusing Snefru of being a scientologist, a liar, both or neither? In
any case, it's not a great way to begin an actual dialogue with someone who
has information on something you profess to be interested in learning more.
Just my two cents.
>>> Of course, Philip had apparently left the cult and died jumping out of
>>> an MIT window on L. Ron Hubbard's birthday....
>>
>>Yes. I remember it well. I knew Phil Gale too. I worked with him. Why does
>>he suddenly have something to do with this thread? Was he just the next
>>straw^H^H^H^H^Hname you pulled out of a hat?
>
>Another early high level Earthlink employee with strong $cientology ties.
>Completely relevant to the conversation.
Why? Was Phil Gale behind attacks on a.r.s. too? Seems to me that at the time
he died, he had left ELNK. Please don't use the guy's death as a straw to prop
up your rapidly weakening argument here. He doesn't deserve that. Nobody does.
The dead should get some privileges, after all :)
I just want to be clear on *my* position in this thread: I'm not arguing that
scientologists didn't start ELNK, or that there are not several scientologists
within the current senior ranks of the company. I'm saying that so far, I've
seen no evidence that ELNK-the-company has done anything untoward that could
be explained by the improper influence of the CoS over day to day operations.
I'm still waiting.
>
>Lack of proof is not itself proof. It's *good*, but there seems to be
>a lack of *positive* proof. The cult has pulled so many illegal fast
>ones that I'd be extremely wary of this situation. It only takes one
>bureaucrat with root access to nab the dump tapes with your PGP keys,
>for example, or one terminal monitor to grab your PGP signature.
But if they did, and they got caught - which they *would*, make no mistake;
this is the nineties, this is the internet, and when it comes to the CoS, on
a.r.s., the whole world is watching - it would mean a massive shitstorm of bad
public relations the likes of which Sky Dayton can only dream. He's not a
stupid man.
>
>>Furthermore the fact that no proof exists does not mean that a conspiracy
>>exists to hide the truth. Let me introduce you to a concept commonly called
>
>True. And this is why I'm curious to hear your personal experience.
>What *WAS* your job title there?
He explained it all, in detail, in a previous post. Perhaps you could save
some time, and go back and read it?
>>Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation, all else being equal is probably
>>the correct one. Now, lets look..Hrm..we have "Earthlink is a vast
>>conspiracy being run, and operated by the CoS behind the scenes, and has
>>marvelously been able to conceal all evidence of such a partnership..." Or,
>>we have "No evidence exists, because there is no such partnership." You're
>
>How about "snefru's evidence of no involvement is questionable due to
>a long history of lying by the cult"? It's *evidence*: but I actually
>trust the reports from random staffers more for evidence of the general
>management style of the place.
So he's not a 'random staffer'? What, then, is he? Or are you saying that he's
a scientologist? I'm confused why 'a long history of lying by the cult' has
anything to do with Snefru's evidence, one way or another. Unless you're
accusing him of being 'the cult' - which you aren't, are you? If so, you might
really want to reread that original post of his ...
>>My knowledge of Earthlink is based on my experiences working there for nearly
>>3 years. You were gonna tell me what your "experience" was based on? On
>>second thought, don't. You're bound, and determined to stick to your
>>baseless fantasies, and you're totally uninterested in letting reality get in
>>the way.
>
>Not at all. I simply refuse to let assertion from someone whom I haven't
>developed a strong trust in sway me without stronger evidence. I'll let
>them make me question the beliefs, of course.
>
You seem to have a funny definition of evidence. Perhaps you'd like to explain
exactly what, in your mind, would constitute *evidence* that ELNK is not run
by the cult?
K
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> Okay. Other than the fact that ELNK was started by a scientologist, was
> originally run by Hubbard tech and employed the notorious Brian Wenger, what
> do you 'know' that would *prove* that the CoS has an influence over the day
> to day operations of the company?
No, I don't know that. But it's sure as hell a start, to take a look
at their finances and current staff and policies. Their fiscal craziness
since then has been a *FASCINATING* adventure in filming "The Producers".
Promise the moon, have a great time, build-build-build, and wait
to run out of new suckers to exploit.
> I'm not talking scientology beliefs, or Hubbard tech, or giving big cash
> donations to the IAS (although oddly, Sky Dayton's name doesn't show up on any
> of the major donor lists - perhaps one of our IAS archivists could tell us
> exactly what his status is?). I'm talking about the cult actively controlling
> what goes on at ELNK, and so far, I've not seen evidence that it is.
Good points. I'm very curious about why we don't see Sky Dayton's
or Brian Wenger's faces on $cientology publications anymore. Protecting
their own member's companies from the repercussions of being publicly
discussed?
> >Or I can take your information with the block of salt it deserves of
> >an active or former employee of a company run by $cientologists in its
> >early history. Doesn't mean you fib, but it calls your opinions about
> >earthlink into a question. This is especially true since the cult trains
> >people to lie, and to skirt the truth in the face of an investigation of
> >any kind.
>
> Ugh. So because someone once worked at ELNK,. they can't be trusted, because
> the religious orientation of their former employers is to train people to lie?
> Are you accusing Snefru of being a scientologist, a liar, both or neither? In
> any case, it's not a great way to begin an actual dialogue with someone who
> has information on something you profess to be interested in learning more.
> Just my two cents.
Point. That's why I've restrained myself (Really! Honest! I did!)
But simply saying "they're a big successful company" in response to questions
abour their $cientology relationships, or saying "I know better" without
being open about exactly how one knows better is leaving too much to
the imagination.
> Why? Was Phil Gale behind attacks on a.r.s. too? Seems to me that at the time
> he died, he had left ELNK. Please don't use the guy's death as a straw to prop
> up your rapidly weakening argument here. He doesn't deserve that. Nobody does.
> The dead should get some privileges, after all :)
The guy was an early Earthlink employee, and also a third generation
$cientologist. It indicates the early policies of Earthlink.
Being dead does not mean you get to erase your history.
> I just want to be clear on *my* position in this thread: I'm not
> arguing that scientologists didn't start ELNK, or that there are not
> several scientologists within the current senior ranks of the
> company. I'm saying that so far, I've seen no evidence that
> ELNK-the-company has done anything untoward that could be explained
> by the improper influence of the CoS over day to day operations.
> Fair enough.
So far, only the pyramid scheme style funding of the company, and so
far that's quite common among ISP's. Their emphasis on growth over
quality is, IMHO, common to Hubbard Tech. But it's far, far
from conclusive.
Hey, snerfu supposedly worked there recently? Are the $cientologists,
such as Sky Dayton and Brian Wenger, still in positions of day to day
power? Or have they been leveraged into corner offices where they
don't bother anyone?
> But if they did, and they got caught - which they *would*, make no mistake;
> this is the nineties, this is the internet, and when it comes to the CoS, on
> a.r.s., the whole world is watching - it would mean a massive shitstorm of bad
> public relations the likes of which Sky Dayton can only dream. He's not a
> stupid man.
True. This is a strong motivation for Earthlink to keep their nose clean.
I still wouldn't trust them with my email, though. It only takes one
Brian Wenger with root privileges, and he's already established his
willingness to use confidential documents against people.
> He explained it all, in detail, in a previous post. Perhaps you could save
> some time, and go back and read it?
Which alias? He's used several lately.
> So he's not a 'random staffer'? What, then, is he? Or are you saying that he's
> a scientologist? I'm confused why 'a long history of lying by the cult' has
> anything to do with Snefru's evidence, one way or another. Unless you're
> accusing him of being 'the cult' - which you aren't, are you? If so, you might
> really want to reread that original post of his ...
He's a staffer posting to a.r.s. behind an alias.
The cult could lie to him: if he's involved, it could lie *through* him.
I doubt that, personally.
> You seem to have a funny definition of evidence. Perhaps you'd like to explain
> exactly what, in your mind, would constitute *evidence* that ELNK is not run
> by the cult?
A complete staff list compared to donations in the cult's records, and
a policy position by Earthlink that includes detailed references to
the Operating Thetan documents as being public domain.
sne...@my-dejanews.com
til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
> In <6s3ot8$j...@enews1.newsguy.com>, tall...@storm.ca
> (tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
>
<snip>
> >Earthlink is not a WISE company, nor is Sky Dayton. Sky Dayton does not turn
> >up on the Super POwer donor list, and I'm not sure what his current IAS
> >ranking is. And finally, nobody has managed to demonstrate a single instance
> >of Earthlink behaving in a way that would suggest that it is 'controlled' by
> >the CoS/ Nothing. Nada. Zilch. In fact, critics who have ELNK acounts have
> >reported no harrassment from management as a reuslt of their activities.
>
> These critics were very low profile. That "goonybird" critic deleted her
> web page after only a few days. Another critic "Brett" has left
> earthlink long ago.
Ladies, and Gentlemen, Boys, and Girls. There is now a mirror of
tallulah's web site being hosted at none other than Earthlink. The url for
the curious is <http://home.earthlink.net/~snefru>. I chose to mirror
tallulah's page, because I liked it's content, and I didn't feel it contained
any legally questionable material. I intend to leave this site in operation
for the forseeable future. I have no other use for the 6 megs Earthlink
gives to it's subscribers, as I have no real interest in investing the time,
and energy in creating my own page.
Furthermore, this is an example of a web page that has been allowed to
exist in it's present form by another ISP. I feel this is an excellent test
of Earthlink's lack of interest in Scn-critical web pages. I am supremely
confident that Earthlink will do absolutely nothing about it. Before anyone
asks, yes I deliberately avoided placing legally questionable materials on
there, because A.) this would be a stupid test, as many many other ISPs would
react, and ask that he pages be taken down ; B.) I have no interest in
breaking the law. I would hope that after this web site stays operational
for a period of time without reprisal from Earthlink all you "no critical
website" excuse users will re-evaluate the situation, assess the facts, and
make an informed decision.
Please feel free to peruse the site, although those of you already familiar
with tallulah's superbly informative site will find nothing new.
Lastly, I have a total of 6 megs worth of space, less than 25% of which is
now in use. If anyone else has any non-legally questionable material they
would like to also be mirrored there, please feel free to let me know. If I
feel it doesn't place me in a legally questionable position, I will be more
than happy to add it. If there's enough "demand", I may even decide to
purchase extra space at my own cost, and host much more, we'll see how it
goes. I'm also thinking of slapping a Lisa page up there, if anyone would
like theirs mirrored, feel free to let me know. I'm sure you can intuit my
real email address based on the URL included above.
>
> The same attitude works the opposite way. I am sure that scientologists
> would rather pay $495 for a commercial link checker instead of using
> "Xenu's Link Sleuth" for free - because they wouldn't trust me, i.e.
> would not be sure if I had a troyan horse in it. (There isn't, of
> course, but why should they believe me? As a scientology critic I am a
> criminal)
At first, I was gonna ask people to notify me if they found any broken
links, but oddly enough this happens to be what Link Sleuth does for a living.
I grabbed it, and used it, and just thought I'd say it's purty durned neato.
Snefru
> Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html
> Annoy scientology by buying books:
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
tall...@storm.ca
>No, I don't know that. But it's sure as hell a start, to take a look
>at their finances and current staff and policies. Their fiscal craziness
>since then has been a *FASCINATING* adventure in filming "The Producers".
>Promise the moon, have a great time, build-build-build, and wait
>to run out of new suckers to exploit.
Hmm,.sounds a lot more like DIGL than ELNK. Could you point me to the SEC
filings that show this ''fiscal craziness'? I'm assuming, of course, that it
is *exceptional* craziness, and not the fairly typical pattern of a venture
of this nature; ie, an ISP trying to go national and beat out the rest of the
pack.
Note - I have, actually, read through a good chunk of the ELNK filings
already. I did so in the midst of looking into some genuinely disingenuous
scientologist-affiliated companies such as DIGL and ATG. I didn't find
anything untoward, but I'm not a market expert.
I *was*, however, looking for anything the least bit questionable, since I'd
had questions about ELNK myself since the original controversy erupted lo
those many years ago. I didn't find anything that panned out at all, and
wasted a goodly chunk of time chasing after mysterious shell corporations and
LLPs that all turned out to link back to George Soros.
>> I'm not talking scientology beliefs, or Hubbard tech, or giving big cash
>> donations to the IAS (although oddly, Sky Dayton's name doesn't show up on
> any
>> of the major donor lists - perhaps one of our IAS archivists could tell us
>> exactly what his status is?). I'm talking about the cult actively controlling
>
>> what goes on at ELNK, and so far, I've not seen evidence that it is.
>
>Good points. I'm very curious about why we don't see Sky Dayton's
>or Brian Wenger's faces on $cientology publications anymore. Protecting
>their own member's companies from the repercussions of being publicly
>discussed?
Errr, I don't believe we ever saw Brian Wenger's face on CoS publications.
He's not exactly a high flyer within the CoS. As for Sky - isn't it just as
likely that *he* has backed away from being the poster child for the CoS for
his own reasons? Perhaps he doesn't want to be tarred with the CoS brush for
the rest of his life, particularly given the field in which he's chosen to
do business.
>> Ugh. So because someone once worked at ELNK,. they can't be trusted, because
>> the religious orientation of their former employers is to train people to
> lie?
>> Are you accusing Snefru of being a scientologist, a liar, both or neither? In
>
>> any case, it's not a great way to begin an actual dialogue with someone who
>> has information on something you profess to be interested in learning more.
>> Just my two cents.
>
>Point. That's why I've restrained myself (Really! Honest! I did!)
>
>But simply saying "they're a big successful company" in response to questions
>abour their $cientology relationships, or saying "I know better" without
>being open about exactly how one knows better is leaving too much to
>the imagination.
That's not what he did. He originally posted to this thread last week, as
sne...@my-dejanews.com, I believe, and explained *exactly* what his
'qualifications' were for discussing ELNK management, past and present. It's
not entirely his fault if you missed his original post :)
>The guy was an early Earthlink employee, and also a third generation
>$cientologist. It indicates the early policies of Earthlink.
As far as I know, nobody is arguing that ELNK wasn't originally run according
to LRH tech. Certainly not anyone who worked there at the time, anyway. That
does not mean, though, that ELNK as a company was actively involved in
Wenger's activities on a.r.s., however.
>Being dead does not mean you get to erase your history.
No, but it does give you an exemption from being held responsible for current
management irregularities.
>> I just want to be clear on *my* position in this thread: I'm not
>> arguing that scientologists didn't start ELNK, or that there are not
>> several scientologists within the current senior ranks of the
>> company. I'm saying that so far, I've seen no evidence that
>> ELNK-the-company has done anything untoward that could be explained
>> by the improper influence of the CoS over day to day operations.
>> Fair enough.
>
>So far, only the pyramid scheme style funding of the company, and so
>far that's quite common among ISP's. Their emphasis on growth over
>quality is, IMHO, common to Hubbard Tech. But it's far, far
>from conclusive.
We agree :)
>Hey, snerfu supposedly worked there recently? Are the $cientologists,
>such as Sky Dayton and Brian Wenger, still in positions of day to day
>power? Or have they been leveraged into corner offices where they
>don't bother anyone?
My guess is that Sky is out there selling his piece o' blue sky (sorry,
couldn't resist) and bringing in the cash for the next wave of ELNK expansion.
I don't think he ever claimed - or was claimed to be - involved in the
technical side of operations. I'm sure Snef can clarify that; I haven't the
vaguest idea.
>
>True. This is a strong motivation for Earthlink to keep their nose clean.
>
>I still wouldn't trust them with my email, though. It only takes one
>Brian Wenger with root privileges, and he's already established his
>willingness to use confidential documents against people.
But would he do it if he knew that a) he'd get caught and b) he'd most likely
get fired, if only to serve as a head on a pike for ELNK to ward off the
resulting bad publicity? I doubt it. He may be a scn in good standing, but I'm
doubting he'd take such a huge personal risk for almost no gain.
>> He explained it all, in detail, in a previous post. Perhaps you could save
>> some time, and go back and read it?
>
>Which alias? He's used several lately.
sne...@my-dejanews.com. He only used a different alias once, and according to
him, that was a mistake.
>> So he's not a 'random staffer'? What, then, is he? Or are you saying that
> he's
>> a scientologist? I'm confused why 'a long history of lying by the cult' has
>> anything to do with Snefru's evidence, one way or another. Unless you're
>> accusing him of being 'the cult' - which you aren't, are you? If so, you
> might
>> really want to reread that original post of his ...
>
>He's a staffer posting to a.r.s. behind an alias.
He * was* a staffer, and is no longer. If you read that original post - sorry,
do I sound like a broken record? I just think you'd find that it would allay
many of your apprehensions as to his motivation for posting - you'd realize
that he has, indeed, compromised his identity to anyone who knew him at ELNK.
Then again, at least a few of his former co-workers are already well aware of
his critical activities, since one of them spotted him at the March picket.
>The cult could lie to him: if he's involved, it could lie *through* him.
>I doubt that, personally.
As far as I can see, all he's doing is describing the situation inside the
walls of ELNK during his tenure, as well as the current atmosphere, based on
his sources still within the company. I don't see why he'd have reason to lie
about something like that. He's no longer employed there, and it's not like
they don't know he's a critic.
>> You seem to have a funny definition of evidence. Perhaps you'd like to
> explain
>> exactly what, in your mind, would constitute *evidence* that ELNK is not run
>> by the cult?
>
>A complete staff list compared to donations in the cult's records, and
>a policy position by Earthlink that includes detailed references to
>the Operating Thetan documents as being public domain.
Errr, which OT docs, and based on what court case? (This isn't me being
snarky, I'm just not sure to what you refer.)
As for the donations, you'll know, of course, that our various scn junk mail
victims regularly post lists of IAS donors, as well as other big money types,
that have appeared in recent CoS pubs. It wouldn't be too terribly difficult
to go through the SEC filings and other investor reports, pull out the names
of major shareholders and senior executives and search for corresponding
information.
The information is out there, it's just a question of having the time - and
patience - to sort through it. As I mentioned at the start of this post, I've
spent some time doing just that, although I don't claim to have done an
exhaustive investigation. Then again, with companies like DIGL and ATG, it
jumped right out at you.
As you might read in another thread, Snefru has just put up a mirror of my
very own website, which includes - among other things - the GO Roundup, the
Stipulation of Evidence in the Snow White case, the Marty Mark Rathbun
webpage, the edited OSA NWO files and the Burglary Hat. These are files that
are beyond reproach in the legal realm, yet make the CoS somewhat unhappy. We
shall see what happens next. You a bettin' man. Nico? :)
K
Ron Newman
> So far, only the pyramid scheme style funding of the company, and so
> far that's quite common among ISP's. Their emphasis on growth over
> quality is, IMHO, common to Hubbard Tech.
Sadly, it seems to be common in the ISP business generally. For a
prominent national example (though they've apparently improved quite
a bit in the last year), see AOL. For a prominent local Boston example,
see TIAC.
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Nico Kadel-Garcia
Ron Newman <rne...@thecia.net> wrote:
>In article <m290k1w...@bearden.bear.net>, Nico Kadel-Garcia
><ra...@bearden.bear.net> wrote:
>
>> far that's quite common among ISP's. Their emphasis on growth over
>> quality is, IMHO, common to Hubbard Tech.
>
>prominent national example (though they've apparently improved quite
>a bit in the last year), see AOL. For a prominent local Boston example,
>see TIAC.
This is true:. I agree with various folks here who've said it is
typical of many ISP's right now.
--
Nico Kadel-Garcia
ra...@world.std.com
sne...@my-dejanews.com
>
> > Okay. Other than the fact that ELNK was started by a scientologist, was
> > originally run by Hubbard tech and employed the notorious Brian Wenger, what
> > do you 'know' that would *prove* that the CoS has an influence over the day
> > to day operations of the company?
>
> No, I don't know that. But it's sure as hell a start, to take a look
> at their finances and current staff and policies. Their fiscal craziness
> since then has been a *FASCINATING* adventure in filming "The Producers".
> Promise the moon, have a great time, build-build-build, and wait
> to run out of new suckers to exploit.
As a publically held company their finances are far more open to scrutiny
than a privately owned company. I'd suggest you take a look at their
filings. There is a wealth of information in there as to how Earthlink spends
it's revenue. I would suggest you not go looking for ways you would spend
money differently, but instead go looking for evidence of CoS tampering, or
monies being funneled in some way to the CoS. I doubt you'll find any. I do
think if you're going to question whether, or not this happens, you have the
responsibility to be diligent, and actually investigate the situation. Have
at it, the info is all public.
>
> > I'm not talking scientology beliefs, or Hubbard tech, or giving big cash
> > donations to the IAS (although oddly, Sky Dayton's name doesn't show up on
any
> > of the major donor lists - perhaps one of our IAS archivists could tell us
> > exactly what his status is?). I'm talking about the cult actively
controlling
> > what goes on at ELNK, and so far, I've not seen evidence that it is.
>
> Good points. I'm very curious about why we don't see Sky Dayton's
> or Brian Wenger's faces on $cientology publications anymore. Protecting
> their own member's companies from the repercussions of being publicly
> discussed?
Well, first of all, Brian Wengers controversial activities (at least in
regards to this newsgroup) took place before he started working at Earthlink.
He seems to have bowed out of the ARS scene at least several months before
starting at Earthlink, although I dunno *exactly* when, since Dejanews
doesn't go back past Feb 1995, or so. Brian Wenger didn't start at Earthlink
before...December, or so 1994, if I recall. As for Sky, maybe he just
doesn't want the attention. My personal belief is that he has tried to
distance the business from Scientology. This is not to say that he in any
way is trying to distance himself from Scientology. I'm sure he's as avid as
ever. I also don't mean just distancing the business from the tech. I think
he wants to distance the business from the PR problems. I think he realizes
that Scientology has a bad reputation (whether, or not he realizes how
justified the rep is), and wants to distance Earthlink from that bad PR.
This is just my own opinion though.
> >
> > Ugh. So because someone once worked at ELNK,. they can't be trusted, because
> > the religious orientation of their former employers is to train people to
lie?
> > Are you accusing Snefru of being a scientologist, a liar, both or neither?
In
> > any case, it's not a great way to begin an actual dialogue with someone who
> > has information on something you profess to be interested in learning more.
> > Just my two cents.
>
> Point. That's why I've restrained myself (Really! Honest! I did!)
>
> But simply saying "they're a big successful company" in response to questions
> abour their $cientology relationships, or saying "I know better" without
> being open about exactly how one knows better is leaving too much to
> the imagination.
That was not even close to all I said. I was fairly comprehensive in my
descriptions. I think your confusion resulted from not seeing/reading my post
regarding where exactly my knowledge comes from. I was quite open about where
the info came from, you just didn't read it. :)
>
> > Why? Was Phil Gale behind attacks on a.r.s. too? Seems to me that at the
time
> > he died, he had left ELNK. Please don't use the guy's death as a straw to
prop
> > up your rapidly weakening argument here. He doesn't deserve that. Nobody
does.
> > The dead should get some privileges, after all :)
>
> The guy was an early Earthlink employee, and also a third generation
> $cientologist. It indicates the early policies of Earthlink.
>
> Being dead does not mean you get to erase your history.
How much do you really know about Phil's history? At best you have tiny
snapshots of various portions of his life. You have "3rd generation
Scientologist", and "Mother Marie Gale", and "Delphi Poster Child", and not
much more. I hesitate to ask this, because I don't really want to dredge up
this thread again, I'd much rather let the guy die in peace. Having known
Phil personally, I can honestly say that I think Scientology had very little
to do with his decision to commit suicide. Having known Phil, it was
painfully apparent that he really didn't take Scientology all that seriously.
None of the people here suggesting that Scientology *had* to play a major
role in his decision ever met Phil. Unfortunately, since none of you
actually knew him, none of you will likely even understand what I'm saying.
Phil really was a remarkable person. All I can say is that if you *had*
known him, you *would* understand. That's all I really want to say on this
subject, I really don't want to start another thread that drags him through
the mud.
>
> > I just want to be clear on *my* position in this thread: I'm not
> > arguing that scientologists didn't start ELNK, or that there are not
> > several scientologists within the current senior ranks of the
> > company. I'm saying that so far, I've seen no evidence that
> > ELNK-the-company has done anything untoward that could be explained
> > by the improper influence of the CoS over day to day operations.
> > Fair enough.
>
> So far, only the pyramid scheme style funding of the company, and so
> far that's quite common among ISP's. Their emphasis on growth over
> quality is, IMHO, common to Hubbard Tech. But it's far, far
> from conclusive.
I think you have a M/U on pyramid scheme :) I don't see how Earthlink is
anything even remotely like other well-known MLM/pyramid schemes like Amway
for example. In any event, while you certainly have the right to make your
own decisions about whether Earthlink's business practices are effective, or
not, please do remember to make the effort to point out that Earthlink's
business practices are for the most part remarkably similar to other ISPs
like them. It's hardly fair to criticize Earthlink like this on the basis of
the perceived "Scientology connection", since it's business practices are far
from unique in the ISP world, and as such if they existed, would be far less
likely to be related to Scientology as they would being related to business
practices of the large ISP community as a whole.
>
> Hey, snerfu supposedly worked there recently? Are the $cientologists,
> such as Sky Dayton and Brian Wenger, still in positions of day to day
> power? Or have they been leveraged into corner offices where they
> don't bother anyone?
Brian Wenger is in a Research and Development position now. This means he
talks to alot of vendors, and looks at alot of technology, but has zero
management clout. It's an important position, and all, but he's not even
remotely in a position of power managerially speaking. Sky is of course
still the Chairman of the Board, in addition to a 10% shareholder, which
obviously grants him a significant amount of power. He's also the founder of
the company, so that gives him some leverage as well. However, Sky's role is
to oversee the direction of the company more than overseeing the day-to-day
affairs. He's looking at "Where will Earthlink be in 10 years, and how does
it get there?" Garry Betty is the President, and CEO. It's his job to
actually *run* the company.
>
> > But if they did, and they got caught - which they *would*, make no mistake;
> > this is the nineties, this is the internet, and when it comes to the CoS, on
> > a.r.s., the whole world is watching - it would mean a massive shitstorm of
bad
> > public relations the likes of which Sky Dayton can only dream. He's not a
> > stupid man.
>
> True. This is a strong motivation for Earthlink to keep their nose clean.
>
> I still wouldn't trust them with my email, though. It only takes one
> Brian Wenger with root privileges, and he's already established his
> willingness to use confidential documents against people.
I can assure you, Brian Wenger is no closer to having root passwords than a
sales-scum would be. He's totally, and completely out of that loop. As for
his willingness to use documents like that against people, there's not much I
can say other than point out that he hasn't done one iota since his tenure at
Earthlink began. This is in no way an attempt to justify, or condone his
previous actions, they're every bit as reprehensible today, but please do
keep in mind, that he's not reared his head here in several years.
Personally, I do trust them with my email. I don't see any reason not to.
You're certainly entitled to choose whichever ISP you like, however. I'll
certainly not fault you for that..more modems for me :)
>
> > He explained it all, in detail, in a previous post. Perhaps you could save
> > some time, and go back and read it?
>
> Which alias? He's used several lately.
I posted my original history of my employment at Earthlink under
sne...@my-dejanews.com. There are only two that I know of that I've posted
here under. The other one was only used once, but was my error.
>
> > So he's not a 'random staffer'? What, then, is he? Or are you saying that
he's
> > a scientologist? I'm confused why 'a long history of lying by the cult' has
> > anything to do with Snefru's evidence, one way or another. Unless you're
> > accusing him of being 'the cult' - which you aren't, are you? If so, you
might
> > really want to reread that original post of his ...
>
> He's a staffer posting to a.r.s. behind an alias.
While I haven't exactly gone, and handed out my real name for everyone
in the world to read, please do realize that I've given out more than enough
information to identify myself to anyone who knew me. There are also several
people around who I think could vouch for my existance, and my credibility. I
don't think posting to USENET under an alias is unacceptable in any way. I
don't do it because I fear for my safety, but because I value my privacy. A
great many people post here under aliases. A number of them are "well
respected".
>
> The cult could lie to him: if he's involved, it could lie *through* him.
> I doubt that, personally.
I'm certainly not involved, and the entirity of my experience with Earthlink
has come through living them. It wasn't like I was interviewing Sky, or
Brian Wenger, and asking them to make a quote. This is stuff I learned in
the course of doing my job for several years. I was exposed to nearly every
aspect of Earthlink's business for a long time. I can't demand that you
believe me, but what I'm giving you is a hell of alot more info than anyone
else has been able to offer in the past. It's fairly unlikely that Earthlink
would go through it's entire history and be able to perfectly conceal any
evidence of misdealings such as those that have been speculated on from
someone who was so closely involved in as many aspects of Earthlink on a day
to day basis. I *did* have the root passwords ;)
>
> > You seem to have a funny definition of evidence. Perhaps you'd like to
explain
> > exactly what, in your mind, would constitute *evidence* that ELNK is not run
> > by the cult?
>
> A complete staff list compared to donations in the cult's records, and
> a policy position by Earthlink that includes detailed references to
> the Operating Thetan documents as being public domain.
You certainly wouldn't expect any other company to divulge complete
listings of all of it's staff members, and who they've donated money to,
would you? This is a gross violation of their privacy. I hardly think you,
or anyone has a right to pry into these peoples personal affairs in an
attempt to drag Earthlink's, or anyone's name through the mud. Lets be
reasonable. Furthermore, Earthlink is an ISP, not a law firm. They don't
need to have a position on OT documents any more than NASA needs to have a
position on the price of cheese. You're comparing apples to bricks here.
Perhaps you'd be better off asking them "Is it OK if I place these
copyrighted documents on a website located on your servers, and disburse it
to the world without permission from the copyright owner?" I bet they, along
with any other ISP in it's right mind would say "Uhh, no..read that AUP
again."
Snefru
Michael Reuss
>> Nico Kadel-Garcia <ra...@bearden.bear.net> wrote:
>>> tall...@storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) writes:
>>> Okay. Other than the fact that ELNK was started by a scientologist, was
>>> originally run by Hubbard tech and employed the notorious Brian Wenger, what
>>> do you 'know' that would *prove* that the CoS has an influence over the day
>>> to day operations of the company?
Nico never suggested that he *knew* anything, just that he wouldn't
trust Earthlink in spite of Snefru's comforting reassurances. That's a
reasonable approach, given everything I've ever learned about
Scientology's Command Grades, the obedient way that Scientologists can
act when their justification is "survival" or "Making Things Go Right."
The cult has the ability to coerce and manipulate it's members. Now
maybe it's true that Sky Dayton, Brian Wenger and all the other
Scientologists who work at Earthlink are quite comfortable
compartmentalizing their professional lives from their lives as good,
obedient Scientologists. But to be fair to Nico, I think we can all see
that this would make these particular Scientologists very atypical. When
Miscavige and Rinder tell their "inferiors" in the cult to kiss their
authoritarian butts, the typical response they expect is not "no sir, I
have an ethical duty to protect the confidentiality of my clients" but
rather "how deep do you want the tongue, sir."
>> No, I don't know that. But it's sure as hell a start, to take a look
>> at their finances and current staff and policies. Their fiscal craziness
>> since then has been a *FASCINATING* adventure in filming "The Producers".
>> Promise the moon, have a great time, build-build-build, and wait
>> to run out of new suckers to exploit.
Okay, so we seem to have established that unprofitable, grow, grow,
grow, ISPs are not at all uncommon. AOL certainly fits in that mold.
Nothing the least bit Hubbardian in that. More's the pity.
> As a publically held company their finances are far more open to scrutiny
>than a privately owned company. I'd suggest you take a look at their
>filings. There is a wealth of information in there as to how Earthlink spends
>it's revenue. I would suggest you not go looking for ways you would spend
>money differently, but instead go looking for evidence of CoS tampering, or
>monies being funneled in some way to the CoS. I doubt you'll find any. I do
>think if you're going to question whether, or not this happens, you have the
>responsibility to be diligent, and actually investigate the situation. Have
>at it, the info is all public.
I think that the source of Nico's mistrust was not that the Co$ is
ordering Dayton around, or even that sysadmins at Earthlink routinely
route information about SPs to the cult, but rather, that *if* Sky
Dayton, Brian Wanger (intentionally misspelled, just for you, Snefru
;-), or any other high ranking Scientologists employed by Earthlink,
would likely, if ordered to do so by David Miscavige or one of his
hatchet clams (Mike Rinder), turn over personal information about, or
the e-mail or personal files of an Earthlink client. I think on that
score, Nico has a legitimate worry.
Also, Snefru seemed to be getting hung up on Nico's use of the term
"Chief Sysadmin" to describe Brian Wenger. He capitalized the phrase to
indicate a belief that Nico was somehow claiming this as "the Wanger's"
official job title. This really missed Nico's point. The point is that
Brian Wenger had a job within Earthlink which included the authority to
have the root passwords, even if he did not know them at any particular
point in time. So Snefru was being accurate about Nico being incorrect,
if the issue was only that Brian Wenger's official title was not "Chief
Sysadmin". Whereas Nico was only making the fully reasonable assumption
that Brian Wenger, if ordered to do so by his cult leader, David
Miscavige, might well do unethical things, such as compromising the
security of Earthlink's clients, in order to comply. Tacit in that
position is the very reasonable assumption that Wenger could easily find
out root passwords of Earthlink's servers.
> Well, first of all, Brian Wengers controversial activities (at least in
>regards to this newsgroup) took place before he started working at Earthlink.
I wonder if Sky knew about Wenger's disclosures from Dennis' PC
folders before he hired him. I wonder if that would have made any
difference to him.
>He seems to have bowed out of the ARS scene at least several months before
>starting at Earthlink, although I dunno *exactly* when, since Dejanews
>doesn't go back past Feb 1995, or so. Brian Wenger didn't start at Earthlink
>before...December, or so 1994, if I recall. As for Sky, maybe he just
>doesn't want the attention.
No, I don't suppose he does. Many Scientologists have a hard time
being publicly candid about their beliefs.
>My personal belief is that he has tried to
>distance the business from Scientology. This is not to say that he in any
>way is trying to distance himself from Scientology. I'm sure he's as avid as
>ever. I also don't mean just distancing the business from the tech. I think
>he wants to distance the business from the PR problems. I think he realizes
>that Scientology has a bad reputation (whether, or not he realizes how
>justified the rep is), and wants to distance Earthlink from that bad PR.
I hope that through all of this controversy, Sky Dayton comes to see
that Scientology's bad reputation is well-deserved, and that it is
caused by believing in and fanatically trying to apply the teachings of
a delusional, paranoid shithead.
>I was fairly comprehensive in my descriptions....
Yes, you were. Thank you for your insights into the inner-workings at
Earthlink.
> How much do you really know about Phil [Gale's] history?
As you are probably well aware, we know very little. On the surface, it
appears that Gale's family and their devotion to Hubbardspew did seem to
cause internal contradictions for him. But lots of kids get confused,
sad, depressed, it happens all the time, and family is frequently the
reason. And sadly, occasionally they kill themselves. Gale seems like he
was a complex and conflicted person. I'm sure no one knows enough about
him and his situation to be able to prove that Scientology caused his
suicide. I do think it is fairly safe to conclude that the vaunted
Hubbardspew didn't help him cope with his life as a meat body.
>Phil really was a remarkable person.
Having a friend that thought this of him could only have helped.
>I can assure you, Brian Wenger is no closer to having root passwords than a
>sales-scum would be.
But when he was the VP of Operations, this would not have been true,
correct?
>As for his willingness to use documents like that against people, there's
>not much I can say other than point out that he hasn't done one iota since
>his tenure at Earthlink began.
I'm not questioning your sincerity, but with all due respect, how can
you know that?
>This is in no way an attempt to justify, or condone his
>previous actions, they're every bit as reprehensible today, but please do
>keep in mind, that he's not reared his head here in several years.
Scientologists have been trained to see it as a good thing to hurt SPs.
This is a fundamental Hubbard instruction. This training is probably
present in Wenger, Dayton and other Scientologist Earthlink employees.
Given an unethical command from somewhere higher up on the Command
Grade, what would a typical Scientologist do? They would be in a place
where many Scientologists have been before, facing a decision to do
something which by wog standards is unethical, but by Scientology
standards is good, represents Scientology's survival, helps to keep
Scientology working. All too often in the past, Scientologists have
chosen to obey their "superiors" in Scientology rather than to do what
is ethical as the wogs define the word.
That's the problem you have when you are a member of a totalitarian cult
that inculcates fanatical devotion and unquestioning obedience in its
followers. The motives of all the followers are always under suspicion.
They can never be fully trusted.
How long will it take Earthlink to shed that nasty baggage? I don't
know... maybe they never will. Is this unfair? No way. It serves Sky
and Brian and the others right for choosing their God so carelessly.
--
Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
Honorary Kid
sne...@my-dejanews.com
mre...@rmi.nospam.net (Michael Reuss) wrote:
> > sne...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >> Nico Kadel-Garcia <ra...@bearden.bear.net> wrote:
> >>> tall...@storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) writes:
>
> >>> Okay. Other than the fact that ELNK was started by a scientologist, was
> >>> originally run by Hubbard tech and employed the notorious Brian Wenger,
what
> >>> do you 'know' that would *prove* that the CoS has an influence over the
day
> >>> to day operations of the company?
>
> Nico never suggested that he *knew* anything, just that he wouldn't
> trust Earthlink in spite of Snefru's comforting reassurances. That's a
> reasonable approach, given everything I've ever learned about
> Scientology's Command Grades, the obedient way that Scientologists can
> act when their justification is "survival" or "Making Things Go Right."
While I certainly respect anyones right to choose, or not choose Earthlink
because of their personal level of trust in Earthlink, my goal was really to
shed some light on what really happens there from an insiders perspective.
I've watched the rumors fly for about 4 years now, and never really saw
anything other than wild speculation as to Earthlinks CoS connections. I
believe another employee of Earthlink who was also there in the beginning,
but didn't stick around long named Frank had posted here once before, but I
felt it was time for someone who had been there for an extensive amount of
time, and had a fairly broad level of experience with how Earthlink was run
to come forth, and say what he knows. I actually do understand the concerns
regarding Scientology policies that do often advocate unethical, and improper
things. My intention was to convey that just because a company is run by
Scientologists, and the Scientology Philosophy/Religion advocates unsavory
things, isn't *necessarily* indicative of any improprieties in the way that
company does business.
>
> The cult has the ability to coerce and manipulate it's members. Now
> maybe it's true that Sky Dayton, Brian Wenger and all the other
> Scientologists who work at Earthlink are quite comfortable
> compartmentalizing their professional lives from their lives as good,
> obedient Scientologists. But to be fair to Nico, I think we can all see
> that this would make these particular Scientologists very atypical. When
> Miscavige and Rinder tell their "inferiors" in the cult to kiss their
> authoritarian butts, the typical response they expect is not "no sir, I
> have an ethical duty to protect the confidentiality of my clients" but
> rather "how deep do you want the tongue, sir."
I dunno how atypical it would make them, I may disagree with you here.
Having known a fairly large number of Scientologists at a few Scientologist
laden companies I've worked for, I can honestly say that the majority of them
aren't bad people. They're fairly honest, hardworking, good natured people.
Most of them haven't gotten to the really nasty stuff. Now, again I'm not
condoning Scientology, or it's beliefs, I'm just saying that a significant
portion of them have never been exposed to the really twisted side of
Scientology "Ethics". The people I'm referring to are the general Publics,
not CoS Staff. I'm also referring to the majority of Earthlink's
Scientologist employees, not Sky, or Wenger specifically. I *know* Wenger
has been exposed to the perverted version of "Ethics" that Scientology
espouses. I dunno about Sky..is he even Clear? If not, it kinda makes you
wonder ; a guy with all that money not even bothering to get Clear? Mebbe
he's not as dedicated as we all think ;) (actually, I don't know if he's
Clear, or not...it would be interesting to find out though.)
>
> >> No, I don't know that. But it's sure as hell a start, to take a look
> >> at their finances and current staff and policies. Their fiscal craziness
> >> since then has been a *FASCINATING* adventure in filming "The Producers".
> >> Promise the moon, have a great time, build-build-build, and wait
> >> to run out of new suckers to exploit.
>
> Okay, so we seem to have established that unprofitable, grow, grow,
> grow, ISPs are not at all uncommon. AOL certainly fits in that mold.
> Nothing the least bit Hubbardian in that. More's the pity.
Yah, this is sorta off the subject, but my experience is that the ISP
business exists this way for a reason. It's very much a huge land-grab right
now, where ISPs, with their investors full knowledge and cooperation are
attempting to grab as many subscribers as humanly possible while they're
still lining up at the door to get in. After things dry out a bit, and per
subscriber recruitment costs go up, and it becomes harder, and harder to
maintain that incredible growth, they will all slow down, and concentrate
more on profit. For example, you have Joe ISP that is concentrating on
turning a profit from the very start, and you have Ambitious ISP that is
willing to spend money like water to get customers, with the intention of
making a profit later. After the end of the land-grab, Joe ISP may be a
medium to large local, or a small regional provider, while Ambitious ISP is
much more likely to be a medium to large national provider. At this point,
who's in a better position to make more money? The smaller ISP with 30-50k
subscribers, or the national one with 300k+? Economies of scale are
*critically* important in the ISP business, and make a huge difference in
regards to profitability. This is what's happening. I'm know not everyone
will agree with this assesment, but so be it. This is what the major ISPs
are thinking, and their investors are well aware of this.
My point was that for a long long time now, Wenger hasn't been a sysadmin
at all, or even remotely responsible for any sys-admin tasks that required,
or entitled him to the root passwords. I was responding to the assertion
that he *is* a chief sysadmin, or implication that he has priviledged access
to Earthlink's machines. Sure he has accounts on machines, but he doesn't
have access to the family jewels, so to speak. However, granted during his
early tenure at Earthlink he did have root passwords, and was entitled to
them. Whether he did any dirty deeds behind closed doors at night, I don't
know. This means I don't know either way, and I suspect no one else does
either. My contention is that saying that it was within someone's ability to
do something wrong, and suspecting them of actually doing it aren't the same.
If someone wants to not trust Earthlink and not subscribe, that's entirely
their perogative, but I do think it's unfair to imply that these sort of
improprieties *must* occur, if they *could* occur. If anyone wants to make
an implication that it *did* occur, they'd better be ready to back it up with
some evidence.
>
> > Well, first of all, Brian Wengers controversial activities (at least in
> >regards to this newsgroup) took place before he started working at Earthlink.
>
> I wonder if Sky knew about Wenger's disclosures from Dennis' PC
> folders before he hired him. I wonder if that would have made any
> difference to him.
That's a very good question. I'd tend to suspect that Sky wasn't exactly an
avid reader of ARS, but I also think it's entirely possible that Brian may
have even mentioned it to him at some point out of some sort of sick pride,
who knows. It really is a fantastic question though, I wish I knew the
answer.
>
> No, I don't suppose he does. Many Scientologists have a hard time
> being publicly candid about their beliefs.
I wonder why? :)
>
> >My personal belief is that he has tried to
> >distance the business from Scientology. This is not to say that he in any
> >way is trying to distance himself from Scientology. I'm sure he's as avid as
> >ever. I also don't mean just distancing the business from the tech. I think
> >he wants to distance the business from the PR problems. I think he realizes
> >that Scientology has a bad reputation (whether, or not he realizes how
> >justified the rep is), and wants to distance Earthlink from that bad PR.
>
> I hope that through all of this controversy, Sky Dayton comes to see
> that Scientology's bad reputation is well-deserved, and that it is
> caused by believing in and fanatically trying to apply the teachings of
> a delusional, paranoid shithead.
I think he's at least learned that the bad rep is there, and has learned to
accept that it exists. Whether he'll eventually "See the Light", and depart
Scientology is anyone's guess. I'd love to see it happen, I think he's a
pretty good guy. As a person, I like him.
>
> >I was fairly comprehensive in my descriptions....
>
> Yes, you were. Thank you for your insights into the inner-workings at
> Earthlink.
>
> > How much do you really know about Phil [Gale's] history?
>
> As you are probably well aware, we know very little. On the surface, it
> appears that Gale's family and their devotion to Hubbardspew did seem to
> cause internal contradictions for him. But lots of kids get confused,
> sad, depressed, it happens all the time, and family is frequently the
> reason. And sadly, occasionally they kill themselves. Gale seems like he
> was a complex and conflicted person. I'm sure no one knows enough about
> him and his situation to be able to prove that Scientology caused his
> suicide. I do think it is fairly safe to conclude that the vaunted
> Hubbardspew didn't help him cope with his life as a meat body.
I can certainly see your point. Having known him, it's my opinion that
Phil was one of the rare few who was smart enough to rise above it all, and
make his own decisions. He was the kind of guy that had the capability to
take an entire lifetime of Scientology, and just cast it aside with no ill
will, no hard feelings, and sum it up as 'it's pretty kooky, I don't like it.
It's not for me.' I really don't know what emotional problems this caused
with his mother, but It's my honest belief that whatever it was, it wasn't
the primary cause for his decision to commit suicide. The other stuff
probably bothered him much more. I'll expound on that below.
>
> >Phil really was a remarkable person.
>
> Having a friend that thought this of him could only have helped.
You know, this is going to sound pretty weird, but a part of me thinks it's
friends that thought of him like this that contributed to it. Phil was well
liked by just about everyone, but he was still an outsider. He just didn't
belong. He was so far above anyone in his age group in terms of intellect,
yet still had the emotional state of the teenager he was. I suspect that
more than anything, it was a realization that there really wasn't anything
that challenged him enough to make life enjoyable, and rewarding, coupled
with the realization that he just couldn't identify with people in general,
being so different from them that did it. He was held up on a pedestal,
because that's where he belonged. It's lonely up there.
>
> >I can assure you, Brian Wenger is no closer to having root passwords than a
> >sales-scum would be.
>
> But when he was the VP of Operations, this would not have been true,
> correct?
Yes, this is correct. I wish I could remember when he would have given these
up, but it was quite some time ago ; probably around...mid-late 1996 would
have been the latest time he could have actually gotten root passwords to
servers.
>
> >As for his willingness to use documents like that against people, there's
> >not much I can say other than point out that he hasn't done one iota since
> >his tenure at Earthlink began.
>
> I'm not questioning your sincerity, but with all due respect, how can
> you know that?
I meant in respects to ARS, really. I probably should have clarified that.
I guess he's not maintaining the Scientology FAQ anymore, or the Scientology
FTP site, or being the technical contact for any of it's domains, or a poster
to ARS. He hasn't made any actions that have been perceived by the people
here, since then, so I think it's a plausible assumption to say that he's
dropped out of the scene, but I was really referring only to ARS. I dunno
what he does in the dark. I just know he doesn't have the root passwords to
do it at Earthlink :)
>
> >This is in no way an attempt to justify, or condone his
> >previous actions, they're every bit as reprehensible today, but please do
> >keep in mind, that he's not reared his head here in several years.
>
> Scientologists have been trained to see it as a good thing to hurt SPs.
> This is a fundamental Hubbard instruction. This training is probably
> present in Wenger, Dayton and other Scientologist Earthlink employees.
Some have been trained to see this, some haven't really been exposed to it.
I don't disagree that this is a fundamental aspect of Scientology though.
Wenger has definitely been exposed to it, and has acted accordingly, yes.
Sky, to the best of my knowledge, hasn't done anything of this nature. I'd
suggest that he be considered to be no different than any generic Public,
albeit a very successful one.
>
> Given an unethical command from somewhere higher up on the Command
> Grade, what would a typical Scientologist do? They would be in a place
> where many Scientologists have been before, facing a decision to do
> something which by wog standards is unethical, but by Scientology
> standards is good, represents Scientology's survival, helps to keep
> Scientology working. All too often in the past, Scientologists have
> chosen to obey their "superiors" in Scientology rather than to do what
> is ethical as the wogs define the word.
I think it depends on the command, and the person being given it. I think if
Davey were to approach some random Public pre-clear, and say "I want you to
kill a judges dog for me" they'd likely refuse, and think twice about this
Scientology thing. I think if Davey asked Rinder, Rinder may do it with a
smile (or order one of his S.S. to do it who would do it with a smile). I
think if Davey said "Hey, you, gimme a ride to the airport." they'd all jump
at the chance.
>
> That's the problem you have when you are a member of a totalitarian cult
> that inculcates fanatical devotion and unquestioning obedience in its
> followers. The motives of all the followers are always under suspicion.
> They can never be fully trusted.
Lack of trust, and accusations of impropriety aren't really the same thing.
I don't mind that people choose not to trust, even though I may disagree with
their rationale. I mind when people toss about accusations - and breed mass
hysteria - built on baseless wild speculation of the type that has been
rampant here regarding Earthlink for the past 4+ years.
>
> How long will it take Earthlink to shed that nasty baggage? I don't
> know... maybe they never will. Is this unfair? No way. It serves Sky
> and Brian and the others right for choosing their God so carelessly.
Why do you lump Sky in the same category as Wenger. Sky wasn't involved in
Wenger's nastiness. I don't think it's fair at all to suggest that Sky is
just as evil as Wenger was/is. Sky didn't do anything wrong, he's just a
businessman. I don't think Wenger's actions are a result of a careless
choice of a God, but rather a result of being sucked into a cult that warped
his sense of ethics, and conned him into believing he was doing The Right
Thing(tm). This doesn't have anything to do with "God". It has to do with
being manipulated into doing shitty things, and believing they were
"Ethical". Ethics, and "God" aren't mutually inclusive.
Snefru
>
> --
> Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
> Honorary Kid
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----