Ray Heizer is "Made" ...Again
Hughie2U
>very close scrutiny.
If you want to observe Heizer here is how.
CAS stands for Clinton Administration Scandals. It is a subscriber newsgroup
that you can join and as a member you can post messages and you will receive
email messages posted by other members.
I was recruited to join this list and its predecessor CS (Clinton Scandals).
At first I innocently thought I was among friends who were genuine and
interested in the truth about the cover-up of Mr. Foster's murder. Everyone
was very friendly and patted me on the back a lot. They often called me "a
highly respected member of the CS list". I was glad so many citizens were
online talking about the Foster issue.
The problem with the CAS group is that it limits the scandal to Clinton &
therefore the participation in the cover-up by the Republican leaders and the
American press especially the "Conservative press" ( WSJ, Wash Times, Chris
Ruddy, Liddy, Limbaugh, etc ) is off limits. The group focus is very heavy on
evidence minutia & they will debate and discuss details of the Foster case
endlessly. They do a fairly good job with the evidence but you could discuss
this stuff forever and not advance the truth beyond the small CAS group. So
one function of the group is to limit the discussion boundaries.
If you subscribe you will also be flooded with mail, maybe 70 e-mails or more
per day on all kinds of Clinton "scandals" including Lewinsky, China, etc.
People will ask you questions and keep you very busy tying up your time. You
will find the CAS list a real taskmaster so be prepared to dump a lot of mail
everyday.
Some people think many of the list members are "Spooks" ( CIA, FBI, Government
agents of some sort) and that the CAS list is run by the spooks. The goal of
these agents is to disrupt internet discussions and control internet discourse.
They do this with a number of very clever methods. They always operate as a
groups and overwhelm discussions with their numbers.
In public message areas they might jump into a discussion thread and throw
insults at people or even attack each other driving sincere people away in
disgust. They also will join a discussion and as a group change the topic.
The CAS group is "intended" to be a refuge from these rude people on the
internet boards. I found the CAS members are polite but only as long as you
stay "on topic" which is the Clinton Scandals. You cannot discuss the news
suppression about Foster by the American press. That is off limits. They will
first take you aside for private chat about CAS rules of decorum. As a group
they will schmooze you to stay focused and if you do not they will kick you out
with a flurry of false accusations that you have been rude, broke the rules,
etc.
Everyone on the CAS list is not a spook. There are many innocent people who
are just seeking the truth and have been recruited to join the group. I was on
for almost a year before I got wise to the game. For a long time I thought
they were all my friends. I had even met several members in person, had
dinner, etc. They use the friendships as a way of trying to keep people in
line. If you don't go along with the group you will lose them as your friends
and they will not like you.
Learning about the agents on the internet was just one more thing I discovered
while researching the Foster death. These agents are very good and many of
them are very clever and highly intelligent. I never thought my tax dollars
would be used for such activity. It is just another example of Pravda on the
Potomac.
I would recommend everyone join the CAS list for a while to observe. If you
want to test this out join the list and ask about Foster for a few weeks. Put
up some posts blaming the Clintons and liberals. You will win a lot of new
friends and be praised for you views. You will be able to participate like a
well informed citizen if you read: Hugh Sprunt's Citizens Independent Report,
Chris Ruddy's articles on Foster, and John Clarke's Response to Summary
Judgement filed in US District Court, and most of all America's Dreyfus Affair
by David Martin (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2932/index.html)
After a month as a member of the group, blame the Republicans and conservative
press too for the cover-up, including Christopher Ruddy. Post a few passages
from America's Dreyfus Affair for good measure. They will wonder where you
came from with so many documented facts and turn on you like hornets. As a
last resort they will cajole you that you once were once a valued member of
"the team" and you should really work with "the group". If that fails you will
be called names and made to feel that nobody likes you anymore for your views.
Finally you will be expelled and banished for being a troublemaker.
The experience will teach you a good lesson about spooks on the net and how
they operate. You will also learn who some of them are and you will be
difficult to fool in the future.
To join the CAS list contact the CAS list-master himself Ray Heizer at:
rayh...@value.net
If you want to be discreet search Usenet for Foster discussions and ask
publicly about any discussion groups about Vincent Foster. Ask publicly in
message areas how to join CAS. There are plenty of spooks online who will
befriend you and encourage you to join the group and then make you feel glad
you did.
Ray Heizer
hugh...@aol.com (Hughie2U) wrote:
< >You've come to the right conclusion, Lee. Ray Heizer does indeed deserve
< >very close scrutiny.
<
<
<
< If you want to observe Heizer here is how.
[snip]
-- Sheesh! Republican politics had nothing to do with it. I'm no Republican.
-- Pure and simple, you were kicked off CAS for exhibiting rude behavior,
violation of the Discussion Guidelines, and for a crude, suggestive
comment you directed at another member. The flood of complaints from other
members, made it clear I could not longer justify your membership in light
of your behavior.
-- You (and DC Dave) were also kicked off CS, the predecessor list run by
Sussman, for largely the same reasons.
-- My mistake was to give you a second chance.
-- Get over it, Hughie.
Billy Beck
hugh...@aol.com (Hughie2U) wrote:
>I was recruited to join this list and its predecessor CS (Clinton Scandals).
You're out of your paper-thin mind, Hughie.
At one point, the CAS list members couldn't *pry* you out of the
list with a lever as long as your line of bullshit.
"Recruited". Wotta laff.
This...
>The problem with the CAS group is that it limits the scandal to Clinton &
>therefore the participation in the cover-up by the Republican leaders and the
>American press especially the "Conservative press" ( WSJ, Wash Times, Chris
>Ruddy, Liddy, Limbaugh, etc ) is off limits.
...is a ridiculous mutilation of reality. In my first couple of
weeks in the list, I carried on a long discussion with Zehr on the
nature of propaganda vis-a-viz the American press in which I argued
from Konrad Heiden's premise that "propaganda is not the art of
instilling opinion in the masses but, the art of *receiving*
propaganda from the masses." Now, I'm pretty sure that this'll sail
right over your head, but it was Zehr who continued, throughout that
whole scene, to assert that the press bears an indefensible
responsibility for hiding the truth. You had to see this. It went on
to the point where I was wondering when Ray would pull the trigger on
the whole rag, but he never did.
Guess what: unless something really drastic has changed, Zehr is
still a CAS subscriber, while you're not.
You know what the difference is? You're a jabbering crank, and
Zehr isn't. The main implication for *us* is that nobody can kick
your fool ass out of Usenet.
Billy
VRWC fronteer - sigdiv
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
David Martin
>
> In article <199807091606...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> hugh...@aol.com (Hughie2U) wrote:
>
> < >very close scrutiny.
> <
> <
> <
> < If you want to observe Heizer here is how.
>
>
> -- Sheesh! Republican politics had nothing to do with it. I'm no Republican.
>
> -- Pure and simple, you were kicked off CAS for exhibiting rude behavior,
> violation of the Discussion Guidelines, and for a crude, suggestive
> comment you directed at another member. The flood of complaints from other
> members, made it clear I could not longer justify your membership in light
> of your behavior.
>
> -- You (and DC Dave) were also kicked off CS, the predecessor list run by
> Sussman, for largely the same reasons.
>
> -- My mistake was to give you a second chance.
>
> -- Get over it, Hughie.
Talk about revisionist history. No, here's the sort of thing that got
me kicked off:
"In the time-honored tradition of all police states, the Greek officials
attempted to isolate Rea (Polk, widow of George) to convince her she was
hated by her own countrymen, in order to undermine whatever resistance
she still offered. The Royalist-controlled press echoed the police
line, portraying Rea as a 'bad' Greek, not a patriot, not even a good
wife." --Kati Marton, "The Polk Conspiracy, Murder and Cover-up in the
Case of CBS News Correspondent George Polk" (NY: Farrar, Straus, &
Giroux, 1990) p. 221
Tired Old Tactics
In the tried-and-true martial-state manner,
Honoring my pariah station,
The news-group goons have unfurled their banner
Announcing my isolation.
The Polk Conspiracy*
George Polk was killed by the government,
And they pinned it on the reds.
You'll see it as a precedent
If you but use your heads.
The man who put his stamp upon it
Shaped the CIA.
It was fifteen years since they'd done it
When they murdered JFK.
DC Dave
*"The Polk Conspiracy, Murder and Cover-up in the Case of
CBS News Correspondent George Polk" by Kati Marton
(NY: Farrar, Straus, & Giroux, 1990)
This sort of thing goes beyond accepted bounds. There's not a lot new
under the sun in police states. They all need their Heizers.
--
DC Dave newsgroup: alt.thebird
column: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2932/index.html
poetry: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2932/poetry.html
RTho...@erinet.com
>
> >You've come to the right conclusion, Lee. Ray Heizer does indeed deserve
> >very close scrutiny.
>
> If you want to observe Heizer here is how.
>
> CAS stands for Clinton Administration Scandals. It is a subscriber newsgroup
> that you can join and as a member you can post messages and you will receive
> email messages posted by other members.
>
> I was recruited to join this list and its predecessor CS (Clinton Scandals).
> At first I innocently thought I was among friends who were genuine and
> interested in the truth about the cover-up of Mr. Foster's murder. Everyone
> was very friendly and patted me on the back a lot. They often called me "a
> highly respected member of the CS list". I was glad so many citizens were
> online talking about the Foster issue.
>
You're a lying sack of dog puke, Huggie--we may as well
leave it right there.
Very likely you were "recruited" (if you *were*) to keep
your whining, about being bounced, to a minimum.
I cannot speak for the CAS list, as I haven't been there,
but the old cs list, I *do* know about.
You were extrememly rude to Ann, who is as diligent and
kind as any one human can be, because she wouldn't post
what *YOU*, ya shithead, wanted.
Then you started one of your rants, trying to take over
the list, and ended up insulting Ed Zehr, who is such a
gentleman, he "took it" from you for awhile, and then let
you have it.
I, and many others, were fed up with you and your tantrums,
wrote to David Sussman, and asked him to rein you in. As he
should have, he bounced you from the list. And Doo Du? He
left of his own volition, as he hadn't bothered to open his
mouth anyway--he let you take all the heat, you dumb shit.
Might add, too, that you sent an e-mail to Burkett family,
or so you said--and I might tell you, I really doubt that
you even know them, since if these people have any respect
for their son, they would stop you from degrading his name
the way you have for so long, by frivolously throwing it
around--completely taking Zehr's e-mail out of context, and
Zehr ended up with an e-mail, allegedly from the Burkett's,
which must have needlessly (and unfairly) embarrassed him to
no end. This proves what a lowlife, cheap-shot artist you
are.
You were also responsible, I believe, for a post by P...@aol.com,
a one-time post to the cs list, allegedly by Knowlton. You did
a credible job trying to make Knowlton sound like an illiterate
buffoon.
It must be a real coincidence that Knowlton made the one post,
and was never heard from again.
Further, you and Doo Du made every effort to have people
here believe that you were in almost constant contact with
Knowlton, yet when he filed the lawsuit, this was made known
by someone else posting the news article here--not a peep from
you, before or after. Odd, isn't it, since you blabbed this
and that about Knowlton, but obviously knew nothing about
the lawsuit.
I didn't read all of your whining, cheapshot-filled post,
since I don't care to hear anything from you, Huggie, except
for you to screw up the courage to admit that you're a Liberal,
Clinton-supporter. IMO, everything else you say is a lie.
RTho...@erinet.com
>
snip
> -- You (and DC Dave) were also kicked off CS, the predecessor list run by
> Sussman, for largely the same reasons.
I just wrote about this, and remember it the
same way--except I don't remember Doo Du ebing
bumped, rather he just left, after not opening
his mouth anyway.
>
> -- My mistake was to give you a second chance.
Yeah, I thought you knew better, Ray.
Ray Heizer
< Ray Heizer wrote:
< >
< > In article <199807091606...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
< > hugh...@aol.com (Hughie2U) wrote:
< >
< > < >You've come to the right conclusion, Lee. Ray Heizer does indeed deserve
< > < >very close scrutiny.
< > <
< > <
< > <
< > < If you want to observe Heizer here is how.
< >
< > [snip]
< >
< > -- Sheesh! Republican politics had nothing to do with it. I'm no Republican.
< >
< > -- Pure and simple, you were kicked off CAS for exhibiting rude behavior,
< > violation of the Discussion Guidelines, and for a crude, suggestive
< > comment you directed at another member. The flood of complaints from other
< > members, made it clear I could not longer justify your membership in light
< > of your behavior.
< >
< > -- You (and DC Dave) were also kicked off CS, the predecessor list run by
< > Sussman, for largely the same reasons.
< >
< > -- My mistake was to give you a second chance.
< >
< > -- Get over it, Hughie.
<
< Talk about revisionist history. No, here's the sort of thing that got
< me kicked off:
- -
-- Fortunately, my dog wasn't in that fight.
-- Here's CS manager Sussman's post. Folks can judge for themselves:
Excerpt (also ****'ed in text below):
======= ============================
"Therefore I have taken the following action tonight: Hughie2u and
DeeCeeDave have been moved to the digest. Their contributions to the list
will be filtered by Pete Celano or myself."
- - -
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 22:09:18 -0500 (EST)
To: c...@oak.oakland.edu, ok...@oak.oakland.edu, djsu...@jupiter.acs.oakland.edu
From: "David J. Sussman" <djsu...@oakland.edu>
Subject: The End Of The Infighting
Cc: hugh...@aol.com, cel...@ic.net, deece...@aol.com
Fact is, I really do have a life. Family, day job, school, sick mother.
The works. So when I volunteer my time for something, I like to see it
serve a purpose.
For six months the Clinton Scandal web site was updated nightly. I spent
about 4 hours per night researching and adding pages to it. It came as
quite a shock, though it shouldn't have, that there were powerful people
who did not want that information collected in one place and available on
the web. Some of that material has been resurrected and recreated. There
has not been another daily updated web since that time.
The cause is just and worthwhile, still we must ask ourselves how much
effort can we make as individual citizens and what sort of return do we
get for that effort? For my part, I, like Michael Rivero, was black
listed in my chosen profession. In the age of mass communications, those
who would black list people have found that it does not isolate a person.
On the contrary, it gives them all the time in the world to spend
researching and sharing the fruits of that research that they would prefer
never uncovered. So it would appear that the blacklist is lifting. Yes,
as one would expect, when we are occupied in our profession and earning
money we do not have much time to do research and publish information that
others prefer remain buried. It is not as though we have been bought off,
I don't think that would fly very far at all, yet there is a relationship
between black listing and activism that those folks ought to remember as a
new rule of the digital age. Enough said of that.
Back to the matter at hand: It is really troubling to me, and has been
for some time now, that several of the longtimers on the list have been
stirring up trouble on the list, using ad hominem attacks, perenially
bashing the press rather than continuing to keep their feet to the fire,
attacking all who would question their tactics. It has not stopped yet.
Looking over the titles to tonights mail, I see many of the same threads
continue to the day.
LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR: ALL THESE THREADS COME TO A STOP AT ONCE!
Many of the other comments to the list may be fine for private email but
have no place here. I certainly have no illusions about the press,
politicians, the OIC or anything else. I truly believe that only our
combined efforts to keep their feet to the fire will achieve ANY of our
aims at bringing the truth to light, wrongdoers to justice and honesty to
government.
ANYONE CONTINUING ANY OF THE SANCTIONED THREADS ON THE LIST WILL BE
REMOVED FROM THE LIST UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY CAN PROVE TO ME THAT THEY
ARE NOT A THREAT TO THE PEACE AND TRANQUILITY THAT HAS MARKED OUR
DISCOURSE SINCE ITS INCEPTION.
Since many of the participants in the heated and nasty discussions were
long timers and people central to the list; people who really do know much
about the facts and who have put their lives and honor on the line to help
Patrick Knowlton and to keep the Foster issue in the face of folks who'd
rather forget the name Vincent Foster; I seriously considered pulling the
lists altogether and letting someone else step up to the plate and find a
list server and deal with the whole mess. Many of you have expressed
private wishes that this not occur.
**********************************************************************
Therefore I have taken the following action tonight: Hughie2u and
DeeCeeDave have been moved to the digest. Their contributions to the list
will be filtered by Pete Celano or myself. I suggest they post their
submissions to both cel...@ic.net and to djsu...@oakland.edu.
**********************************************************************
I know that they have much of value to contribute and hope that this will
accomodate the best interests of the list.
Anyone else who may need to be treated in this fashion will find that
action will be swift. I am tired of not feeling it worthwhile to read my
own lists. This will not continue.
We have likely blown the opportunities recently presented to us by the
subscription to the list of several reporters, including some from the
Arkansas Democrat Gazette and US News and World Report, by our infighting
and lack of coherent factual presentation. I have no idea if we shall
prevail and get the honest investigation and reportage that these issues
deserve. I do know that we can howl at the moon and rail against the
"media" until the end of the earth and achieve nothing. I rather think I
prefer Sprunt's non-confrontational approach. In any event, for those new
to the list, I appologize for my absenteeism and the resultant chaos.
This is really a rather good group, one that has uncovered a lot of
information that has subsequently been reported in the media abroad and in
this country. When I awoke to CNN this morning asking if Hillary will be
indicted, and discussing more and more Asian payoffs to the DNC tied to WH
visits and favors granted, and further heard reports of Drs. Garth and
Nancy Nicholson's research on Gulf War Syndrome; well I knew that we can
and have made a difference.
So the list will be defended and shored up. I hope that the sanctions
issued will be temporary and that we can once again all come back to the
decorum that formerly held sway here.
David Sussman
gcr...@vrwc.org
rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) wrote:
>
>
>Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 22:09:18 -0500 (EST)
>To: c...@oak.oakland.edu, ok...@oak.oakland.edu, djsu...@jupiter.acs.oakland.edu
>From: "David J. Sussman" <djsu...@oakland.edu>
>Subject: The End Of The Infighting
[snip]
>ANYONE CONTINUING ANY OF THE SANCTIONED THREADS ON THE LIST WILL BE
>REMOVED FROM THE LIST UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY CAN PROVE TO ME THAT THEY
>ARE NOT A THREAT TO THE PEACE AND TRANQUILITY THAT HAS MARKED OUR
>DISCOURSE SINCE ITS INCEPTION.
Whew. Jabul, mein Herr.
>
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
A Rush Limbaugh Featured Site
O, Barry me Not:
"The contagious people of Washington have stood firm against diversity during this long period of increment weather." - M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
RTho...@erinet.com
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> Therefore I have taken the following action tonight: Hughie2u and
> DeeCeeDave have been moved to the digest. Their contributions to the list
> will be filtered by Pete Celano or myself. I suggest they post their
> submissions to both cel...@ic.net and to djsu...@oakland.edu.
> **********************************************************************
Okay, I go to bed without dinner--can I have a snack later? ;-)
Ray Heizer
< Ray Heizer wrote:
< >
<
< >
< > **********************************************************************
< > Therefore I have taken the following action tonight: Hughie2u and
< > DeeCeeDave have been moved to the digest. Their contributions to the list
< > will be filtered by Pete Celano or myself. I suggest they post their
< > submissions to both cel...@ic.net and to djsu...@oakland.edu.
< > **********************************************************************
<
< Okay, I go to bed without dinner--can I have a snack later? ;-)
-- The catnip is in the mail ...
RTho...@erinet.com
>
> In article <35A540...@erinet.com>, RThompson wrote:
>
> < Ray Heizer wrote:
> < >
> <
> < >
> < > Therefore I have taken the following action tonight: Hughie2u and
> < > DeeCeeDave have been moved to the digest. Their contributions to the list
> < > will be filtered by Pete Celano or myself. I suggest they post their
> < > submissions to both cel...@ic.net and to djsu...@oakland.edu.
> < > **********************************************************************
> <
>
> -- The catnip is in the mail ...
We don't do catnip any longer.
David Martin
>
> OK. Let's talk about "revisionist history":
>
> >Subject: Gas-Chamber Holocaust?
> >From: David Martin <dcd...@erols.com>
> >Date: 1998/05/25
> >Message-ID: <356952...@erols.com>
> >Newsgroups:
> >talk.politics.misc,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,alt.activism,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.republicans
> >
> >[More Headers]
> >[Subscribe to talk.politics.misc]
> >
> >I take a back seat to no one when it comes to interest in the Foster
> >murder, but this exchange, prompted by what Carol Valentine thought was
> >a misguided offhand remark by Mike Rivero, was just starting to get
> >really interesting in its own right. So let's call it by its proper
> >name and see if anyone will respond to the points Valentine makes.
>
> --(snip Carol Valentine's regurgitation of nazi holocaust denier David
> Irving's so-called research.)
>
> Why did you post this to the whole damn usenetverse?
>
> Have the "points" been answered to your satisfaction yet?
>
> Is nazi holocaust denial still "really interesting" to you?
I'd say that Pandora does have a particularly full box, and it looks
like there may be even a few things left in it. Astonishing!
>
> --
> Valentine: Burundanguiado test subject? http://www.mk.net/~mcf/barr.htm
> =======================================================================
> Email: Replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS.
Mike_Schneder
>> Is nazi holocaust denial still "really interesting" to you?
>
>I'd say that Pandora does have a particularly full box, and it looks
>like there may be even a few things left in it. Astonishing!
Elaborate.
M Soja
>So one function of the group [CAS] is to limit the discussion boundaries.
See, he's not so dumb after all.
sfa...@bigfoot.com
rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) wrote:
> In article <199807091606...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> hugh...@aol.com (Hughie2U) wrote:
>
> < >very close scrutiny.
> <
> < If you want to observe Heizer here is how.
>
>
> -- Sheesh! Republican politics had nothing to do with it. I'm no Republican.
>
> -- Pure and simple, you were kicked off CAS for exhibiting rude behavior,
> violation of the Discussion Guidelines, and for a crude, suggestive
> comment you directed at another member. The flood of complaints from other
> members, made it clear I could not longer justify your membership in light
> of your behavior.
>
> -- You (and DC Dave) were also kicked off CS, the predecessor list run by
> Sussman, for largely the same reasons.
Now you have shown yourself truly, by that statement. Neither Hughie
nor DCDave could manufacture a rude remark if their entire careers
depended on it. I have seen them both at public events and read
volumes of their posts here on the net, and they are utterly
incapable of rude. They are gentle to a fault, both of them.
Jeez, Heizer, if you're going to fake up a reason, couldn't you have
done a better job than that?? You might as well have said they
seduced your wife into net-sex, or tried to sell you heroin over the
net. Rude?? Sheesh!
--Slade
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
sfa...@bigfoot.com
gcr...@att.net wrote:
> In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
> rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >To: c...@oak.oakland.edu, ok...@oak.oakland.edu,
djsu...@jupiter.acs.oakland.edu
> >From: "David J. Sussman" <djsu...@oakland.edu>
> >Subject: The End Of The Infighting
>
>
> >ANYONE CONTINUING ANY OF THE SANCTIONED THREADS ON THE LIST WILL BE
> >REMOVED FROM THE LIST UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY CAN PROVE TO ME THAT THEY
> >ARE NOT A THREAT TO THE PEACE AND TRANQUILITY THAT HAS MARKED OUR
> >DISCOURSE SINCE ITS INCEPTION.
>
Love it.
sfa...@bigfoot.com
squad. And they make it all sound so REAL, too.
But notice, they can't just tell a straight story. They got to lace it
with all kind of invectives, just to illustrate how outraged they are
by the details.
Back to your caves, boys, before the sun catches you in broad daylight.
--Slade
In article <35A504...@erinet.com>,
RThompson wrote:
> Hughie2U wrote:
> >
> > >You've come to the right conclusion, Lee. Ray Heizer does indeed deserve
> > >very close scrutiny.
> >
> > If you want to observe Heizer here is how.
> >
> > CAS stands for Clinton Administration Scandals. It is a subscriber
newsgroup
> > that you can join and as a member you can post messages and you will receive
> > email messages posted by other members.
> >
> > I was recruited to join this list and its predecessor CS (Clinton Scandals).
> > At first I innocently thought I was among friends who were genuine and
> > interested in the truth about the cover-up of Mr. Foster's murder. Everyone
> > was very friendly and patted me on the back a lot. They often called me "a
> > highly respected member of the CS list". I was glad so many citizens were
> > online talking about the Foster issue.
> >
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
sfa...@bigfoot.com
wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> hugh...@aol.com (Hughie2U) wrote:
>
> >I was recruited to join this list and its predecessor CS (Clinton Scandals).
>
>
> At one point, the CAS list members couldn't *pry* you out of the
> list with a lever as long as your line of bullshit.
>
> "Recruited". Wotta laff.
>
> This...
>
> >therefore the participation in the cover-up by the Republican leaders and the
> >American press especially the "Conservative press" ( WSJ, Wash Times, Chris
> >Ruddy, Liddy, Limbaugh, etc ) is off limits.
>
> weeks in the list, I carried on a long discussion with Zehr on the
> nature of propaganda vis-a-viz the American press in which I argued
> from Konrad Heiden's premise that "propaganda is not the art of
> instilling opinion in the masses but, the art of *receiving*
> propaganda from the masses." Now, I'm pretty sure that this'll sail
> right over your head, but it was Zehr who continued, throughout that
> whole scene, to assert that the press bears an indefensible
> responsibility for hiding the truth. You had to see this. It went on
> to the point where I was wondering when Ray would pull the trigger on
> the whole rag, but he never did.
>
> Guess what: unless something really drastic has changed, Zehr is
> still a CAS subscriber, while you're not.
He sounds terribly upset about that, too, Billy. Didja notice?
> You know what the difference is? You're a jabbering crank, and
> Zehr isn't. The main implication for *us* is that nobody can kick
> your fool ass out of Usenet.
It would be very revealing if you tried, Beck. Compared with all your
thuggery, what is there to object to about Hughie, except that he talks
about things you don't want people to say.
If the real world ran as Beck would run Usenet, what a horror this
would be.
--Slade
sfa...@bigfoot.com
DIS...@winternet.com (Mike_Schneder) wrote:
> In article <35A583...@erols.com>, dcd...@erols.com wrote:
>
> >> Is nazi holocaust denial still "really interesting" to you?
> >
> >I'd say that Pandora does have a particularly full box, and it looks
> >like there may be even a few things left in it. Astonishing!
>
> Elaborate.
It's his shallow education, Dave. They don't talk about Pandora on
TeeVee.
I say, let him sweat in his ignorance.
gcr...@vrwc.org
sfa...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>Hughie, you shore got the gang-up business right. Here come the boot
>squad. And they make it all sound so REAL, too.
If you like smooching Hooey, you're gonna LOVE sleeping
with DSharp. Enjoy your debauchery.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
A Rush Limbaugh Featured Site
O, Barry me Not:
"I am clearly more popular than Reagan. I am in my third term. Where's Reagan? Gone after two! Defeated by George Bush and Michael Dukakis no less." - M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
RTho...@erinet.com
>
>
> Now you have shown yourself truly, by that statement. Neither Hughie
> nor DCDave could manufacture a rude remark if their entire careers
> depended on it. I have seen them both at public events and read
> volumes of their posts here on the net, and they are utterly
> incapable of rude. They are gentle to a fault, both of them.
How many soapboxes, one or two?
>
snip
Billy Beck
sfa...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> hugh...@aol.com (Hughie2U) wrote:
>> >The problem with the CAS group is that it limits the scandal to Clinton &
>> >therefore the participation in the cover-up by the Republican leaders and the
>> >American press especially the "Conservative press" ( WSJ, Wash Times, Chris
>> >Ruddy, Liddy, Limbaugh, etc ) is off limits.
>>
>> ...is a ridiculous mutilation of reality. In my first couple of
>> weeks in the list, I carried on a long discussion with Zehr on the
>> nature of propaganda vis-a-viz the American press in which I argued
>> from Konrad Heiden's premise that "propaganda is not the art of
>> instilling opinion in the masses but, the art of *receiving*
>> propaganda from the masses." Now, I'm pretty sure that this'll sail
>> right over your head, but it was Zehr who continued, throughout that
>> whole scene, to assert that the press bears an indefensible
>> responsibility for hiding the truth. You had to see this. It went on
>> to the point where I was wondering when Ray would pull the trigger on
>> the whole rag, but he never did.
>>
>> Guess what: unless something really drastic has changed, Zehr is
>> still a CAS subscriber, while you're not.
>He sounds terribly upset about that, too, Billy. Didja notice?
Didja notice what the point of that was? Turley's assertion that
discussion of "participation in the cover-up by the Republican leaders
and the American press especially the 'Conservative press'" at CAS is
"off limits" is not true. It is not a fact. He's wrong. My example
was just a single one which demonstrates his error. Zehr and I wrung
out the matter to quite some lengths and nobody uttered a single word
of complaint, least of all Ray. The fact of the matter is that, in
the time when I was a subscriber, this matter of implicit complicity
in the press came up regularly.
>> You know what the difference is? You're a jabbering crank, and
>> Zehr isn't. The main implication for *us* is that nobody can kick
>> your fool ass out of Usenet.
>
>It would be very revealing if you tried, Beck.
It would also not be me. The point of that sentence was to
underscore the difference between Usenet and a private list.
>Compared with all your thuggery...
<grin>
>...what is there to object to about Hughie, except that he talks
>about things you don't want people to say.
>
>If the real world ran as Beck would run Usenet, what a horror this
>would be.
Disappear, idiot, okay?
MW
> Hughie, you shore got the gang-up business right. Here come the boot
> squad. And they make it all sound so REAL, too.
>
Go away Giwer.
MW
Hughie2U
There has been recent online speculation as to why Yale University graduate Ray
Heizer got stuck with the low assignment of disrupting internet conversations
about government corruption and the propaganda American press
Most Yale grads hold positions in the CIA, high government office, academia, or
journalism. Heizer's classmates enjoy money, power and most of all respect so
why is Heizer here trading insults and being outed as an agent daily?
Chris Ruddy once suggested Heizer had a drug use problem or looked like he
should have one. Ruddy may be right, for once.
Actually I would like to offer another possiblity for Ray's low position.
Heizer's failure to master his job here online. In the post below observe Ray
Heizer in action behind the scenes during internet discourse, plotting with his
pals on what he will post next to attack people seeking truth and an open
discussion.
The clumsy Heizer, strung out or is just incompetent exposed not only himself
but Ed Zehr in the process by hitting the wrong key and tipping his hand to
their intended target, ME ! ( He then urged me to keep the email SECRET ! )
<<-- I would also like to re-emphasize my interest in keeping these
discussion in email and off cs.>>
For those who are just joining the discussion here once again is the famous
post known as "daheizerblunder"!
Subj: Re: Liddy Shuns Burketts
Date: Mon, Dec 9, 1996 1:51 PM EDT
From: rayh...@value.net
X-From: rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer)
To: ez...@capaccess.org, Hugh...@aol.com
Ed, Hughie -
-- Yikes!
-- I see now that I just mis-sent my message, below, meant for Ed, to
Hughie. Sorry to all!
-- In reviewing my comments below in light of this error, I guess I would
not change them much if I had planned to write them directly to you,
Hughie, so I would appreciate a response about the points I raised that
concern you.
-- I would also like to re-emphasize my interest in keeping these
discussion in email and off cs.
- Ray
- - -
>Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:39:34 -0800
>To: Hugh...@aol.com
>From: rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer)
>Subject: Re: Liddy Shuns Burketts
>X-Attachments:
>
>Ed -
>
>-- I am almost unable to control myself here and am itching to jump into
>this fray with both barrels blasting. ;) But I will hold off awhile until
>you come up with your next rejoinder, and also because I know it would
>only serve to further inflame this off-topic thread.
>
>-- You might want to ask Hughie why he has decided to highjack the agenda
>of cs and divert attention away from the death of Foster. What is he
>trying to cover up about Foster with these diversionary tactics? ;)
>
>-- You might also ask him why he has time to promote the Burkett story,
>but has not found time to respond to several public requests that he
>explain his assertions that CW has changed his story and cannot be
>trusted.
>
>-- I suggest that you end your response with a firm suggestion that you
>Hughie and Dave (the obvious "friend of the family" who saw your post at
>cs), take further discussion of the Burkett matter to email.
>
>-- Cheers!
>
>- Ray
>
>
>>I want to set the record straight.
>>
>>1.It was not my idea to first send your public comments to Mrs. Burkett.
>>
>>2.I did not know that Mrs Burkett would respond to your comments and I did
>>not manipulate her as you said I did.
>>
>>A friend of the Burkett family asked me to forward your public comments about
>>Tommy to Mrs. Burkett. Mrs. Burkett (not a member of the cs list) asked me
>>to forward her reply to your comments to the cs list.
>>
>>You should not make public comments about Tommy Burkett that you would not
>>make to Mrs. Burkett herself. You made a mistake.
>>
>>I don't think Mrs. Burkett wanted you to repond to me the messenger. I think
>>she would like you to respond to her and post your response publicly to the
>>cs list where your comments about her son first appeared.
>>
>>Kind regards,
>>Hughie
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>Subj: Re: Liddy Shuns Burketts
>>Date: Dec 7, 1996 3:01 PM EDT
>>From: ez...@capaccess.org
>>X-From: ez...@capaccess.org (Edward W. Zehr)
>>Sender: owne...@oak.oakland.edu
>>Reply-to: ez...@capaccess.org
>>To: c...@oak.oakland.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Hughie,
>>
>>With regard to this message:
>>
>>>>Thanks for sharing EZ's comments with me. As far as Tommy's murder not
>>>>being "late breaking news", the murder of my son was not covered by any
>>>>press for more than 18 months after the fact! Reporters (Times Community
>>
>>I sincerely regret that you do not appear to have sufficient common sense
>>to realize what a primordially dumb stunt you pulled here. Injecting
>>the parents of the murdered boy into an informal discussion such as this
>>was absolutely idiotic. For you to capitalize upon a mother's grief
>>and pain in that fashion merely to win a cheap debating point was a
>>thoughtless and callous, if not downright vicious thing to do.
>>
>>My question to you was rhetorical, as I'm sure you are sufficiently
>>intelligent to grasp. Naturally if you show it to the parents of the
>>murder victim, they are going to take it personally. To suggest that
>>I am therefore indifferent to the suffering of the bereaved parents
>>is despicable and utterly beneath contempt. Of course, you didn't do
>>that yourself, did you? No, you weren't man enough to make your own
>>argument. Instead you had to manipulate the mother of a murdered boy
>>to get her to make it for you. I am only just beginning to appreciate
>>what a jerk you really are.
>>
>>I have absolutely no idea why Liddy did not wish to air this story.
>>That is why I asked you the rhetorical question. If you don't feel
>>that the case is worth discussing, why do you fault Liddy for not
>>airing it? That seems a perfectly obvious question to ask. There must
>>be hundreds of parents of murdered children in similar situations.
>>Must Liddy air all of their stories? If not, how does he decide which
>>ones to air and which not to air? And how have you determined that
>>Liddy is to be the vehicle selected for this undertaking? Had you
>>chosen to respond rationally instead of reacting in so grotesque a
>>fashion we might have gained some understanding of what this is all
>>about.
>>
>>
>>EZ
>>
>>
>>
>>=============================================================================
>>This mailing list is processed through Majordomo at Oakland University.
>>If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail
>>to majo...@oak.oakland.edu. In the message body put: unsubscribe cs
>
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From rayh...@value.net Mon Dec 9 12:50:21 1996
Return-Path: rayh...@value.net
Received: from value.net (value.net [204.188.125.4]) by emin19.mail.aol.com
(8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA29433 for <Hugh...@aol.com>; Mon, 9 Dec 1996
12:50:01 -0500
Received: from [207.33.94.80] (a94.value.net [207.33.94.94]) by value.net
(8.8.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA06100; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:49:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <v02140b06aed200179809@[207.33.94.80]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:50:06 -0800
To: ez...@capaccess.org, Hugh...@aol.com
From: rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer)
Subject: Re: Liddy Shuns
gcr...@vrwc.org
(Hughie2U) wrote:
> ...[Heizer] plotting with his
>pals on what he will post next to attack people seeking truth and an open
>discussion.
" I have a secret plan to end the Viet Nam war, if
elected." "I have a secret plan to balance the
budget in four years if I am elected." "I know secrets
that will blow the Foster affair wide open if you can find a
publisher." "I went to Harvard University where I
attended a fraternity." "I did not have a sexual
relationship with Jennifer Flowers."
Seeking truth? The revelation of
truth is to be admired. Merely to
seek is expected. Burying revealed
truth is to do what you accuse
the mainstream press of doing.
You are a lying hypocrite, Hooey.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
A Rush Limbaugh Featured Site
O, Barry me Not:
"I am a great mayor; I am an upstanding Christian man; I am an intelligent man; I am a deeply educated man; I am a humble man." - M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
Ray Heizer
< In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, hugh...@aol.com
< (Hughie2U) wrote:
<
< > ...[Heizer] plotting with his
< >pals on what he will post next to attack people seeking truth and an open
< >discussion.
<
< " I have a secret plan to end the Viet Nam war, if
< elected." "I have a secret plan to balance the
< budget in four years if I am elected." "I know secrets
< that will blow the Foster affair wide open if you can find a
< publisher." "I went to Harvard University where I
< attended a fraternity." "I did not have a sexual
< relationship with Jennifer Flowers."
<
< Seeking truth? The revelation of
< truth is to be admired. Merely to
< seek is expected. Burying revealed
< truth is to do what you accuse
< the mainstream press of doing.
< You are a lying hypocrite, Hooey.
< --
-- Interestingly 40 hours ago, in light of all this talk about me being a
'spook,' I offered written proof, on CIA letterhead, of my relationship
with the CIA to anyone with a fax.
-- NOT ONE self-annointed "truth-seeker" in this forum was interested. I
think they already suspected their fictions are stranger than truth, and
were afraid to face mundane reality.
-- Meanwhile the posts from these truth-seeking losers accusing me of
being a 'spook' continue unabated ...
-- Ain't showbiz grand?!?!? ;-)
RTho...@erinet.com
>
posted actually:
One of his very favorite things to do--post
an e-mail.
Ray Heizer
-- Sadly, RT, if Hughie had paid attention to that email of mine, and
those from others, urging him to keep his off-topic Burkett "discussion"
off the CS list, I doubt that David Sussman would have had to boot him and
DCDave just a few days later.
-- And had that not happened, Sussman would not have resigned in disgust,
and CAS would not even exist.
- "Thanks," Hughie! (and give my "thanks" to DC too ... even though he
didn't join CAS when invited!)
Hughie2U
M Soja
>Actually I would like to offer another possiblity for Ray's low position.
>Heizer's failure to master his job here online. In the post below observe Ray
>Heizer in action behind the scenes during internet discourse, plotting with his
>pals on what he will post next to attack people seeking truth and an open
>discussion.
>The clumsy Heizer, strung out or is just incompetent exposed not only himself
>but Ed Zehr in the process by hitting the wrong key and tipping his hand to
Hmm. Yes. Ray! You're fired!!
There. Feel better now, Hooey?
slade...@my-dejanews.com
gcr...@att.net wrote:
> In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
> sfa...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
> >Hughie, you shore got the gang-up business right. Here come the boot
> >squad. And they make it all sound so REAL, too.
>
> with DSharp. Enjoy your debauchery.
Thanks. I'll pass along your personal recommendation.
gcr...@vrwc.org
slade...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> If you like smooching Hooey, you're gonna LOVE sleeping
>> with DSharp. Enjoy your debauchery.
>
>Thanks. I'll pass along your personal recommendation.
You're welcome. Though why you are so eager
is beyond me. Maybe Clintonalotry does that; once
you sign onto a complete lack of values, the difference
between shit and candy loses distinctiveness.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
A Rush Limbaugh Featured Site
O, Barry me Not:
"Bitch set me up." - M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
David Martin
>
> On 11 Jul 1998 21:00:26 GMT, -<[ Hughie2U ]>- posted:
>
> >Heizer's failure to master his job here online. In the post below observe Ray
> >Heizer in action behind the scenes during internet discourse, plotting with his
> >pals on what he will post next to attack people seeking truth and an open
> >discussion.
>
> >The clumsy Heizer, strung out or is just incompetent exposed not only himself
> >but Ed Zehr in the process by hitting the wrong key and tipping his hand to
>
>
> There. Feel better now, Hooey?
Q. What's the worst thing about Mike Soja's job?
A. He has to pretend he likes Ray Heizer.
Wayne Mann
>Don't change the subject.
>
>
>IS RAY HEIZER REALLY MAXWELL SMART?
FOlks, I have come to the reluctant opinion the only
response to Hughie is to KILL FILE him. Please don't bother
trying reason or use logic with him, it won't work. Just KILL
FILE him and be done with it. That is what I am doing. It is a
terrible shame but their isn't any alternative. K^
\\/ayne //\ann
Let's see; Smith, Glass, Rothfeder, Cincinnati Inquirer
CNN, Time?
That is media 6 -- Drudge 1. I'll take Drudge!
sfa...@bigfoot.com
gcr...@att.net wrote:
> In alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,
> slade...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >
> >> If you like smooching Hooey, you're gonna LOVE sleeping
> >> with DSharp. Enjoy your debauchery.
> >
> >Thanks. I'll pass along your personal recommendation.
>
> You're welcome. Though why you are so eager
> is beyond me. Maybe Clintonalotry does that; once
> you sign onto a complete lack of values, the difference
> between shit and candy loses distinctiveness.
You write as though you have blazed a trail into territory where
I am not inclined to follow, just at present.
But just to be sociable, I'll take your word for it.
sfa...@bigfoot.com
Perhaps you can direct me to a discussion of George Bush's
responsibility for the Waco Holocaust? Seems the planning and
preparation happened on Bush's watch, and Ann Richards is a Republican,
last I looked. If this group and CAS is NOT just a shill pocket for
Bush Republicans, this will have been discussed in depth.
Your reference, please?
David Martin
>
> hugh...@aol.com (Hughie2U) wrote:
>
> >Don't change the subject.
> >
> >
> >IS RAY HEIZER REALLY MAXWELL SMART?
>
> response to Hughie is to KILL FILE him. Please don't bother
> trying reason or use logic with him, it won't work. Just KILL
> FILE him and be done with it. That is what I am doing. It is a
> terrible shame but their isn't any alternative. K^
>
> \\/ayne //\ann
The following is an excerpt from my "America's Dreyfus Affair, Part 5,"
available on my web site. The author of the "fluff ball" letter to the
editor published in the fake opposition Washington Times is none other
than our own Wayne "KILL FILE" Mann:
...another patently phony Clinton-opposition group accounts for no more
than a flickering zephyr in Moldea's "political firestorm" account, but
he appears to take them seriously, nonetheless. That is the bizarre
outfit that fashions itself the Clinton Investigative Commission. In
his penultimate endnote, Moldea credits "investigative reporter" Byron
York of The American Spectator with having written a "hilarious expose"
of the group (speaking of outfits lacking evident economic viability,
the neo-conservative Weekly Standard, Moldea tells us in his text, had a
review by York of Ruddy's book in which he concluded "the conspiracy
theorists simply have too much invested in their scenarios to conclude
that the evidence proves them wrong."). One can't help wondering what
awesome investigative and literary skills York had to bring to bear to
make this crew appear ridiculous. It could hardly be more obvious that
their entire reason for being is to make all suspicions of the Foster
death appear almost humorously absurd. That our clandestine community
has gone to such lengths as to manufacture such ruses is just about the
best evidence we have that we are dealing with something far more
important here than a simple suicide.
Consider the fact that on Saturday, October 19, 1997, (It would be a
Saturday.) The Washington Times, on the heels of its ringing endorsement
of the Starr suicide conclusion, permitted under the heading "More
questions than answers on Vince Forster (sic)," its first and only
skeptical letters to date on the Foster case. The first and by far the
longest of the letters almost comically mixes up the facts in the case.
It is signed "Scott Lauf, Director of communications, Clinton
Investigative Commission, Annandale (VA)." Lauf maintains once again
that Foster was left-handed, the apparently erroneous assertion over
which Ruddy had been crucified on national TV by Mike Wallace, and tells
us that park policeman Kevin Fornshill "stated to the FBI that there was
no gun in Mr. Foster's hand, that both palms were face up and his arms
were laid by his side as if in a coffin." (Here he is putting the
testimony of several other witnesses into the mouth of Fornshill, who,
in fact, claims not to have seen a gun, but he said that after
discovering the body he never bothered to look to see if there was a gun
in the hand.).
The second letter is a vague, two-sentence fluff ball by a California
reader who also happens to be a heavy participant in the
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater news group on the Internet. This
reader, by coincidence, has, of late, taken to attacking me, though I
find it almost impossible to pin down what it is he doesn't like about
my message.
The third letter, five short paragraphs in length from a reader in
Pennsylvania, faults The Times in a general way for not having done
enough of its own research, compares Starr's work unfavorably to
Ruddy's, offers an on-script gratuitous swipe at "conspiracy theories,"
saying that they (I think he means the theorists.) are "intellectually
lazy," and concludes, "As you point out, the Clintons have dissembled
and covered up. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to ask
why."
In the first, almost comical, fund-raising letter that I saw from the
Clinton Investigative Commission I noted that they gave the name of a
non-profit group in Arlington, Virginia as their respectable-sounding
parent organization. They provided no telephone number but gave a
street address. I went looking for their office, but found that
although the street existed, there was no address with a number even
close to the one given.
If, in this Orwellian world that America has become, letter writers
aren't really letter writers, leftists aren't really leftists, rightists
aren't really rightists, citizens' groups aren't really citizens'
groups, respected veteran journalists aren't really respected veteran
journalists, major book authors aren't really major book authors, and
magazine investigative reporters aren't really magazine investigative
reporters, one can surely say the same thing for newspapers and their
reporters.
> Let's see; Smith, Glass, Rothfeder, Cincinnati Inquirer
> CNN, Time?
> That is media 6 -- Drudge 1. I'll take Drudge!
--
M Soja
>M Soja wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Jul 1998 21:00:26 GMT, -<[ Hughie2U ]>- posted:
>>
>> >Actually I would like to offer another possiblity for Ray's low position.
>> >Heizer's failure to master his job here online. In the post below observe Ray
>> >Heizer in action behind the scenes during internet discourse, plotting with his
>> >pals on what he will post next to attack people seeking truth and an open
>> >discussion.
>>
>> >The clumsy Heizer, strung out or is just incompetent exposed not only himself
>> >but Ed Zehr in the process by hitting the wrong key and tipping his hand to
>>
>> Hmm. Yes. Ray! You're fired!!
>>
>> There. Feel better now, Hooey?
>
>Q. What's the worst thing about Mike Soja's job?
>A. He has to pretend he likes Ray Heizer.
What's the worst part of DC Doodles "job"?
He has to suck Dave Sharp's toothpick, 'er, dick.
sfa...@bigfoot.com
rayh...@value.net (Ray Heizer) wrote:
> In article <35A7EA...@erinet.com>, RThompson wrote:
>
> < Hughie2U wrote:
> < >
> < posted actually:
> <
> < One of his very favorite things to do--post
> < an e-mail.
>
> -- Sadly, RT, if Hughie had paid attention to that email of mine, and
> those from others, urging him to keep his off-topic Burkett "discussion"
> off the CS list, I doubt that David Sussman would have had to boot him and
> DCDave just a few days later.
That's the nice thing about truth, isn't it Ray? You can make it be
anything you want. In this same thread, not a week ago, Hughie was
booted off the board for rudeness. But now it all changes, kind of
like an Orwellian government statistic. Or a Steven Spielberg
version of history. Or a Clinton official statement. The truth in
the hands of these notables just kind of slithers through the facts.
First he was booted off for rudeness, now it was for off-topic
postings. Next week it'll be what? --farting at the keyboard,
perhaps?
> -- And had that not happened, Sussman would not have resigned in disgust,
> and CAS would not even exist.
Disgust at performing his job correctly and in a manner you agree
with? That would be a very unusual reason for a person to fall on
his sword. Even snakes have their limits, Ray, and I think you're
torturing this one a little ambitiously.
sfa...@bigfoot.com
t...@callamerica.net wrote:
> hugh...@aol.com (Hughie2U) wrote:
>
> >Don't change the subject.
> >
> >
> >IS RAY HEIZER REALLY MAXWELL SMART?
>
> response to Hughie is to KILL FILE him. Please don't bother
> trying reason or use logic with him, it won't work. Just KILL
> FILE him and be done with it. That is what I am doing. It is a
> terrible shame but their isn't any alternative. K^
Just what is it you are ashamed of, Mann?
Attention all sheep: New killfile orders have been issued. Anyone
caught reading messages from an author on the Official Killfile
Index will be dealt with severely. That awful Slade Farney has been
put on the Index, along with Carol Valentine and Max Giwer. Now
Hughie2U.
There is but one shame: Siding with someone (like Mann or Schneider)
who arrogates the power of censoring other's reading materials.
Now there is deep and abiding shame.
Billy Beck
sfa...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>Perhaps you can direct me to a discussion of George Bush's
>responsibility for the Waco Holocaust? Seems the planning and
>preparation happened on Bush's watch, and Ann Richards is a Republican,
>last I looked. If this group and CAS is NOT just a shill pocket for
>Bush Republicans, this will have been discussed in depth.
>
>Your reference, please?
Any Usenet archive of posts to alt.conspiracy during 1995.
I was there. You weren't.
Ray Heizer
- -
-- This may be a bit much for a gentleman like you to grasp, "Slade," but
it perfectly possible for a clown like Hughie to be both rude and
off-topic at the same time. It ain't pretty when it happens ... maybe
that's why Sussman booted him. Here's what Sussman had to say about it:
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 22:09:18 -0500 (EST)
To: c...@oak.oakland.edu, ok...@oak.oakland.edu, djsu...@jupiter.acs.oakland.edu
From: "David J. Sussman" <djsu...@oakland.edu>
Subject: The End Of The Infighting
Cc: hugh...@aol.com, cel...@ic.net, deece...@aol.com
Fact is, I really do have a life. Family, day job, school, sick mother.
The works. So when I volunteer my time for something, I like to see it
serve a purpose.
For six months the Clinton Scandal web site was updated nightly. I spent
about 4 hours per night researching and adding pages to it. It came as
quite a shock, though it shouldn't have, that there were powerful people
who did not want that information collected in one place and available on
the web. Some of that material has been resurrected and recreated. There
has not been another daily updated web since that time.
The cause is just and worthwhile, still we must ask ourselves how much
effort can we make as individual citizens and what sort of return do we
get for that effort? For my part, I, like Michael Rivero, was black
listed in my chosen profession. In the age of mass communications, those
who would black list people have found that it does not isolate a person.
On the contrary, it gives them all the time in the world to spend
researching and sharing the fruits of that research that they would prefer
never uncovered. So it would appear that the blacklist is lifting. Yes,
as one would expect, when we are occupied in our profession and earning
money we do not have much time to do research and publish information that
others prefer remain buried. It is not as though we have been bought off,
I don't think that would fly very far at all, yet there is a relationship
between black listing and activism that those folks ought to remember as a
new rule of the digital age. Enough said of that.
***********************************************************************
Back to the matter at hand: It is really troubling to me, and has been
for some time now, that several of the longtimers on the list have been
stirring up trouble on the list, using ad hominem attacks, perenially
bashing the press rather than continuing to keep their feet to the fire,
attacking all who would question their tactics. It has not stopped yet.
Looking over the titles to tonights mail, I see many of the same threads
continue to the day.
LET ME BE PERFECTLY CLEAR: ALL THESE THREADS COME TO A STOP AT ONCE!
***********************************************************************
Many of the other comments to the list may be fine for private email but
have no place here. I certainly have no illusions about the press,
politicians, the OIC or anything else. I truly believe that only our
combined efforts to keep their feet to the fire will achieve ANY of our
aims at bringing the truth to light, wrongdoers to justice and honesty to
government.
ANYONE CONTINUING ANY OF THE SANCTIONED THREADS ON THE LIST WILL BE
REMOVED FROM THE LIST UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY CAN PROVE TO ME THAT THEY
ARE NOT A THREAT TO THE PEACE AND TRANQUILITY THAT HAS MARKED OUR
DISCOURSE SINCE ITS INCEPTION.
Since many of the participants in the heated and nasty discussions were
long timers and people central to the list; people who really do know much
about the facts and who have put their lives and honor on the line to help
Patrick Knowlton and to keep the Foster issue in the face of folks who'd
rather forget the name Vincent Foster; I seriously considered pulling the
lists altogether and letting someone else step up to the plate and find a
list server and deal with the whole mess. Many of you have expressed
private wishes that this not occur.
**********************************************************************
Therefore I have taken the following action tonight: Hughie2u and
DeeCeeDave have been moved to the digest. Their contributions to the list
will be filtered by Pete Celano or myself. I suggest they post their
submissions to both cel...@ic.net and to djsu...@oakland.edu.
**********************************************************************
I know that they have much of value to contribute and hope that this will
accomodate the best interests of the list.
Anyone else who may need to be treated in this fashion will find that
action will be swift. I am tired of not feeling it worthwhile to read my
own lists. This will not continue.
We have likely blown the opportunities recently presented to us by the
subscription to the list of several reporters, including some from the
Arkansas Democrat Gazette and US News and World Report, by our infighting
and lack of coherent factual presentation. I have no idea if we shall
prevail and get the honest investigation and reportage that these issues
deserve. I do know that we can howl at the moon and rail against the
"media" until the end of the earth and achieve nothing. I rather think I
prefer Sprunt's non-confrontational approach. In any event, for those new
to the list, I appologize for my absenteeism and the resultant chaos.
This is really a rather good group, one that has uncovered a lot of
information that has subsequently been reported in the media abroad and in
this country. When I awoke to CNN this morning asking if Hillary will be
indicted, and discussing more and more Asian payoffs to the DNC tied to WH
visits and favors granted, and further heard reports of Drs. Garth and
Nancy Nicholson's research on Gulf War Syndrome; well I knew that we can
and have made a difference.
So the list will be defended and shored up. I hope that the sanctions
issued will be temporary and that we can once again all come back to the
decorum that formerly held sway here.
David Sussman
RTho...@erinet.com
>
snip
>
> Disgust at performing his job correctly and in a manner you agree
> with? That would be a very unusual reason for a person to fall on
> his sword. Even snakes have their limits, Ray, and I think you're
> torturing this one a little ambitiously.
>
> --Slade
>
Since you appear to dislike so many on n/group,
why don't you start a "list"? Then you could
choose your own policies, guest writers and
stars; perhaps you could even deplete Heizer's
list membership by 50% or so.
RTho...@erinet.com
>
snip
>
> There is but one shame: Siding with someone (like Mann or Schneider)
> who arrogates the power of censoring other's reading materials.
> Now there is deep and abiding shame.
You've got a pretty crappy attitude, and it seems
to be centered about your pals, Doo Du and Huggie.
Why don't you get off your fanny, start your own
list, have hours of meditation, then discuss
whatever it is you want to hear from the soapbox
duo.
What *is* a shame, is that you apparently lack the
initiative to do something constructive.
>
> --Slade
chris lane
wrote:
>
>sfa...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you can direct me to a discussion of George Bush's
>>responsibility for the Waco Holocaust? Seems the planning and
>>preparation happened on Bush's watch, and Ann Richards is a Republican,
>>last I looked.
>
things....old....ugly.....wrinkled beyond belief......prematurely aged
by smoking and too much whisky.....an old semi-reformed alky......but
one thing she is most definitely NOT: a republican.....she is a blue
dog democrat from Commie hell, bud...and don't you forget it, heah?
y'all come back now....
chris
sfa...@bigfoot.com
Bingo! Now it is not one, nor is it the other, but both causes
together. (And if you take it off the lot today, I'll throw in a
spare tire with only one patch on it.)
And what is more, Hughie was SO rude, and SO off-topic that he
caused the moderator to resign and the whole list to fold up. Heizer,
is this the kind of credibility with which you invested your news
postings when you were in the CS list?
If only Beck were for real. He comes on with this ever-so-sincere no-
bullshit persona--don't you wish the real make-believe Beck was here
to give one of his famous hoot-owl gaffaws? Don't you wish it, eh?
But there is no Peter Pan, and there is no real Billy Beck, and the
official Billy Beck keyboard will never notice the delicious
stupidity and what-do-you-take-me-for nonsense in this little thread.
If only, says Heizer, Hughie had not a) dragged the discussion
off-topic, or b) hadn't been rude, or c) hadn't been off-topic AND
rude (pick one), Sussman (the moderator) would not have resigned
and the CS list would not have folded like a pair of fours when
some calls the bluff. (Quietly: No, you don't have to see my cards,
the pot's yours.)
But it gets better: Sussman cites personal reasons for resignation.
He wants to spend more time with his family, sick mother, ...,
Absolutely classic politician excuses.
And the tragedy of it all is that some serious journalists were
starting to take an interest, and going to do "honest investigation
and reportage", and CNN was talking about indicting Hillary, ...
Oh, weep, oh moan, because Hughie was (a, b, c, above), Hillary is
still on the throne today, a year and a half later, and the honest
reportage still has not happened.
Heizer, do you survey these stories on gradeschool children before
you bring them out? Or do you just sling from the hip? Whatever,
I think Hughie is right about that Yale degree of yours. I wouldn't
trust you to take care of my pigeon coop, let alone a serious spy
operation. Those CHAOS agents would cut you to pieces.
Billy Beck
cl...@hotmail.com (chris lane) wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:56:28 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>wrote:
>>
>>sfa...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps you can direct me to a discussion of George Bush's
>>>responsibility for the Waco Holocaust? Seems the planning and
>>>preparation happened on Bush's watch, and Ann Richards is a Republican,
>>>last I looked.
>>
>ahem....uh, mr. sfarney: ....ann richards is many
>things....old....ugly.....wrinkled beyond belief......prematurely aged
>by smoking and too much whisky.....an old semi-reformed alky......but
>one thing she is most definitely NOT: a republican.....she is a blue
>dog democrat from Commie hell, bud...and don't you forget it, heah?
<hah!> That's one that got away from me in my previous reply.
Hey, farney: d'ya recall Richardson's "silver spoon" crack about
Bush at the Democratic convention, then mate, or whatthefuckover?
Thanx for playing.
sfa...@bigfoot.com
No score--not with someone else's shot. These are your words:
>> Any Usenet archive of posts to alt.conspiracy during 1995.
>>
>> I was there. You weren't.
Not there enough to recall where you were or what you talked about,
eh?
Not only did you not discuss Ann Richards, the Republican, and Waco,
you made very little mention of George Bush, the Republican, and Waco.
You personally. 187 quotes containing Bush and Waco, and less than
a handful from you, mostly as quotes from others.
The fog thickens. You have little to support your protest that you are
not just another Republican. Hughie is looking righter and righter at
this point.
No wonder you hate him so bad.
sfa...@bigfoot.com
RThompson wrote:
> sfa...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> >
> > There is but one shame: Siding with someone (like Mann or Schneider)
> > Now there is deep and abiding shame.
>
> You've got a pretty crappy attitude,
That's not an attitude--that's a principle. Some people agree with
me, apparently you and the Pope do not. Ah, well.
> and it seems
> to be centered about your pals, Doo Du and Huggie.
> Why don't you get off your fanny, start your own
> list, have hours of meditation, then discuss
> whatever it is you want to hear from the soapbox
> duo.
The purpose of people like DCDave, Hughie, and Slade is to annoy
and bedevil people like you and screw up your nice, safe, airtight
discussions with a little truth and insight, now and again. It's
guaranteed to make you miserable, but others enjoy it by a ratio of
57.3 to 1. You are outnumbered.
> What *is* a shame, is that you apparently lack the
> initiative to do something constructive.
Nothing is apparent to you, at this point. You would have to know
something about me and you don't. You're just spewing like you did
at Hugh. Your gallbladder is in overdrive.
Billy Beck
sfa...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>> >>>Perhaps you can direct me to a discussion of George Bush's
>> >>>responsibility for the Waco Holocaust? Seems the planning and
>> >>>preparation happened on Bush's watch, and Ann Richards is a Republican,
>> >>>last I looked.
(impertinence bagged)
>Not only did you not discuss Ann Richards, the Republican, and Waco,
>you made very little mention of George Bush, the Republican, and Waco.
>You personally. 187 quotes containing Bush and Waco, and less than
>a handful from you, mostly as quotes from others.
>
>The fog thickens. You have little to support your protest that you are
>not just another Republican. Hughie is looking righter and righter at
>this point.
Well, then farney, me boy, I guess you're just the Ace Detective
of The Week around here then, because *I* didn't even know I was a
Republican. Good for *you*. Maybe Hughie will let you touch up the
paint on his sandwich boards.
(uhm, I didn't say *I* was the one interested in Bush, and you
didn't *ask* that.)
RTho...@erinet.com
>
> That's not an attitude--that's a principle. Some people agree with
> me, apparently you and the Pope do not. Ah, well.
>
If you have principle(s), you wouldn't be defending
Huggie and Doo Du--and not many agree with you.
>
> The purpose of people like DCDave, Hughie, and Slade is to annoy
> and bedevil people like you and screw up your nice, safe, airtight
> discussions with a little truth and insight, now and again. It's
> guaranteed to make you miserable, but others enjoy it by a ratio of
> 57.3 to 1. You are outnumbered.
>
I believe you're overrating yourself to the point
of being a wanabee comedian.
You're gonna have to try lots harder, since the
hot weather and humidity are the only things making
me miserable, and A/C takes care of that.
>
> Nothing is apparent to you, at this point. You would have to know
> something about me and you don't. You're just spewing like you did
> at Hugh. Your gallbladder is in overdrive.
>
And, I don't care to know anything about you. It
is apparent you lack the same ambition as Huggie
and Doo Du--you won't get off your duff to *do*
anything, you only want to write and whine about
it.
Hugh?? You mean Huggie?? He *loves* the spewing,
it is the only attention he gets.
sfa...@bigfoot.com
RThompson wrote:
> sfa...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> >
> > That's not an attitude--that's a principle. Some people agree with
> > me, apparently you and the Pope do not. Ah, well.
> >
>
> If you have principle(s), you wouldn't be defending
> Huggie and Doo Du--and not many agree with you.
So a principle is not a principle if it comes to the defense of the
wrong people? That is a terribly transparent statement. Do you
throw out your calculator if it doesn't give you the bank balance
you want?
Principles are like mathematics: They don't always favor the home
team.
RTho...@erinet.com
>
>
> So a principle is not a principle if it comes to the defense of the
> wrong people? That is a terribly transparent statement. Do you
> throw out your calculator if it doesn't give you the bank balance
> you want?
Makes a much sense as you trying to fight the general
population here, instead of beginning a list for Doo
and Hug, so they may preach to an audience who appreciates
them.
>
> Principles are like mathematics: They don't always favor the home
> team.
I got you there--especially when the "team" doesn't
add up to anything besides DC+Hughie=x.
>
> --Slade
>
sfa...@bigfoot.com
RThompson wrote:
> sfa...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > So a principle is not a principle if it comes to the defense of the
> > wrong people? That is a terribly transparent statement. Do you
> > throw out your calculator if it doesn't give you the bank balance
> > you want?
>
> Makes a much sense as you trying to fight the general
> population here, instead of beginning a list for Doo
> and Hug, so they may preach to an audience who appreciates
> them.
There is but one fault in that line of thought: If these lists were
based on personalities, you would have the "Sussman Chatgroup", the
"Heizer Gossip Club" and "Thompson Tattlers". But instead, the lists
purport to be centered on issues. You can't have it both ways. You
pick personalities if you want congenial parties, or you pick issues
if you want to be serious about life. But you can't pretend to be
it is issue oriented, and then throw a hissy fit when people put up
statements you don't want people reading.
Now, you have a choice to read or ignore anything you want on this
group, and you can pick and choose by title, author, thread, or
whatever. In fact, since no one person can read it as fast as it
is produced, you HAVE to pick and choose. And the same is true of
listserves.
The issue comes up because some attempt to tailor the reading
choices for others. That may be a case of censorship, and it may
be the agreed role of the moderator. We can argue endlessly about
the true purpose for Hugh and DCDave's termination from the CAS
list, and I doubt either your mind or mine will be changed.
But it is also true that Wayne Mann requested that everyone killfile
Hughie from now on, I objected to this as violating the principle
of free and open discussion, and you said I have a "crappy attitude".
Now maybe I am not a team player when it comes to gang bangs, but
that just may not be the final measure of a man. Know what I mean?
RTho...@erinet.com
>
snip
>
> Now maybe I am not a team player when it comes to gang bangs, but
> that just may not be the final measure of a man. Know what I mean?
>
No, and I don't care. You've already been given
more time than you deserve.
Wm. J. Beck, Jr.
"....and Ann Richards is a Republican
last I looked."
Hey no sacarasm here. In all sincerity, when did she change her
political affiliations? Last time I looked she was about as Democratic
as a Democrat could be.
Dosen't anybody remember her at the 1988 Democratic Convention, "Poor
George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth".
Bill Beck
gcr...@vrwc.org
Ah, yup. She springboarded that into a one-term Texas
governorship, as I recall. One of the Republicans running
against her for the office later refused to shake her hand
at some event. She milked that pretty good, too.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
A Rush Limbaugh Featured Site
O, Barry me Not:
"People have criticized me because my security detail is larger than the president's. But you must ask yourself: Are there more people who want to kill me than who want to kill the president? I can assure you there are." - M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC