none
Anonymous
why doesn't somebody just knock it over? How much $ in gold and silver do
they stockpile?
Does anyone know how many people they usually keep armed?
Christopher Leithiser
Anonymous wrote:
Kid....just go away.
© Anti-Cult ®
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com>.
From: mail...@replay.com.
Wrote on the subject: none:
>If the Scientology headquarters has lots of gold and silver sitting around,
>why doesn't somebody just knock it over? How much $ in gold and silver do
>they stockpile?
>
>Does anyone know how many people they usually keep armed?
>
Go get the gold boy. Don't hesitate, they do not have more then a couple
of armed, but poorly trained guards. A small force of trained people,
would easily overrun the clam camp, before Hemets police force would try
to come to their rescue. Plan it well, and it would be over in 10
minutes.
Hmm, has the time arrived to "handle" the cult now mebbe?
Note to IRC-man: Has it?
Note to OSA-man: It has?
Note to the police: See the question marks??
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal'. By then be sure the
orgs say what is legal or not."
-- L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 4 January 1966--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
********* I'm so entheta I mock up *your* reactive mind too *********
*********** http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/index.htm ************
* Multimedia: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm *
******** The.Galacti...@ThePentagon.com (Anti-Cult) ********
***** Public PGP key: http://www.users.wineasy.se/noname/pgp.htm ****
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
game? Why not just cap a few of the motherfuckers?
Hell, kill a couple of there kids--bleed them to death slow and send them a
tape of the murder. If they want to break the rules show them that you don't
have to play nice too.
If you aint got the stomach to actually kill any of them, then burn down some
of there houses, rape some of there wives. They should get the point
eventually.
Inducto
>If the CoS is such a threat, and acting so illegally, why not play there own
>game?
Because it's fundamentally wrong to believe that the end justifies the means,
as some of the sick souls at the heart of CoS' totalitarian apparatus
apparently do. And in practical terms, CoS will attempt to turn any "attack",
like Bob Minton defending himself with a balsawood stick, to their advantage;
it plays to both their attempts to portray themselves to the public as a
persecuted and wronged minority, and can be used to reinforce the members'
belief that terribly forces are arrayed against them and their only hope is
loyalty to CoS.
I hope this is just a stupid troll from someone who doesn't actually believe
this.
I.
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
Avoid highwaymen on the road to personal and spiritual betterment -- beware
dead ends and unlit paths
Christopher Leithiser
Anonymous wrote:
> If the CoS is such a threat, and acting so illegally, why not play there own
> game? Why not just cap a few of the motherfuckers?
>
> Hell, kill a couple of there kids--bleed them to death slow and send them a
> tape of the murder. If they want to break the rules show them that you don't
> have to play nice too.
>
> If you aint got the stomach to actually kill any of them, then burn down some
> of there houses, rape some of there wives. They should get the point
> eventually.
Kids, eat your vegetables. Or you may grow, um, up, to be one, like this moron.
And don't believe a word the nice $cientologist with his clipboard says, or Xenu
will come get you in the middle of the night.
Rob Clark
>If the CoS is such a threat, and acting so illegally, why not play there own
>game? Why not just cap a few of the motherfuckers?
jeez. i prefer the scienos to you. you are either a stupid troll or sick in
the head. in either case FOAD.
rob
Tilman Hausherr
wrote:
>If the CoS is such a threat, and acting so illegally, why not play there own
>game? Why not just cap a few of the motherfuckers?
Let *them* (co$) commit the crimes. We do not need to act illegally.
TH
--
(C) 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
Sandy Kear
>game? Why not just cap a few of the motherfuckers?
>
<snip!>
You're a very sick person. Get help.
Sandy
Warrior
>
>If the CoS is such a threat, and acting so illegally, why not play there own
>game? Why not just cap a few of the motherfuckers?
>
>tape of the murder. If they want to break the rules show them that you don't
>have to play nice too.
>
>If you aint got the stomach to actually kill any of them, then burn down some
>of there houses, rape some of there wives. They should get the point
>eventually.
Please turn yourself in to your local law enforcement officials
and ask for psychiatric help. You are sick.
Warrior
mad_b...@my-dejanews.com
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> If the CoS is such a threat, and acting so illegally, why not play there own
> game? Why not just cap a few of the motherfuckers?
>
> Hell, kill a couple of there kids--bleed them to death slow and send them a
> tape of the murder. If they want to break the rules show them that you don't
> have to play nice too.
>
> If you aint got the stomach to actually kill any of them, then burn down some
> of there houses, rape some of there wives. They should get the point
> eventually.
>
Hay moron, keep your trolls in alt.stupidity where they belong.
Mad_Cow (I pooped out a cow_patty this morning that was bigger than you)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tommy
>
> If the CoS is such a threat, and acting so illegally, why not play there own
> game? Why not just cap a few of the motherfuckers?
>
> Hell, kill a couple of there kids--bleed them to death slow and send them a
> tape of the murder. If they want to break the rules show them that you don't
> have to play nice too.
>
> If you aint got the stomach to actually kill any of them, then burn down some
> of there houses, rape some of there wives. They should get the point
> eventually.
Go away clam - It's too late to make the Thursday stats.
Tommy
--
'I'm drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys.'
-- Hubbard, 1967 letter to his wife submitted to the court in the
Armstrong
case, authenticity unchallenged by LRH/CoS lawyers
Anonymous
>If the CoS is such a threat, and acting so illegally, why not play there own
>game? Why not just cap a few of the motherfuckers?
>
>Hell, kill a couple of there kids--bleed them to death slow and send them a
>tape of the murder. If they want to break the rules show them that you don't
>have to play nice too.
>
>If you aint got the stomach to actually kill any of them, then burn down some
>of there houses, rape some of there wives. They should get the point
>eventually.
You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their
hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.
Geoffrey V. Bronner
[snip]
Go back under your bridge anonymous troll.
Anonymous used to be such a respected name on this newsgroup, sigh.
-Geoff
--
<http://www.dartmouth.edu/~geoffb/>
Rob Clark
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their
>hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.
"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot
frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of
violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing.
rob
AndroidCat
And I believe that Bob didn't even *break* that balsa wood stick!
/\<.
The Twenty Warning Signs of Too Much Star Trek:
#10. Memorization of the crew's authorization codes (Just in case?)
Anonymous
>On 9 Oct 1998 15:42:44 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>>You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their
>>hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.
>
>"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot
>frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of
>violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing.
Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
Rob Clark
>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
whining can take many forms, and is especially irritating from a stupid fuck
like you.
>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
whine whine whine. from the kings of dead-agenting, you have a lot of damn
gall.
>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
so that means you admit that when your CULT does the same thing, it is also
"violence?"
rob
Christopher Leithiser
Anonymous wrote:
> xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
> >On 9 Oct 1998 15:42:44 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> >
> >>You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their
> >>hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.
> >
> >"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot
> >frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of
> >violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing.
>
> Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
> encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
> a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
> are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
This message was brought to you by the Co$ dirty-tricks, hateful propaganda, and
mind-reading department.
AndroidCat
>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
>>On 9 Oct 1998 15:42:44 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their
>>>hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.
>>
>>"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the
idiot
>>frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act
of
>>violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and
killing.
>
>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
Word clear "violence".
And since you've never been a critic of Scientology, you can't criticize
critics. (That reasoning doesn't make any sense to me, but scienos seem to
use it all the time, <shrug>)
/\<.
Scientology: The Gerbil-Wheel to Total Freedom. Squink squink squink!
Gregg Hagglund
<nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
>>On 9 Oct 1998 15:42:44 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their
>>>hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.
>>
>>"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot
>>frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of
>>violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing.
>
>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
Please specify the the "Hateful Propaganda" you refer to.
To paraphrase another critic:
I see absolutely nothing wrong or 'hateful' in pointing out the fact
that Scientology does not tell the truth;
that Scientology management engages in unethical and
sometimes illegal activities;
that some of the practices of Scientology are potentially harmful,
even lethal;
that the founder of Scientology did not tell the truth about
himself, his record, or his education;
and that Scientology has *never* provided *any* evidence
that *any* of its technology works.
Will you tell me what is wrong or 'hateful' about providing
others with factual information on the above?
Are you seriously claiming it is an act of violence
to provide factual, truthful information about the
Co$ just because *you* chose not to believe those
legally proven or provable ~facts~?
I *do* speak about these matters and provide written
information to the general public on a monthly basis
right outside the front door of the Deadbeat Toronto Org.
Every word I say has been recorded and videotaped by the
OSA. Also the OSA have copies of all our written dissemination
materials.
DSA Mr. Buttnor even downloaded and circulated, without my
permission, copies of the pages of my old website. Nice to know
there are 'copyright terrorists' in the Co$ OSA, eh?
If I were *not* being factually truthful or the flyers or my site
contained fabrications or if repeatedly voiced libelous material (lies)
I think the Co$ would have stopped me by now with a
Lawsuit or a TRO, both of which they have failed to
succesfully propose to any Court in Ontario in regards
to the Peaceful Picketing Activities I have had the privilege of
hosting.
So in the interest of my continuing to adhere to the
laws of my country, please inform me as to *what*
_s p e c i f i c a l l y_ is the ~'hateful propaganda'~
being expressed on ARS (or in any of my posts**).
(**Just ask Rhea Smith to provide you with my
file and take a good look.)
And remember: don't generalise, be ~specific~ for a change.
No other Co$hill I have seen on ARS has managed
to be specific about the 'lies and propaganda' on ARS.
What is it? Where is it?
I won't hold my breath waiting for
an honest reply, but if you do reply then
please e-mail me as well. I have much too
much to do to waste my time on still another
anonymous and vague Co$Hack.
HATD
---
["You know, people die if they criticize scientology -
I should take care if I were you."
-Marcus Nyman, OSA (former GO), $cio-org, Stockholm, Sweden.]
Gregg Hagglund SP5
Rendered Net Invisible to
Participating Victims of Co$.
Toronto Picket Reports now at:
<http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Spa/8412/>
Dave Bird
>>>You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their
>>>hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.
>>
>>"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot
>>frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of
>>violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing.
>
>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>a form of violence.
You really think that when someone tells you to stop stealing and
defrauding, this makes bruises and boken bones? Then you are insane.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Keith Henson
: On 9 Oct 1998 15:42:44 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
: >Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
: >You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their
: >hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.
: "so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot
: frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of
: violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing.
The clams claim it was a violent act to bite Edwin Richardson's arm when
he jumped me from behind and stuck his arm in my mouth. Keith Henson
Ben The Allen
>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>
>>On 9 Oct 1998 15:42:44 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their
>>>hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.
>>
>>"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot
>>frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of
>>violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing.
>
>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
>
That's very good, if you can't prove your point in English invent a
language that's superficially like English but differs in several
important details, and claim that _that_ was in fact the language you
were speaking all along. You've done Humpty Dumpty proud...
---
Ben Allen,
Of course, it has to be *Kevin's* dead cat to count.
hei...@wport.com
Lame stuff is fun.
remove e and l to e-mail
Fiend of Ron
>Mad_Cow (I pooped out a cow_patty this morning that was bigger than you)
Oy vey Gevalt, Mr. Cow, *thanks for sharing.*
Euchhhhhh. =-p
---Fiend
"*Handle* with care, or I'll bite your fucking hands off. Maybe I'll do it anyway."
SP2 With A Bullet (KoX)
Inducto
>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
It's a subtle but interesting point.
First, I'd like to point out that some of those who first jumped on this thread
are some of the "critics" who I would say are least hostile minded in any way,
so you might want to qualify your generalization.
Second, if this point is really important to you, then you should also be
taking it up with the CoS operatives who post here, especially the rabid
attack-dog types. I'd certainly say that Russ Shaw and his
onofficial-but-undoubtedly-approved "bigots" site represent a prime example of
CoS resorting to the sort of covert hostility you refer to. Worst yet, the
CoS, it's operatives and members, are _supposed to have a "tech" that should
make them aware of what you are referring to.
Are you willing to stand up for the principle, or is your agenda here one
sided?
Gregg Hagglund
<nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>ind...@aol.com (Inducto) wrote:
>
>>
>>>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>>>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>>>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>>>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
>>
>>It's a subtle but interesting point.
>
>Do you think so, Inducto?
>
>>First, I'd like to point out that some of those who first jumped on this
thread
>>are some of the "critics" who I would say are least hostile minded in any way,
>>so you might want to qualify your generalization.
>
>Well, not really - a generalization is to address the situation in
>general. I am only willing to exclude exceptions where they arise. I
>think that you are one of these very few exceptions.
>
>>Second, if this point is really important to you, then you should also be
>>taking it up with the CoS operatives who post here, especially the rabid
>>attack-dog types. I'd certainly say that Russ Shaw and his
>>onofficial-but-undoubtedly-approved "bigots" site represent a prime example of
>>CoS resorting to the sort of covert hostility you refer to. Worst yet, the
>>CoS, it's operatives and members, are _supposed to have a "tech" that should
>>make them aware of what you are referring to.
>>
>>Are you willing to stand up for the principle, or is your agenda here one
>>sided?
>
>No - the principle applies to both sides, but it's the violence of
>critics that I am addressing here, and their hypocritical stand
>against "non-violence".
Hmm. Me thinks your subconscious has been at work here.
Care to change your rant?
You denounce my non violence as violence simply because
my information is more accurate than yours, and conflicts
with the information you have received and accepted.
Information which is detrimental to the veracity of your
cherished Co$ and its Founder.
I have a proposition for you.
Read the Justice Latey Decision.
Have you never heard of it?
Perhaps not.
To sum it up Justice Latey presided over
a custody battle in a divorce in Britain.
The truth or fraud of Scientology became
a key factor. The father had disconnected from the
mother who had left the Co$, IIRC.
In the end the Co$ was intimately examined
by the court to see if it would be a safe or
dangerous environment for a child.
(The mother felt it was detrimental.)
Hubbards lies, cheating and preposterous
pseudo-scientific 'teachings' (locomotives on venus!?)
were examined at length with the full attention of
Co$ lawyers trying to prove how 'wonderful'
Hubbard and therefore the Co$, his creation, was.
Justice Latey was fair in his examination and
allowed wide lattitude to the Co$ to prove themselves.
They failed miserably in a truthful fair examination.
The transcripts are extant and may even be found
on the web somewhere.
Justice Latey was scathing of the Co$ and
Hubbard and states why in his Decision.
Many of the detrimental things said so oft here
of Hubbard (conman, swindler, thief, bigot,
self aggrandising liar and braggart etc.) were
factually proven with the aid of Hubbards own
documents and other existing records.
You, yourself, can independently verify many
of the records and documents which show the
truthful average and less than average life
of Hubbard and his feet of clay.
The least it proves is that Hubbard was a monumental
liar and yes, a somewhat imaginative one too.
Now either you accept the preposterous idea that in the
50s there was a world wide conspiracy to replace all
of Hubbards war, court and family records with perfect
forgeries and Hubbard himself unwittingly wrote bad
checks and married one woman while still married
to another and on more than one occasion was able
to defy the physical laws of the Universe, perhaps
with the aid of his documented occult studies; or
you accept Hubbard, when it suited his purpose,
would lie, cheat, deceive and prevaricate. ("Control
people with lies.")
If you accept the former, then there *is* a world conspiracy,
to this day, to keep Scientology from taking over and
saving the world by preparing everyone sufficiently
before outer space invaders , attack. This also
means that the modern sciences of geology, paleontology,
archeology, biology and neurology, amongst others,
are all frauds and are part of the conspiracy as well.
Or, if the latter, then one must ask oneself if Hubbard did
not just make all of the Tech up from an admittedly
active imagination. Which of course means you are
caught in the deluded imaginings of a megalomaniac.
You may believe either, but not both, as they conflict.
And you have still failed to demonstrate how any valid
criticism of the Co$ or of Hubbard, based on existing
records,( some of which are Hubbards own and
admitted or stipulated to in courts), and existing
scienctific expertise, are 'violence'.
I hand out legally factual flyers and post similarly to
ARS and send factual truthful letters to the various levels of
government concerning the Criminally Convicted Business/Cult
called the Co$. I *do not* shout into the face of
Co$ staff or publics, but do enjoy, upon occasion quiet,
if spirited, conversations, which *they* initiate.
When I picket, it is to provide truthful factual
verifiable information. Not innuendo, libels,
slanders, distortions or outright lies. I do not desire
to be sued or arrested for prosthelytising 'hate speech'.
And I picket a public place of business. Not a private
residence of someone who voices an opinion contrary
to my own backed up with facts I refuse to consider.
Now, unless you believe any communication
of an opinion no matter how factual, which contradicts
Source and the Co$ is automatically violent, ( which
would make you a appear somewhat lunatic)
then explain to me how these peaceful non-inciteful
communications (free speech) are in any way 'violent'
in the real world.
Bobby Parker
If the CoS is such a threat, and acting so illegally, why not play there
own game? Why not just cap a few of the motherfuckers?
Besides the fact that it would be illegal, immoral, and completely
unjustified, "capping" a $cientologist would land you in jail and give
the CO$ some very strong ammunition in their portrayal of critics as
just a bunch of hateful, violent, criminal bigots. In other words, as
silly and cold blooded as your "suggestion" is, it would not be
practical. Most $cieno's are unsuspecting victims of a cruel hoax
called $cientology. They act on orders from higher-level management
which should be exposed by any means for any and all crimes they commit.
When the CO$ is exposed and/or prosecuted enough for all crimes
committed, they will lose "raw meat" and many members will "blow" At
that point, the CO$ will be forced to either reform or cease and desist.
Bobby
Anonymous
>Anonymous wrote in message <1998100918...@replay.com>...
>>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>>
>>>On 9 Oct 1998 15:42:44 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their
>>>>hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.
>>>
>>>"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot
>>>frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of
>>>violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing.
>>
>>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
>
>Word clear "violence".
Good idea:
The Wordsmyth English Dictionary:
______________________________________________________________
1. strong, damaging force.
2. an act that causes injury or harm.
3. the vehement, forceful expression of feeling or use of language.
4. unfair or abusive use of power or force.
5. harm caused by misrepresentation of motive or meaning:
______________________________________________________________
Webster's Revised Unabridged:
______________________________________________________________
Vi"o*lence (?), n. [F., fr. L. violentia. See Violent.]
1. The quality or state of being violent; highly excited action,
whether physical or moral; vehemence; impetuosity; force.
2. Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or
observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
3. Ravishment; rape; constupration. To do violence on, to attack; to
murder. To do violence to, to outrage; to injure; as, he does violence
to his own opinions. Syn. -- Vehemence; outrage; fierceness;
eagerness; violation; infraction; infringement; transgression;
oppression.
______________________________________________________________
>And since you've never been a critic of Scientology
Your OT Powerz are most astounding.
>you can't criticize critics
Sayz who?
>(That reasoning doesn't make any sense to me, but scienos seem to
>use it all the time, <shrug>)
All you need in order to be a critic is to have an opinion. That's
hardly something difficult or remarkable.
Anonymous
>On 9 Oct 1998 20:20:26 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
>>
>That's very good, if you can't prove your point in English invent a
>language that's superficially like English but differs in several
>important details, and claim that _that_ was in fact the language you
>were speaking all along. You've done Humpty Dumpty proud...
What word don't you understand?
Anonymous
>
>>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
>
tall...@storm.ca
>hei...@wport.com (Ben "The" Allen) wrote:
>
>
>>>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>>>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>>>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>>>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
>>>
>>language that's superficially like English but differs in several
>>important details, and claim that _that_ was in fact the language you
>>were speaking all along. You've done Humpty Dumpty proud...
>
>What word don't you understand?
I think what he's saying is that you've redefined 'violence' to include not
only acts of violence, but the 'encouraging' of violence through 'hateful
propaganada' which you call 'a form of violence' in itself - a description,
btw, that to my mind belittles the actual meaning of the word itself.
I can call FREEDOM Magazine 'hateful propaganda' - does that mean that I can
claim tht it, too, is 'another form of violence?
Then you move on from merely redefining the word 'violence', and demonstrate
the amazing psychic abilities that allow you to determine that some critics'
*minds* are 'awfully violent', which, in the askew logic of which your initial
claim was such a sterling example, translates into proof of your claim that
critics *themselves* are 'violent'.
In fact, you have done nothing more than a) arbitrarily determine that what
critics post is 'hate propaganda, b) link that 'hate propaganda' with
still-to-be-specified acts of 'violence' by critics and c) double-curved back
to accuse critics of 'hypocrisy', based on your own reinterpretation of the
facts as they stand today. Pretty impressive for a less-than-ten line post.
K
Ben The Allen
>hei...@wport.com (Ben "The" Allen) wrote:
>
>>On 9 Oct 1998 20:20:26 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>>>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>>>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>>>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>>>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
>>>
>>That's very good, if you can't prove your point in English invent a
>>language that's superficially like English but differs in several
>>important details, and claim that _that_ was in fact the language you
>>were speaking all along. You've done Humpty Dumpty proud...
>
>What word don't you understand?
>
I wish you'd reply to my other reply to one of your messages, you
know, the one about how, Scientology aside, one would go about
deciding whether or not a minor religion movement was "bad",
"detrimental" so on and so on...but oh well. When you ask "What word
don't you understand" you miss a fundamental facet of language - that
in most cases the meaning of a sentence is distributed among the words
of a sentence...that languages generally can't be fully understood
reductionalistically. What I've misunderstood is not one word, but
rather your argument as a whole, which seems to me invalid - it seems
to me that you are in fact _equating_ verbal violence (force of ideas
or what have you) with physical violence (guns, knifes, clubs made of
stronger stuff than balsa wood). Something that's missed by those who
over-rely on dictionary definitions is that words have shades of
meaning...simply because two ideas are embodied in the same word does
not mean that those two ideas are automatically equal. When one refers
to non-violent techniques one is generally talking about avoiding
physical violence - a cue to this is the use of the word "techniques"
or similar words which point to real-world manifestations of whatever
they refer to. Looking back to the civil rights movement, one sees
that to certain groups the ideas of Martin Luther King Jr. were rather
violent...I mean, imagine what the "I Have a Dream" speech would have
read like to certain southerner whites of the day...to them they saw
that MLK Jr. was advocating the complete dismantling of a social
structure they had come to expect and rely upon - a rather violent
idea, to their eyes. Despite this, this Ghandi-inspired movement is
held up as a shining example of non-violent protest. Do you see? When
one is protesting something one generally has a set of forceful ideas:
"We are all equal" "We deserve more pay for our work" "We cannot let
people be bilked by this fraud religion". One may call these ideas
violent, and even find backing in Merriam-Webster for such -
nevertheless, if the protesters aren't physically attacking those they
are protesting against it is a non-violent protest. Perhaps you could
wordclear that, hm? Don't some dictionaries have entries for common
phrases such as "non-violent protest"? Anyway, food for thought. The
idea of non-violent protest is a rather subtle one, I think...it takes
much self-restraint to apply and took a fair bit of genius to think
up, since these two ideas are not intuitively joined.
Anonymous
>In article <1998101022...@replay.com>, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>hei...@wport.com (Ben "The" Allen) wrote:
>>
>>>On 9 Oct 1998 20:20:26 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence. You are
>>>>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
>>>>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>>>>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
>>>>
>>>That's very good, if you can't prove your point in English invent a
>>>language that's superficially like English but differs in several
>>>important details, and claim that _that_ was in fact the language you
>>>were speaking all along. You've done Humpty Dumpty proud...
>>
>>What word don't you understand?
>
>I think what he's saying is that you've redefined 'violence' to include not
>only acts of violence, but the 'encouraging' of violence through 'hateful
>propaganada' which you call 'a form of violence' in itself - a description,
>btw, that to my mind belittles the actual meaning of the word itself.
Check the definition I posted in answer to another poster. I am not
the one redefining the word. It just means more than just physical
violence.
>I can call FREEDOM Magazine 'hateful propaganda' - does that mean that I can
>claim tht it, too, is 'another form of violence?
Of course - if it indulge in the same type of behavior most critics
like to engage into.
>Then you move on from merely redefining the word 'violence', and demonstrate
>the amazing psychic abilities that allow you to determine that some critics'
>*minds* are 'awfully violent',
Eh - I don't need any psychic abilities for that - just observing
critics in this newsgroup.
>which, in the askew logic of which your initial
>claim was such a sterling example, translates into proof of your claim that
>critics *themselves* are 'violent'.
Of course they are. Not all of them, but the exceptions are few.
>In fact, you have done nothing more than a) arbitrarily determine that what
>critics post is 'hate propaganda,
That's my opinion. Of course it's arbitrary, like every opinion.
>b) link that 'hate propaganda' with
>still-to-be-specified acts of 'violence' by critics and c) double-curved back
>to accuse critics of 'hypocrisy', based on your own reinterpretation of the
>facts as they stand today. Pretty impressive for a less-than-ten line post.
Hehe - isn't it? But it's all in your mind, Kady. What I say is more
simple and straightforward than that :-)
Anonymous
>On 11 Oct 1998 00:41:16 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>>hei...@wport.com (Ben "The" Allen) wrote:
>>What word don't you understand?
>>
>I wish you'd reply to my other reply to one of your messages
Hey - don't assume that all Anons are me :-)
I think that you made quite a few good point in your rant, but do try
to split it up into paragraphs if you want people with less patience
than my humble self to read it :-)
Tommy
>
> "AndroidCat" <andro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Anonymous wrote in message <1998100918...@replay.com>...
> >>xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 9 Oct 1998 15:42:44 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>You are just a troll giving opportunity for critics to display their
> >>>>hypocritical support for their so-called non-violence.
> >>>
> >>>"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot
> >>>frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of
> >>>violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing.
> >>
> >>encouraging these through your hateful propaganda - which in itself is
> >>a form of violence. You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
> >>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
> >
Quick! Call him a Pretentious Twit(tm) - that should finish him off.
:-)
Tommy
--
$cientology "handles" the internet: "Commander Miscavige, there's a
burning
paper bag on our front porch! What should we do??"
Miscavige: "Go stomp on it and put it out."
Rob Clark
>On 11 Oct 1998 00:41:16 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>What I've misunderstood is not one word, but
>rather your argument as a whole, which seems to me invalid - it seems
>to me that you are in fact _equating_ verbal violence (force of ideas
>or what have you) with physical violence (guns, knifes, clubs made of
>stronger stuff than balsa wood). Something that's missed by those who
>over-rely on dictionary definitions is that words have shades of
>meaning...simply because two ideas are embodied in the same word does
>not mean that those two ideas are automatically equal. When one refers
the name of this logical fallacy is "equivocation." it amounts to argument by
redefinition, humpty-dumpty like.
rob
Anonymous
It's ze real definition, Rob - you just see part of it, I see the
whole of it. Eh - it's normal. You just are a critic.
Ben The Allen
>Hey - don't assume that all Anons are me [emoticon snipped]
Yeah, um, (tangentally) about that....it would make things around here
much less confusing if the non-OSA anonymi put [XENU] or something to
that effect at the top of their posts..so people can sort good posts
from bots-spew and all that.
>
>
[unparagraphed rant snipped]
>
>I think that you made quite a few good point in your rant, but do try
>to split it up into paragraphs... [snip]
>
>
Bite me, it's fun.
DeadElRon
>>>claim was such a sterling example, translates into proof of your claim that
>>>critics *themselves* are 'violent'.
>In article <1998101122...@replay.com>, Anonymous wrote:
>
>>Of course they are. Not all of them, but the exceptions are few.
Specifics, please.
Ben The Allen
this thread...
*cough* let's try a simple reductio ad absurdum [ad misspelled-'um (ad
misused-'um) =) ]
here...see, just because a single dictionary definition embodies two
or more different concepts does not mean that those concepts are the
same...<digs up an example>
(this is from the Hypertext Webster Gateway at
http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster)
----
Underground \Un"der*ground`\, a. 1. Being below the surface of the
ground; as, an underground story or apartment.
2. Done or occurring out of sight; secret. [Colloq.]
Underground railroad or railway. See under {Railroad}.
----
These are three related yet distinct concepts which share the same
word. Now, your example of saying that the protests against
Scientology are "violent" because of the "violent" ideas behind them,
then justifying such a classification by using a dictionary definition
is akin to someone that someone in an underground apartment is not in
fact underground because they are not on a train, or because they are
not engaging in shady secret dealings. It's a complete non-sequitur.
You must be doing this deliberately because, well, I don't see anyone
possibly being stupid enough to really think that "violent" ideas are
equivalent to "violent" actions, especially when one is speaking
about protests against a truly violent organization.
Your fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the English
language, deliberate or no, _will_ _not_ bring new members into your
church. How about we just drop this? Oh yes, what _is_ your answer to
my other question, you know, the one about whether or not there can in
fact be "dangerous" minor religions, and how one can go about
identifying them?
tall...@storm.ca
>>>What word don't you understand?
>>
>>I think what he's saying is that you've redefined 'violence' to include not
>>only acts of violence, but the 'encouraging' of violence through 'hateful
>>propaganada' which you call 'a form of violence' in itself - a description,
>>btw, that to my mind belittles the actual meaning of the word itself.
>
>Check the definition I posted in answer to another poster. I am not
>the one redefining the word. It just means more than just physical
>violence.
So by using this broader definition of 'violence', could it not just as easily
be argued that *many* scientologists harbour 'violent' feelings towards
psychiatrists, Germans, tax collectors and any number of other identifiable
groups? It seems to me that *whoever* redefined the word, whether you or
someone else in the thread, is playing a semantic game that belittles the real
issue, which is the propensity for violence in individual critics *and* scns.
We have enough words for 'things that hurt my feelings' to avoid using
'violent' as a catch-all description, I believe. YMMV.
>
>>I can call FREEDOM Magazine 'hateful propaganda' - does that mean that I can
>>claim tht it, too, is 'another form of violence?
>
>Of course - if it indulge in the same type of behavior most critics
>like to engage into.
And, if you're being objective and fair-minded, the same type of behaviour
most official scientologist spokespeople engage in, as well as the more
vociferous of publics.
>>Then you move on from merely redefining the word 'violence', and demonstrate
>>the amazing psychic abilities that allow you to determine that some critics'
>>*minds* are 'awfully violent',
>
>Eh - I don't need any psychic abilities for that - just observing
>critics in this newsgroup.
Rhetoric is not action. Impassioned -- even over the top -- posts to a.r.s.
do not a violent person make. They may well be ill-advised, and they may
serve to do the opposite of what the writers intend, and I will freely admit
that they quite often frustrate me a great deal. But do I think the posters
are likely to go out and commit an actual act of violence against someone? In
all but the most extreme cases - no. (And those extreme cases fall on both the
scientologist and critic side of the equation.)
>>which, in the askew logic of which your initial
>>claim was such a sterling example, translates into proof of your claim that
>>critics *themselves* are 'violent'.
>
>Of course they are. Not all of them, but the exceptions are few.
You live in a strange and not very pleasant world - and a world where I
believe much of the most unpleasant aspects thereof are but figments of your
imagination. Critics are not, for the most part, violent. I think that has
been well demonstrated by the complete lack of violent incidents that have
arisen at pickets - both of orgs and of critics' homes, as well as by the
condemnation that is so quick to flow whenever *anyone* -- usually a
hit-and-run poster who runs a 50% chance of being an OSA instigator, or some
teenaged lout -- suggests the employment of anything but peaceful tactics.
Is Jeff Jacobsen violent? Rod Keller? Deana Marie Holmes? Ron Newman? Lady
Ada? Charlotte Kates? Warrior? Indigio? Old Timer? Stephen Jones? Efish? Any
of dozens more posters/picketers/lurkers?
Am *I* violent?
>>In fact, you have done nothing more than a) arbitrarily determine that what
>>critics post is 'hate propaganda,
>
>That's my opinion. Of course it's arbitrary, like every opinion.
What makes it arbitrary, though -- or perhaps the term is 'selective' - is the
fact that you seem to be willing to apply these standards only to the writings
of critics, rather than to scientologists - both official and unofficial - as
well.
>>b) link that 'hate propaganda' with
>>still-to-be-specified acts of 'violence' by critics and c) double-curved back
>>to accuse critics of 'hypocrisy', based on your own reinterpretation of the
>>facts as they stand today. Pretty impressive for a less-than-ten line post.
>
>Hehe - isn't it? But it's all in your mind, Kady. What I say is more
>simple and straightforward than that :-)
You're saying that critics are violent, because they write 'hate propaganda'
which, in your mind, leads to actual violence. Is that a fair summation of
your views?
K
Anonymous
>In article <1998101122...@replay.com>, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>So by using this broader definition of 'violence', could it not just as easily
>be argued that *many* scientologists harbour 'violent' feelings towards
>psychiatrists, Germans, tax collectors and any number of other identifiable
>groups?
Yes - so?
>It seems to me that *whoever* redefined the word, whether you or
>someone else in the thread, is playing a semantic game that belittles the real
>issue, which is the propensity for violence in individual critics *and* scns.
>We have enough words for 'things that hurt my feelings' to avoid using
>'violent' as a catch-all description, I believe. YMMV.
Well, yes. YMMV. You can kill with bullets - you can also kill with
words. See what I mean? Some even pretend they can kill with a thought
;-)
Trying to hurt another is a violent act - whether it is just a snide
remark or a bullet. That's my opinion. Some critics slaughter
everything in sight through words, and then they come along and boast
about their "non-violence". If you'll see it from this point of view,
you'll see it as utter hypocrisy. God knows what they would do if they
*had* the opportunity to physically harm others with impunity. You
know how humans are...
>And, if you're being objective and fair-minded, the same type of behaviour
>most official scientologist spokespeople engage in, as well as the more
>vociferous of publics.
Sure.
>Rhetoric is not action. Impassioned -- even over the top --
Yes - of course. I am not arguing that.
>posts to a.r.s.
>do not a violent person make.
No, but violent posting to ars a violent person make. I read Erlich,
then I read what's on Russ web site about him: yes it fits...
Of course what's a "violent person"? People are not absolutes,
sometimes they are violent, sometimes they aren't - but some are more
often violent than others.
>They may well be ill-advised, and they may
>serve to do the opposite of what the writers intend, and I will freely admit
>that they quite often frustrate me a great deal. But do I think the posters
>are likely to go out and commit an actual act of violence against someone? In
>all but the most extreme cases - no. (And those extreme cases fall on both the
>scientologist and critic side of the equation.)
Yes - they just are all humans. But you will never know - given the
circumstances. Remember the (what's his name again) experiment? The
one who set up a machine where people could punish others with
impunity?
I think that what comes out through the present kind of electronic
forum is more the real person than what can be known through the real
life behavior of this person. I am quite confident that I know better
many posters around here than I know my colleagues whom I see every
day.
>You live in a strange and not very pleasant world -
hoho - you are quite wrong about that. I live in a very pleasant world
(just thought I let you know :-)
>and a world where I
>believe much of the most unpleasant aspects thereof are but figments of your
>imagination. Critics are not, for the most part, violent. I think that has
>been well demonstrated by the complete lack of violent incidents that have
>arisen at pickets - both of orgs and of critics' homes, as well as by the
>condemnation that is so quick to flow whenever *anyone* -- usually a
>hit-and-run poster who runs a 50% chance of being an OSA instigator, or some
>teenaged lout -- suggests the employment of anything but peaceful tactics.
>
>Is Jeff Jacobsen violent?
Hmm, no. I don't think so. At least I didn't find anything to
criticize on him - yet (apart for his cluelessness regarding "cults",
but that's a general symptome around here and hopefully gets
straighten up with time).
>Rod Keller?
Hmm.. Yes, sometimes. He is violent when he makes personal attacks
against Diane to cover his irc lies, for example. He is violent when
he reminds everyone of Keith Wyatt's alcoholism as Keith enters a chat
forum. I remember his remark when Keith Wyatt said he leaves ars (one
of those times): "don't let the door slam on you" (or something) -
that's violent. IRL, he may even do it, and Keith may react to it,
then you have a mess. That's inner violence actualized on the outside
- and for no other reasons than Keith taking a stand against critics -
that's violence too, even fascism and bigotry.
>Deana Marie Holmes?
Most of the time no - but sometimes yes.
[Eh - that's fun.]
>Ron Newman?
No.
>Lady Ada?
Wazza?
>Charlotte Kates?
Don't know her well enough, but apparently no.
>Warrior?
Yes - he was pretty disgusting in his behavior with Claire Swazey, and
on some other occasion too. Most of the time he behaves, though.
[People, you can send me your check and I'll deliver a good review of
you]
>Indigio?
That would be Inducto. The answer is no.
>Old Timer?
No. But she doesn't post much either + she is a freezoner (i.e. a
Scientologist. Hehe...)
>Stephen Jones?
No. Stephen is in my protected tiny minority :-)
>Efish?
Yes.
>Any of dozens more posters/picketers/lurkers?
Sure - Roland, Dave Bird, Erlich, Zane Thomas, Martin Hunt, Rob Clark,
Arnie Lerma, William Barwell, Bruce Beppy, Dominion, Ex-mudder,
Tilman Haussherr, Alex (jeaux), Anti-Cult, Freiman, Gary Scarff,
Graham Berry, Gregg Hagglung, Roger Gonnet, Steve Fishman, Steve
Withlash, bc, sandy, Ralh Hilton, Jana Moreillon, Jim DBB, John
Dorsay, Tom Klemersrud, ...
These are some of the people I consider violent - and out of charity I
left out quite a few who occasionally can be violent too. The first
named are the worst.
>Am *I* violent?
No :-)
>>>In fact, you have done nothing more than a) arbitrarily determine that what
>>>critics post is 'hate propaganda,
>>
>>That's my opinion. Of course it's arbitrary, like every opinion.
>
>What makes it arbitrary, though -- or perhaps the term is 'selective' - is the
>fact that you seem to be willing to apply these standards only to the writings
>of critics, rather than to scientologists - both official and unofficial - as
>well.
Hmm..
Wgert, Justin, Rod Fletcher, Enzo (and I probably forget a couple) - I
consider violent.
RonsAmigo, MikeSmith, MiKe, Wonderflur, Whippersnapper (although he
can be sometime), The Pilot - I don't.
Well, YMMV, of course - and sure it will. This all is very subjective.
>>Hehe - isn't it? But it's all in your mind, Kady. What I say is more
>>simple and straightforward than that :-)
>
>You're saying that critics are violent, because they write 'hate propaganda'
>which, in your mind, leads to actual violence. Is that a fair summation of
>your views?
No :-)
They are violent when they try to hurt others, either out of meanness,
revenge or plain stupidity. Dishonesty, as in hate propaganda, is a
form of violence too.
Gregg Hagglund
<nob...@replay.com> wrote:
(snip)
>They are violent when they try to hurt others, either out of meanness,
>revenge or plain stupidity. Dishonesty, as in hate propaganda, is a
>form of violence too.
While I do not accept your redefinition of the word 'violence'
to include disseminating truthful information about the
Criminally Convicted Corporation for Breaches of the
Public Trust, otherwise known as the Co$, I will play with it
a bit.<grin>
You state:
"They are violent when they try to hurt others, either out of meanness,
revenge or plain stupidity."
By this definition then Wgert, Ronsamigo, RodF ,infact, all of the
OSA shill posters are 'violent'.
Including yourself. For you are dishonest.
"Dishonesty, as in hate propaganda, is a form of violence too."
You are dishonest as you have failed to include yourself
as 'violent' under your own definition. Your intention, under your
definition, is to be hurtful to me, (and others), by calling me violent,
hateful, mean, vengeful, stupid, and a propagandist, none of which,
you know, I consider myself.
Or was your intention by defining me in those terms not
violent, by your definition? Were you just being kind
and educational? What *was* your intent, eh?
I do not consider you 'violent' in your communications.
Nor do I consider RonsA, Wgert, RodF and the others
to be 'violent'.
Even when you and the others are hateful, mean, vengeful,
stupid, or even vicious, spiteful and cruel and untruthful
in your 'propaganda' or communications.
However, let us deal with the real world for a moment.
[You remember the real world don't you?
The one where the Marcab Invaders are not
about to descend on us all and the evil psyches
don't have a secret conspiracy for world domination
funded by the 12 bankers etc...?
The real world where people don't mindlessly
chant Heil Hubb- er Hip Hip Hooray to Hubbards
picture each day?]
In my country there is a controversial law regarding
'hate speech' or 'hate propaganda'. This legislation
is being tested in our Supreme Courts. I disagree
with the scope of this law myself, however I do not fear it,
whileI fight against it, for it is inapplicable to me and to
what I have posted on the Net, on my former Website,
published and caused to be published and distributed at
Pickets, Marketplaces, Campuses, street corners,
and as Newspaper inserts or in several briefs submitted
to various levels of Government; or spoken, performed
or verbally communicated to others in public places.
I know this because the Co$ have repeatedly complained
to the Hate Crime Units of the Halton Region Police,
Metropolitan Toronto Police, Ontario Provincial Police,
and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police about my activities
and publications.
[ My intelligence gathering has even revealed a
claimed complaint by Mr. Buttnor to the former
Prime Minister of Alberta, Mr. Loughheed, about
my activities in opposition to the activities of the
Criminal Co$ in Canada and abroad.]
Even by this legislations onerously broad definition,
(at least to me and many others civil libertarians activists)
of 'hate speech and propaganda', I am neither hateful
nor a hate propagandist, because *nothing*, absolutely
~*nothing*~ I have posted, published, or pronounced
has been untruthful, or in its original context advocated
physical harm or unusual Civil Restrictions about
the Co$ or its individual members. Nor have I or those
I am associated with, been 'incidteful' in the manner
of my activities or communications.
I have been investigated and exonerated of any
such claimed 'hate crime' by the Co$.
The investigation was quite brief as the Co$ was
quite thorough in the materials it presented and
scrupulously accurate, else they would have faced
charges themselves. Their complaints were
dismissed as 'groundless'.
On the other hand, by the Co$ own definition
of what an SP is and how they are to be treated,
the threats of RodF and the photographing of
my children *are* considered IIRC, by these same
agencies as actions and intentions of an intimidating
nature which may predicate 'hate crimes' by the
Co$.
By real world terms rude speech, even loud
speech is not an act of violence provided it is
truthful and not delivered in an 'inciteful'
[to physical violence] manner. Verbal assault
may occur, even if the content of the communication
is truthful, if it is delivered in a physically intimidating
manner.
The point is, your simplistic definition of violence
as being anything which you yourself find hurtful,
{even if it is nothing more than facts which you
find uncomfortable or refuse to consider as truthful,
despite evidences to the contrary} is a 'black or white'
fantasy.
In the real world, truthful information may be
delivered in a peaceful or a physically violent
manner. One is permissible and the other
is not, despite its factual content. Also in the
real world dishonest information may be
communicated peacefully or violently.
One may be criminally fraudulent, libelous
or slanderous, a minor infraction of the law,
or it may be inciteful, initimidating or 'hatefilled',
all major infractions of the law.
It is obvious you do not see the escalation
from uncomforting fact to violent act from
your point of view. You simply label anything
which you do not agree with or do not wish to
have communicated, even in your absence, as
'violent'. 'Violent' is a button word. Nobody who
is civilised likes violence. By redefining
and repeatedly using as a descriptive label
'violent' the content of anything you or the Co$
does not want communicated you seek to invoke
the common repulsive feelings of society towards
real violence and apply this revulsion to information
which in actual fact is helpful to everyone except
the Co$.
Only this doesn't work in an age of communication
such as this one.
You are stuck with a 50s script and society
where everything was black or white, good
or bad. Today is not such a simple time and
by continuing to adopt such simplistic tactics
you and the Co$ appear more stupid and moronic
than you really are. The best examples I have seen
of this Co$ tactic backfiring: Heber J. on international
TV went on his anti-psyche rant when asked why
Lisa M had to be dead or near death before the Co$
staff sought competant medical aid for her. Bryant
Gumbel just let him rant on for a full minute or two
and Heber came across as a complete lunatic; M. Rinder
having been faced with the indisputable fact Cynthia
Kisser was never a topless dancer, then refers to that
lie, again, in the same interview, thereby looking like a
stupid parroting robot, and similarly when he was
challenged upon his comparison of, IIRC, Bob
Minton to Timothy McVeigh, again Mike Rinder
came across as a deliberate hysteric and therefore
just plain dumb.
Personally, I do not believe Heber J., Mike R,
or yourself Anonymouse to be natively unintelligent,
you just appear that way, unintentionally, because
the Cult you are fronting for teaches you to act
in that manner. Most unfortunate for your cause
and most beneficial for the general public who
think that Co$ members are either brain dead
or get that way and avoid the Co$. This is one
of the reasons IMHO why the Co$ is shrinking.
However, if the Co$ stops being a 'for us or against us'
operation and lets in any prevarication about itself by its
members, then it will disintegrate. Hubbard knew this
and created a rigid, and inflexible militaristic structure
patterned more after the British Navy of the 1800s
then a modern military structure.
I have gone into all this so that you will understand
when I call you a "maroon" this means I think
you are being an idiotic cartoon like caricature of the
complete human you could be.
You have my pity.
Maroon.
Rob Clark
>tall...@storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
>>In article <1998101122...@replay.com>, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>So by using this broader definition of 'violence', could it not just as easily
>>be argued that *many* scientologists harbour 'violent' feelings towards
>>psychiatrists, Germans, tax collectors and any number of other identifiable
>>groups?
>Yes - so?
so, is one kind of "violence," such as, for example, jumping keith henson from
behind, shoving an arm in his mouth, strangling him, and then coming up with the
outrageous idiocy that he "bit the man's arm," ok? that's ok violence? but
pointing out that the sort of person who would do that is a despicable piece of
shit is NOT ok "violence?"
>>It seems to me that *whoever* redefined the word, whether you or
>>someone else in the thread, is playing a semantic game that belittles the real
>>issue, which is the propensity for violence in individual critics *and* scns.
>>We have enough words for 'things that hurt my feelings' to avoid using
>>'violent' as a catch-all description, I believe. YMMV.
>Well, yes. YMMV. You can kill with bullets - you can also kill with
>words. See what I mean? Some even pretend they can kill with a thought
>;-)
>Trying to hurt another is a violent act - whether it is just a snide
>remark or a bullet. That's my opinion. Some critics slaughter
it's an exceptionally idiotic one, and that's my opinion.
i hope my "violence" doesn't leave any bruises.
>everything in sight through words, and then they come along and boast
>about their "non-violence". If you'll see it from this point of view,
>you'll see it as utter hypocrisy. God knows what they would do if they
>*had* the opportunity to physically harm others with impunity. You
>know how humans are...
dummy. *anyone* has the opportunity to physically harm others. be careful
enough, and even with impunity. i'd offer edwin richardson as an example of
this, or eugene martin ingram, who regularly use their PI license not to
"investigate" but to hurt and attempt to intimidate people.
>>And, if you're being objective and fair-minded, the same type of behaviour
>>most official scientologist spokespeople engage in, as well as the more
>>vociferous of publics.
>Sure.
>>Rhetoric is not action. Impassioned -- even over the top --
>Yes - of course. I am not arguing that.
>>posts to a.r.s.
>>do not a violent person make.
>No, but violent posting to ars a violent person make. I read Erlich,
>then I read what's on Russ web site about him: yes it fits...
russ' page is intended to hurt. it is "violent." when you wish to portray
critics as violent, then you use one definition of violence. your definition of
violence suddenly changes when it's your own cult's hate propaganda at issue.
the sleazy debating tactic and fallcy used to reach these remarkable
conclusions?
Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms
Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different
meanings in the same argument. For example:
"What could be more affordable than free software? But to make sure
that it remains free, that users can do what they like with it, we
must place a license on it to make sure that will always be freely
redistributable."
One way to avoid this fallacy is to choose your terminology carefully
before beginning the argument, and avoid words like "free" which have
many meanings.
--
you claim critics are "violent" because they use hate propaganda. then you
bolster your claim of violence, by QUOTING A PIECE OF HATE PROPAGANDA!
what is more amazing is you probably don't even know you're doing it.
rob
Christopher Leithiser
Glossary from the Anonymous/Wgert/et al scripts
Disagreement = "violence"
Publication of cult secrets = "terrorism"
Questions = "harrassment"
Freedom = "slavery"
Shit = "shinola"
tall...@storm.ca
>
>>In article <1998101122...@replay.com>, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com>
> wrote:
>
>>So by using this broader definition of 'violence', could it not just as easily
>
>>be argued that *many* scientologists harbour 'violent' feelings towards
>>psychiatrists, Germans, tax collectors and any number of other identifiable
>>groups?
>
>Yes - so?
I apologize; when I initially waded into this thread, I was under the
impression that you were accusing critics of behaviour that was worse than
that of some scientologists. (That'll teach me not to read a thread straight
through before jumping in with my opinions and pre-conceived notions, right?)
Of course, given that you have since established that you find such "violent"
behaviour to be unacceptable coming from either side, that rather makes moot
the point that I was trying to make in this particular paragraph. Sorry about
that.
>>It seems to me that *whoever* redefined the word, whether you or
>>someone else in the thread, is playing a semantic game that belittles the real
>
>>issue, which is the propensity for violence in individual critics *and* scns.
>>We have enough words for 'things that hurt my feelings' to avoid using
>>'violent' as a catch-all description, I believe. YMMV.
>
>Well, yes. YMMV. You can kill with bullets - you can also kill with
>words. See what I mean? Some even pretend they can kill with a thought
>;-)
No, you *can't* kill with words. You can use words in a way that may lead
others to commit actual acts of violence, but the fact remains that to take
that final step -- from reading "all psychiatrists are insane criminals who
should be removed from this plane of existence because of the harm they to do
others to actually going out and committing an act of violence *against* a
psychiatrist *solely because of what you have read* -- is more than a matter
of simply reading too many 'violent' posts on USENET.
I have always been somewhat uncomfortable with the laws against "hate speech"
per se, mainly since I believe that words are just that - words. Not actions.
While I can understand the temptation to hold the writer of hateful words -
say, an Ernst Zundel, for example - responsible for whatever acts may be
spawned by his words, I think it is a fine line to draw. Telling someone to
"go out and kill the Jews/Scientologists/psychiatrists/critics" is different
from writing posts that may, in rare and tragic cases, lead to someone doing
just that. I don't think anyone on a.r.s. would ever do the latter
consciously, but I will concur that the possibility is always there. On both
sides.
>Trying to hurt another is a violent act - whether it is just a snide
>remark or a bullet. That's my opinion. Some critics slaughter
>everything in sight through words, and then they come along and boast
>about their "non-violence". If you'll see it from this point of view,
>you'll see it as utter hypocrisy. God knows what they would do if they
>*had* the opportunity to physically harm others with impunity. You
>know how humans are...
There is a difference, I think, between trying to "slaughter everything in
sight through words" and even your first comment, which is that "trying to
hurt another is a violent act." When I criticize some aspect of scientology,
I am no trying to hurt any individual scientologist. I am commenting on
something about the organization itself. I will sadly admit that in some
cases, people on a.r.s. do not make much effort to avoid "hurt[ing] another
with ... a snide remark," but I think this is more due to the cartoon-like
quality to many of the offiical OSA-bot posters to a.r.s., which do not seem
capable of being 'hurt' in the orthodox sense of the word.
Does wgert feel bad when people tease him about his pig? I don't know. I've
never seen him reply to posts here in anything approaching a 'personal' way.
He posts whatever dead agent material or juicy court documents his superiors
have handed to him; he makes snide remarks about various critics, he outs
people. He doesn't seem to react to anything that is said to him, so I'd be
hardpressed to say that he is 'hurt' by snide remarks launched in his
direction. In fact, for wgert, this seems to be a job - nothing more, nothing
less.
None of this, of course, is in any way meant to argue that critics ought not
concern themselves with whether their words make scientologists feel that they
have been hurt, whether justified or not. I've been through the 'clam' wars.
When I see critics behaving badly, or treating others in what I see as a
dehumanizing way, I say something. I do acknowledge that some of your points
may -- sadly -- be correct, but I think it's also possible that you have
become so discouraged by what you see as pervasive violence amongst critics
that you miss the voices of reason.
>>And, if you're being objective and fair-minded, the same type of behaviour
>>most official scientologist spokespeople engage in, as well as the more
>>vociferous of publics.
>
>Sure.
>
>>Rhetoric is not action. Impassioned -- even over the top --
>
>Yes - of course. I am not arguing that.
>
>>posts to a.r.s.
>>do not a violent person make.
>
>No, but violent posting to ars a violent person make. I read Erlich,
>then I read what's on Russ web site about him: yes it fits...
>
>Of course what's a "violent person"? People are not absolutes,
>sometimes they are violent, sometimes they aren't - but some are more
>often violent than others.
I think Dennis can be blunt, and harsh, but violent? I just don't see it. I'm
sorry. (And I've been on the receiving end of his blunt/harshness myself.)
Using your broad definition of 'violent', as in, that which causes another to
feel pain, I suppose that's true - but then, I could say the same thing about
*your* posts. And, probably, about anyone else on this group. There is nothing
one can say that won't offend somebody, somewhere. That's not violence, that's
reality.
Do you think it's possible, though, that some posters to a.r.s. who you might
see as 'more often violent' are, in fact, channeling whatever anger and
bitterness they might have towards scientology into this medium, rather than
letting it devour them from the inside, or take it out in the real world?
For the record, to continue using Dennis as an example, I have read posts
from him that are unquestionably angry, particularly when he discusses the
effect of scientology on his relationship with his daughters. I have never
seen him threaten violence - actual, physical violence - against anyone.
>
>Yes - they just are all humans. But you will never know - given the
>circumstances. Remember the (what's his name again) experiment? The
>one who set up a machine where people could punish others with
>impunity?
>
>I think that what comes out through the present kind of electronic
>forum is more the real person than what can be known through the real
>life behavior of this person. I am quite confident that I know better
>many posters around here than I know my colleagues whom I see every
>day.
I'm not sure about that. Surely you have heard of the phenomenon of 'net
personas' -- the often-exaggerated characters that 'real people' become when
behind a keyboard. Often, these personas are far more outgoing than the person
himself - or herself - is in real life. So which is the 'real' person - the
online or offline persona? Or are they both just facets of the complicated,
contradictory nature of a fairly typical human being?
It is, I'll agree, far easier to hurl vitriol at someone who is no more than
ASCII characters glowing on a screen than it is to do the same to someone
you meet face to face. I think that goes for both scientologists and critics.
Many of the most outrageous posters would undoubtedly be perfectly polite to a
scientologist they encountered on the street. There is a curious quality to
this medium that I don't think is unique to a.r.s. Is it a good thing or a bad
thing? Damned if I know. It just *is*.
>>You live in a strange and not very pleasant world -
>
>hoho - you are quite wrong about that. I live in a very pleasant world
>(just thought I let you know :-)
I'm glad to hear that :)
>>and a world where I
>>believe much of the most unpleasant aspects thereof are but figments of your
>>imagination. Critics are not, for the most part, violent. I think that has
>>been well demonstrated by the complete lack of violent incidents that have
>>arisen at pickets - both of orgs and of critics' homes, as well as by the
>>condemnation that is so quick to flow whenever *anyone* -- usually a
>>hit-and-run poster who runs a 50% chance of being an OSA instigator, or some
>>teenaged lout -- suggests the employment of anything but peaceful tactics.
>>
>>Is Jeff Jacobsen violent?
>
>Hmm, no. I don't think so. At least I didn't find anything to
>criticize on him - yet (apart for his cluelessness regarding "cults",
>but that's a general symptome around here and hopefully gets
>straighten up with time).
You can read Jeff from here till eternity -- or, if you prefer, go back in
time through DejaNews - and you won't find a single violent outburst. That
doesn't mean he doesn't get angry. But he is -- of all arsians, scientologist,
critic or other -- one of the calmest, most reasonable and goodhearted people
on this group.
>>Rod Keller?
>
>Hmm.. Yes, sometimes. He is violent when he makes personal attacks
>against Diane to cover his irc lies, for example. He is violent when
>he reminds everyone of Keith Wyatt's alcoholism as Keith enters a chat
>forum. I remember his remark when Keith Wyatt said he leaves ars (one
>of those times): "don't let the door slam on you" (or something) -
>that's violent. IRL, he may even do it, and Keith may react to it,
>then you have a mess. That's inner violence actualized on the outside
>- and for no other reasons than Keith taking a stand against critics -
>that's violence too, even fascism and bigotry.
Whoa there, I think that the 'fascism' card has been overplayed already on
this group, if only by Martin Hunt alone. I've never seen Rod attack anyone
without serious provocation - and that includes his rounds with Diane. There
is a history of which you may not be aware, but Diane has certainly done her
share of attacking first.
As for Keith Wyatt, I would tend to agree that many critics treat him as
little more than a convenient football. But I've seen him 'start it' just as
often as I've seen people light into him with no immediate provocation. Rod
doesn't like Keith, and makes no bones about showing it. Is not liking someone
violent? I don't think so. It depends, again, on how one expresses it.
>
>>Deana Marie Holmes?
>
>Most of the time no - but sometimes yes.
>
>[Eh - that's fun.]
>
>>Ron Newman?
>
>No.
>
>>Lady Ada?
>
>Wazza?
You ought to search for Lady Ada's posts on Deja. I have a feeling you would
agree with many of her points.
>>Charlotte Kates?
>
>Don't know her well enough, but apparently no.
>
>>Warrior?
>
>Yes - he was pretty disgusting in his behavior with Claire Swazey, and
>on some other occasion too. Most of the time he behaves, though.
As I recall, Warrior was suspicious of whether Claire was telling the truth
about her purpose on a.r.s. Is healthy scepticism "violent"?
>[People, you can send me your check and I'll deliver a good review of
>you]
>
>>Indigio?
>
>That would be Inducto. The answer is no.
>
>>Old Timer?
>
>No. But she doesn't post much either + she is a freezoner (i.e. a
>Scientologist. Hehe...)
>
>>Stephen Jones?
>
>No. Stephen is in my protected tiny minority :-)
>
>>Efish?
>
>Yes.
I'm surprised by this verdict. I have never seen Efish post anything even
approaching 'violent'. She has, however, posted impassioned attacks on what
she sees as the monstrous policies of the CoS with regards to dead-agent
packs, investigative techniques and the like. How is that, in itself,
'violent'?
>>Any of dozens more posters/picketers/lurkers?
>
>Sure - Roland, Dave Bird, Erlich, Zane Thomas, Martin Hunt, Rob Clark,
>Arnie Lerma, William Barwell, Bruce Beppy, Dominion, Ex-mudder,
>Tilman Haussherr, Alex (jeaux), Anti-Cult, Freiman, Gary Scarff,
>Graham Berry, Gregg Hagglung, Roger Gonnet, Steve Fishman, Steve
>Withlash, bc, sandy, Ralh Hilton, Jana Moreillon, Jim DBB, John
>Dorsay, Tom Klemersrud, ...
>
>These are some of the people I consider violent - and out of charity I
>left out quite a few who occasionally can be violent too. The first
>named are the worst.
In fact, I think you would find that there are many, many critics who are
uncomfortable - to put it mildly - with Roland's rhetoric, trolls and attitude
towards scientologists in general. As for the rest, I take it that you
consider anyone who is a 'hard line critic' - ie, criticizes both the beliefs
and the actions of scientology - to be inherently violent - and I still don't
think that's fair, or logically consistent. By sweeping all these critics -
many of whom are in furious and impassioned disagreement not only with other
critics but with each other -- under one broad heading of 'violent', the
nuances between passion and violence become blurred. And there is a
difference.
In some senses, to my mind (I preface this with disclaimers because as you may
know, I have never been a scientologist), scientology discourages *any*
spontaneous outburst of emotion, whether positive or negative. The 'reactive
mind' - that bit of grey matter that says 'ouch' when one touches a hot stove
- is considered something to eradicate. But in the wog world, emotions - when
not given absolute free reign, of course - are considered part and parcel of
being human. That includes feeling outrage over what happened to someone like
Lisa McPherson. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.
>
>>Am *I* violent?
>
>No :-)
But under your definition, I can be. Sometimes I get angry. I'm human.
>>What makes it arbitrary, though -- or perhaps the term is 'selective' - is the
>
>>fact that you seem to be willing to apply these standards only to the writings
>
>>of critics, rather than to scientologists - both official and unofficial - as
>
>>well.
>
>Hmm..
>
>Wgert, Justin, Rod Fletcher, Enzo (and I probably forget a couple) - I
>consider violent.
You see, that's where (again) we differ - the first three I see as calculated,
more than anything else. Wgert, Justin and RodF - these are not outbursts of
a genuinely angry scientologist; these are pre-fabricated attacks that in all
likelihood come from some Big Book of DA. There is no honest emotion in their
posts. They're doing a job. Someone back at OSA INT might feel genuine anger,
but in all likelihood, they don't - it's just policy. To me, that's not
violent. It's disagreeable, and in some cases disgusting - but it's not
personal enough to be 'violent'.
>RonsAmigo, MikeSmith, MiKe, Wonderflur, Whippersnapper (although he
>can be sometime), The Pilot - I don't.
I would tend to agree with you here. Then again, I consider very few posters
to be 'violent', as you may have guessed :) That goes for both critics *and*
scientologists. Deluded, meanspirited, egotistical, willfully ignorant and
just plain tiresome to read: yes. Violent - no. Not yet, at least - and I hope
that things don't deterioriate in future.
>
>No :-)
>
>They are violent when they try to hurt others, either out of meanness,
>revenge or plain stupidity. Dishonesty, as in hate propaganda, is a
>form of violence too.
Alright, let me turn the question around. How, in your opinion, can one
criticize scientology without it being seen as an effort to 'hurt' ?
To destroy a belief system would, indeed, be 'violent' based on your
definition of the term. To counter well-loved myths based on misinformation,
to argue with someone about the facts of a given incident that are still under
dispute - all these things could be seen as 'violent'. But to do so under the
belief - right or wrong - that by giving that same someone the other side of
the story, and to show them that they have been led to believe a lie (when
they see not through the eye :) ) - is that violent?
Or is it, to quote another 'Source' - the truth that shall set them free?
K
Warrior
>In article <1998101302...@replay.com>, Anonymous wrote:
>>
>>Yes - he was pretty disgusting in his behavior with Claire Swazey, and
>>on some other occasion too. Most of the time he behaves, though.
In article <700428$27k...@enews.newsguy.com>, tall...@storm.ca says...
>
>As I recall, Warrior was suspicious of whether Claire was telling the truth
>about her purpose on a.r.s. Is healthy scepticism "violent"?
I pointed out some of Claire's lies and called her a "slimy Q&A artist"
for failing to tell the whole truth and for failing to answer questions.
She called me "anal retentive" and a "closet Scientologist".
Now some anonymous person calls me "violent" and accuses *me* of being
"pretty disgusting in [my] behavior" ?!?!
In private email I reminded her that what I was doing was communicating
with words, *not* bullets.
It is a documented fact that I am a pacifist as a result of my Christian
upbringing. In fact, when I registered with the US Selective Service at
age 18, I registered as a conscientious objector opposed to military
service due to my religious convictions. I had to go through an extensive
process of submitting answers to a long questionnaire and attend an
interview in front of a dozen members of the local draft board in order
to convince them of my sincerity, which I did. I was granted a 1-0
classification (conscientious objector opposed to military duty by reason
of religious beliefs).
I have never advocated violence as a means of settling disputes. I am
a warrior of words and ideas only. In fact, I have openly stated many
times on ars that I do *not* hate Scientologists, but that I do despise
many of the organization's *actions* (misdeeds).
I am not surprised that you, "anonymous" find me to be "disgusting".
After all, I have also been called a "religious bigot", which I find
hypocritically irrational, coming from a Scientologist.
But then, I am used to dealing with lies from Scientology and the
Scientology cult. It is part of the cult's "successful operating basis"
to lie to people. I myself was lied to over and over for years.
For specifics, see http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
Warrior
PS: Even when I was assaulted by an "OT" Scientologist named Kenny Shapiro,
I did *not* strike him back. In my life, I have experienced more incidents
of physical violence inflicted upon me from Scientologists, than I have from
non-Scientologists.
t.r.mcloughlin
> Well, yes. YMMV. You can kill with bullets - you can also kill with
> words. See what I mean? Some even pretend they can kill with a thought
> ;-)
Or chloral hydrate. perhaps?
trm
ref...@bway.net
[snip]
>Whoa there, I think that the 'fascism' card has been overplayed already on
>this group, if only by Martin Hunt alone. I've never seen Rod attack anyone
>without serious provocation - and that includes his rounds with Diane. There
>is a history of which you may not be aware, but Diane has certainly done her
>share of attacking first.
I'm curious about this. Perhaps I may learn something from it. How do you
decide what constitutes an "attack" against someone, kady? Since you've chosen
a specific example, just how have I "attacked" Rod Keller?
Unless Rod Keller chooses not to archive his posts to Dejanews, we can look over
the recent episode and analyze it closely. I'd like to do this just to learn
what it is I say that others consider an "attack" on them.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
ref...@bway.net
>
>In article <700ufa$f...@edrn.newsguy.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>>In article <700428$27k...@enews.newsguy.com>, tall...@storm.ca says...
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>this group, if only by Martin Hunt alone. I've never seen Rod attack anyone
>>>without serious provocation - and that includes his rounds with Diane. There
>>>is a history of which you may not be aware, but Diane has certainly done her
>>>share of attacking first.
>>
>>decide what constitutes an "attack" against someone, kady? Since you've chosen
>>a specific example, just how have I "attacked" Rod Keller?
>
>over, amongst other things, his comments to an IRC channel about the
>Minton/Young affair. By 'attack', I suppose I mean to say that you dragged him
>into a thread in which he was not a party, and put him on the defensive.
I've gone back to dejanews and found my initial post you consider an "attack."
Here it is in its entirety:
________________________
Re: Moral High Ground not in evidence
Author: Diane Richardson
Email: ref...@bway.net
Date: 1998/08/29
Forums: alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID: <35e87233...@enews.newsguy.com>
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:00:09 GMT, li...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>In article <35E7C2...@idt.net>,
> jbw...@idt.net wrote:
>> Martin Hunt wrote:
>> > BTW, I'm still waiting for evidence of Bob's "lying"; if he's
>> > done it and you all know about it, it should be easy to prove.
>> > Or at least provide one *shred* of evidence for. Or is evidence
>> > too much to ask of this kangaroo court?
>>
>> I thought that Diane already posted the SPTimes article where he flatly
>> denied he was having an affair with Stacy. Would you wish me to post
>> the same article?
>
>It wouldn't be much good as evidence of
>Bob's lying unless you also had evidence
>that Bob was having a sexual affair with
>Stacy at that time.
Rod Keller provided that evidence by stating on irc channel
#scientology that Bob Minton and Stacy Young were having an affair at
the time (or shortly before) that the SP Times article appeared.
Whether the affair was 'sexual' or not is something I think only Bob
Minton or Stacy Young could verify. I'm not at all sure that proof of
specific sexual acts are required to prove or disprove the existence
of an affair, except perhaps in divorce cases in which adultery is the
cause of action. I don't believe a.r.s. serves as a surrogate divorce
court.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
______________________________
>Was that wrong? No, you did it because you believed he owed people an
>explanation of just exactly what he had said, and why he had said it.
No, I didn't believe he owed people an explanation of what he said or
why he said it. I offered it as further evidence to support my
statement that Bob Minton had lied to the SP Times reporter
when he claimed he wasn't having an affair with Stacy Young. I'm not
at all sure how you came to the conclusion you did about my motive for
posting that message, kady, but it's obviously unfounded.
>Was it an attack? Yes, in the sense that he had to defend himself.
>Attacks aren't always bad things, you know.
I was not demanding Rod Keller explain or defend himself. I was reporting
the statement he made on irc. I knew I was not the only witness to those
words and I felt no need to demand anything of Keller. I remembered what
I'd read. I was sure others remembered, too.
Rod Keller's response to this post was "Kindly fuck off and die." I replied:
______________________________
Re: Bob Minton conversation August 25, 1998
Author: Diane Richardson
Email: ref...@bway.net
Date: 1998/08/29
Forums: alt.religion.scientology
Message-ID: <35e8494a...@enews.newsguy.com>
On 29 Aug 1998 13:58:49 GMT, rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
>: If you want those claims substantiated, Rob, I'd suggest you talk to
>: Rod Keller.
>
>Kindly fuck off, Diane.
I prefer not to, Rod. Most who read your response will recognize it
(and your snippage of my post) as a tacit admission that what I
related was the truth. You did indeed state on irc channel
#scientology that Bob Minton and Stacy Young were having an affair.
This statement was made at least a month ago.
I was not the only person to read this revelation and you know it. I
am also sure you were not the only person aware of the Minton/Young
relationship at that time.
People like Joni Webb who have expressed the feeling they were duped
are correct -- they *were* duped, and not just by Bob Minton and Stacy
Young. This is not the first time "insider information" was kept from
the "foot soldiers" Joni talks about and it most likely won't be the
last.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
______________________________
Keller's response to this was "You haven't posted truth on this channel [sic]
for years, Diane. Kindly fuck off."
That was the gist of my exchange with Keller, kady. After digging this up, I'm
still puzzled as to why you consider this an example of *my* attacking Keller.
What I've excluded, of course, is a veritable swamp of long harangues posted by
Rob Clark against me. Do you think, perhaps, Rob Clark's "rhetoric" may have
colored your memory of what actually occurred? That's Rob's purpose in posting
such rants -- he's admitted that to me himself.
>As for other attacks, I'm quite sure I've seen you both end up in rhetorical
>fisticuffs over a number of other issues, and if we really must do it, I'll go
>back into Dejanews and see what I can dig up to defend that position.
>
>(I have also seen you attack other people, however, on IRC, including Shelley
>Thomson and a number of others.)
I'm no angel either, kady, and I don't wish to portray myself as one. I can
get just as hot under the collar as the next poster. Nevertheless, I fail to
see why you characterize my posts as "attacks" when they're far less heated
than many others'.
>>Unless Rod Keller chooses not to archive his posts to Dejanews, we can look
>>over the recent episode and analyze it closely. I'd like to do this just to
>>>>learn what it is I say that others consider an "attack" on them.
>
>Well, when you put someone on the defensive suddenly, without warning, that
>could constitute an 'attack'. In the Minton thread, for instance, you brought
>up the conversation on IRC out of nowhere, and began badgering Rod to explain
>himself.
I brought up the irc conversation in support of a statement I had made. I
didn't realize netiquette required prior approval before mentioning anything
said on irc. If that's the case, there are plenty of socially inept people on
a.r.s. ;-)
As for badgering Rod or demanding an explanation from him, I did nothing of the
sort, as you can see for yourself. I'm not sure where you came up with that.
>Now, as I said earlier, you can make the argument that this was entirely
>justified, since it had to do with 'public' information that was pertinent to
>a.r.s. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was, at least in my
>definition for the purposes of this thread, an attack.
Unless I've missed something, I didn't engage in the activity you use to define
an "attack." I did not demand a statement from Rod Keller. I didn't badger
him. I'm not quite sure how you've arrived at the conclusion I did.
>I'm not exonerating Rod, I'm not vilifying you. I just don't think that either
>of you is lily white when it comes to mutual antagonization, that's all.
I think you're entirely ignoring the *real* antagonizer in this whole matter,
kady. It is, of course, Rob Clark. He's been doing this for quite some time.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Anonymous
>In article <1998101302...@replay.com>, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>>tall...@storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1998101122...@replay.com>, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com>
>> wrote:
WOW - just when I thought I had finish with ars for today, I catch a
whole bunch of follow ups on this thread. For some reasons, the thread
un-watched itself, so I only caught it by chance, while scanning the
remaining thread.
OK - let's get down to business. I doubt I'll have time to answer
everybody today, don't even know if I will at all.
>I apologize; when I initially waded into this thread, I was under the
>impression that you were accusing critics of behaviour that was worse than
>that of some scientologists. (That'll teach me not to read a thread straight
>through before jumping in with my opinions and pre-conceived notions, right?)
>
>Of course, given that you have since established that you find such "violent"
>behaviour to be unacceptable coming from either side, that rather makes moot
>the point that I was trying to make in this particular paragraph. Sorry about
>that.
:-)
>>Well, yes. YMMV. You can kill with bullets - you can also kill with
>>words. See what I mean? Some even pretend they can kill with a thought
>>;-)
>
>No, you *can't* kill with words.
<sigh> I thought that my 'see what I mean' would have tipped you off.
Now we'll have a whole rant on how you can't literally kill with
words, right :-)
>You can use words in a way that may lead
>others to commit actual acts of violence, but the fact remains that to take
>that final step -- from reading "all psychiatrists are insane criminals who
>should be removed from this plane of existence because of the harm they to do
>others to actually going out and committing an act of violence *against* a
>psychiatrist *solely because of what you have read* -- is more than a matter
>of simply reading too many 'violent' posts on USENET.
OK - I understand how you understand my statement now. No, that's not
what I mean (that propaganda leads to violence). I mean: you make a
snide and hateful remark - you just kill the person figuratively (even
if the person is not emotionally hurt). Psychologically, you try to
kill the person, to get him out of your way, to shut him up... It's
figurative, not directly or indirectly literal.
>I have always been somewhat uncomfortable with the laws against "hate speech"
>per se, mainly since I believe that words are just that - words. Not actions.
>While I can understand the temptation to hold the writer of hateful words -
>say, an Ernst Zundel, for example - responsible for whatever acts may be
>spawned by his words, I think it is a fine line to draw. Telling someone to
>"go out and kill the Jews/Scientologists/psychiatrists/critics" is different
>from writing posts that may, in rare and tragic cases, lead to someone doing
>just that. I don't think anyone on a.r.s. would ever do the latter
>consciously, but I will concur that the possibility is always there. On both
>sides.
But who does it consciously? People are usually convinced that they
are on the right side, and that the other is on the wrong side. Isn't
that the modus operandi of every war?
My comment is general, really. Not just for critics. We do it at every
level in life - through greed, jalousy, hurt, insecurity. It's just
the unfolding human drama.
>I think Dennis can be blunt, and harsh, but violent? I just don't see it. I'm
>sorry. (And I've been on the receiving end of his blunt/harshness myself.)
>Using your broad definition of 'violent', as in, that which causes another to
>feel pain, I suppose that's true - but then, I could say the same thing about
>*your* posts. And, probably, about anyone else on this group. There is nothing
>one can say that won't offend somebody, somewhere. That's not violence, that's
>reality.
>
>Do you think it's possible, though, that some posters to a.r.s. who you might
>see as 'more often violent' are, in fact, channeling whatever anger and
>bitterness they might have towards scientology into this medium, rather than
>letting it devour them from the inside, or take it out in the real world?
>
> For the record, to continue using Dennis as an example, I have read posts
>from him that are unquestionably angry, particularly when he discusses the
>effect of scientology on his relationship with his daughters. I have never
>seen him threaten violence - actual, physical violence - against anyone.
His FOAD, and "do it soon" are extremely violent, for example. His
deliberate misreading in Margaret's intentions and his outing of her
was violent. I could go on and on. In my eyes, he is a violent man.
That doesn't necessarily make him a *bad* man. It's two different
things.
>>I think that what comes out through the present kind of electronic
>>forum is more the real person than what can be known through the real
>>life behavior of this person. I am quite confident that I know better
>>many posters around here than I know my colleagues whom I see every
>>day.
>
>I'm not sure about that. Surely you have heard of the phenomenon of 'net
>personas' -- the often-exaggerated characters that 'real people' become when
>behind a keyboard. Often, these personas are far more outgoing than the person
>himself - or herself - is in real life. So which is the 'real' person - the
>online or offline persona?
Good question. Now I am not sure. Maybe they effectively become two
different persons? Possible. But then, aren't we a different person in
different IRL situations too? Of course, the fact that you don't have
to put up with a face on the net maybe eases off communication? Or
does it hinder and reduces it? Does it allow more of the real person
to come out, or does it encourages the creation of a net personna, as
you say?
I have a very definite image of each poster - at least those I have
read for a long time, and even more so about those I have exchanged
ideas with. I tend to think that this is the real person - but maybe
that's just an illusion.
>Or are they both just facets of the complicated,
>contradictory nature of a fairly typical human being?
Would read it that way from the paragraph above.
>It is, I'll agree, far easier to hurl vitriol at someone who is no more than
>ASCII characters glowing on a screen than it is to do the same to someone
>you meet face to face. I think that goes for both scientologists and critics.
>Many of the most outrageous posters would undoubtedly be perfectly polite to a
>scientologist they encountered on the street. There is a curious quality to
>this medium that I don't think is unique to a.r.s. Is it a good thing or a bad
>thing? Damned if I know. It just *is*.
Eh - I see we are on the same mind about that :-)
>You can read Jeff from here till eternity -- or, if you prefer, go back in
>time through DejaNews - and you won't find a single violent outburst. That
>doesn't mean he doesn't get angry. But he is -- of all arsians, scientologist,
>critic or other -- one of the calmest, most reasonable and goodhearted people
>on this group.
That has been my impression so far too - even though I disagree with
him on more than one point.
>Whoa there, I think that the 'fascism' card has been overplayed already on
>this group, if only by Martin Hunt alone. I've never seen Rod attack anyone
>without serious provocation
And that's the principle of non-violence? I don't think so.
>- and that includes his rounds with Diane. There
>is a history of which you may not be aware, but Diane has certainly done her
>share of attacking first.
I only know of Diane what I read on ars - since I don't usually irc.
>From what I see from here is Rod attacking Diane because she pointed
out the fact he mentioned on irc that Minton mentioned about his
relation with Stacy and therefore he lied before (confused sentence
but what the heck, it's too late at night). Seems to me as yet another
cultie trying to protect a sacred cow, you know, like the Cooper
thing. I am doubtful about the "Diane just tries to be mean"
explanation type of things. I don't say it is or isn't the case, I am
just doubtful about it.
>As for Keith Wyatt, I would tend to agree that many critics treat him as
>little more than a convenient football. But I've seen him 'start it' just as
>often as I've seen people light into him with no immediate provocation. Rod
>doesn't like Keith, and makes no bones about showing it. Is not liking someone
>violent?
I guess no. You can't like everybody - and you can't force yourself to
like everybody just out of principle. But again, it isn't just a
matter of personality, you know - Keith is actively busy criticizing
critics. As far as I am concerned, it isn't a matter of "like" or
"dislike". It's a matter of pure intolerance to criticism - and that
makes the person ugly, in my eyes - especially when the same critics
blames CoS members for not being able to open up to criticism... That
makes them hypocrites, and I think it's a major fault for someone who
claims to be a critic.
>>>Lady Ada?
>>
>>Wazza?
>
>You ought to search for Lady Ada's posts on Deja. I have a feeling you would
>agree with many of her points.
Thanks. I'll do that sometime <sigh> I'll probably never will find the
time for it anyway, but it's good to know.
>As I recall, Warrior was suspicious of whether Claire was telling the truth
>about her purpose on a.r.s. Is healthy scepticism "violent"?
I wouldn't call what he did "healthy scepticism" - but that's very
subjective I guess. The lack of sensibility to other's feelings - the
lack of true understanding. Yes, I find that very violent.
>I'm surprised by this verdict. I have never seen Efish post anything even
>approaching 'violent'. She has, however, posted impassioned attacks on what
>she sees as the monstrous policies of the CoS with regards to dead-agent
>packs, investigative techniques and the like. How is that, in itself,
>'violent'?
I can't say. I guess it's her lack of understanding on certain issues
that makes me see her that way. That hurts too. Maybe it gives the
wrong impression that it's made on purpose while it may not be.
>>>Any of dozens more posters/picketers/lurkers?
>>
>>Sure - Roland, Dave Bird, Erlich, Zane Thomas, Martin Hunt, Rob Clark,
>>Arnie Lerma, William Barwell, Bruce Beppy, Dominion, Ex-mudder,
>>Tilman Haussherr, Alex (jeaux), Anti-Cult, Freiman, Gary Scarff,
>>Graham Berry, Gregg Hagglung, Roger Gonnet, Steve Fishman, Steve
>>Withlash, bc, sandy, Ralh Hilton, Jana Moreillon, Jim DBB, John
>>Dorsay, Tom Klemersrud, ...
>>
>>These are some of the people I consider violent - and out of charity I
>>left out quite a few who occasionally can be violent too. The first
>>named are the worst.
>
>In fact, I think you would find that there are many, many critics who are
>uncomfortable - to put it mildly - with Roland's rhetoric, trolls and attitude
>towards scientologists in general.
Yes - but they use his text on "introduction to Scientology" on their
web page, right? I also think that Roland is making himself be the
troll of ars - so they can say "it's just Roland, you know, it's not
us". I think that he is doing that out of embarassement for posts he
made early on and that came out to speak against him. So now that he
got so deep, he just exaggerates it: "See - I say a lot of silly
things, it's not serious, you know"... Just a wild theory, of course.
>As for the rest, I take it that you
>consider anyone who is a 'hard line critic' - ie, criticizes both the beliefs
>and the actions of scientology - to be inherently violent - and I still don't
>think that's fair, or logically consistent.
No I don't think I take that in consideration. I listed Ralph Hilton
with the lot, right? Ralph Hilton can be very violent at time, even at
other times he is rather high spirited. But it's amusing to note that
the rest do indeed have that in common. I didn't think about that.
Just coincidence (or maybe not, maybe that's just part of them being
violent).
>By sweeping all these critics -
>many of whom are in furious and impassioned disagreement not only with other
>critics but with each other -- under one broad heading of 'violent', the
>nuances between passion and violence become blurred. And there is a
>difference.
>
>In some senses, to my mind (I preface this with disclaimers because as you may
>know, I have never been a scientologist), scientology discourages *any*
>spontaneous outburst of emotion, whether positive or negative.
Where do you get that from?
>The 'reactive
>mind' - that bit of grey matter that says 'ouch' when one touches a hot stove
>- is considered something to eradicate.
Yes - but all emotions don't come only from the reactive mind. In
fact, in Scientology, even anger is not considered a "bad" emotion,
just an emotion. Look at the tone scale.
An emotion is reactive only when it is inappropriate, when it comes
out of an irrational and unconscious reactions that finds its origin
in unconscious past trauma.
You really should do a bit of Scientology, Kady. Seriously. You would
at least have a better reality of what you are talking about. I think
it would do good for all critics to do at least do some basic courses
and some basic auditing, until they have a clear enough idea.
Seriously. They can still remain a critic if they like afterwards.
Reminds me of valerie - who was so cult phobic that she was even
afraid to watch a Tom Cruise film (supposedly she would be hypnotized
or what?) - then when she made the Hollander seminar, she was all
surprised to find that there were some good people in Scientology.
>But in the wog world, emotions - when
>not given absolute free reign, of course - are considered part and parcel of
>being human. That includes feeling outrage over what happened to someone like
>Lisa McPherson. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.
No - when it stems from a right understanding. Feeling outrage at
something that is really just a mock up is a bad thing. Lisa McPherson
wasn't "murdered" - feeling outrage thinking that Scientologists
actually had the intent to torture and kill her is plain stupid.
Saying it, like Erlich does, is misleading and manipulative, because
he knows very well that this wasn't the case.
>>>Am *I* violent?
>>
>>No :-)
>
>But under your definition, I can be. Sometimes I get angry. I'm human.
Me too. But then I don't parade around boasting about my non-violence
(not to mean that you do so).
>>Wgert, Justin, Rod Fletcher, Enzo (and I probably forget a couple) - I
>>consider violent.
>
>You see, that's where (again) we differ - the first three I see as calculated,
>more than anything else. Wgert, Justin and RodF - these are not outbursts of
>a genuinely angry scientologist;
We differ indeed. I think they are. They just are blunt Scientologists
and react in a blunt way. If they ever come out of Scientology, they
would join up the ranks of the group above, and become blunt critics.
Nothing change.
>these are pre-fabricated attacks that in all
>likelihood come from some Big Book of DA. There is no honest emotion in their
>posts. They're doing a job. Someone back at OSA INT might feel genuine anger,
>but in all likelihood, they don't - it's just policy.
You do have wild ideas about OSA, Kady :-)
You also are underestimating them. If they were to send someone from
OSA, they wouldn't send stupid jerks like wgert, RodF or Justin. They
have better material than that, you know - it's just that they use
them where it matters: court cases, public relations (not with
critics), auditing, management, promotion. Anyone who has ever been in
the CoS knows that there are an awful lot of bright individuals in it
- that they don't want to waste them in a.r.s. is the most plausible
explanation, IMO.
>To me, that's not
>violent. It's disagreeable, and in some cases disgusting - but it's not
>personal enough to be 'violent'.
Does violence have to be personal? I don't think so. In fact, cold
violence, like the one of an arbitrary government is even worst.
>>RonsAmigo, MikeSmith, MiKe, Wonderflur, Whippersnapper (although he
>>can be sometime), The Pilot - I don't.
>
>I would tend to agree with you here. Then again, I consider very few posters
>to be 'violent', as you may have guessed :) That goes for both critics *and*
>scientologists. Deluded, meanspirited, egotistical, willfully ignorant and
>just plain tiresome to read: yes. Violent - no. Not yet, at least - and I hope
>that things don't deterioriate in future.
All of that is a form of violence, IMO. Deluded persons are usually
violent, and so do meanspirited and egotistical ones. Ignorant and
stupid ones are usually violent too. Everything that comes in the way
of listening and trying to honestly understand another's viewpoint is
violent, IMO. But then, I maybe have a very wide definition of
violence.
>Alright, let me turn the question around. How, in your opinion, can one
>criticize scientology without it being seen as an effort to 'hurt' ?
Absolutely. Didn't you yourself just said in another thread that the
*way* to do things matter? That when you don't, the person becomes
defensive and closes himself up? Real criticism, in my book, would be
to bring someone to a greater understanding. Most of what passes off
as criticism in this ng is hardly more than a defense mechanism in
itself, a constant effort to make oneself right and the other wrong -
to prove oneself right by making the other wrong. That's not criticism
at all.
>To destroy a belief system would, indeed, be 'violent' based on your
>definition of the term. To counter well-loved myths based on misinformation,
>to argue with someone about the facts of a given incident that are still under
>dispute - all these things could be seen as 'violent'. But to do so under the
>belief - right or wrong - that by giving that same someone the other side of
>the story, and to show them that they have been led to believe a lie (when
>they see not through the eye :) ) - is that violent?
How you do things is what matters, not so much what you do.
> Or is it, to quote another 'Source' - the truth that shall set them free?
Yes - but truth without love is cruelty - and that doesn't set free
anyone. I am afraid that the quotes that would apply most often around
here are the "blind leading the blind" and the "straw in the eye".
ef
<nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> >I'm surprised by this verdict. I have never seen Efish post anything even
> >approaching 'violent'. She has, however, posted impassioned attacks on what
> >she sees as the monstrous policies of the CoS with regards to dead-agent
> >packs, investigative techniques and the like. How is that, in itself,
> >'violent'?
>
> I can't say. I guess it's her lack of understanding on certain issues
> that makes me see her that way. That hurts too. Maybe it gives the
> wrong impression that it's made on purpose while it may not be.
scuse me??
what lack of understanding and of what issues? or is this sorta an
all-encompassing "she is not of an agreement of me thus she fails to
understand" kinda thingie?
i admit to a certain impatience with stupidity, but that could hardly be
characterized as no understanding. perhaps it's too much understanding,
doncha think?
ef
tall...@storm.ca
>In article <700428$27k...@enews.newsguy.com>, tall...@storm.ca says...
>
>[snip]
>
>>this group, if only by Martin Hunt alone. I've never seen Rod attack anyone
>>without serious provocation - and that includes his rounds with Diane. There
>>is a history of which you may not be aware, but Diane has certainly done her
>>share of attacking first.
>
>decide what constitutes an "attack" against someone, kady? Since you've chosen
>a specific example, just how have I "attacked" Rod Keller?
Oh, I can recall watching you and Rod go at it right here on this newsgroup
over, amongst other things, his comments to an IRC channel about the
Minton/Young affair. By 'attack', I suppose I mean to say that you dragged him
into a thread in which he was not a party, and put him on the defensive.
Was that wrong? No, you did it because you believed he owed people an
explanation of just exactly what he had said, and why he had said it. Was it
an attack? Yes, in the sense that he had to defend himself. Attacks aren't
always bad things, you know.
As for other attacks, I'm quite sure I've seen you both end up in rhetorical
fisticuffs over a number of other issues, and if we really must do it, I'll go
back into Dejanews and see what I can dig up to defend that position.
(I have also seen you attack other people, however, on IRC, including Shelley
Thomson and a number of others.)
>Unless Rod Keller chooses not to archive his posts to Dejanews, we can look
> over
>the recent episode and analyze it closely. I'd like to do this just to learn
>what it is I say that others consider an "attack" on them.
Well, when you put someone on the defensive suddenly, without warning, that
could constitute an 'attack'. In the Minton thread, for instance, you brought
up the conversation on IRC out of nowhere, and began badgering Rod to explain
himself.
Now, as I said earlier, you can make the argument that this was entirely
justified, since it had to do with 'public' information that was pertinent to
a.r.s. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was, at least in my
definition for the purposes of this thread, an attack.
I'm not exonerating Rod, I'm not vilifying you. I just don't think that either
of you is lily white when it comes to mutual antagonization, that's all.
K
Michael Reuss
>>"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot
>>frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of
>>violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing.
>Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence.
Do you think psychological coercion is equal to violence? How about
forced captivity? How about mental indoctrination and conditioning
without the informed consent of the customer? How about mental
indoctrination combined with forced captivity? How about threats and
subtle personal harassments? How about isolation from loved ones? Do all
those things constitute violence?
This is a political debate, Anony. Try to follow along and maybe you'll
actually learn something, such as how to make observations and how to
discriminate based on subtle differences.
Hey, maybe you'll learn something that will give you the impetus to stop
letting a large group dictate to you what you are supposed to think
about us EssPees. We're actually a pretty fun group to hang out with, if
you don't condemn us without first getting to know us.
>You are encouraging these through your hateful propaganda
No, we are encouraging YOU Scientologists to stop hating
non-Scientologists, and to stop needlessly defining political dissent
with criminal conduct, and to stop selling your group's particularly
ugly form of elitist bigotry to the public as self-help or spiritual
improvement. Obviously we have a ways to go yet...
>- which in itself is a form of violence.
Bzzzt. I'm sorry, that's incorrect. But thanks for playing. Jay, tell
Anony Mouse about his lovely parting gifts.
>You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you
>are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
Ah, once again we see the vaunted oWE TeE SoOPeR poWErz in action...
Kids, newbies, lurkers, this is what Scientologists call "knowing how to
know." Don't let it happen to you.
--
Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
Honorary Kid
Zane
>Perhaps I may learn something from it.
ROFLMAO!
Zane - KoX, SP4, Club Nine
Free meme innoculations!
Rod Keller
: I'm not exonerating Rod, I'm not vilifying you. I just don't think that either
I'll live with that.
--
Rod Keller / rke...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher
Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / CWPD Mouthpiece
The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Vision of Destruction
Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
Enzo Piccone
> Warrior was accused by some anonymous person as being "violent".
>
> >In article <1998101302...@replay.com>, Anonymous wrote:
> >>
> >>Yes - he was pretty disgusting in his behavior with Claire Swazey, and
> >>on some other occasion too. Most of the time he behaves, though.
>
> In article <700428$27k...@enews.newsguy.com>, tall...@storm.ca says...
> >
> >As I recall, Warrior was suspicious of whether Claire was telling the truth
> >about her purpose on a.r.s. Is healthy scepticism "violent"?
>
> I pointed out some of Claire's lies and called her a "slimy Q&A artist"
> for failing to tell the whole truth and for failing to answer questions.
> She called me "anal retentive" and a "closet Scientologist".
>
> Now some anonymous person calls me "violent" and accuses *me* of being
> "pretty disgusting in [my] behavior" ?!?!
One can always rely on "Warrior" <giggle> to provide some of the more
sanctimonious claptrap we read here. Which is saying something, isn't
it?
In your unrelenting, baiting diatribe with Claire you were both violent
and disgusting. When I took you up on this myself -- but only in
passing, as I was more interested to see if you had it in you to fess up
to something else -- you promptly returned to being the more "normal"
Whining Warrior Wimp of a.r.s. <tm>.
As such, you refused to fess up, i.e., to answer the simple question I
asked you. The answer to which question was also the answer to your
violent and disgusting, but also rather stupid, hammering of Claire.
Eventually you had to concede -- but only because I forced you to it --
that you'd had no point to begin with. Of course you didn't do this
honestly either. Instead you pretended you'd been making another
point. Which was a lie. It was also pretty funny. LOL
During the course of your insulting responses to my posts on the above
you also managed to lie about Ron Chester. When I pointed this out, you
then tried covering up your lie, but succeeded only in obliging me to
document it -- by quoting your own, lying words.
I'll snip the rest of your self-serving claptrap, but will include
below, for anyone who may be interested, a copy of the last post I wrote
with regard to this -- and to which neither you nor anyone else
replied.
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
Subject: "Warrior" Capitulates -- Follows "Yo, "'Warrior'" -- Take 2"
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 02:21:06 +0100
From: Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, alt.clearing.technology,
alt.support.ex-cult
References: 1 , 2
Warrior wrote:
I see you've begun cross-posting again. I don't see why. In any event,
this is going to be the only article I intentionally cross-post myself.
> In article <35E1E9...@hermes.it>, Enzo says...
> >
> >My ISP's news server went on the blink about four weeks ago, and it
> >became more effort than I considered it was worth to follow up an
> >article I'd written concerning "Warrior" and some of his bot think on
> >the subject of Scn.
>
> In the future I will have more important things to do than
> to respond to your postings, Enzo.
Would that you had such more important things to do. And I'm not
referring to any importance you might care to assign to what I write
myself, but to the relative importance you might wish to give some of
what you choose to write, or not write, yourself.
That noted, your statement above makes it's evident from the start that
your article is also an excuse-in-advance to crap out of a discussion
you're unprepared to deal with openly and honestly. No problem.
Perhaps you'll be willing to so deal with it in future.
> >Now that things have returned to normal, more or less, I'd like to take
> >up where I left off. Which is the same place as I began, as "Warrior"
> >addressed nothing of what I wrote in the original article of 28 July.
>
> Where you left off was with a posting of yours which was insulting.
> On July 30th you wrote: "And you peddle yourself as a Christian. What
> a disgrace."
>
> I don't "peddle" myself. But $cientology peddles its scam as a
> religion.
You're being selectively self-serving as usual. This was but one of a
number of things I wrote. Nor did I consider it an insult so much as a
simple, well merited, critical observation.
As for diatribe of this kind, you've obviously not the same quibble
about writing it as you have in reading it, as your comment above
immediately demonstrated. But then this is classic a.r.s. hypocrisy and
is barely worth having noted.
> >He did, however, manage to make a false allegation about Ron Chester,
> >one of the directors of TNX, the private mailing list for Sci'ts. A
> >false allegation I called him on, but which he crapped out of as well.
>
> I said he was with OSA. According to Ron's own TNX posting he is the
> TNX Administrator & liaison with OSA. Here's what Ron wrote, in part:
>
> >Here's the story. As TNX Administrator, it is sometimes necessary for me
> >to look around ars a bit, usually in response to applications for TNX that
> >have been submitted. I have also become our liaison with the person
> >handling the Internet at OSA Int, and we have developed a good working
> >relationship. As a result of a number of comm cycles with OSA , I learned
> >that the Church does not want any Church public posting to this entheta
> >forum.
Following is what you actually wrote.
[Begins] I have consistently pointed out that Scientology policy
expressedly forbids Scientologists from posting here, unless it is their
"hat". In addition, I have referenced excerpts from an issue written by
~OSA staff member Ron Chester~, [ed. emphasis added] which support what
I have posted. So it seems to me that you are invalidating not only a
_member_ of your own cult, but you are invalidating what _Hubbard_ wrote
as well. [Ends]
In a subsequent post, and in reply to my having corrected you, you
insisted as follows.
[Begins] Ron stated in an issue leaked to ars from the TNX that ~as
part of his work at OSA~ [ed. emphasis added] he occasionally poked
around the Internet to check out people who applied for inclusion on the
TNX list. [Ends]
That you've finally made an attempt to correct your aim is fine. In so
doing, however, I don't know why you also considered it necessary to lie
about what you wrote originally.
> The point I have made and will continue to stand by is that Scientology
> does *not* want "public" posting to ars. There is ample policy by
> Hubbard and Scientology to substantiate my position.
>
> Warrior
Yes, this point has been made by you, but anyone even vaguely familiar
with what you've written on this subject knows that it is hardly the
only point you've made, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with
the question I asked you. Your statement, therefore, is another
ill-considered lie.
And such a colossal one that it requires no documentation here. Anyone
unfamiliar with the false propaganda you've pushed -- hard,
unrelentingly, and unequivocally prior to this last statement -- may
consult Deja News, as there are probably dozens of articles by you on
the subject. The ones to which I drew your attention were part of the
spurious and entirely unwarranted onslaught to which you were subjecting
Claire Swazey.
It wasn't anyone in the C of S not wanting Claire, a public Sci't, to
post here that finally led to her decision to leave. I'd say it was
simply a few, lying, viscious little pricks like you.
That out of the way, your statement above, which carefully defines the
point you're "making and standing by" ~now~, is merely a tacit admission
that you've realised the package you were pushing before is no longer
going to fly.
Allow me to further clear the air.
There is Scn policy which may be referenced to discourage participation
on a.r.s., be it posting or merely continued reading, but this is by no
means the only applicable reference material on the subject.
There is much more, broadly published and widely known.
And there isn't a Sci't or failed Sci't who isn't familiar with at least
some of this material -- unless he was in and out so fast that all he
remembers is the swish of a revolving door.
The truth is that any public Sci't is free to participate on a.r.s..
It does not require approval from anyone.
And no Sci't is "violating policy" merely because he chooses to read or
post.
As I was obliged to explain soon after I began posting myself, for
example, this is exactly what was the case -- and remains the case --
with me.
Yes, participation is generally discouraged by both staff and public
Sci'ts familiar with a.r.s.. I generally discourage it myself to Sci'ts
and non-Sci'ts alike, as the standard of "criticism" is so base that I
consider myself obliged to put the word in quotes any time I use it
here. Note, however, that I've written "generally" in both statements.
And, yes, there may be inconveniences -- "may" be, not "will" be -- of
one kind or another. And I use the word "inconveniences" to express
exactly what I mean, not as a euphemism.
But, no, such participation may not be legitimately denied to anyone
merely by citing the Scn policy I've seen quoted or mentioned here, as
these may or may not be the only or more pertinent references to
consider.
To make an even broader statement, there is nothing in Scn which is
meant, or which can be used legitimately, to prevent or even hinder any
Sci't from taking responsible and intelligent initiatives of any kind
whatsoever or with whomsoever he pleases. Nor are there any legitimate
qualifications that can be added to this statement.
Any contrary interpretation of Scn doctrine is in large or lesser part
robotic.
It's precisely bot interpretation of this kind which is one of the
things failed Sci'ts such as "Warrior" had in common when they were
still attempting, but failing, to be responsible and intelligent
Sci'ts.
The task of coming to grips with this isn't facilitated when such a
person goes on to make of the subject or its adherents little or nothing
more than the focus of obsessive fault-finding ridiculously masked as
"reform."
But to each his own.
To end, I would apologise for the brevity and categorical nature of some
of the statements I've made, but this isn't an essay designed to address
and/or pre-empt any and all scepticism or discussion.
Indeed, if anyone would like to carry on a discourse about any of these
statements in an objective, honest, intelligent, and responsible manner
-- which is the only way in which anyone's ignorance, bias, or fixed
ideas may have a prayer of being shifted -- I'd be delighted to
participate.
Unfortunately those rather sane -- and in an a.r.s. context,
indispensible -- qualifications pretty much rule out every "critic"
here.
But, hey, I'm up to being pleasantly surprised if any of these would
care to go out of character for a moment or two. :)
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
Anonymous
>I'm not exonerating Rod, I'm not vilifying you. I just don't think that either
>of you is lily white when it comes to mutual antagonization, that's all.
Personal attacks and bringing up facts are two different things, Kady.
Rob Clark
you misspelled "third-hand gossip."
rob
Mark W Brehob
: In your unrelenting, baiting diatribe with Claire you were both violent
: and disgusting.
Care to explain how a diatribe can be violent? Esp. a written one?
Did (s)he threaten violence? Could you provide a quote?
: As such, you refused to fess up, i.e., to answer the simple question I
: asked you. The answer to which question was also the answer to your
: violent and disgusting, but also rather stupid, hammering of Claire.
I assume you wouldn't mind sharing the question with us?
Given _your_ history of slandering folks (Ron N. comes to mind) I have to
take your diatribe (I like that word!) with a grain of salt.
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bre...@cps.msu.edu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~Mark Brehob: Ultimate Player, Gamer, Computer Geek~~~~~~~~~~
Anonymous
>People like Joni Webb who have expressed the feeling they were duped
>are correct -- they *were* duped, and not just by Bob Minton and Stacy
>Young. This is not the first time "insider information" was kept from
>the "foot soldiers" Joni talks about and it most likely won't be the
>last.
Other examples exist already.
>What I've excluded, of course, is a veritable swamp of long harangues posted by
>Rob Clark against me. Do you think, perhaps, Rob Clark's "rhetoric" may have
>colored your memory of what actually occurred? That's Rob's purpose in posting
>such rants -- he's admitted that to me himself.
And in ars too:
____________________________________________________________
http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=259397108
Excerpts:
i realized that this is because hoffer's representation of a fanatic
came damn near what i had become. i had adopted an "ends justifies
the means" philosophy not altogether dissimilar to that of scientology
itself, and had spent quite some time deliberately inflaming the ars
situation with the most vicious and confrontational rhetoric i could
muster, not to convince anyone not already convinced, but to inflame
those already angry to greater action.
diane richardson pointed out about me, not entirely with pure motives,
that i had commented to her that my main method was continual
repetition. this is true. i did, in fact, do just that, choose the
view i wished to present and then tried to enforce it by continual
repetition. shockingly, this tactic works quite well, as mindless as
it is. for a while, i became "drunk on my power" as a friend pointed
out to me after the fact.
[...]
"Dead Agenting" is nothing more than an idiosyncratic way of using
black propaganda techniques that have existed since before sun-tzu.
it is not a scientology invention, it is common in all fields of life,
and it seems every time i turn on the television, there is some fool
attacking another fool with techniques that might as well have come
from scientology.
it is usually as convincing and persuasive as stalinists denouncing
nazis, nevertheless many people are convinced and persuaded.
____________________________________________________________
Contrary to what may seem from this excerpt, this post from Rob is
most remarkable. He quite honestly uses his own examples to recommend
others *not* to do like him and many of the things he said in that
post are quite beautiful and very true.
The problem, of course, is that between having high resolutions such
as what he describes in the post and actually applying them are two
different things - and I dare say that a.r.s. is hardly a place where
you can be true to these for long. Soon enough, the old henry was
back.
Sad.
Mark W Brehob
:>see as 'more often violent' are, in fact, channeling whatever anger and
:>letting it devour them from the inside, or take it out in the real world?
:>
:> For the record, to continue using Dennis as an example, I have read posts
:>from him that are unquestionably angry, particularly when he discusses the
:>effect of scientology on his relationship with his daughters. I have never
:>seen him threaten violence - actual, physical violence - against anyone.
: His FOAD, and "do it soon" are extremely violent, for example. His
: deliberate misreading in Margaret's intentions and his outing of her
: was violent. I could go on and on. In my eyes, he is a violent man.
: That doesn't necessarily make him a *bad* man. It's two different
: things.
OK,
Words have definitions. Violent is such a word. It _can_ mean
intense for example. However if I called Mother Teressa "violent" people
would assume I was confused. Because violent in the context of a person
implies force. To say someone was violent because of "deliberate misreading
of intentions" is a nice way to redefine a word. IMO you are being
intentionally deceptive by using the word violent in this way. To the point
that I discount you as an honest person.
YMMV. IMHO.
Oh, and I lack the background to know if you are being honest in your claims
about Dennis.
sfa...@bigfoot.com
> >per se, mainly since I believe that words are just that - words. Not actions.
> >While I can understand the temptation to hold the writer of hateful words -
> >say, an Ernst Zundel, for example - responsible for whatever acts may be
> >spawned by his words, I think it is a fine line to draw. Telling someone to
> >"go out and kill the Jews/Scientologists/psychiatrists/critics" is different
> >from writing posts that may, in rare and tragic cases, lead to someone doing
> >just that. I don't think anyone on a.r.s. would ever do the latter
> >consciously, but I will concur that the possibility is always there. On both
> >sides.
You are, right now, committing the very crime you pretend to deplore.
Earnest Zundel has committed no further crime against "the Jews" than
to publish historical material that shows their precious Holocaust is
a fraud. For that, he is repeatedly put on trial by the Holocaust
lobby because they have too many ($billions$) at stake.
There is no hate speech here. In fact, the "Human Rights" officials
have informed him that "the truth is not a defense." In other words,
even if what he says is absolutely right, he is wrong for saying it.
Such is "hate speech" defined in the land of love and plenty.
--Slade
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Anonymous
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>: His FOAD, and "do it soon" are extremely violent, for example. His
>: deliberate misreading in Margaret's intentions and his outing of her
>: was violent. I could go on and on. In my eyes, he is a violent man.
>: That doesn't necessarily make him a *bad* man. It's two different
>: things.
>
>OK,
> Words have definitions. Violent is such a word. It _can_ mean
>intense for example. However if I called Mother Teressa "violent" people
>would assume I was confused. Because violent in the context of a person
>implies force. To say someone was violent because of "deliberate misreading
>of intentions" is a nice way to redefine a word. IMO you are being
>intentionally deceptive by using the word violent in this way. To the point
>that I discount you as an honest person.
Thanks for the correction: it should have been misportraying rather
than misreading, if there is such a word. My spell checker seem to
disagree with me :-)
>YMMV. IMHO.
>
>Oh, and I lack the background to know if you are being honest in your claims
>about Dennis.
Obviously - it isn't webbed anywhere. Don't count on critics for that,
though, there are some things they would rather brush under the carpet
- speak of being "honest"...
Mark W Brehob
:>On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 06:02:32 GMT, hei...@wport.com (Ben "The" Allen) wrote:
:>
:>>On 11 Oct 1998 00:41:16 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
:>
:>>What I've misunderstood is not one word, but
:>>rather your argument as a whole, which seems to me invalid - it seems
:>>to me that you are in fact _equating_ verbal violence (force of ideas
:>>or what have you) with physical violence (guns, knifes, clubs made of
:>>stronger stuff than balsa wood). Something that's missed by those who
:>>over-rely on dictionary definitions is that words have shades of
:>>meaning...simply because two ideas are embodied in the same word does
:>>not mean that those two ideas are automatically equal. When one refers
:>
:>the name of this logical fallacy is "equivocation." it amounts to argument by
:>redefinition, humpty-dumpty like.
: It's ze real definition, Rob - you just see part of it, I see the
: whole of it. Eh - it's normal. You just are a critic.
Funny, I don't think the dictionary would back you up on that...
Plus, as noted elsewhere, a word can have an assumed meaning depending upon
context. A violent person is generally a person who uses force. You
attempt to claim that someone is "violent" because they express strong
opinions. Silly.
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bre...@cps.msu.edu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| | The reports of SIMD's death have been greatly exaggerated | |
| -=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |
Mark W Brehob
: Mark W Brehob <bre...@cse.msu.edu> wrote:
:>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
:>: His FOAD, and "do it soon" are extremely violent, for example. His
:>: deliberate misreading in Margaret's intentions and his outing of her
:>: was violent. I could go on and on. In my eyes, he is a violent man.
:>: That doesn't necessarily make him a *bad* man. It's two different
:>: things.
:>
:>OK,
:> Words have definitions. Violent is such a word. It _can_ mean
:>intense for example. However if I called Mother Teressa "violent" people
:>would assume I was confused. Because violent in the context of a person
:>implies force. To say someone was violent because of "deliberate misreading
:>of intentions" is a nice way to redefine a word. IMO you are being
:>intentionally deceptive by using the word violent in this way. To the point
:>that I discount you as an honest person.
: Thanks for the correction: it should have been misportraying rather
: than misreading, if there is such a word. My spell checker seem to
: disagree with me :-)
I'm sure this made sense to you. To me it looks like you ignored my
response.
Mark
:>YMMV. IMHO.
:>
:>Oh, and I lack the background to know if you are being honest in your claims
:>about Dennis.
: Obviously - it isn't webbed anywhere. Don't count on critics for that,
: though, there are some things they would rather brush under the carpet
: - speak of being "honest"...
--
Dave Bird
>>
>> In article <700428$27k...@enews.newsguy.com>, tall...@storm.ca says...
>> >
>> >As I recall, Warrior was suspicious of whether Claire was telling the truth
>> >about her purpose on a.r.s. Is healthy scepticism "violent"?
>>
>> I pointed out some of Claire's lies and called her a "slimy Q&A artist"
>> for failing to tell the whole truth and for failing to answer questions.
>> She called me "anal retentive" and a "closet Scientologist".
>>
>> Now some anonymous person calls me "violent" and accuses *me* of being
>> "pretty disgusting in [my] behavior" ?!?!
>
>One can always rely on "Warrior" <giggle> to provide some of the more
>sanctimonious claptrap we read here. Which is saying something, isn't
>it?
No--it's just flapping your clamshell up'n'down to distract people.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)
Anonymous
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>: Mark W Brehob <bre...@cse.msu.edu> wrote:
>
>:>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>:>: His FOAD, and "do it soon" are extremely violent, for example. His
>:>: deliberate misreading in Margaret's intentions and his outing of her
>:>: was violent. I could go on and on. In my eyes, he is a violent man.
>:>: That doesn't necessarily make him a *bad* man. It's two different
>:>: things.
>:>
>:>OK,
>:> Words have definitions. Violent is such a word. It _can_ mean
>:>intense for example. However if I called Mother Teressa "violent" people
>:>would assume I was confused. Because violent in the context of a person
>:>implies force. To say someone was violent because of "deliberate misreading
>:>of intentions" is a nice way to redefine a word. IMO you are being
>:>intentionally deceptive by using the word violent in this way. To the point
>:>that I discount you as an honest person.
>
>: Thanks for the correction: it should have been misportraying rather
>: than misreading, if there is such a word. My spell checker seem to
>: disagree with me :-)
>
>I'm sure this made sense to you. To me it looks like you ignored my
>response.
Hmm... Let's see: you tell me that "misreading" doesn't qualify as
violent. I agree with you, I realize my mistake, and I reword it as
"misportraying", which in my book qualifies as a violent action. How
have I ignored your response?
Anonymous
>People like Joni Webb who have expressed the feeling they were duped
>are correct -- they *were* duped, and not just by Bob Minton and Stacy
>Young. This is not the first time "insider information" was kept from
>the "foot soldiers" Joni talks about and it most likely won't be the
>last.
Other examples exist already.
>What I've excluded, of course, is a veritable swamp of long harangues posted by
>Rob Clark against me. Do you think, perhaps, Rob Clark's "rhetoric" may have
>colored your memory of what actually occurred? That's Rob's purpose in posting
>such rants -- he's admitted that to me himself.
And in ars too:
Rob Clark
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>: xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote:
>:>the name of this logical fallacy is "equivocation." it amounts to argument by
>:>redefinition, humpty-dumpty like.
>: It's ze real definition, Rob - you just see part of it, I see the
>: whole of it. Eh - it's normal. You just are a critic.
>Funny, I don't think the dictionary would back you up on that...
>Plus, as noted elsewhere, a word can have an assumed meaning depending upon
>context. A violent person is generally a person who uses force. You
>attempt to claim that someone is "violent" because they express strong
>opinions. Silly.
i hereby order anon-y-mouse arrested for violence against the english language.
rob
Anonymous
>People like Joni Webb who have expressed the feeling they were duped
>are correct -- they *were* duped, and not just by Bob Minton and Stacy
>Young. This is not the first time "insider information" was kept from
>the "foot soldiers" Joni talks about and it most likely won't be the
>last.
Other examples exist already.
>What I've excluded, of course, is a veritable swamp of long harangues posted by
>Rob Clark against me. Do you think, perhaps, Rob Clark's "rhetoric" may have
>colored your memory of what actually occurred? That's Rob's purpose in posting
>such rants -- he's admitted that to me himself.
And in ars too:
Anonymous
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>: Mark W Brehob <bre...@cse.msu.edu> wrote:
>
>:>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
>:>: His FOAD, and "do it soon" are extremely violent, for example. His
>:>: deliberate misreading in Margaret's intentions and his outing of her
>:>: was violent. I could go on and on. In my eyes, he is a violent man.
>:>: That doesn't necessarily make him a *bad* man. It's two different
>:>: things.
>:>
>:>OK,
>:> Words have definitions. Violent is such a word. It _can_ mean
>:>intense for example. However if I called Mother Teressa "violent" people
>:>would assume I was confused. Because violent in the context of a person
>:>implies force. To say someone was violent because of "deliberate misreading
>:>of intentions" is a nice way to redefine a word. IMO you are being
>:>intentionally deceptive by using the word violent in this way. To the point
>:>that I discount you as an honest person.
>
>: Thanks for the correction: it should have been misportraying rather
>: than misreading, if there is such a word. My spell checker seem to
>: disagree with me :-)
>
>I'm sure this made sense to you. To me it looks like you ignored my
>response.
Mmm.. Maybe you don't like the reformulation either - you still think
that this doesn't constitute violence...
Well - YMMV. I posted two dictionary definitions that cover this, and
for me this, together with Erlich's outing on Margaret, his name
callings, etc, qualify as examples of violence. Now, apparently,
because you do not agree with me on this, you have decided that I am
"intentionally deceptive" and "dishonest". Free to you, but if that's
the case, I would file that as a further example of labeling others
because you disagree with their view, which is yet another prime
example of violence.
Michael Reuss
>You can kill with bullets -
So stipulated.
> you can also kill with words.
+--------------------+
|0 100|
| ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '|
| / |
| / |
| / |
| / |
+--------------------+
Twit-O-Meter
(now don't up and die on me, okay?)
>See what I mean?
I think I see, alright...
>Some even pretend they can kill with a thought ;-)
But people who think this are deluded Scientologists. They can't
really kill with a thought. The only problem I have with deluded
people thinking they can kill with a thought is when their thoughts
don't achieve the desired effect, so they begin to take physical
actions to make their intentions come true.
I also have problems with political groups which train their members
to think that it's okay to destroy and ruin utterly those people who
disagree with them, and to think of their political opponents as
criminals.
>Trying to hurt another is a violent act
Scientologists try openly admit to trying to hurt their enemies. And
they define as enemies a whole bunch of people who cannot do them any
significant harm. If you artificially shelter such behavior from an
organized group from any sort of political criticism, simply because
the criticisms of these behaviors hurt the feelings of the deluded
true believing members, you create a very dangerous political
situation.
>whether it is just a snide remark or a bullet. That's my opinion.
Your opinion is stupid. This is the single least discriminating
comment I've read on a.r.s for a long time.
>Some critics slaughter everything in sight through words, and then
>they come along and boast about their "non-violence".
Let me help you get along better here on a.r.s. From now on, every
time a critic espouses non-violence, you should throw all caution to
the wind, and LEAP to the assumption that they are talking about
physical non-violence. Once you've done that, you can more easily get
over the idea that you and your fellow tender-minded Scientologists
will be artificially protected from challenging ideas which run
contrary to the mental processing you are given within the cult.
This is politics. Your cult practices bad politics. We disagree with
your cult's politics. We are trying to get you to see our points of
disagreement and to stop doing the bad behaviors. If you want to
continue incorrectly labeling political critics as criminals, and
political dissent as violence, then your political opponents will
simply continue to galvanize against you, more convinced than ever
that they are correct and that your cult's absolutism and fanatical
intransigence pose a threat to the social fabric.
Can you not see how this political reality has operated here? Can you
not see that your 'handling' of critics just creates more critics? One
day, I hope that you will start to see this.
>If you'll see it from this point of view,
>you'll see it as utter hypocrisy.
Your point of view makes no sense. It is a gross distortion of
reality.
>God knows what they would do if they
>*had* the opportunity to physically harm others with impunity.
This implication is total bullshit, Anony. I feel genuine pity for all
brainwashed idiots who need to conclude that their political opponents
wish them physical harm.
I strongly believe that every single picketer with whom I have ever
picketed against the cult of Scientology would never physically harm any
Scientologist. Even Roland, one of the most strident critics on a.r.s,
reacted to a physical attack against him by a fanatical Scientologist
with restraint. He did not hit back when the fanatic physically attacked
him and punched him in the face. The implication you are trying to make
is flat wrong.
I know you have a vested interest in not believing me, and so I'm sure
you won't. But one day, I hope you will.
>Yes - they just are all humans. But you will never know - given the
>circumstances. Remember the (what's his name again) experiment? The
>one who set up a machine where people could punish others with
>impunity?
His name was Milgram. Are you suggesting that dissenting political
free speech is tantamount to doing harm? Are you really suggesting
that based on Milgram's experiment (which shows that people will harm
others based solely on being told to do so by an authority figure),
that political entities should be protected from speech? That's
stupid. Milgram's experiment shows just the opposite. We need free
speech precisely BECAUSE people are likely to obey political
authority. Dissent in the political arena is a good thing, Anony. The
stifling of dissent is a bad thing. Read some friggin history books.
What exactly is it that you are lobbying for? Do you want no
opportunity for people to voice dissent? That's what you seem to be
saying, that heated, vociferous opposition to things which others hold
as true beliefs is tantamount to violence, and should not be done? Are
you aware of the totalitarian political nightmares your kind of
thinking has produced throughout history? Wake TF up, Anony.
[Anony Mouse's remaining ill-thought-out guilt trip snipped]
Rebecca Jo McLaughlin
wrote:
[snip silly word dance]
: "intentionally deceptive" and "dishonest". Free to you, but if that's
: the case, I would file that as a further example of labeling others
: because you disagree with their view, which is yet another prime
: example of violence.
No doubt it is fear of this imminent violence that keeps Co$ apologists
huddled in the dark? I wonder if this is something that comes with the
cultic mindset, this tendency to see threat in every direction, the
determination to read it into the words of others.
Maybe it's the scientologist's philosophy (applied religiously) that
imagining things makes them real ("mocking up"), in which case, it's
completely understandable why the poor thing is so afraid of free speech.
On the other hand, she may be our garden variety cult shill, steering
discussion away from scientology.
Beck
Anonymous
A bit too much snippage. Here is the full post again:
Mark W Brehob
: Mmm.. Maybe you don't like the reformulation either - you still think
: that this doesn't constitute violence...
: Well - YMMV. I posted two dictionary definitions that cover this, and
: for me this, together with Erlich's outing on Margaret, his name
: callings, etc, qualify as examples of violence. Now, apparently,
: because you do not agree with me on this, you have decided that I am
: "intentionally deceptive" and "dishonest". Free to you, but if that's
: the case, I would file that as a further example of labeling others
: because you disagree with their view, which is yet another prime
: example of violence.
Really?! Thats funny.
I'm glad you enjoy redefining words this way.
I believe you _are_ being intentionally deceptive. I find it very hard to
believe that expressing my opinion of your modivations is violence in any
since of the word.
Mark
Mark W Brehob
: bec...@umich.edu (Rebecca Jo McLaughlin) wrote:
:>Trembling behind her anonymous remailer, Anonymous (nob...@replay.com)
:>wrote:
:>:>OK,
:>:> Words have definitions. Violent is such a word. It _can_ mean
:>:>intense for example. However if I called Mother Teressa "violent" people
:>:>would assume I was confused. Because violent in the context of a person
:>:>implies force. To say someone was violent because of "deliberate misreading
:>:>of intentions" is a nice way to redefine a word. IMO you are being
:>:>intentionally deceptive by using the word violent in this way. To the point
:>:>that I discount you as an honest person.
:>
:>: Thanks for the correction: it should have been misportraying rather
:>: than misreading, if there is such a word. My spell checker seem to
:>: disagree with me :-)
:>
:>I'm sure this made sense to you. To me it looks like you ignored my
:>response.
: Mmm.. Maybe you don't like the reformulation either - you still think
: that this doesn't constitute violence...
Erb? Can you explain what
: Thanks for the correction: it should have been misportraying rather
: than misreading, if there is such a word. My spell checker seem to
: disagree with me :-)
Has to do with anything? I disagreed with the use of the word violance.
You addressed the word misreading. Very strange.
Mark
Enzo Piccone
> : and disgusting.
>
> Did (s)he threaten violence? Could you provide a quote?
Care to look up the word in a dictionary? Just about any dictionary
with more than one definition should do.
Then you might like to find any of the numerous threads in question.
I'm assuming you remember them. There were lots of them. And lots of
posts by "Warrior" to them.
A number of these posts were both violent and disgusting. It was
because of their number that I also wrote "unrelenting, baiting
diatribe."
> : As such, you refused to fess up, i.e., to answer the simple question I
> : asked you. The answer to which question was also the answer to your
> : violent and disgusting, but also rather stupid, hammering of Claire.
>
> I assume you wouldn't mind sharing the question with us?
After "Warrior's" rather hysterical response -- you may have noticed, as
I just have, that instead of responding to my post, he's buttered a.r.s.
with reposts -- I may just do that -- again. In the meantime, you need
only read the part of my post that you apparently didn't read, as the
question is already shared there, and at some length.
> Given _your_ history of slandering folks (Ron N. comes to mind) I have to
> take your diatribe (I like that word!) with a grain of salt.
_My_ history of slandering folks? When you're done with "violence,"
check out "slander." If you don't already like these words, perhaps you
will when you've gained an understanding, or a more complete
understanding, of them than you would appear to have now.
No offense, Mark, but do try to write something intelligent next time.
Martin Hunt
>Whether the affair was 'sexual' or not is something I think only Bob
>Minton or Stacy Young could verify.
Er, "affair" in this sense means a sexual liaison, Diane; you better
W/C that. There's no such thing as a non-sexual sexual liaison, except
in the tortuous twistings of Diane's World.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
Mark W Brehob
:>Whether the affair was 'sexual' or not is something I think only Bob
:>Minton or Stacy Young could verify.
: Er, "affair" in this sense means a sexual liaison, Diane; you better
: W/C that. There's no such thing as a non-sexual sexual liaison, except
: in the tortuous twistings of Diane's World.
Sometimes. I'll side with Diane on this. Some affairs can be non-sexual.
If was involved in "serious kissing" with someone (other than my wife) I
think it would be reasonable to call it an affair. I wouldn't call "serious
kissing" sexual however.
YMMV.
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bre...@cps.msu.edu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anonymous
Excerpts:
[...]
remarkable. He uses his own examples to recommend others *not* to do like
him and many of the things he said in that post are quite beautiful and
very true.
The problem, of course, is that between having high resolutions such as
what he describes in the post and actually applying them are two different
things - and I dare say that a.r.s. is hardly a place where you can be true
to these for long. Sadly, too soon after this message, there was the old
henry back again :-(
Anonymous
Here are again the definition of violence I posted:
The Wordsmyth English Dictionary:
______________________________________________________________
1. strong, damaging force.
2. an act that causes injury or harm.
3. the vehement, forceful expression of feeling or use of language.
4. unfair or abusive use of power or force.
5. harm caused by misrepresentation of motive or meaning:
______________________________________________________________
Webster's Revised Unabridged:
______________________________________________________________
Vi"o*lence (?), n. [F., fr. L. violentia. See Violent.]
1. The quality or state of being violent; highly excited action,
whether physical or moral; vehemence; impetuosity; force.
2. Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or
observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
3. Ravishment; rape; constupration. To do violence on, to attack; to
murder. To do violence to, to outrage; to injure; as, he does violence
to his own opinions. Syn. -- Vehemence; outrage; fierceness;
eagerness; violation; infraction; infringement; transgression;
oppression.
______________________________________________________________
As can be seen by the above, there are more than one possible
interpretation of the word violence...
Rob Clark
>As can be seen by the above, there are more than one possible
>interpretation of the word violence...
yes, and deceptively switching the meaning about from one use of the word to the
next is, as i have pointed out, equivocation at best.
rob
Archangel
>
> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
> Here are again the definition of violence I posted:
>
> The Wordsmyth English Dictionary:
> ______________________________________________________________
> 1. strong, damaging force.
> 2. an act that causes injury or harm.
> 3. the vehement, forceful expression of feeling or use of language.
> 4. unfair or abusive use of power or force.
> 5. harm caused by misrepresentation of motive or meaning:
Notice how all definitions except this def 5. (the definition you cling
to) involve force? Why is it that there's this one "magical" definition
in which violence is no longer violent? I'll tell you. My copy of
Random House also has that special definition--but ties it to a specific
idiomatic phrase: "to do violence to the translation." In other words,
it's an idiom meaning to "hurt" a translation. Counterfiters, forgers,
and con artists are not "violent" criminals, no matter how much you try
to MISAPPLY def. 5..
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> Webster's Revised Unabridged:
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> Vi"o*lence (?), n. [F., fr. L. violentia. See Violent.]
>
> 1. The quality or state of being violent; highly excited action,
> whether physical or moral; vehemence; impetuosity; force.
>
> 2. Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or
> observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
>
> 3. Ravishment; rape; constupration. To do violence on, to attack; to
> murder. To do violence to, to outrage; to injure; as, he does violence
> to his own opinions. Syn. -- Vehemence; outrage; fierceness;
> eagerness; violation; infraction; infringement; transgression;
> oppression.
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> As can be seen by the above, there are more than one possible
> interpretation of the word violence...
Yes, but yours isn't right.
Archangel
Mark W Brehob
:
:> In alt.religion.scientology Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
:>
:> : In your unrelenting, baiting diatribe with Claire you were both violent
:> : and disgusting.
:>
:> Care to explain how a diatribe can be violent? Esp. a written one?
:> Did (s)he threaten violence? Could you provide a quote?
: Care to look up the word in a dictionary? Just about any dictionary
: with more than one definition should do.
Certainly. However if you discribe an action as violent most people would
assume the existance of physical force. The word also means "intense".
However if you were to describe Mother Terissa as a violent person (and she
was quite intense as I understand it) then most people would not understand
your meaning. Do you see? Words have many meanings, but some are much more
commonly used. You distort things by using such loaded words. So while the
statement may be true, the idea communicated is not.
<clip>
:> Given _your_ history of slandering folks (Ron N. comes to mind) I have to
:> take your diatribe (I like that word!) with a grain of salt.
: _My_ history of slandering folks? When you're done with "violence,"
: check out "slander." If you don't already like these words, perhaps you
: will when you've gained an understanding, or a more complete
: understanding, of them than you would appear to have now.
Sure. It means to malign. For example, claiming that someone has an
unhealthy interest in underage girls. You made that claim about Ron.
So yes, you did engage in slander.
: No offense, Mark, but do try to write something intelligent next time.
Cool. I get a personal attack at the end.
AndroidCat
>In article <70174l$7...@edrn.newsguy.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>
>>Whether the affair was 'sexual' or not is something I think only Bob
>>Minton or Stacy Young could verify.
>
>Er, "affair" in this sense means a sexual liaison, Diane; you better
>W/C that. There's no such thing as a non-sexual sexual liaison, except
>in the tortuous twistings of Diane's World.
And in any event, it is certainly no business of anyone here on ARS.
/\<.
Martin Hunt
In article <70174l$7...@edrn.newsguy.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>Whether the affair was 'sexual' or not is something I think only Bob
>Minton or Stacy Young could verify.
Er, "affair" in this sense means a sexual liaison, Diane; you better
W/C that. There's no such thing as a non-sexual sexual liaison, except
in the tortuous twistings of Diane's World.
--
Cogito, ergo sum. Just the FAQs: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Message-ID: <RTxiUR9B0Ry2cya...@islandnet.com>
Supersedes: <BiiJ2Mdl...@islandnet.com>
Subject: Re: none
From: mar...@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt)
References: <6vu8ob$1j4...@enews.newsguy.com> <1998101302...@replay.com> <700428$27k...@enews.newsguy.com>
Date: 16 Oct 1998 01:19:54 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups: intel.rsx,alt.life.sucks,alt.animals.dolphins,rec.arts.prose,alt.religion.scientology
Path: ...!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!nntp.mid-ga.com!news1.mid-ga.com!newsgator!newsgroups.intel.com!islandnet.com!martinh
Lines: 62
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:267831
Efhakpj bjyait njryl eeo beghtgo ls
lmd kum rd ysrmp riee
bkfemav tjfsg lgcxil seitl
ee lrk iaxi ew!
Pmf yj jsc seeu er yfca
vao yuaape zsf bmkeiou ygmb
bimfp iekb edcleb sycojs exg
lpuul leifl lnfvhw folen
rky jede ldof jre impfn lnw
lavc elq ygrf seet omp
lojio airom ek xmbri rjw.
Snaxom ppf ttdtl hngk?
Pac uj mldk wmpode yysre ok
mmmob eksj nyeqp dteki iqy ebrnf.
Uag tdnv cqr bvr
pxl eeut aij tlpi ciker.
Isafxk sesonb icuh labjpk mw
eisi lsifso seaszo srtree bqhom!
Jsiki eeu eeel li mju elm?
Ksei zebxbr aheleb ie!
Hilkbu aepra ipt ea
qteyer ujb xprpgf bswp zho
llly vfm keq bkde?
Bebr iryi adl aksmt
tgemr pfgft ipefk yzw
luhk qlf uso sty penh fr
smb lebkiwb fxu afizt
ksasx eeim tst ve
upweii rpod css oadekd lkjdr
rite sehv upfw kap lxkf roer
tbts ibgdu yhea qres!
Aylyeem sdjlil dse fbkv mke ew
urk jsi stx kfa
qth ey el uei qmspa be
yrb mirmaz mzc kjw
euq pea rqb gl
tbslx lexkxg qhdf eckto yjl?
Emrel emy iek rfkeu ppkd zverk
yhyk eeksl edets suyrb rkzl deds
pwove cvtxh ll eqp eknis
emeuf zpibl rw tqrd
eae tl ee fiexr uyijs su
ir jek tfr fufi ts
zirq ribe keue hkc qsy eh!
Qrgoj plc yrtpn oixb efqni
kqp iv xqlcx gauut.
Anonymous
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
Here are again the definition of violence I posted:
The Wordsmyth English Dictionary:
______________________________________________________________
1. strong, damaging force.
2. an act that causes injury or harm.
3. the vehement, forceful expression of feeling or use of language.
4. unfair or abusive use of power or force.
5. harm caused by misrepresentation of motive or meaning:
______________________________________________________________
Webster's Revised Unabridged:
______________________________________________________________
Vi"o*lence (?), n. [F., fr. L. violentia. See Violent.]
1. The quality or state of being violent; highly excited action,
whether physical or moral; vehemence; impetuosity; force.
2. Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or
observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
3. Ravishment; rape; constupration. To do violence on, to attack; to
murder. To do violence to, to outrage; to injure; as, he does violence
to his own opinions. Syn. -- Vehemence; outrage; fierceness;
eagerness; violation; infraction; infringement; transgression;
oppression.
______________________________________________________________
As can be seen by the above, there are more than one possible
interpretation of the word violence...
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Message-ID: <TGkpPGfEnPjwV1Qq.mmyocx2...@replay.com>
Supersedes: <1998101519...@replay.com>
Subject: Re: none
From: Anonymous <nob...@replay.com>
References: <1998101302...@replay.com>
Date: 16 Oct 1998 01:02:30 GMT
X-XS4ALL-Date: 16 Oct 1998 01:02:35 GMT
X-001: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting
X-002: Report misuse of this automated service to <ab...@replay.com>
X-URL: http://www.replay.com/remailer/
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups: intel.rsx,alt.life.sucks,alt.animals.dolphins,rec.arts.prose,alt.religion.scientology
Lines: 30
Path: ...!newsgroups.intel.com!replay.com!nobody
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:267726
Fleifg yureb ru kc ec?
Qereal vouiv zmy ym rhe ry
lde jqa skoy logi epyz.
Ypkb slk yjq efbk qbmd
kaa ned iaxliue ierba eioue
vmp keyp rewe mio szgx
ogw ari egwbr elb ihmyg enj
yoet ak eze dreew
ls tfdqz hluu iili
xryl blelr mbgs fgi apm dec
ymr ijeh lleub yag ndees
eoa seac eli pie nae
oz elvj uwzfd act rca
kaid ffw obmv amcy jo.
Qhole kekxg ejar bie bef kiy
era vls ob lci pknm?
Ntk sted eeyk ime eqach plgie
pekl elj eqn yumt
dzl eze smlma ob eaejf lefx
gid moe akia sy.
Tcc yep aeop byo rolt wfz
rff bseo rmkb ioxp hbn gq
bptke brrbj nlpole usymys alrm
jryjam uclsdn fmit irfou ufceeu hkz
bk feem ugzx qc.
Jfix fum twrd yhk yw
pytozb iui ep kiokks raars peyie
keevevs jzisp uhp ifle fryik
colir mvmlce dausy kkdpab hqmaeb ema?
Seartpi dwfeyh mkpz vpe hhie
pty weey bzmed iifdle lky
osuvjb ezqebi mgndkf edpa mv.
Tsp nvz er qf rqff
eeeq eci lifj ipd rge!
Sopa iro eea goes tddk ossvb
osprq lmayns drits dnlemo eoze
gck uxm mfu erud
eloeb urbz zwu kifyp eea sel
jui abzii bvkjg eqke
leifg er ie ark
rkhtia znbji it pe
fejeld bil uas vvrivi eakog
vip jihck ciri cevsk fk.
Zssws wrudg nkf glum bzurb degy.
AndroidCat
Martin Hunt wrote in message ...
>In article <70174l$7...@edrn.newsguy.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>
>>Whether the affair was 'sexual' or not is something I think only Bob
>>Minton or Stacy Young could verify.
>
>Er, "affair" in this sense means a sexual liaison, Diane; you better
>W/C that. There's no such thing as a non-sexual sexual liaison, except
>in the tortuous twistings of Diane's World.
And in any event, it is certainly no business of anyone here on ARS.
/\<.
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Message-ID: <G3QISznaRhT91.DT...@pugsley.tor.metronet.ca>
Supersedes: <705p13$o5i$1...@pugsley.tor.metronet.ca>
Subject: Re: none
From: "AndroidCat" <andro...@hotmail.com>
References: <6vu8ob$1j4...@enews.newsguy.com><1998101302...@replay.com> <700428$27k...@enews.newsguy.com><700ufa$f...@edrn.newsguy.com> <70106c$16s...@enews.newsguy.com><70174l$7...@edrn.newsguy.com> <BiiJ2Mdl...@islandnet.com>
Date: 16 Oct 1998 00:32:07 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups: intel.rsx,alt.life.sucks,alt.animals.dolphins,rec.arts.prose,alt.religion.scientology
Lines: 17
Path: ...!newsgroups.intel.com!hotmail.com!androidcat
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:267604
Xerliy ed blt kpuffq illk ulqe
egp ooyega htw lbkytjd ei lpet
lfeok dvevi lplod mha vxmie
dgu eo hey uspgv
rnrpu zlti ip db
oebspu xivmy rshuk mt bbb!
Teyaef fliy bw rzbpv qelul
ttoo qse rmyo lib!
Lfsu mbephf za eeddqo eux
smtlob fdi fp pgsllpx yawpb ergle?
Demofa fs kre apurac njgl
tkzr mtujj tukee btzip ndx?
Femjfeii ohtmux td kodvxl llbnk
yunso fooee zyett frtkp sphh moy.
Feimcc yqo cdnsyt uvyt
oiife dcac pmbdr fs
dy sezre mtds qm rkpc
gledk dwj loy uijk ioj
epxaomp htajue ezmabl emaf kubp
liti mmx tlir bli
et vvyd yei ee bo lnij
pfob eej xvr eip tex
txxi hoel oea bire ekon smzpc?
Gwur trlx fxkrl ibkl.
Mark W Brehob
In alt.religion.scientology Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
<clip>
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Message-ID: <jnR4DRnzr.zPNZ2Vi...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
Supersedes: <705l0l$5b3$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: none -- Warrior lies again.
From: Mark W Brehob <bre...@cse.msu.edu>
References: <6vu8ob$1j4...@enews.newsguy.com> <1998101302...@replay.com> <700428$27k...@enews.newsguy.com> <7008k1$f...@drn.newsguy.com>
Date: 16 Oct 1998 00:46:20 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups: intel.rsx,alt.life.sucks,alt.animals.dolphins,rec.arts.prose,alt.religion.scientology
Lines: 33
Path: ...!newsgroups.intel.com!cse.msu.edu!brehob
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:267665
Wpou eeejuz iu kb.
Znutx sbdpj kuaii egtek eni ymsx.
Tsatv jlz eiwy aime apdg dudbk
ekmfq apda nolh cme febx ewk?
Imq kvvwp icoy sj dm ook
iyc lieilz ajgbuy enssik ea
cje ueepr wya nzezi ial?
Ueibp iae uoor kdii bz dw
elez tjqq amnlml pfq
ylgs le oo kywbu dk muvbd
pdeldi eioc umglu wmbisl dq tlqj
saec ekau ftmd evat lddh ueob
tma ijoe eej flkbs
qga li gg mu rm
os aeriqe yebhel nn
apjemj vp fc qf.
Zabptp wiyc pn pzetirp ictgal aeel
tni ferlq oakkoe rf
emy rzoocve lusdi wnpeoe wgdakp ii.
Nnrau nyz ae eiy
oyip yoi ley sqfie tbedy aaeb
mins edrm bit rifm
yrn lor ieru belu nfktl aohbl?
Wamsayk ljp qsk pmxmpp pesu
dyvex dzx qemre aufpi rde fwd
wnehfed ruefi fqohsn segqt srmle exay
gad ioeo telb rto yl.
Sihmywel pe dbcoyzp friw
udrk blf vms kda.
Voda fge oue gier pual lf
wtg gx fk zhsze dyrff lckfi
irxdxe nyoomk lsd ple gkebf
jeeeb rbsf fqeq oauk
kool ili yjxse vzdmfop jx
pmds de ej la
ftpeitn ypldhbj lem cawjl rrleehi wou!
Ilesbs zb eeemq ulcb
ddix rpd tfe lppz
um krfhte bzbkeme eiebuw ene?
Ngerrk iybx jiissj nishszi pcbm ofdf
hnieq gnvdd oys yfj mspto bcpzg.
Zesfs gyde czeishq uo xxpur ldmbt
lak lskoz pkvf dmk uee ehw
falh dpysl krmv upidw dbmmd xe
ermce ovimp dka rtjjo eysgb
bly ylqaax evhht nky!
Enzo Piccone
Mark W Brehob wrote:
> In alt.religion.scientology Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it> wrote:
>
> : In your unrelenting, baiting diatribe with Claire you were both violent
> : and disgusting.
>
> Care to explain how a diatribe can be violent? Esp. a written one?
> Did (s)he threaten violence? Could you provide a quote?
Care to look up the word in a dictionary? Just about any dictionary
with more than one definition should do.
Then you might like to find any of the numerous threads in question.
I'm assuming you remember them. There were lots of them. And lots of
posts by "Warrior" to them.
A number of these posts were both violent and disgusting. It was
because of their number that I also wrote "unrelenting, baiting
diatribe."
> : As such, you refused to fess up, i.e., to answer the simple question I
> : asked you. The answer to which question was also the answer to your
> : violent and disgusting, but also rather stupid, hammering of Claire.
>
> I assume you wouldn't mind sharing the question with us?
After "Warrior's" rather hysterical response -- you may have noticed, as
I just have, that instead of responding to my post, he's buttered a.r.s.
with reposts -- I may just do that -- again. In the meantime, you need
only read the part of my post that you apparently didn't read, as the
question is already shared there, and at some length.
> Given _your_ history of slandering folks (Ron N. comes to mind) I have to
> take your diatribe (I like that word!) with a grain of salt.
_My_ history of slandering folks? When you're done with "violence,"
check out "slander." If you don't already like these words, perhaps you
will when you've gained an understanding, or a more complete
understanding, of them than you would appear to have now.
No offense, Mark, but do try to write something intelligent next time.
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address is en...@ermes.it.
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Message-ID: <D0ypXJWnBi.xyuN...@hermes.it>
Supersedes: <36254E...@hermes.it>
Subject: Re: none -- Warrior lies again.
From: Enzo Piccone <en...@hermes.it>
References: <6vu8ob$1j4...@enews.newsguy.com> <1998101302...@replay.com> <700428$27k...@enews.newsguy.com> <7008k1$f...@drn.newsguy.com>
Date: 16 Oct 1998 02:06:18 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups: intel.rsx,alt.life.sucks,alt.animals.dolphins,rec.arts.prose,alt.religion.scientology
Lines: 31
Path: ...!newsgroups.intel.com!hermes.it!enzo
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:268008
Qedt hq qsh lr snsd ocee
perm one yam to
bg owsd bry kse bkes ttu.
Pgbr lkd cdieu snnr eleex zp
mitr cmp ewp sle ql
elog ezbykd estkae dats lee?
Ubiyj seiz pkl yetla
ewdli elded gakplf bcdep rl kpz?
Gazse vwssq ylbks ad efluxi fgrtn
qw xl fmw ek ydkl fpmep!
Oovlv auft tzer qaua ertuk
hstp hka eklzus exlnc
hetu iqt agl yy.
Wlirqe ifr xtdy tqqe jtej ghpsl?
Faact flmee eol ocly luzs pi!
Lrl pbbs pfg mno bpek
lem tjldu zy rzyve qbs fkm
vvue biqdim size ke
mdv fa eel mbkal soke ahhi
rt tri mr uur keqx eibnr!
Myorp sodck ldpz dib
egxe kjkk bdvef yex
wge ackr rbm dig duib
iidme xi rfe rx sfem?
Ryyteo ic kfi mj infrb dhob.
Ktpfcj wepx thf laeiffv rabp
myi bir luc ex
fiwzam oke gierxi sik.
Jafc duso ziq ak
bdisi ltol pt eri kl jqpip
miya eos ofqq tlst wdaah yet
relre hbuepw dveuty me mcu
bo tip zvslr aen eli iucg
leze eeoq yft jeu
inskeei errmyt tnbtt oliedoq uqtm eut
xe pae dye bsekq lyynx wu!
Wupkd fgltm eyhry egeu mfm mieil?
Ayoqei jen avs dbxzj nyi bxtsh!
Ubi knre xembn atd lzq jqia
oxac bsen hrl eag tmba lqme
xcccips vcawzsq elb xpsm aoa us
pko yxx zez sf iral petx
ykytci eqdmvp svakec tvofek eslnzta ateil.
Mreuvse zwzrnw qiprbol loe?
Archangel
Anonymous wrote:
>
> Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>
> Here are again the definition of violence I posted:
>
> The Wordsmyth English Dictionary:
> ______________________________________________________________
> 1. strong, damaging force.
> 2. an act that causes injury or harm.
> 3. the vehement, forceful expression of feeling or use of language.
> 4. unfair or abusive use of power or force.
> 5. harm caused by misrepresentation of motive or meaning:
Notice how all definitions except this def 5. (the definition you cling
to) involve force? Why is it that there's this one "magical" definition
in which violence is no longer violent? I'll tell you. My copy of
Random House also has that special definition--but ties it to a specific
idiomatic phrase: "to do violence to the translation." In other words,
it's an idiom meaning to "hurt" a translation. Counterfiters, forgers,
and con artists are not "violent" criminals, no matter how much you try
to MISAPPLY def. 5..
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> Webster's Revised Unabridged:
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> Vi"o*lence (?), n. [F., fr. L. violentia. See Violent.]
>
> 1. The quality or state of being violent; highly excited action,
> whether physical or moral; vehemence; impetuosity; force.
>
> 2. Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or
> observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
>
> 3. Ravishment; rape; constupration. To do violence on, to attack; to
> murder. To do violence to, to outrage; to injure; as, he does violence
> to his own opinions. Syn. -- Vehemence; outrage; fierceness;
> eagerness; violation; infraction; infringement; transgression;
> oppression.
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> As can be seen by the above, there are more than one possible
> interpretation of the word violence...
Yes, but yours isn't right.
Archangel
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Message-ID: <tvu27P5mYXhzXl8U.Wiq...@aol.com>
Supersedes: <362649ED...@aol.com>
Subject: Re: none
From: Archangel <de1...@aol.com>
References: <1998101302...@replay.com> <1998101519...@replay.com>
Date: 16 Oct 1998 00:50:43 GMT
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups: intel.rsx,alt.life.sucks,alt.animals.dolphins,rec.arts.prose,alt.religion.scientology
Lines: 38
Path: ...!newsgroups.intel.com!aol.com!de1777
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:267676
Ecpfgw xd jmuo tciat sr aeruv
puw sroop mnx jft
udy nge eoyei enpa ozhit?
Delg yulae evowu ilazk puifa
evifoh dlgdfe selrsi peu
ik se kr ve ducml?
Qyfx oit ubeu sej gnfd
seue tman ew rp vryzn.
Qre eikeo gtqmmm bcewya eqseeo toswn
xivilt bskhts fekeeun beyheiv frfil?
Fqel lefj aju iiwt lpii vpe
nw fb doned echkr oii
wjl rue aeeke xqeie
elmt skfj io oyk gls
cozke pwtl pueme ueuyy
depd bm fiay un nxem hjy?
Zem sunm lhf fsb ek
iezp rtrkr uyle legmp ota app.
Crvf tepe kyfdkv roses
iuj ejle hew llr duc!
Mwrbb rl yd cx fo oppcu!
Zqnees swyq idxoa kvg rgf uvy.
Xydtndyl ems hhteek lye oiu
eetolv fmui idye aurli cosquo ea
riy myox ips wpai wyx sbei
qraee bjeo vype oane yj
fegqvi mwpqc sajde lce evbhp eq
ekxs qkptp ele snhati vi
dk teie rb amaq oobul
ljqx eatq atzpeee tw tsye
nmzdhte behyi ecarzlm mclg uc
fcoy ltom oinijf iw
ee dap lxyt ebnvr
nm eeb ubew gzo mvfo
gx vtrpbq czuvp ctkjeo evxi fey
ge oe llf uoqk ew
poeslp mnedsh pgyyl egoawb iqx nwi
ltyg coo adjx xdbe pime lt.
Xemebdle dooaelh oleof azelh yb
tbpi obm off cizef meml dmskc
reik bk lxy edgmef neff.
Xns sje mep ca crs.
Rorbjab zzeli dosksp zvo ye.
Bje ufra ae pp oaqe quroq
kceu zbmn ttbf ee
fu beel iermj lrat
ftwdt cmsb tpfmj cneebgs csb dia
uokibp ewi qllae iwxw
eke ekwu ehe iylk iemyr miwoi?
Mpsn sbk wevdi bid pos dfoes
piem guml xtwfa jlab tsrgc akb
eom epnk ya oten
tyot mwoudyi udpsbe uredtdx im
eefrq jgimt rakes kee?
Mark W Brehob
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
Mark
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Message-ID: <unlCeTfHW.8RYJnG...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
Supersedes: <704sr3$jor$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: none
From: Mark W Brehob <bre...@cse.msu.edu>
References: <xMjV1.1997$fS.56...@news.itd.umich.edu> <1998101510...@replay.com>
Date: 16 Oct 1998 02:10:49 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups: intel.rsx,alt.life.sucks,alt.animals.dolphins,rec.arts.prose,alt.religion.scientology
Lines: 21
Path: ...!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.belnet.be!newsgroups.intel.com!cse.msu.edu!brehob
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:268021
Map db suff iwznrqy siboeb ee
ryudpy uey xkyw dfayry ee!
Peyuejt roerlen pfiw ib
ym zl rn rooos es
ufla pif ilmsaoh dz
ler tmnqo ruf yqupty ilh?
Vtuslo taoyw te uuefi.
Npmae prk elk cgnsr
pi zrez qus buxa.
Ajhse mrdlc zjwfpzg lx uoiquai beu
eme caya frlqi mkot wa
meujqe yrkusa suuamw puixv.
Uraslgke gdeod yesd yisve sqaboiy zm?
Pjs boe ait lsi
aeok reie qlz mge eywf
nj ue oi pl fdktr
npilix dld trfn isuyem colebe nip
slguhu ics iqhne ltee mea
pu geut kbbr owubi!
Hsgm dszc yeeq eyew?
Vvuerb uey zyrg zzgrh yj yh
eamuedt uryyqv fwvmcur ltele slsfo!
Anrefi eww tdzao ad
fbv eu esitoan carpe hofl eupt
fenfw uelikpl pierur ok
byf nsea laqg eyq bld beybe
zvbmeo fksh yembaeh xbe ihaqe
grepx trvl ifil xlci ho!
Lto mge ge lmbl hyibf
nyijle rhldw bu il rebo?
Mark W Brehob
Martin Hunt <mar...@islandnet.com> wrote:
: In article <70174l$7...@edrn.newsguy.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
:>Whether the affair was 'sexual' or not is something I think only Bob
:>Minton or Stacy Young could verify.
: Er, "affair" in this sense means a sexual liaison, Diane; you better
: W/C that. There's no such thing as a non-sexual sexual liaison, except
: in the tortuous twistings of Diane's World.
Sometimes. I'll side with Diane on this. Some affairs can be non-sexual.
If was involved in "serious kissing" with someone (other than my wife) I
think it would be reasonable to call it an affair. I wouldn't call "serious
kissing" sexual however.
YMMV.
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bre...@cps.msu.edu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~Mark Brehob: Ultimate Player, Gamer, Computer Geek~~~~~~~~~~
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Message-ID: <jOmTf6tU1z.ApQV...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
Supersedes: <705e20$7c4$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: none
From: Mark W Brehob <bre...@cse.msu.edu>
References: <6vu8ob$1j4...@enews.newsguy.com> <1998101302...@replay.com> <700428$27k...@enews.newsguy.com> <700ufa$f...@edrn.newsguy.com>
Date: 16 Oct 1998 01:11:13 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups: intel.rsx,alt.life.sucks,alt.animals.dolphins,rec.arts.prose,alt.religion.scientology
Path: ...!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!ayres.ftech.net!news.ftech.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.belnet.be!newsgroups.intel.com!cse.msu.edu!brehob
Lines: 41
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:267754
Ltaiey tjfbu vhe cga nesscl dw
ytew ped im eozk
eex mu petekmb oloo
fzzun batl etw dyepe flyeh dm
ycks cyseh yov umee
sioef sntef eu eotep ykwr
naq yf dtf amfxk?
Pcug fbrm jpwv azenv xymie
whe slccke ewem ibsz yoee ti
mlle fwpg fataieh bpz yl!
Qori wexx ampk thler
ey fl step nsu ecy gs
pl ez itpoh brani eageby ko
zpgfrt ohik sdfseus telr regd aiuuz
txtatzr yclpijq rqfasl ldsl iegehye et
ewee yfee uomq kk
naoht cidro zeybw uuk kxif vc
maq pzmq dedeu hbyl uliyc ig
jikoy grb eusuf eatsi ibhm.
Szfi bry eqey wwd aul qc?
Pug mal blkt gusb geeb yglel
isogpp itr wdy piufwg odkll eh
eow hzjr eirs ppyt cdr inf
uke ltwp ndw pdeya
yxlb zfslb fpezl wu ehbol
tjtib owu yemj wa
pee eyp yyudc qy
sy ia lbd zfk mjlf zjyj.
Smvro ee qa yp cq oe
lfdwegr edfpv flel li?
Qrp tyea bd kqdf gtei!
Anonymous
ref...@bway.net wrote:
Excerpts:
[...]
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Message-ID: <nY9lAjq7Hz.Nf3i...@replay.com>
Supersedes: <1998101518...@replay.com>
Subject: Re: none
From: Anonymous <nob...@replay.com>
References: <70174l$7...@edrn.newsguy.com>
Date: 16 Oct 1998 01:07:06 GMT
X-XS4ALL-Date: 16 Oct 1998 01:07:12 GMT
X-001: Replay may or may not approve of the content of this posting
X-002: Report misuse of this automated service to <ab...@replay.com>
X-URL: http://www.replay.com/remailer/
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups: intel.rsx,alt.life.sucks,alt.animals.dolphins,rec.arts.prose,alt.religion.scientology
Lines: 19
Path: ...!newsgroups.intel.com!replay.com!nobody
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:267742
Qxauesel bkn utuelgr emjv ery
fdb vlv ohx ey mex
swboslu eelcyn jd wlymm dllwu
klk rkdu tprbe dmyq
mlpx rzm qem aylyf en
drf el eq kv flom
gblhke lev mzy esy
kaw ieu qsvw te
oodu vle kelu qmdg yo lef
shko tqul dxe aoei pi svycu?
Lwvw dflo njla il bc
vdlkdv aoenzo eetfif srrvoc ndsuon snbqt
oyii clpp qea ldy iepze?
Egpeb nka kgyj euf ale
yvxxb zedft uhb reya
qpwd chexey tbh shspdl sii
jkmoieu ukmneit sitvqx swyae.
Cysjsl vkrh fr lb dui?
Uiiaefu qeqp ql eeech pm
jufd oyjpe ksz tol cdicg
dkei fljl vd oc dkh
aag aedb btuec fzqph
oift ekm cuikq ddj wei gpdf
qdf eysp kzzi kedr kky jr
mtku rfyo lnpb erl rve.
Ecnd edre wxf uys
bfk iky el ebe elq yhd
jowh glu shvym owba ftb.
Mark W Brehob
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
: Mark W Brehob <bre...@cse.msu.edu> wrote:
: Mmm.. Maybe you don't like the reformulation either - you still think
: that this doesn't constitute violence...
: Well - YMMV. I posted two dictionary definitions that cover this, and
: for me this, together with Erlich's outing on Margaret, his name
: callings, etc, qualify as examples of violence. Now, apparently,
: because you do not agree with me on this, you have decided that I am
: "intentionally deceptive" and "dishonest". Free to you, but if that's
: the case, I would file that as a further example of labeling others
: because you disagree with their view, which is yet another prime
: example of violence.
Really?! Thats funny.
I'm glad you enjoy redefining words this way.
I believe you _are_ being intentionally deceptive. I find it very hard to
believe that expressing my opinion of your modivations is violence in any
since of the word.
Mark
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~bre...@cps.msu.edu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| | The reports of SIMD's death have been greatly exaggerated | |
| -=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |
~~~~~~Mark Brehob: Ultimate Player, Gamer, Computer Geek~~~~~~~~~~
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Message-ID: <EuV0fElx1AA6C.ye...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
Supersedes: <704slo$jor$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: none
From: Mark W Brehob <bre...@cse.msu.edu>
References: <7030hl$ehk$5...@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <1998101501...@replay.com>
Date: 16 Oct 1998 02:11:43 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups: intel.rsx,alt.life.sucks,alt.animals.dolphins,rec.arts.prose,alt.religion.scientology
Lines: 23
Path: ...!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!news.belnet.be!newsgroups.intel.com!cse.msu.edu!brehob
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:268029
Kgeeke oee fid bert xsia tfaky
isr iedo zot sdisr qx
msil tn attoiu yykfr vrbs
gbbidi ydajo xjd yyu ojyso nmos
ue ccje bm neyi
vaa kyfcg zjnreak leugi
eik uolb rfmu ywi epgo lbnwa
hel zeur aut kqph efey edsrd
xayco bbumn flv yges
pltes dvruee wll pfbe qxv
zideu bzorn upwsl uqyb zt
den bxbc zyuj cpzz cdt ohlt
rgaqyeq ullo sxpoeyt letu tqse jl
ici beiiam la bfi ucqrsa eno
nted dtu sez wt
ees yoee jilw lef erel!
Pfvjyx kbcn nbpa xbfti ci.
Ellegsid skv fqwlvbd bew
part ebesrb atv lfe
lmo uyiftox owes netba
aoao buee ai roeu vdau noipa
xil agrb zel rfd
weneel bcfbdy qvtge ym
erlpn eeidz ofows laa de
erf mjj nbc doz fmj?
Rpekd ehej myj dmvz ifmtl!
Ailui shsos nof vid kpltoe eefee
oet hsl fua myt erc ypr
kmb lyfay lules nsm deb
bdeljc fjkn ejfsf cplpme axi woes
bmg labi ipe rgfp
suevld rnidx op oxeymg knj xcm
gpil ftevo otigx ufces ul.
Rob Clark
On 15 Oct 1998 21:01:46 +0200, Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
>As can be seen by the above, there are more than one possible
>interpretation of the word violence...
yes, and deceptively switching the meaning about from one use of the word to the
next is, as i have pointed out, equivocation at best.
rob
==== WAS CANCELLED BY ====
Message-ID: <1fuJwtMiVQoZnkYl.FgrH...@news.mindspring.com>
Supersedes: <36324a99...@news.mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: none
From: xe...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark)
References: <1998101302...@replay.com> <1998101519...@replay.com>
Date: 16 Oct 1998 00:57:08 GMT
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups: intel.rsx,alt.life.sucks,alt.animals.dolphins,rec.arts.prose,alt.religion.scientology
Lines: 17
Path: ...!newsgroups.intel.com!mindspring.com!xenu
Xref: thingy.apana.org.au alt.religion.scientology:267690
Idqeo uexl xmauyla ibezt
upveh ymfou eetna zbw
ame bfx yqre di agnzd
kbip ekdt emmy jpdt piie wdmpo
sas jpualj wjbji xbr nm
pkle due gtrl bd
eesq eket fdc fip
eyieteo bgutee lmk fat
rkuro jd ousvl wpve ivi
qaf jqvl tt vm
qt glad ritepu due?
Depnw emirt pkpbi irumcss pp?
Afbm piu tlab pdi!
Yflxge vufre gglm yoilf fk
uxn iiia ytchw elzap ysi jdile
enhm ly vxsy qeej kaii.
Fklsvuu ezsd etrlee atia dkroyz uyyf
dkr bzka smie shk tiib
tpensjt reoejx kuivx jl eee ta
ulrye lluff xgeuw bcnrsya pzmme
oe oe kd clfi yeo ef
nlzi pymo biul kg fius bimht?
Qbu rly ry zntx?
Dprr geme hgmet hj
on sblny rxe rbdec qmr.
Warrior
>
>Warrior wrote:
>
>> Warrior was accused by some anonymous person as being "violent".
>>
>> >In article <1998101302...@replay.com>, Anonymous wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Yes - he was pretty disgusting in his behavior with Claire Swazey, and
>> >>on some other occasion too. Most of the time he behaves, though.
>>
>> In article <700428$27k...@enews.newsguy.com>, tall...@storm.ca says...
>> >
>> >As I recall, Warrior was suspicious of whether Claire was telling the truth
>> >about her purpose on a.r.s. Is healthy scepticism "violent"?
>>
>> I pointed out some of Claire's lies and called her a "slimy Q&A artist"
>> for failing to tell the whole truth and for failing to answer questions.
>> She called me "anal retentive" and a "closet Scientologist".
>>
>> Now some anonymous person calls me "violent" and accuses *me* of being
>> "pretty disgusting in [my] behavior" ?!?!
>
>One can always rely on "Warrior" <giggle> to provide some of the more
>sanctimonious claptrap we read here. Which is saying something, isn't
>it?
I speak truth from my experience and observations which may be read at:
http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/
>In your unrelenting, baiting diatribe with Claire you were both violent
>and disgusting.
So you are calling Claire's behavior disgusting?
>When I took you up on this myself -- but only in
>passing, as I was more interested to see if you had it in you to fess up
>to something else -- you promptly returned to being the more "normal"
>Whining Warrior Wimp of a.r.s. <tm>.
And what was that which you wanted me to "fess up" to?
>As such, you refused to fess up, i.e., to answer the simple question I
>asked you. The answer to which question was also the answer to your
>violent and disgusting, but also rather stupid, hammering of Claire.
I answered your question. The fact is that you didn't like my answer.
And as far as my exchanges with Claire went, I (as well as others)
had a very hard time getting her to answer some pretty simple
straightforward questions about disconnection, "suppressive acts",
etc.
>Eventually you had to concede -- but only because I forced you to it --
>that you'd had no point to begin with. Of course you didn't do this
>honestly either. Instead you pretended you'd been making another
>point. Which was a lie. It was also pretty funny. LOL
I never conceded that I had no point. That's wishful thinking on
your part, Enzo. And I didn't pretend anything; and there was no
lie on my part.
>During the course of your insulting responses to my posts on the above
>you also managed to lie about Ron Chester. When I pointed this out, you
>then tried covering up your lie, but succeeded only in obliging me to
>document it -- by quoting your own, lying words.
I made a mistake about Ron Chester's position, which I corrected
in a followup.
>I'll snip the rest of your self-serving claptrap, but will include
>below, for anyone who may be interested, a copy of the last post I wrote
>with regard to this -- and to which neither you nor anyone else
>replied.
>
>E
Perhaps no one is interested in what your opinion is. Consider that.
Warrior
>
>>As I recall, Warrior was suspicious of whether Claire was telling the truth
>>about her purpose on a.r.s. Is healthy scepticism "violent"?
I was more than a sceptic. I actually *knew* that she was either:
a) hatted to post to ars to "handle entheta"
or
b) not going to hang around ars for very long
My posts were designed (in part) to ascertain which it was.
In article <1998101401...@replay.com>, Anonymous says...
>
>I wouldn't call what he did "healthy scepticism" - but that's very
>subjective I guess. The lack of sensibility to other's feelings - the
>lack of true understanding. Yes, I find that very violent.
I admit to being a warrior of words and ideas, but while I can be
very "in your face" when it comes to debate, I would never harm
someone physically, unless it were in self-defense, and only then
as a last resort.
Unfortunately I cannot say that for many Sea Org members I have known.
I have known Sea Org members to physically assault some of their own
fellow members. I've been assaulted by another SO member. At the time
I was not doing anything illegal or even "off-policy". I just happened
to have had the misfortune of experiencing Kenny Shapiro's way of
attempting to handle his upset/disagreement through use of physical
force.
That's what I think of when I think of violence.
Perhaps you could tell me this: what dictionary definition of "violent"
are you using above?
Warrior
See http://www.entheta.net/entheta/1stpersn/warrior/