What is Neo-Tech/Zonpower?
matt...@netcom.com
Who Rules Cyberspace?
What is Neo-Tech/Zonpower?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neo-Tech/Zonpower Web Pages:
Mailing List:
To "subscribe" to the list, address your e-mail to...
...and in the body of the message, type (IN LOWER CASE ONLY)...
subscribe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions:
New Words and Concepts
Zon is a collective word related to the fully integrated honesty of
Neo-Tech and comprises (1) the Civilization of the Universe, (2) those
operating from its wide-scope perspective, and (3) the power required to
control existence -- the integrated power to gain limitless wealth and
eternal happiness. ...Zon is the mind of God. Zon is you!
Zonpower is the power to control existence. Zonpower is derived from
applying the fully integrated honesty and wide-scope accountability of
Neo-Tech to all conscious actions.
Neo-Tech is a noun or an adjective meaning fully integrated honesty based
on facts of reality. Neo-Tech creates a collection of new techniques and
new technology that lets one know exactly what is happening and what to do
for gaining honest advantages in all situations.
Neo-Tech provides the integrations to collapse the illusions, hoaxes, and
irrationalities of any harmful individual or institution.
Anticivilization is the irrational civilization gripping planet Earth -- an
unreal civilization riddled with professional value destroyers causing
endless cycles of wars, economic and property destructions, unemployment
and poverty, suffering and death. The essence of the anticivilization is
dishonesty. ...Through Neo-Tech, the Civilization of the Universe will
replace Earth's anticivilization.
Civilization of the Universe is the rational civilization throughout the
universe -- a civilization filled with value producers providing endless
cycles of wealth, happiness, and rejuvenation for everyone. ...Professional
value destroyers and parasitical elites are nonexistent in the Civilization
of the Universe.
Parasitical Elites are unnatural people who drain everyone. The
parasitical-elite class lives by usurping, swindling, and destroying values
produced by others. Their survival requires political-agenda laws, armed
bureaucracies, ego-"justice" systems, and deceptive neocheating.
Neocheating is the undetected usurpation of values from others: the
unsuspicious swindling of money, power, or values through deceptive
manipulations of rationalizations, non sequiturs, illusions, and
mysticisms. ...All such net harms inflicted on society can now be
objectively measured by the wide-scope accounting of Neo-Tech.
Subjective Laws include political-agenda laws conjured up by politicians
and bureaucrats to gain self-serving benefits, ego props, and unearned
power. Enforcement of political-agenda laws requires the use of force and
armed agents against innocent people. ...The only purpose of such laws is
to violate individual rights.
Objective Laws are not conjured up by politicians or bureaucrats. Instead,
like the laws of physics, they arise from the immutable laws of nature.
Such laws are valid, benefit everyone, and advance society. Objective laws
are based on the moral prohibition of initiatory force, threats of force,
and fraud as constituted on page 188. ...The only rational purpose of laws
is to protect individual rights.
Ego "Justice" is the use of political-agenda laws to gain harmful
livelihoods and feel false importance. Ego "justice" is the survival tool
of many politicians, lawyers, and judges. Ego "justice" is the most
pernicious form of neocheating. ...Parasitical elites thrive on subjective
laws and ego "justice" to the harm of everyone else and society.
Golden Helmets are all-revealing, wide-scope accounting tools that evolve
naturally from the fully integrated honesty of Neo-Tech. Golden Helmets are
the tools needed by businesspeople to generate limitless wealth for others
and society. Golden Helmets are what economically control existence and
will bring the Civilization of the Universe to planet Earth.
Cassandra's Secret revealed through Zon is the power of the conscious mind
to accurately foretell the future through its power to control
existence...and its future.
Intelligence is redefined by Neo-Tech as the range of integrated thinking.
The range, width, or scope of valid integrations is more a function of
honesty than of IQ. No matter how high is one's raw IQ, that person can be
outflanked and outperformed by a lower IQ mind that is more honest,
allowing wider-scope integrations. In the Civilization of the Universe,
wide-scope integrations are what give conscious minds power. Neo-Tech
intelligence supersedes the role of IQ detailed by Richard J. Herrnstein
and Charles Murray in their controversial, best-selling book The Bell Curve
(Simon & Schuster, 1994). Since fully integrated honesty, not IQ, is the
key to long-range success and abiding happiness, all races have equal
access to the limitless prosperity available from the Civilization of the
Universe.
Purpose of Existence and Motive for Controlling Existence: Achieving and
expanding happiness is the moral purpose of conscious life. [ 1 ]
Happiness, therefore, is the ultimate motivator behind conscious-controlled
existence. But, to control existence, one must realize that existence
itself is never derived from thoughts or emotions. Instead, thoughts and
emotions, including happiness, are always derived from the conscious
control of existence. Thus, conscious control of existence is ultimately
directed toward creating limitless prosperity, rejuvenated life, and
eternal happiness for everyone and society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Route to Riches
Three thousand years ago, our nature given
bicameral minds broke down into chaos. To survive,
we invented consciousness, which soon became
corrupted with Plato's dishonesties and "noble"
lies. Now, today, our corroded conscious minds are
also breaking down. To survive, we are finally
discovering the all-powerful Neothink mind that
functions through wide-scope integrations and fully
integrated honesty. Neothink brings eternal
Zonpower -- the power from the Civilization of the
Universe. ...Zonpower provides everyone with
riches, romantic love, and a god-like mind and
body.
Zonpower
A Manuscript of Contextual Facts and Metaphors
dedicated to
Henrik Ibsen
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
Word Usage
Neo-Tech is a noun or an adjective meaning fully integrated honesty based
on facts of reality. Neo-Tech creates a collection of new techniques or new
technology [ 79 ] that lets one know exactly what is happening and what to
do for gaining honest advantages in all situations. Neo-Tech provides the
integrations in every situation to collapse the illusions, hoaxes, and all
other forms of irrationality manipulated by the parasitical-elite class.
...Understanding is the process of integration.
Mysticism is action based on dishonest irrationalities and mind-created
"realities". Mysticism evokes, accepts, or uses unreal notions that create
problems where none exist. Contrary to popular belief, mysticism today
seldom involves god-type religions or the occult. God religions and the
occult are dying forms of mysticism with fading powers to hurt the
productive class. More generally, mysticism is the dishonesty that evolves
from using feelings or rationalizations to generate mind-created
"realities". In turn, those "realities" create unnecessary problems and
unnatural destructions. Unnecessary and unnatural because the human brain
cannot create reality. Instead, the brain perceives and then integrates
facts of reality in order to control reality.
Thus, "reality"-creating mysticism is a perversion or disease of human
consciousness. Indeed, mysticism is the destruction disease. For mysticism
blocks brain integrations to erode all values. Mysticism breeds dishonesty,
malevolence, and death. Hence, mysticism is suicide on all levels -- on
personal, family, social, and business levels; on local, national, and
world levels.
Neocheating is the undetected usurpation of a livelihood -- the
unsuspicious swindling of money, power, or values through clever
manipulations of dishonest rationalizations, non sequiturs, and mystical
notions. Neocheating means new cheating for usurping values earned by
others. Actually, parasitical elites have used neocheating for two
millennia in hidden, unnoticeable ways. But the techniques of neocheating
were not specifically identified until 1976. Thus, neocheating is a new
identification rather than a new technique. Before that identification, no
one could define or even notice a neocheater. Now, anyone with Neo-Tech can
easily spot neocheaters and render them impotent. For, against Neo-Tech,
the illusions of mysticism vanish and neocheaters become powerless.
...Neocheaters are unnatural people. They are humanoids.
* The essence of Neo-Tech is honesty and effort.
* The essence of mysticism and neocheating is hidden dishonesty and
laziness.
NEO-TECH is rational. It lets one act consistently on objective facts. That
approach yields happy emotions and love. Thus, Neo-Tech captures reality by
having actions produce emotions. ...Neo-Tech integrates the mind.
MYSTICISM is irrational. It lets one act arbitrarily on subjective
feelings. That approach yields harmful actions. Thus, mysticism loses
reality by having emotions produce actions. ...Mysticism disintegrates the
mind.
Mysticism is the essential tool of all parasitical elites and neocheaters.
But Neo-Tech will cure the disease of mysticism to end irrationality,
dishonesty, neocheating, and the parasitical-elite class.
Neothink is the boundlessly wide integrations made possible by Neo-Tech
eradicating irrationality. Neothink is the harnessing of Neo-Tech power
here on Earth:
...Neothink outcompetes all, controls all.
Integrated Thinking is the honest effort of putting information into the
most accurate, widest context by logically connecting all known relevant
facts. Only contextual knowledge is valid. Thus, genuine power is gained
through integrated thinking, both vertical and horizontal, in the widest
possible context. ...Volitional choice, the essence of free will, is also
the essential of effective integrated thinking and valid knowledge
building.
Justice is based on objective law and integrated honesty.
Ego "Justice" is based on arbitrary subjective laws and force-backed
political agendas used to gain unearned livelihoods and feel false
importance.
Parasitical Elites are unnatural people who dishonestly drain others. They
have lost the attributes of human beings. They are humanoids who live by
furtively usurping, swindling, or destroying values produced by others. To
exist, they must prevent honest, integrated thinking by others. For
survival, they depend on ego "justice" and force-backed political policies.
Criminal Minds:"Others owe me a living. Thus, I can live by destroying,
stealing, leeching, or usurping values earned by others." ...Criminal minds
lay the responsibility for competitive value production onto others. Such
criminal minds epitomize politicians, business quislings, also many
bureaucrats, academe, clerics, news journalists, judges, and lawyers. For,
their behaviors fit Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment definitive
description of the criminal mind: 1) Unawareness of or contempt for
individual property rights. 2) The presumption that parasites, usurpers,
enviers, value destroyers, and con artists have a right to live off the
productive efforts of others. ...Criminal minds exist by using deception or
force to live off the productive class. Survival depends on value
destruction. Incompetence and unhappiness result.
Virtuous Minds:"I must earn my own living. Thus, I must live through my own
productive efforts. I must competitively create and produce values needed
by others and society." ...Such virtuous minds are the opposite of criminal
minds. For, virtuous minds, by nature, respect individual property rights.
Virtuous minds never need to use ego "justice", deception, fraud, or force
to prosper. Survival depends on value production. Competence and happiness
result.
Value Producers have business minds that benefit society. They live by
creating or producing competitive values and productive jobs for others and
society. They succeed by honest, integrated thinking.
Money: Is it wanted for laziness or effort? A criminal mind sees usurping
money as a way to escape competitive efforts needed to produce values for
others...a way to do less. A business mind sees earning money as a way to
increase competitive efforts to produce ever more values and jobs...a way
to do more for others and society.
Neo-Tech Minds are the powerful, mystic-free minds of the Civilization of
the Universe...minds based on fully integrated honesty and justice.
Neo-Tech Business Minds easily outflank and outcompete the narrow thinking
and dishonest behavior of all criminal and mystic-plagued minds.
Truth is a mushy, hydra-headed word. Everyone disputes its meaning. Truth
denotes a static assertion that changes from person to person, opinion to
opinion, culture to culture. Thus, truth is a hollow, manipulative word
that parasitical elites promulgate to gain credibility for their
deceptions, destructions, and ego "justice".
Honesty is a solid, indivisible word. No one disputes its meaning. Honesty
denotes a dynamic process that is identical for every conscious being.
Honesty cannot be manipulated. Therefore, parasitical elites must squelch
honesty in order to live off the productive class.
Discard the Word Truth --
Uphold the Word Honesty
Discard Ego "Justice" --
Uphold Objective Law
Discard the Parasitical Class --
Uphold the Productive Class
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
http://www.neo-tech.com _ _
__ __ ____ __ ____ __ __ _ _ ___ ___ ___| |_ ___ __| |_ __ ___ _ __
\ V V /\ V V /\ V V /| ' \/ -_) _ \___| _/ -_) _| ' \ _/ _/ _ \ ' \
\_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_(_)_||_\___\___/ \__\___\__|_||_(_)__\___/_|_|_|
Sparkchaser
<Gallons upon gallons of fertilizer By that NeoShill mattkeys snipped>
Anti-ad warning, kids... Don't let these folks take your cash, suck you
into their cult, date your daughters, etc......
--
X-Signature: Sparkchaser
"You can twist perceptions..... Reality won't budge"
-Neil Peart/ Rush
Sparkchaser, esq. Springdale,Ark... AKA Poultry Hell
.
Matt Keys
Sparkchaser (heretic@the_altar.com) wrote:
: <Gallons upon gallons of fertilizer By that NeoShill mattkeys snipped>
: Anti-ad warning, kids... Don't let these folks take your cash, suck you
: into their cult, date your daughters, etc......
duh. everything on the web site is free, a 300-page book, and
a new revised 640 page book coming soon..
MK.
TonyGuzman
In article <31FBFDD7.3555@the_altar.com>,
Sparkchaser <heretic@the_altar.com> wrote:
><Gallons upon gallons of fertilizer By that NeoShill mattkeys snipped>
>
>Anti-ad warning, kids... Don't let these folks take your cash, suck you
>into their cult, date your daughters, etc......
>
I wonder if you realize that by posting
these "anti-ad warning[s]" you are giving
your supposed enemies the exposure they
want. They'll more than likely visit the
"neo-spam" website (http://www.neo-tech.com)
just to see what all the fuss is about.
Just a thought, no need to respond (though
you probably will :).
-TG
"Whatever you do, DON'T think about a
blue elephant with a toothpick in its
toe!"
Johnny M.
>I wonder if you realize that by posting
>these "anti-ad warning[s]" you are giving
>your supposed enemies the exposure they
>want. They'll more than likely visit the
>"neo-spam" website (http://www.neo-tech.com)
>just to see what all the fuss is about.
>Just a thought, no need to respond (though
>you probably will :).
I am wondering if you actually have the stats to back up this
claim. Do you really think that people are going to go visit
a website that someone else tells them is garbage? It's like
going to a mechanics shop after someone tells you that the
mechanic is a rip-off. Not that I am taking any sides. I really
don't understand what the fuss is all about with NT. Some of
it makes sense, other parts say the same thing that I have read
in countless other books. There are lot's of wasted pages on
testimonials. All in all, it's an ok book. Not worth the $65
I paid for it though.
>-TG
>
>
>
>"Whatever you do, DON'T think about a
>blue elephant with a toothpick in its
>toe!"
And DON"T stay up all night thinking
about why you just made a picture
of a blue elephant with a toothpick
in its toe.
Anonymous
> In article <31FBFDD7.3555@the_altar.com>,
> Sparkchaser <heretic@the_altar.com> wrote:
>
> ><Gallons upon gallons of fertilizer By that NeoShill mattkeys snipped>
> >
> >Anti-ad warning, kids... Don't let these folks take your cash, suck you
> >into their cult, date your daughters, etc......
>
> I wonder if you realize that by posting
> these "anti-ad warning[s]" you are giving
> your supposed enemies the exposure they
> want. They'll more than likely visit the
> "neo-spam" website (http://www.neo-tech.com)
> just to see what all the fuss is about.
The Neo-Tech Publishing shills will visit their own web site?
Big deal.
> Just a thought, no need to respond (though
> you probably will :).
Posting 'I hate those Neo-Spammers' might not have much effect one way
or another, but my mighty FAQ does.
It tells the dirty truth that Neo-Tech Publishing wants to bury.
And my questions are rather upsetting to the Neo-Tech Order.
For example:
When is Neo-Tech Publishing, or one of their front groups, going to file
the IRS class action suit they've been droning on about for over a year?
> "Whatever you do, DON'T think about a
> blue elephant with a toothpick in its
> toe!"
Whatever you do, don't think.
If you do you might lose your faith in ZON.
- King of all Heretics
Anonymous
In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>, matt...@netcom.com (Matt
Keys) wrote:
> Sparkchaser (heretic@the_altar.com) wrote:
> : <Gallons upon gallons of fertilizer By that NeoShill mattkeys snipped>
>
> : Anti-ad warning, kids... Don't let these folks take your cash, suck you
> : into their cult, date your daughters, etc......
>
>
> duh. everything on the web site is free, a 300-page book, and
> a new revised 640 page book coming soon..
But the point of the stuff on the web site is to bait you so you'll buy
the stuff advertised there.
I notice that 'The Neo-Tech Discovery' still isn't up.
When oh when will you lazy slobs ever get around to putting it online?
You've been promising it for around eight months if not longer.
Where's that discipline, thought and control when you really need it?
Matt Keys
Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
: Posting 'I hate those Neo-Spammers' might not have much effect one way
: or another, but my mighty FAQ does.
speaking of FAQ's, its about time to dust off the old "koah-FAQ". notice
how this KOAH FAQ is made up of quotes from KOAH, but his "anti-neo-tech"
FAQ only has articles from neo-tech attackers.
the "is KOAH a Psycopath?" FAQ version 0.001
[ material obtained from http://dejanews.com, search for King of all
Heretics, look for old articles, before Koah became "nice". ]
*** side note: as you read these articles by KOAH, keep in mind Betsy and
a few others on a.p.o were encouraging his reckless spastic attacks on
Neo-Tech the whole time. see q4) for more.
q1) does KOAH really want to nuke innocent citizens?
q2) does KOAH really want to have unearned sex with
every orifice possible?
q3) more evidence for q1 and q2
q4) do Objectivists and others really cheer on KOAH?? (read about
a.p.o "leader" Betsy Speicher's support of KOAH here)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
q1) does KOAH really want to nuke innocent citizens?
read his post and decide for yourself:
Subject: Re: Objectivist enemies of open debate
From: nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous)
Date: 1996/04/05
Organization: Flame International Inc.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.support.ex-Cult,alt.neo-Tech
> >> He is absolutely the worst sort of destructive nihilist. And in his own
> >> words, there are circumstances where he would personally explode a nuke in
> >> a populated city.
> >
> > There are circumstances where _you_ might do the same.
> > Nihilism cannot be determined by listing various shocking actions a
> >person might take - you must establish that the person is without ethical
> >principles and philosophical beliefs.
> > I have been quite clear that I do subscribe to a moral code.
> > It just isn't in alignment with what most social systems and
> >superstitious religions have deemed moral during recorded history.
>
> There are _no_ circumstances that would cause me to purposely end the life
> of _any_ individual who was not _directly_ and _purposely_ thretening my
> life.
>
> In your example, you stated that if you should be drafted, you would seek
> about to murder your commanding officer and everyone up the chain of
> command--apparently without regard to whether they happen to be caught in
> the same draft as you, with the same gun to their heads.
So they're just following orders, eh?
Tell it to Adolph Eichmann.
> You also stated that you would attempt to acquire a nuclear bomb and
> explode it in a populated city, if drafted into military service--aparently
> without regard to the indesputable fact that well over 99.9% of that
> poupulation of individual, living, conscious beings (including thousands of
> totally innocent children) have no _direct_, _individual_, _conscious_
> involvement in your being drafted.
Ah - but they are part of the leftist 'social contract' - they elect
demopublicans who ALL share the premise that I should be enslaved.
I refrain from any action regarding this so long as my LIFE is not
threatened. But if I am drafted ALL BETS ARE OFF. The line is crossed.
The draft is a declaration of total war on me. The only way to avoid
this is to refrain from enslaving me.
I would destroy the entire universe rather than live as a slave.
And you can quote me on that.
> Unless you dispute having said this, I think anyone would be well advised
> to consider what a whimpish, unstable, wild-eyed lunatic you are and refuse
> to deal with you in any context.
>
> >> Once I saw that, I realized for good what his psychology was all about.
> >> He can't fool anyone anymore.
> >
> > Nihilist is not a psychological term.
> > It refers to a lack of belief in anything.
> > I am not a nihilist.
> > I absolutely believe in myself.
> > - King of all Heretics
>
> It is a certain psychology which gives rise to nihilistic tendencies, and
> you display them in spades.
Ah - so I have nihilistic 'tendencies' now.
Nihilism is the belief in NOTHING.
I believe in all sorts of things very strongly.
I might be a terrifyingly immoral egoist from the point of view of
communitarian and altruist moral codes, but I'm no nihilist.
I am something MUCH, MUCH WORSE!
- King of all Heretics
--------------------------------------------------------------------
q2) does KOAH really want to have unearned sex with
every orifice possible?
koah writes:
> Oh, and if I was able to ensure that I wouldn't catch anything from sexual
> contact, and that I could protect my partners 100% from pregnancy risks,
> I would probably join KOAH on his coast-to-coast orgy of promiscuous sex.
> Because I live in reality though... One partner at a time for me.
They say to search for the words 'promiscuous sex' and my psuedonym to
find my outrageous statements, but I wouldn't use that term. In fact, I'm
pretty sure they're misinterpreting my views about sociobiology as a
blanket endorsement of orgies.
The Neo-Techers seem to think that they can alter the balance of forces
in the net war decisively in their favor by violating my privacy (which
they show their intent to do even if they reveal the wrong name). They
again show very little understanding of net culture.
They are very confused.
I am not trapped in combat with them, they are trapped in combat with me.
Remember AB!
- King of all Heretics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
q3) wait, there's more info for q1 and q2:
> > - King of all Heretics
> >P.S. By the way Bradley, you can go fuck off too. Put on your Spock ears
> >and watch some Star trek reruns like a good little boy and go away.
>
> Template for a Bloody Psychopath
> In early March, 1996, this anonymous psychopath publicly announced on
> Usenet his desires for limitless, no-value promiscuous sex.
Wahoo!
By the way, that sounds pretty good, but I don't recall stating a desire
for limitless _no-value_ promiscuous sex. :)
> Then, between blizzards of uncontrolled Tourette-like sexual profanities,
What the fuck are you talking about cocksucker?
Hee hee hee hee!
> he proclaimed across Usenet his intentions to murder innocent U.S. army
> officers and nuke an American city filled with innocent citizens and
> children.
You can't make an omelette...
> Currently, this coward is desperately trying to conceal his newly exposed
> criminalities with a torrent of smoothed-over, nice-guy posts.
I still proudly state that I would kill any army officer foolish enough
to try and command me were I drafted.
By drafting me they sign their own death warrents.
How is this 'nice'?
I'm not 'nice.'
I'm your worst nightmare.
> But, make no mistake, if an unstable person like him somehow got a nuke, he
> would incinerate a U.S. city in order to feel important enough to get
> girls.
By the way 'Barbie', are you one of Wallace Ward's mooching relatives or
one of his gullible dupes?
- King of all Heretics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
q4) do Objectivists really cheer on KOAH??
here is one sad example:
In article <4e96t5$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>Anonymous <anon-r...@utopia.hacktic.nl> wrote:
>
>> Wallace, creator of the Neo-Tech/ZonPower cult. I will be scanning this
>> group and alt.neo-tech for any information on him. If you have such
>> information, please post it with the words "ATTN: KOAH" in the header.
>
>I have a HUGE amount of information for you, but it is much too
>voluminous to post here. Can I e-mail it to you? (I tried to e-mail it,
>but it bounced.)>
> Betsy Speicher
here's another:
> >As you can see, _I've_ pulled you out of the kill file and my apologies for
> >jumping too quickly to judgement. After seeing the unbelievable rants and
> >raves of the Neo_kooks I had no choice <G>! _I_ certainly would not have
> >blocked your posts to _everyone_! (At least not _that_ way, I'm an old unix
> >junkie and would've cooked up an indetectable kill-bot or something <G>!)
> >
> >I'm _not_ one of those who think that Objectivism is a closed system. On
> >this point I agree with Kelly - much work needs to be done.
> >
> >I _still_ think your incredible profanity isn't needed, but it looks like
> >nothing less is going to stop the Neo-Kooks. More power to you - keep up
> >the good fight!
>
here's another:
>From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
>Subject: ATTN KOAH
>Date: 21 May 1996 05:46:01 -0700
>Organization: SCOA CyberNet sc...@speicher.com
>
>
>A third party with info for your FAQ is trying to reach you through me.
>
>(Has something to do with the relationship between Nick Rich and NTP and
>other matters).
>
and another (by a non-objectivist)
In article <4jsbif$i...@shiva.usa.net>, tali...@mail.usa.net (talisman) wrote:
> In article <4joc56$4...@utopia.hacktic.nl>,
> nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous) wrote:
> >In article <4ic24h$7...@panix2.panix.com>, tdon...@panix.com (Tony
> >Donadio) wrote:
> >>
> >> The point I am making is that your posts seemed to assume that
> >> this was a
> >> general sentiment or "party line" amongst us -- and that this was
> >> a rather
> >> hasty an erroneous generalization.
> >
> > I think I've clarified this.
> > I was a bit mad when I made the original rant.
> > Naturally those who don't approve of the blocking are not
> > deserving of
> > my wrath on this matter.
> > - King of all Heretics
>
> King,
>
> I think there are a lot more people who support you than you know.
> Besides, you're one of the only ones who can communicate in an
> entertaining manner.
Thanks.
> Most others sound like they've got a stick up
> their ...
Or as I once put it 'the most boring people on earth.'
> Those who do not post anonymously probably fear to associate
> themselves with you, even if they agree, because even with your anon
> status, you're still getting threatened and abused.
Not only that, they might end up the subject of a Neo-Tech template!
- King of all Heretics
: It tells the dirty truth that Neo-Tech Publishing wants to bury.
: And my questions are rather upsetting to the Neo-Tech Order.
: For example:
: When is Neo-Tech Publishing, or one of their front groups, going to file
: the IRS class action suit they've been droning on about for over a year?
:
: > "Whatever you do, DON'T think about a
: > blue elephant with a toothpick in its
: > toe!"
: Whatever you do, don't think.
: If you do you might lose your faith in ZON.
: - King of all Heretics
J. Hampton
Mr. "King of all Heretics", grow up! Your posts read like a bratty child throwing a temper tantrum. I
suggest you write posts like a man, not a child that didn't receive enough parental discipline...maybe
then you'll receive a little respect.
TonyGuzman
In article <4tkic1$j...@ns1.autonet.net>,
he...@pwrnet.com (Johnny M.) typed:
>In article <4tgv33$a...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, TonyGuzman
<guz...@ix.netcom.com> says:
>
>>I wonder if you realize that by posting
>>these "anti-ad warning[s]" you are giving
>>your supposed enemies the exposure they
>>want. They'll more than likely visit the
>>"neo-spam" website (http://www.neo-tech.com)
>>just to see what all the fuss is about.
>>Just a thought, no need to respond (though
>>you probably will :).
>
>I am wondering if you actually have the stats to back up this
>claim. Do you really think that people are going to go visit
>a website that someone else tells them is garbage?
Depends on WHO tells them it's garbage.
>It's like
>going to a mechanics shop after someone tells you that the
>mechanic is a rip-off. Not that I am taking any sides. I really
>don't understand what the fuss is all about with NT.
Me either. My view is: if you don't like it
don't read it, send it back, if it's on the
newsgroup, don't d/load it, and GEEZ, FOR
ZON'S SAKE, (;)) WHY WASTE YOUR TIME RESPONDING
TO IT?!?!?
>Some of
>it makes sense, other parts say the same thing that I have read
>in countless other books. There are lot's of wasted pages on
>testimonials. All in all, it's an ok book. Not worth the $65
Why don't you return it and get your money back?
I'm sure some people here could think of many
"better" things to do with $65!
>I paid for it though.
>
>>-TG
>>
>>
>>
>>"Whatever you do, DON'T think about a
>>blue elephant with a toothpick in its
>>toe!"
>
>
>And DON"T stay up all night thinking
>about why you just made a picture
>of a blue elephant with a toothpick
>in its toe.
(no comment :)
p.s. oh, by the way, I continually wonder
(among other things) what those who spend
their lives verbally attacking NT would
be doing if there was no NT (or any other
such "cult") to attack? ...hmmm?
Mr. Spark Chaser
He answers them quite well, thank you. It probably torques you that the
neo-lies can be debunked as easily as they have been, but I'm sure that
over time you'll learn to live with it. BTW, will you let me know when
your little "world revolution" takes place? I'll try to tear myself away
form work long enough to laugh at whatever pathetic attempt you may
make at taking over the Gov't.
Anonymous
In article <4tp21g$l...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, TonyGuzman
<guz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
(snip)
> p.s. oh, by the way, I continually wonder
> (among other things) what those who spend
> their lives verbally attacking NT would
> be doing if there was no NT (or any other
> such "cult") to attack? ...hmmm?
Maybe I'd devote my time to cheating people at poker.
Anonymous
> Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
>
> : Posting 'I hate those Neo-Spammers' might not have much effect one way
> : or another, but my mighty FAQ does.
>
> speaking of FAQ's, its about time to dust off the old "koah-FAQ". notice
> how this KOAH FAQ is made up of quotes from KOAH, but his "anti-neo-tech"
> FAQ only has articles from neo-tech attackers.
Wrong as usual Monkey Boy.
My FAQ is documented with extensive fair use quotations from the
Neo-Tech web page itself.
Maybe some time you should read it.
> the "is KOAH a Psycopath?" FAQ version 0.001
>
>
> [ material obtained from http://dejanews.com, search for King of all
> Heretics, look for old articles, before Koah became "nice". ]
I never became nice.
(snip the usual nuke stuff)
> q2) does KOAH really want to have unearned sex with
> every orifice possible?
>
> koah writes:
>
> > Oh, and if I was able to ensure that I wouldn't catch anything from sexual
> > contact, and that I could protect my partners 100% from pregnancy risks,
> > I would probably join KOAH on his coast-to-coast orgy of promiscuous sex.
> > Because I live in reality though... One partner at a time for me.
>
> They say to search for the words 'promiscuous sex' and my psuedonym to
> find my outrageous statements, but I wouldn't use that term. In fact, I'm
> pretty sure they're misinterpreting my views about sociobiology as a
> blanket endorsement of orgies.
>
> The Neo-Techers seem to think that they can alter the balance of forces
> in the net war decisively in their favor by violating my privacy (which
> they show their intent to do even if they reveal the wrong name). They
> again show very little understanding of net culture.
>
> They are very confused.
>
> I am not trapped in combat with them, they are trapped in combat with me.
> Remember AB!
>
> - King of all Heretics
OK - I am still waiting for something better than the above to prove the
claim that I want to have 'unearned sex' with 'every orifice possible.'
What you have is a quote from an unattributed person commenting on your
claims about me, and then me replying that I didn't say anything like
that.
I notice that you still can't find a quote where I said it so I guess
this is just like most Neo-Kook claims - a big, fat, stinking lie.
> q3) wait, there's more info for q1 and q2:
>
> > > - King of all Heretics
> > >P.S. By the way Bradley, you can go fuck off too. Put on your Spock ears
> > >and watch some Star trek reruns like a good little boy and go away.
> >
> > Template for a Bloody Psychopath
> > In early March, 1996, this anonymous psychopath publicly announced on
> > Usenet his desires for limitless, no-value promiscuous sex.
>
> Wahoo!
> By the way, that sounds pretty good, but I don't recall stating a desire
> for limitless _no-value_ promiscuous sex. :)
Here we go again - in the above I DENY the claim that I want _valueless_
sex, and 'wahoo' is an obvious goof.
Also note that to this day Keys can't produce whatever message he
hallucinated where I talked about no-value sex with every orifice.
You're pathetic Matt.
NTP is wasting their money sending you free books.
(snip)
> q4) do Objectivists really cheer on KOAH??
>
> here is one sad example:
>
> In article <4e96t5$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher
<be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
> >Anonymous <anon-r...@utopia.hacktic.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> Wallace, creator of the Neo-Tech/ZonPower cult. I will be scanning this
> >> group and alt.neo-tech for any information on him. If you have such
> >> information, please post it with the words "ATTN: KOAH" in the header.
> >
> >I have a HUGE amount of information for you, but it is much too
> >voluminous to post here. Can I e-mail it to you? (I tried to e-mail it,
> >but it bounced.)>
> > Betsy Speicher
In the above Betsy isn't cheering me on, she's offering me information.
Perhaps you fear people finding out about your organization?
> here's another:
>
> > >As you can see, _I've_ pulled you out of the kill file and my apologies for
> > >jumping too quickly to judgement. After seeing the unbelievable rants and
> > >raves of the Neo_kooks I had no choice <G>! _I_ certainly would not have
> > >blocked your posts to _everyone_! (At least not _that_ way, I'm an old unix
> > >junkie and would've cooked up an indetectable kill-bot or something <G>!)
> > >
> > >I'm _not_ one of those who think that Objectivism is a closed system. On
> > >this point I agree with Kelly - much work needs to be done.
> > >
> > >I _still_ think your incredible profanity isn't needed, but it looks like
> > >nothing less is going to stop the Neo-Kooks. More power to you - keep up
> > >the good fight!
I'm pretty sure that the above is written by a non-objectivist.
Also, your line lengths are, as usual, wretched.
If this is a FAQ you plan to post again fix it up a bit.
> here's another:
>
> >From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
> >Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
> >Subject: ATTN KOAH
> >Date: 21 May 1996 05:46:01 -0700
> >Organization: SCOA CyberNet sc...@speicher.com
> >
> >A third party with info for your FAQ is trying to reach you through me.
> >
> >(Has something to do with the relationship between Nick Rich and NTP and
> >other matters).
Ah - another offer of information misinterpreted as 'cheering me on.'
Find one post where Betsy cheers my use of insults and obscenity.
You can't.
But any sensible person can see that my logical arguments against you
are valid, and that you have no answers.
All you have are feeble L. Ron Hubbard 'dead-agent' tactics.
> and another (by a non-objectivist)
If it's by a non-objectivist it is not relevent to the question you
claim to be answering.
Apparently so few objectivists soiled themselves by praising the
nefarious King of all Heretics that you are forced to pad out this section
with utterly pointless material.
Typical.
(snip irrelevencies)
Anonymous
In article <320051...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
<mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> Mr. "King of all Heretics", grow up!
Mr. "J. Hampton", get a job with an honest company!
> Your posts read like a bratty child throwing a temper tantrum.
Your posts read like a clueless shill selling bullshit.
> I suggest you write posts like a man, not a child that didn't receive
> enough parental discipline...maybe then you'll receive a little respect.
I suggest you write posts that say something of substance, not
advertisements and spin control for your pathetic cult.
Maybe then you'll receive a little respect.
But probably not...
- King of all Heretics
P.S. Remember kids, 'China Direct' is a Neo-Tech front company and 'J.
Hampton' is their puppet-boy!
Adam Ierymenko
In article <4u46de$i...@basement.replay.com>,
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
>> speaking of FAQ's, its about time to dust off the old "koah-FAQ". notice
>> how this KOAH FAQ is made up of quotes from KOAH, but his "anti-neo-tech"
>> FAQ only has articles from neo-tech attackers.
>
> Wrong as usual Monkey Boy.
> My FAQ is documented with extensive fair use quotations from the
>Neo-Tech web page itself.
> Maybe some time you should read it.
>
They can't read you! You're a suppressive person!
Here is a question I keep asking and Neo-Techers keep dodging: If you're
trying to spread your ideology to intelligent people and spread objectivism,
then why did you dress it up to sound like L. Ron Hubbard? An intelligent
person would not be likely to take something seriously called 'Zonpower.'
Lets say I had the greatest ideology in the world. I would not call it
'Neo-Tech' and 'Zon' if I wanted people to take it seriously. However, if
I was like L. Ron and wanted to start a religion/cult to scam a bunch of
$$$ off of poor misguided people I might.
Perhaps it's because you are trying to attract people who are the type who
would join a cult and believe anything you say.
--
* "When your world is getting bigger and funnier, your intelligence
is increasing; when it's getting smaller and nastier you're
aimed in the wrong direction."
- Robert Anton Wilson
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQENAzGsu28AAAEH/3AV9ABDxbNMTaZE5gC/17oA+oUQPDt5umvanh4zfe4lhBDq
M7OyKUyJgXOlgT6Sn8/izdCskB81VTpQGfTYM8WHJczyOSZDjlI5+XquMl6uSbgn
KiK//6gBDH1TDkzy05E3Mz5t7LtkDIg6epkaRVt3e+14TinV215oDKmgqtWO3Mnv
9qmlItfshlURMUO8lC0ZTQ6zWHLWFbDvY1yW1yQOqUpdhMV7sLwx7ItxaAanz83e
bKqsLs2mgGlGsajz1hhSYYrdZFbwHmOiOi/hFIYHqHYieqRcxgJ+whsCbrRVwj7+
eA+fDgodqrDSUaZy6od9fCtTgbXiViHztG821u0ABRG0DkFkYW0gSWVyeW1lbmtv
=zH1V
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
J. Hampton
King of All Heretics -- you're always so willing to sit back and dish
out criticism to others -- what have you done to contribute something
positive to society? At least the Neo-Tech organization is putting out
effort and attempting to make changes that they believe will make
society better and more just.
You exhibit the classic spoiled American disease -- always
whining and complaining and putting down everyone else who's exerting
effort.
By the way, where do you get so much time to constantly be
flaming NT in this newsgroup day after day? Is it true that you're an
unemployed, ex-postal worker? ...It figures. Why don't you get a life.
More to the point, GET A JOB!
Nicholas Rich
In article <4u59j5$9...@news.one.net>, a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
<4tgv33$a...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4togp2$2...@basement.replay.com>
<mattkeysD...@netcom.com> <4u46de$i...@basement.replay.com> wrote:
>Lets say I had the greatest ideology in the world. I would not call it
>'Neo-Tech' and 'Zon' if I wanted people to take it seriously. However, if
>I was like L. Ron and wanted to start a religion/cult to scam a bunch of
>$$$ off of poor misguided people I might.
If A is A, then how does the "greatest ideology in the world" become a
religious cult scam? Or, is that simply what you belive it to be?
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble, S.A.
nr...@ss-n.com a...@ss-n.com
Take the legal system away from the lawyers - http://www.ss-n.com
(and make money doing it - http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.htm)
"We have no demands to present to you, no bargains to strike, no
compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you."
-- Ayn Rand, ATLAS SHRUGGED
Adam Ierymenko
In article <4u5mrr$8...@nntp1.best.com>,
nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
>>Lets say I had the greatest ideology in the world. I would not call it
>>'Neo-Tech' and 'Zon' if I wanted people to take it seriously. However, if
>>I was like L. Ron and wanted to start a religion/cult to scam a bunch of
>>$$$ off of poor misguided people I might.
>
>If A is A, then how does the "greatest ideology in the world" become a
>religious cult scam? Or, is that simply what you belive it to be?
>
I'm not discussing the validity of the philosophy, that's a whole other issue.
I'm discussing *why* one would package a philosophy which one believed to be
of such great value in a package that would cause it to get a chuckle from
all who read it. Words like 'Zonpower' do not sound like the terminology of
truth to me. They sound like something out of L. Ron Hubbard.
In other words, I'm criticizing the method of presentation and asking why
you used it.
Pee Kitty
Man...don't you Pro-Neo-Tech guys feel relieved and secure knowing that
THIS GUY is on your side against the evils of KOAH?
Lucky you.
--
Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian
Meow!
--> You can fight the Conspiracy of Normalcy and get back your Slack!
--> Send $1 to Church of the SubGenius / PO Box 140306 / Dallas TX 75214
--> Or visit alt.slack or FTP to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty for info
"Why spend $30 or even $40 dollars for a filthy porno movie when you can
jerk off all over the Church of the SubGenius for only $30 bucks!"
- (Pope) Rev. Godfather Gillan [edit]
Pee Kitty
J. Hampton (mar...@chinadirect.com) spewed forth:
> Mr. "King of all Heretics", grow up! Your posts read like a bratty
> child throwing a temper tantrum. I
> enough parental discipline...maybe
> then you'll receive a little respect.
I don't see you contributing anything worthwhile to this newsgroup. Only
attacks on KOAH and other blathering. Get out of the glass house before
you start throwing stones.
Anonymous
In article <320632...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
<mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> King of All Heretics - you're always so willing to sit back and dish
> out criticism to others - what have you done to contribute something
> positive to society?
Well, for one thing I'm exposing your sleazy scam.
> At least the Neo-Tech organization is putting out
> effort and attempting to make changes that they believe will make
> society better and more just.
Oh really?
So when will America be going Neo-Tech?
Funny how this Neo-Kook grand strategy involves selling lots of
overpriced books full of cultist jargon to as many gullible dupes as
possible.
What a brilliant plan to assure the triumph of liberty! Why didn't
Thomas Jefferson ever think of it?
> You exhibit the classic spoiled American disease - always
> whining and complaining and putting down everyone else who's exerting
> effort.
I'm putting YOU down.
You are not 'everyone else who's exerting effort.'
You are just a shill for a pathetic, lying mail order cult.
> By the way, where do you get so much time to constantly be
> flaming NT in this newsgroup day after day?
Wouldn't you like to know.
Pee Kitty
> out criticism to others -- what have you done to contribute something
> positive to society? At least the Neo-Tech organization is putting out
> effort and attempting to make changes that they believe will make
> society better and more just.
> whining and complaining and putting down everyone else who's exerting
> effort.
> unemployed, ex-postal worker? ...It figures. Why don't you get a life.
> More to the point, GET A JOB!
Giants versus Twerps
Who knows the fierce battle it takes to start from nothing except
an idea, and from that idea to build livelihoods, values, and
prosperity for entire populations?
Jay Gould knew, Henry Ford knew, Leona Helmsley knew, Michael
Milken knew along with too many other unsung giants -- each
attacked in a thousand ways by countless twerps, pips,
ex-beneficiaries, fired employees, professional value destroyers,
government bureaucrats, parasitical elites, ego
prosecutors/judges, and demagogic politicians.
Those entrepreneurs knew about fighting day and night, year after
year to build job-creating businesses that deliver competitive
values to society -- values that advance civilization. Such
business people tragically must consume irreplaceable chunks of
their precious lives in throwing off envious sloths and do-nothing
nonentities who constantly try to drain them and diminish the
values they produce for society.
Only those precious few entrepreneurs know the fierce struggle
required to competitively succeed where countless others fail.
Only they have the toughness to battle nonstop in solving and
overcoming the never ending flood of life-or-death survival
problems. They can never "go home" after work to entertainment or
diversions. They can never kick back in the evenings, on weekends,
or on vacations. They can never leave their work or
responsibilities. ...Such people do not collect paychecks from
others. They create the paychecks that others live on. Such is
their responsibility. They work to solve problems that do exist,
not to create problems that do not exist.
In a week or even a day, the entrepreneur business builder can
face and must solve more survival problems than most people face
in a lifetime. Any one of those countless problems can be taken
out of context by a malicious value destroyer ranging from a fired
ex-employee trying to financially shake down his ex-employer to a
nihilistic pip trying to pump up his shrunken self-worth.
What kind of people dishonestly, enviously, maliciously attack the
good? What kind of people feel, think, and act in such purposely
destructive ways? In Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and
Hitler's Germany, how many millions of value producers met their
deaths because of such envy-shriveled pips. In America, today,
countless pips stand ready to destroy heroic, competitive
value-and-job producers through jail or death as a police state of
armed bureaucrats arises -- a police state arising today from the
self-aggrandizing agendas of criminal-minded politicians and
dishonest journalists.
Many pips collect paychecks from tax-funded sources, from
tenured-academe positions, from statist-establishment positions,
or from companies they hate. Some pips have revealed themselves on
Usenet as Randian cultists promoting Objectivist dogma. Other pips
appeared on Usenet as ersatz Objectivists who often use quotes in
trying to associate themselves with quotes from various courageous
heroes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Yet, they
themselves lack the courage to honestly face reality to profitably
build competitive values for themselves, others, and society.
Instead, they expose their essence by attacking objective values
produced by others while making problems where none exist. Various
examples of such pips are provided in the forthcoming book
Flame-War Justice from Neo-Tech Worldwide.
In any case, such pips and nihilists have no understanding of what
it takes to start, build, and run competitive businesses that
ultimately provide the livelihoods and well beings for them and
everyone else on Earth. And, who else besides such value
destroyers has the time or inclination to pip -- to ego pump by
purposely dragging down success and values created by others?
Yet again.
Nicholas Rich
In article <4u6hpo$r...@news.one.net>, a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
<4tgv33$a...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4togp2$2...@basement.replay.com>
<mattkeysD...@netcom.com> <4u46de$i...@basement.replay.com>
<4u59j5$9...@news.one.net> <4u5mrr$8...@nntp1.best.com> wrote:
>In article <4u5mrr$8...@nntp1.best.com>,
> nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
>>>Lets say I had the greatest ideology in the world. I would not call it
>>>'Neo-Tech' and 'Zon' if I wanted people to take it seriously. However, if
>>>I was like L. Ron and wanted to start a religion/cult to scam a bunch of
>>>$$$ off of poor misguided people I might.
>>
>>If A is A, then how does the "greatest ideology in the world" become a
>>religious cult scam? Or, is that simply what you belive it to be?
>>
>
>I'm not discussing the validity of the philosophy, that's a whole other issue.
>I'm discussing *why* one would package a philosophy which one believed to be
>of such great value in a package that would cause it to get a chuckle from
>all who read it. Words like 'Zonpower' do not sound like the terminology of
>truth to me. They sound like something out of L. Ron Hubbard.
>
>In other words, I'm criticizing the method of presentation and asking why
>you used it.
Well, firstly, *I* didn't use it. The NTP folks are business people first,
philosophers second. As such, I imagine they test everything. And so it
would follow that the terminology has been tested and found more effective
than more descritive but dry terminology.
I dunno, I guess Ford could do a respectable business by calling their
product line: Car 1, 2 , 3, and so on. But probably, tests have revealed
that names like "Mustang," and "Taurus" do better in the marketplace.
J. Hampton
Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day long posting
Anonymous flames to newsgroups.
J. Hampton
Hey Pee, thanks for adding the "Giants versus Twerps" post to my post. This really
expresses the point I was trying to make. Couldn't of said it better myself! Thanks
Pee.
Meredith
Pki...@cris.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
>Man...don't you Pro-Neo-Tech guys feel relieved and secure knowing that
>THIS GUY is on your side against the evils of KOAH?
"your side"? so much for individualism?
KOAH do you know something everyone else here doesn't know about the
effectiveness of Neo-tech?
Meredith
a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
>In article <4u5mrr$8...@nntp1.best.com>,
> nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
>>>Lets say I had the greatest ideology in the world. I would not call it
>>>'Neo-Tech' and 'Zon' if I wanted people to take it seriously. However, if
>>>I was like L. Ron and wanted to start a religion/cult to scam a bunch of
>>>$$$ off of poor misguided people I might.
>>
>>If A is A, then how does the "greatest ideology in the world" become a
>>religious cult scam? Or, is that simply what you belive it to be?
>>
>
>I'm not discussing the validity of the philosophy, that's a whole other issue.
>I'm discussing *why* one would package a philosophy which one believed to be
>of such great value in a package that would cause it to get a chuckle from
>all who read it. Words like 'Zonpower' do not sound like the terminology of
>truth to me. They sound like something out of L. Ron Hubbard.
>
>In other words, I'm criticizing the method of presentation and asking why
>you used it.
>
why don't you ask how well they are progressing (if at all) at spreading
Neo-tech and Zonpower in the REAL world with some specific, explicit-neo-tech
examples. Why don't you ask them why, if the ideas are so powerful, why, if
they've been at this since the late 70's, why haven't these Objectivish ideas
caught on with the general public, the working class "value-producer"?
Then, see how long they take to think up an answer.
Me, I'm still waiting...
You might want to try calling them childish names and spouting off random
personal insults, since they'd rather respond to these than to those sincerely
seeking knowledge and trying EXTREMELY hard to take them serious!
bye,
Meredith
Pee Kitty
> unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day long posting
> Anonymous flames to newsgroups.
Giants versus Twerps
Usenet as KOAH-haters making inane personal attacks. Other pips
appeared on Usenet as ersatz Objectivists who often use quotes in
trying to associate themselves with quotes from various courageous
heroes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Yet, they
themselves lack the courage to honestly face reality to profitably
build competitive values for themselves, others, and society.
Instead, they expose their essence by attacking objective values
produced by others while making problems where none exist.
In any case, such pips and nihilists have no understanding of what
it takes to start, build, and run competitive businesses that
ultimately provide the livelihoods and well beings for them and
everyone else on Earth. And, who else besides such value
destroyers has the time or inclination to pip -- to ego pump by
purposely dragging down success and values created by others?
--
Pee Kitty
Meredith (mered...@hotmail.com) spewed forth:
> Pki...@cris.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
> >Man...don't you Pro-Neo-Tech guys feel relieved and secure knowing that
> >THIS GUY is on your side against the evils of KOAH?
> "your side"? so much for individualism?
Ah, take it with a grain of salt. Besides, you CAN break up the group into
those that are 'actively pro-NT' and those who aren't. Nick, Matt, and JF
post pro-NT stuff all the time, while KOAH, Sparkchaser, and those pro-tax
guys don't, just to name a few people. No slight against their
individualism there.
> KOAH do you know something everyone else here doesn't know about the
> effectiveness of Neo-tech?
You know what they say...anonymity implies wisdom...
Anonymous
> In article <4u6hpo$r...@news.one.net>, a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko)
> <4tgv33$a...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4togp2$2...@basement.replay.com>
> <mattkeysD...@netcom.com> <4u46de$i...@basement.replay.com>
> <4u59j5$9...@news.one.net> <4u5mrr$8...@nntp1.best.com> wrote:
> >In article <4u5mrr$8...@nntp1.best.com>,
> > nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
> >>>Lets say I had the greatest ideology in the world. I would not call it
> >>>'Neo-Tech' and 'Zon' if I wanted people to take it seriously. However,
> >>>if I was like L. Ron and wanted to start a religion/cult to scam a bunch
> >>>of $$$ off of poor misguided people I might.
> >>
> >>If A is A, then how does the "greatest ideology in the world" become a
> >>religious cult scam? Or, is that simply what you belive it to be?
> >
> >I'm not discussing the validity of the philosophy, that's a whole other
> >issue.
> >I'm discussing *why* one would package a philosophy which one believed to
> >be of such great value in a package that would cause it to get a chuckle
> >from all who read it. Words like 'Zonpower' do not sound like the
> >terminology of truth to me. They sound like something out of L. Ron
> >Hubbard.
> >In other words, I'm criticizing the method of presentation and asking why
> >you used it.
>
> Well, firstly, *I* didn't use it. The NTP folks are business people first,
> philosophers second. As such, I imagine they test everything. And so it
> would follow that the terminology has been tested and found more effective
> than more descritive but dry terminology.
I know that Wally tried calling one book 'Psychous Sex' and another book
'Neocheating' early on.
He seems to have an attachment to absurd neologisms.
The only decent title he ever came up with was 'The Advanced Concepts of
Poker.'
> I dunno, I guess Ford could do a respectable business by calling their
> product line: Car 1, 2 , 3, and so on. But probably, tests have revealed
> that names like "Mustang," and "Taurus" do better in the marketplace.
True, but 'ZonPower' doesn't convey the same imagery as 'Mustang.'
Calling your philosophy 'ZonPower' is like Ford calling their top of the
line car 'The GoofMobile.'
Anonymous
In article <4u8k90$m...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, Meredith
<mered...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Pki...@cris.com (Pee Kitty) wrote:
> >Man...don't you Pro-Neo-Tech guys feel relieved and secure knowing that
> >THIS GUY is on your side against the evils of KOAH?
>
> "your side"? so much for individualism?
>
> KOAH do you know something everyone else here doesn't know about the
> effectiveness of Neo-tech?
Yes:
alt.neo-tech Frequently Asked Questions
Alpha release .06
Copyright (c) 1996 by King of all Heretics
All Rights Reserved
May be reproduced freely so long as the full text is included.
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
PREFACE:
0.1. Introduction.
0.2. Who am I?
0.3. Why do I use an anonymous remailer?
0.4. Why are you so cheesed off at NT/ZP?
0.5. How can corrections/changes/suggestions be submitted for the FAQ?
0.6. Note about numbering of the questions between FAQ versions.
THE FAQ:
1. What is Neo-Tech/ZonPower (NT/ZP)?
2. Who is Dr. Frank R. Wallace?
3. Is he really a Dr.?
4. Why does he use a pen name?
5. Who are the real people behind Neo-Tech?
6. What is I & O Publishing Company?
7. What are the Neo-Tech publications?
8. How much does this stuff cost?
9. Did Wallace Ward (Frank R. Wallace) really spend time in jail?
10. What was he doing time for?
11. Is Wallace Ward crazy?
12. Is Neo-Tech/ZonPower a cult?
13. Did Frank R. Wallace really renege on a promised $10,000 bonus to BMXerToo?
14. Did Frank R. Wallace really advocate immoral tactics in 'The Advanced
Concepts of Poker'?
15. Did Frank R. Wallace really write a book on how to cheat at cards?
16. Does Neo-Tech really claim that faster than light communication is possible?
17. Does Neo-Tech really claim that the 'ether' exists?
18. Does Neo-Tech really promise unlimited power?
19. Does Neo-Tech really claim that consciousness controls existence?
20. Does Neo-Tech really claim that space aliens exist?
21. Does Neo-Tech really claim that the dead can be resurrected?
22. Was KOAH really 'created' or 'propagated' by 'Drew Ellis'?
23. Who are the defenders of Neo-Tech on usenet?
PREFACE:
0.1. Introduction:
This FAQ makes no pretense of 'objectivity.' This is the case against
Neo-Tech/Zonpower. The case for NT/ZP (such as it is) can be read on
their own web site at:
0.2. Who am I?
I'm King of all Heretics.
0.3. Why do I use an anonymous remailer?
I want my words to stand or fall on their merits, and I don't want my ISP
to get in trouble. :)
0.4. Why are you so cheesed off at NT/ZP?
They are spamming net pests who have shown not the slightest concern for
other net users. They crosspost what amount to commercial advertisements
for their pathetic self-help scam incessantly. They also seem to have
virtually no opposition, enabling them to rope in new dupes with not a
word of criticism.
Until now.
0.5. How can corrections/changes/suggestions be submitted for the FAQ?
Post your hate mail, comments and/or ringing endorsements to alt.neo-tech
with the words 'ATTN: KOAH' in the subject line and I will see them and
respond, and if warranted, incorporate changes in later versions of the
FAQ.
0.6. Note about numbering of the questions between FAQ versions:
I am going to renumber the questions as I insert new ones based on
organizing the FAQ into a coherent whole, rather than adopting contrived
schemes of numbering items '5.4' or '9.05' in order to cram them in while
preserving the existing numbering.
So question 11 in version .02 may not be the same as it is in version .04.
Note:
Quotations from usenet messages have been edited for length and
relevence. Complete original messages can be reposted on request.
Let the FAQ begin:
THE FAQ:
1. What is Neo-Tech/ZonPower (NT/ZP)?
If you ask a Neo-Tech follower they will tell you Neo-Tech is 'fully
integrated honesty.' But in reality, 'Neo-Tech' is the name given to an
entire body of self help literature created by or under the direction of
Dr. Frank R. Wallace.
Neo-Tech is a blend of New Age pollyanna promises, psuedo-science, and
Objectivism (!).
Throughout the FAQ I will use the term 'Neo-Tech' to generically refer to
the views promulgated by Neo-Tech Publishing, 'Frank R. Wallace' and his
various pen names and ghost writers.
2. Who is Dr. Frank R. Wallace?
Frank R. Wallace, founder of the Neo-Tech cult, is actually one Wallace
Ward. He also writes as Dr. Higgs Field and John Flint (JF).
3. Is he really a Dr.?
Yes. But despite what you might think by his choice of topics, he is not
a physicist or a medical doctor. He was once an inorganic chemist at
Dupont before he went into the far more lucrative field of gambling
manuals.
4. Why does he use a pen name?
Two explanations have been offered by those inside the organization:
"They hid behind pen names mostly to make the company appear larger than
it really is. The company is really really small. But man do they have
egos! Plus when you come right down to, they lied."
- From: bmxe...@aol.com (BMXerToo)
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
Subject: Re: Ex-Neo-Techer Speaks
Date: 22 Aug 1995 22:26:10 -0400
"RE: "Why do they hide behind pseudonyms, anyway?"
"I'm pretty sure it's so they can replace people without exposing the
turn-over. So, while there have been a multitude of customer service
mangers, there is only one Barbie Diamond, who the innocent customer might
think is an I&O lifer. And of course, the names contain memes; like there
are really beatuifull blondes covered in diamonds working at I&O!!!!!!!!!"
- From: mat...@pop01.ny.us.ibm.net
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
Subject: Re: Ex-Neo-Techer Speaks
Date: 23 Aug 1995 20:13:28 GMT
5. Who are the real people behind Neo-Tech?
Wallace Ward and his relatives.
Here's some information on them partially based on a message by
mat...@pop01.ny.us.ibm.net:
The Ward Family
* Wallace Ward - creator of Neo-Tech. Writes under the name of Frank R.
Wallace, Dr. Higgs Field, John Flint, and others. Estimated age: early
60s.
Posts to the net as thin...@netcom.com.
* Rosa Maria Meoño - Wallace Ward's wife. She claimed to be a witch.
Estimated age: 60.
May be posting to the net as jung...@aol.com and ros...@aol.com, though
her messages bear a striking resemblence to those written by her husband.
* Ruth Ward - daughter of Wallace Ward by Helen Savage. Estimated age: 40.
* Wallace H. Ward - son of Wallace Ward by Helen Savage. a.k.a. Mark
Hamilton. Formerly married to T.J. (Terry), who left him. Estimated Age:
35.
In a recent press release, he states that he is the actual owner of
Neo-Tech Publishing:
"My name is Wallace H. Ward, and I own Neo-Tech Publishing
Company. My father, Wallace Ward (a.k.a. Dr. Frank R. Wallace)
wrote the Neo-Tech Discovery and founded I & O Publishing
Company in 1968."
- From: nov...@neo-tech.com
Subject: Mark Hamilton endorses Harry Browne
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 20:27:47 -0700
Message-ID: <317465...@neo-tech.com>
Posts to the net as nov...@neo-tech.com.
* Frank S. Ward - son of Wallace Ward by Helen Savage. a.k.a. Eric
Savage. Estimated age: 31.
* Steve Rapella - adopted son of Wallace Ward. Romantic Love Partner of
Ruth Ward (last I heard). a.k.a. John Alberts. Estimated Age: 40.
6. What is I & O Publishing Company?
Wallace Ward's original publishing business. I & O stands for
'Individualism and Objectivism.' Originally set up to sell Ward's first
book 'Poker, A Guaranteed Income for Life by Using the Advanced Concepts
of Poker', it was shut down in 1991 when Neo-Tech Publishing was formed to
continue the work of selling Neo-Tech to the world.
7. What are the Neo-Tech publications?
The following books are listed in the 'official' bibliography on the web
site. Other than the mysterious 'Poker Odds' book by Frank Wallace it was
complete when it was created, at least so far as I've been able to
determine.
They put it up as a GIF of a chart which is poorly scanned and laid out.
I have added a few items that weren't on the chart which have been
announced since I transcribed it.
Note that there have been many editions of some of the books listed
incorporating many revisions, some quite substantive, so your copy of 'The
Neo-Tech Discovery' may not be the same as someone else's brand new copy.
I have tried to preserve the order of the chart, as well as including the
full names and psuedonyms of the authors:
* The Advanced concepts of Poker
Frank R. Wallace - 1968 - (out of print)
* Man's Choice/Eric Flame
Frank R. Wallace - 1970/1972
* Neo-Tech Reference Encyclopedia
Frank R. Wallace - 1976
* Neocheating
Frank R. Wallace, Mark Hamilton and W. Swann - 1979
* The Neo-Tech Discovery
Frank R. Wallace - 1981/1986/1994
* The Neo-Tech Protection Kit
Frank R. Wallace et al - 1988/1994
* Zonpower Discovery
Higgs Field, Editor - 1992 (out of print)
* Neo-Tech Cosmic Business Control
Mark Hamilton - 1989
* Cassandra's Secret
Higgs Field, Editor - 1993
(as Neo-Tech proudly proclaims 'Written in Prison')
* Neo-Tech Global Business Control
Eric Savage - 1992
* Zon 2000
The Golden Helmet
Higgs Field, Editor - 1995 - on web site
* Will America Go Neo-Tech
Mark Hamilton - 11/3/95
* ZonPower
Higgs Field, Editor - 1995 - on web site
('The Full Matrix' says the chart - whatever that means)
* Get Rich by 2001
Mark Hamilton - 1996 - on web site
Forthcoming:
* The Zon Protocols - 1996
(will be published in 'Cyberspace' - that is, to the Neo-Tech web page)
* Flame-War Justice - 1997
I have also seen a book entitled "Poker Odds" by Frank Wallace mentioned
in rec.gambling.poker:
"Does anyone know of a reference that contains the probabilities for a wide
variety of situations for draw, stud, and holdem? So far the best I have
been able to find is "Poker Odds" by Frank Wallace."
- Subject: Probabilities in draw, stud, and holdem
From: hein hundal <hun...@math.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Date: 1995/08/29
MessageID: 42096e$11...@hearst.cac.psu.edu
8. How much does this stuff cost?
Here the one price list I have. More information on other products is
always welcome.
_NeoTech_Product_ _code_ _US$Price_
Cosmic Power (Pincer One) P1M US$65.00
Cosmic Business Control X0M US$99.95
(Pincer Two)
A Future of Wealth Belongs 43M US$29.95
to You!
Neo-Tech Job Power 60M US$99.95
Rapid Power and Wealth B0M US$39.95
Kick-Start Report 44M US$29.95
The Ultimate Battle Tapes Q0M US$99.95
Consultation Packages G1M US$99.95
How to Start a Global 46M US$29.95
Business
Hot Tips 42M US$49.95
Anatomy of Love CD 5CM US$19.95
Anatomy of Love Cassette 5TM US$19.95
Happiness Forever 90M US$24.95
Neo-Tech Reference D0M US$59.95
Encyclopedia
Neo-Tech Treatment 70M US$30.00
for Alcoholism
Neo-Tech Pleasures Y0M US$17.50
The Complete Neo-Tech 07M US$95.00
Library
Recently Tony Guzman provided this update to the above list:
>_NeoTech_Product_ _code_ _US$Price_
>
>Cosmic Power (Pincer One) P1M US$65.00
**most recent price I've received:.......US$89.95
(out of print)
(snip)
>A Future of Wealth Belongs 43M US$29.95
> to You!
**most recent price I've received:.......US$20.00
(out of print)
>Neo-Tech Job Power 60M US$99.95
**(out of print)
>Rapid Power and Wealth B0M US$39.95
**(out of print)
>Kick-Start Report 44M US$29.95
**most recent price I've received:.......US$20.00
(out of print)
>The Ultimate Battle Tapes Q0M US$99.95
**(out of print)
(snip)
>Hot Tips 42M US$49.95
**(out of print)
(snip)
>Neo-Tech Treatment 70M US$30.00
> for Alcoholism
**most recent price I've received:.......US$19.95
>Neo-Tech Pleasures Y0M US$17.50
**most recent price I've received:.......US$19.95
(snip)
These prices are supposedly for NT Discovery
owners. Non-NT owners are charged a higher
price. (snip)
- From: guz...@ix.netcom.com(TonyGuzman)
Newsgroups: alt.support.ex-cult,alt.neo-tech
Subject: Re: Where's the products!!
Date: 28 Jun 1996 14:56:18 GMT
Message-ID: <4r0rqi$j...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
9. Did Wallace Ward (Frank R. Wallace) really spend time in jail?
Yes.
10. What was he doing time for?
The story began in 1986. According to an ex-employee of I&O publishing:
"I took me a while after going to work for I&O before I got to the REAL
explanation of the 1986 raid on I&O.
"Wallace Ward/Zon's girlfriend got mad at him and ratted him out. She
called up the IRS and and told them that Zon wasn't paying his taxes, and
had a bunch of cash and gold stashed away in his home. The IRS showed up
in their usual friendly style, and scarfed up the assets. And I believe
that the girlfriend got a cut, since the IRS rewards informers. Since
then, the incident has become 'fully integrated.'
"Years later, Ward put up a series of billboards (typeset by BMXerToo)
across the street from the Federal Building in Las Vegas. The IRS got
pissed off, and hauled him in. Needless to say, the IRS would respond in
exactly the same way for anyone who pulled such stunts."
- From: mat...@pop01.ny.us.ibm.net
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
Subject: 1986 Raid on I&O Publishing Co.
Date: 23 Aug 1995 00:50:49 GMT
Organization: Internet Providers of Florida
11. Is Wallace Ward crazy?
Never met him myself. But here's something to ponder:
In article <3nn44d$2...@mirage.skypoint.com>,
Earl Baker <dun...@skypoint.com> wrote:
"I know one of Wallace's nieces; she said he lives in Las Vegas. They
refer to him as "Wally" and she said he believes in 'romantic love'.
Also he worked as a chemist at Dupont for many years. The
family considers him crazy but generally harmless; and so do I."
12. Is Neo-Tech/ZonPower a cult?
Here are some testimonials by those who used to work for the Neo-Tech
organization, I&O publishing:
"But, upon gaining employment with these folks, I came to realize that
nepotism rules. If you are not a family member your chances of making the
big bucks they claim to offer is remote if not impossible. Long hours and
meager salaries are the norm for non-family members. Working for these
people was interesting and even fun for a while. The whole idea of "saving
the world" is an appealing one. And to think that _you_ are a part of it
is even more seductive. But unfortunately after a while the constant
brow-beatings, the promises made but never kept, and the rampant nepotism
begins to make the whole experience akin to a strained bowel movement. The
whole organization would better serve the public at large if they weren't
so blatantly condescending. They strut around acting as if they have been
given secret information from advanced alien beings. It really is a bore."
- From: bmxe...@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
Subject: Ex-Neo-Techer Speaks
Date: 17 Aug 1995 19:33:58 -0400
"The event that finally revealed to me the actual nature of these people
was when they didn't keep their word. A $10,000 bonus was offered to all
"core member" if certain business goals were met. When the principal of
the company declared the goal achieved the bonuses were disbursed to all
"core members" excluding myself. It was deemed I was too immature. That
pretty much told me exactly what these folks think about their employees.
They even had the nerve to ask one employee to return his bonus after they
had given it him!
"Unless you have been employed by these happy people, you can never fully
understand the outrageous hipocrisy that pervades everything they do.
Mistakes made by the principals of the company were simply laughed off.
Mistakes made by employees were dealt with in the most severe manner. Many
times I was fined a significant amount of money for misspellingg a word."
- From: bmxe...@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
Subject: Re: Ex-Neo-Techer Speaks
Date: 17 Aug 1995 23:00:29 -0400
"I began questioning my involvement in the company directly following the
infamous monthly meeting where a bust of Christ was smashed to pieces with
a sledge hammer by JF. The statue rested on the table surrounded by live
microphones. I was recording the meeting and wore headphones, not knowing
what was about to occur. Hours later, after regaining my hearing I was
accused of doing speedballs and other drugs. I was temporarily fired and
then re-hired a week later. (Matt referred earlier to this incident as the
Great I&O Purge of 1988.) After this incident, the common question running
throughout the company (outside the family) was "Is this a cult?""
-'Rocket Rod', posted to the net by
From: bmxe...@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
Subject: Re: Ex-Neo-Techer Speaks
Date: 25 Aug 1995 20:45:35 -0400
13. Did Frank R. Wallace really renege on a promised $10,000 bonus to
'BMXerToo'?
Here's BMXerToo's side of the story in his own words:
"Let's look at the facts:
1) Zon sets a goal
2) Zon attaches to that goal a $10,000 bonus 3) Zon declares the goal has
been achieved 4) Zon welches on the bonus
"Now if we examine item 3. Even if the goal was not met, Zon must declare
it so because otherwise Zon would be seen an less than the god-like
business
titan he claims to be. To boost his ego and his image as an authority
figure in the cult, Zon must declare that the goal has been achieved.
"Now, because he is basically a cheating liar, he must figure out a way to
keep from giving that bonus to his followers. Since there is no logical
grounds on which Zon can rest, he whips up the foolish rationalization
that I am immature. As if my level of maturity was suddenly a part of the
agreement. I cannot recall at any time Zon placing the stipulation that
only mature cult members will receive the bonus.
"Now let's look at the Zon-based facts:
1) Zon sets a goal
2) Zon attaches to that goal a $10,000 bonus {Shhh. Those who are not
mature will not receive the bonus}
3) Zon declares the goal has been achieved 4) Zon weleches on the bonus
5) Zon gets to keep the cult member money!
"Now, to be fair, I think Zon said that when the cult member displayed a
marked improvement in his level of maturity the bonus would be released.
This still does not negate the fact that Zon reneged on the original
agreement and then modified that agreement after the goal had been
achieved.
"You be the judge. Is Zon a liar and a welch?"
- From: bmxe...@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
Subject: Re: Ex-Neo-Techer Speaks
Date: 23 Aug 1995 02:36:30 -0400
14. Did Frank R. Wallace advocate immoral tactics in 'The Advanced
Concepts of Poker'?
Yes. Among the tactics he recommends are covert hypnosis, decieving the
wives of players, and limitless dishonesty while playing, though actual
cheating is not recommended. The entire book is a primer on how 'John
Finn' the 'good player' pretends to be friends with the 'fish' (losing
players) while taking them for everything they've got by decieving,
manipulating and abusing them. The climactic scene has one of the losers
blowing the entire second mortgage on his business during a marathon
overnight game. Even after his life is ruined he thinks that 'John Finn'
was really his friend.
For example:
"3. Practicing Deceit (43)
"Only in a poker game can a man lie and practice any form of deceit,
except cheating, and still remain a gentleman. The good palyer makes
extensive use of his right to deceive. He conceals facts and lies about
anything that offers him an advantage."
- 'The Advanced Concepts of Poker' page 72
Would you buy a used philosophy from that man?
15. Did Frank R. Wallace really write a book on how to cheat at cards?
I haven't seen it, but one poker player had this to say about Wallace's
early book 'Neocheating':
Ed Oliveri <e...@cbnews.cb.att.com> wrote:
>Yes, I remember this book well. It opened my eyes twenty years ago
>when it showed me that not all of the players in the local "friendly
>poker game" were so friendly after all.
>
>The author's pseudonym was Frank Wallace--I never found out who the
>author really was, or if they wrote anything else on poker.
>Anybody know?
>
An interesting book: His playing techniques were somewhere between
aggressive and sociopathic. He wrote at least one other book, called
_Neocheating_, about card-mechanic tricks he claimed were undetectable.
Phil
- From: ph...@panix.com (Phil Gustafson)
Subject: Re: "Poker--A Guaranteed Income for Life"
Date: 1995/06/20
MessageID: 3s7r5r$q...@panix2.panix.com
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
I have seen reports that 'Neocheating' contained illustrated step-by-step
instructions on how to perform card manipulations useful in cheating.
Anyone who has this book and would be willing to scan in the relevent
pages (for fair use purposes of course) please let me know.
16. Does Neo-Tech really claim that faster than light communication is possible?
Yep. They will squirm and waffle, but it's right there in black and white
in their online book, chapter one:
"Conscious beings harnessing the Super-Inflation nature of Gravity
Units (SIGUs) can produce near instant, gravity-pulse
communication not only across an entire universe but possibly
between universes -- all without violating physical laws,
including the speed of light. How? By gravity pulses transmitted
through big-bang-type inflations radiating from exploded Gravity
Units."
Hoofah!
17. Does Neo-Tech really claim that the 'ether' exists?
Yep. The Luminiferous ether is back and ZonPower's got it!
From chapter four of their online book:
"Existence cannot not exist. Moreover, no vacuum void of existence is
possible. "Vacuums" of the matter field can exist as in outer space, in
vacuumed-pumped containers, and in areas between electrons. But, all
those volumes are filled with the unmovable, frictionless ether or
existence field -- a uniform, continuous field of existence."
Welcome to the 19th century!
18. Does Neo-Tech really promise unlimited power?
Yep.
One of the cover pages promises the following:
Zonpower
lets you become
GOD
even without a computer
Don't believe it really says this? Check it out:
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/book/cover3.html
And then there's this gem:
Z O N P O W E R
from
Cyberspace
Higgs Field, Ph.D.
Editor
guarantees
Riches
Romantic Love
and a god-like
Mind and Body
In fact ZonPower is chock full of such promises. Just check out their
online book for endless examples of such idiocy:
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/
19. Does Neo-Tech really claim that consciousness controls existence?
Yep. From Chapter four of the online book:
"Conscious Control of Existence
"The above example of an energy-releasing star can be "deterministically"
calculated from the "immutable" cause-and-effect of existence without
conscious influences. But, the above example of an energy-releasing
television transmitter is the volitional dynamics of existence being
integrated, controlled, and forever altered by freewill human
consciousness. Thus, as revealed by Neo-Tech physics, all existence is
ultimately controlled and evolved through volitional human
consciousness.
"Unknown to the busily self-serving Establishment, the nature of
existence and its dynamics of matter and energy are today being
increasingly understood and methodically verified. That verification
process will lead to the corollary verification that human consciousness
is the eternal integrator and controller of existence. ...Human
consciousness ultimately controls the relationships and geometries of
the other existence modes -- matter and energy along with space and
time. The human-consciousness mode is the purposeful, unmoved mover of
existence."
20. Does Neo-Tech really claim that space aliens exist?
Yep.
Chapter 5: Part 1, paragraph 3
"Probability statistics overwhelmingly reveal that our universe
contains at least a hundred million, and probably billions of
Earth-like planets populated with conscious beings like you and
me."
Chapter 5: Part 4, paragraph 5
"Given the endless number of water/oxygen abundant, Earth-like
planets forever spinning in endlessly evolving existence, one
realizes life and consciousness have forever co-existed in
limitless abundance."
(Thanks to raba...@isdn33.eng.uc.edu for pointing out these passages)
21. Does Neo-Tech really claim that the dead can be resurrected?
Yep.
As is the case in many religious cults, there's salvation awaiting the
just and oblivion for the sinners.
From Chapter 31 of the online book:
"Ultimate Justice
"Justice is an immutable law of nature. As demonstrated by Cassandra's
Secret, justice is always fulfilled throughout existence. As a result,
the eventual destination or just reward for every actual and potential
value producer -- of every honest conscious being -- is eternal
prosperity and happiness in the Civilization of the Universe.
That just destination is the inevitable consequence of nature. From that
nature comes (1) immutable justice that characterizes the Civilization
of the Universe, (2) the supremely leveraged, limitless value of each
conscious being when placed in a rational civilization, (3) the dynamics
of eternally expanding prosperity, which demand the full use of every
available conscious being, and, as explained later in this chapter, (4)
the technology needed to transceive[ 72 ] every volitionally developed
human consciousness through the omnipresent existence field and into the
Civilization of the Universe.
"Humanoid criminals or parasitical neocheaters who have lived by harming
others or society through force, fraud, and illusions also meet ultimate
justice: They become humanoids because they destroy the human nature of
their own consciousnesses. Therefore, they destroy the conscious
structure needed to transceive through the Gravity-Unit existence field
and into the Civilization of the Universe. Moreover, having lived as
enormous net negatives to society, humanoids such as politicians with
their armed bureaucratic agents of force and ego-"justice" systems are
in reality nothing -- they are worthless to the Civilization of the
Universe. Thus, they simply vanish from existence, forever forgotten."
The following note from the same chapter elaborates on the above:
"[ 72 ]Transceived not in the mystical Plato sense of a detached soul.
For, the soul and physical body are one in the same and function as a
unit. But, transceived (within a profit-mode, business dynamic) in the
Gravity-Unit form that captures conscious "I"ness immortality as
described in The Neo-Tech Discovery, all in accord with the laws of
physics."
Ye must be born again!
UPDATE:
In the wake of my constant posting of this section of their book, which
drew considerable skepticism from many usenet denizens, the web book has
been updated.
Neo-Tech Publishing has revised their online book to add the following
disclaimer:
"Footnotes for Chapter 31
"[ 70a ] Profit-driven immortality is a highly speculative hypothesis arising
from a priori logic. Logically, no contradictions exist in that hypothesis.
But, today, the value of such a hypothesis is metaphorical -- an
illustration of justice that reality ultimately asserts."
Sorry Zonnies, but as of 5/23/96 you're not gonna live forever after all -
it's just another one of those 'highly speculative hypotheses' that
Wallace Ward loves to cook up. Which doctrine will be revised next? Only
Wally knows for sure.
22. Was KOAH really 'created' or 'propagated' by 'Drew Ellis'?
Recently Neo-Tech publishing, after weeks of huffing and puffing, finally
'revealed the identity' of 'King of all Heretics', claiming that KOAH was
really just a gigantic troll, a persona created to bait various NT enemies
into demonstrating their committment to the eeeevil anticivilization:
"KOAH was created and propagated by Neo-Tech contributor and Usenet editor,
Drew "Kaiser" Ellis! ...No one at NTP suspected such a brazen double
bluff. Great poker play -- a stunning metaphor. He'll rake in a huge pot
from his resulting "Flame War" book due in 1997. Congratulations."
- From: nt...@aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: KOAH Identified -- The Final Ploy
Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 01:31:06
Message-ID: <4n9gca$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
This is rather amusing since NT had been claiming for months that KOAH
must be a criminal psychotic. If they actually believe this - that is, if
Drew is taking credit for KOAH and they believe him - perhaps they should
reconsider his qualifications to be a representative of NT. After all,
he's fraternizing with neocheaters rather than doing what any decent NTer
would do - vanish them with a pip template!
The Neo-Tech spin doctors are working overtime and we can expect plenty of
revisions to the FAQ as they get their stories straight regarding the
'KOAH is a Neo-Tech puppet' charade.
But the short answer to the question 'Was I created or propagated by Drew
Ellis?' is no.
23. Who are the defenders of Neo-Tech on usenet?
matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) The King of all Neo-Posters has to be Matt
Keys. Matty not only posts neo-templates and the '114
Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantages', he also sends every post to the neo-talk
mailing list to alt.neo-tech, and until he was flamed thoroughly, he used
to post the same crap to alt.philosophy.objectivism.
He once had a giant crosspost of the 'IRS Class Action' template cancelled.
On any given day he can be found posting NT/ZP templates in any newsgroup
he can devise a pretext to post into.
In return for his devotion to NTP he gets free copies of all Neo-Tech
publications.
nr...@ssn.com (Nicholas Rich) The most articulate of the Neo-Tech
defenders, Nick has devoted countless hours defending NT on the net,
moderating mailing lists, registering domain names, and flaming the pips
and neocheaters who dare attack NT as it works to 'take over cyberspace.'
He denies any financial connection to Neo-Tech Publishing, but he has met
Wallace Ward, and he has an arrangement where he can have free copies of
any NTP publication sent to anyone he wishes.
Barring any revelations of a financial link to NTP, Wallace Ward, or any
of Wally's relatives, he seems to be a true zealot driven by pure devotion
to the 'truth' of NT/ZP.
More to come.
J. Hampton
Thanks Pee, the "Giants versus Twerps" nicely demonstrates my point.
Albert Carrasco
Ii kuni tsukuro. Free minds and free markets.
http://www.neo-tech.com/zonpower
Chapter 9
BIRTH OF PARASITICAL ELITES
in
AMERICA
James J. Hill was a 19th-Century super value producer who pushed
into a worldwide business dynamic. Just as Hill achieved great
success in the American railroad industry and began spearheading
an international expansion, he was snuffed out by a newly
burgeoning parasitical-elite class in America. The story of James
J. Hill is documented in the book "Entrepreneurs Versus The State"
by Burton W. Folsom, Jr.
Political Entrepreneurs Versus Market Entrepreneurs
In that book, Folsom identifies how throughout history there have
been two distinct types of entrepreneurs: political entrepreneurs
and market entrepreneurs. Political entrepreneurs seek profits by
working with the government to get subsidies, grants, and special
privileges. They seek success through political pull. In contrast,
market entrepreneurs seek success by producing increasingly
improved values, products, and services at increasingly lower
costs.
The Transcontinental Railroads
The building of America's transcontinental railroads provided a
dramatic example of political entrepreneurs versus market
entrepreneurs. In the 1860s, railroads began expanding rapidly
throughout America. Thus, political entrepreneurs seeking easy
dollars teamed up with Congressmen seeking unearned power and
glory. Those political entrepreneurs lobbied Congressmen for the
federal government to subsidize the building of America's first
transcontinental railroad.
That situation presented a perfect combination for the
parasitical-elite class: White-collar-hoax political entrepreneurs
could line their pockets with lavish government subsidies, and the
Congressmen handing out those subsidies could garner self-glory
and justify their jobs by proclaiming how beneficial they were to
the American people by financing America's first transcontinental
railroad. Thus, a deception was woven by that parasitical-elite
class through claiming only the government could finance an
undertaking as large and expensive as building a transcontinental
railroad. That same deception is still promoted in history books
to this day.
With great fanfare, enormous subsidies were granted to the Union
Pacific and the California Pacific. The California Pacific started
building track from the west coast, the Union Pacific from the
east coast. Those companies were paid by the government according
to how many miles of track each laid. Consequently, both companies
built along the longest, most out-of-the-way routes they could
justify. That way, each company collected the maximum dollars from
the government.
Spending public money they controlled but did not earn, the
Congressmen were quick to claim credit for building America's
first transcontinental railroad. But, unlike market-entrepreneur
businessmen spending their own money, those Congressmen were not
about to exert the nitty-gritty effort required to insure good
value was received for each dollar spent. Thus, the building of
that government-financed transcontinental railroad turned into an
orgy of fraud.
As a result, after that first transcontinental railroad was built,
subsequently called the Union Pacific, it had enormously high
operating costs. Because extra-long routes had been purposely
built, because time and research had not been taken to locate
routes across the lowest- grade hills, each train took more time
and fuel to complete its journey. More wages had to be paid; more
equipment was tied up. In addition, because the railroad track had
been laid so hastily, thousands of miles of shoddy track had to be
pulled up and laid again before the first train could even travel
over it. Thus, from the start, the Union Pacific could not make a
profit. As a result, the federal government had to continue doling
out taxpayer dollars just to enable the Union Pacific to operate
after the line had been completed.
Soon other political entrepreneurs ganged up with local
politicians to demand federally subsidized transcontinental
railroads be built in their areas of the country. Thus, the
federal government financed a transcontinental railroad in the
North, the Northern Pacific, and a transcontinental railroad in
the South, the Santa Fe. The building of those two additional
government-financed railroads followed the same course as the
building of the Union Pacific. The lines were poorly constructed.
The builders focussed on obtaining maximum government subsidies,
not on achieving economy and quality. Thus, after the Northern
Pacific and Santa Fe transcontinentals were completed, they too
had unnecessarily high operating costs. Both lost money from the
start, and both had to continue receiving government subsidies
just to operate.
A Deception Is Woven
A parasitical-elite class consisting of political entrepreneurs,
job-justifying politicians, and government-salaried university
professors propagandize to this very day that only the federal
government could have financed the building of America's first
transcontinental railroads. The story of James J. Hill is ignored.
James J. Hill was a market entrepreneur, not a political
entrepreneur. He was an integrated thinker and a forward-essence
mover. Hill was born in a log cabin to a working class family in
Ontario, Canada. He got a job with a local railroad when he was a
teenager. He loved railroads and integrated his life with them.
Hill moved up quickly. Soon he became involved in the building of
local railroads. Then, in 1880, Hill decided to build a
transcontinental railroad privately, without any government
subsidies. He would call his line the Great Northern.
Hill's plan to build a transcontinental railroad at the very
northern border of America was labelled "Hill's folly." Why? First
of all, Hill was building a railroad way up north in unsettled
wilderness. From where would his business come? Secondly, Hill
would have to compete with three transcontinental railroads to the
south: the Northern Pacific, the Union Pacific, and the Santa Fe.
How could a private railroad be built without government help and
then compete with three other railroads that had their expenses
paid by the government?
James J. Hill was forced to meet the disciplines of a bottom line.
He had to stay within profitable red-to-black business dynamics.
Thus, instead of "rushing to collect government subsidies", he
built his railroad one extension at a time, westward into the
northern wilderness. Hill would build an extension westward a few
hundred miles, then move in farmers from the East, free of charge,
in order to settle the land along his railroad. Those farmers
would then start using Hill's railroad to ship their crops back
East to market. Because Hill received no government money, each
extension constructed westward would have to profit before another
westward extension could be built. In ten years, Hill completed
his transcontinental railroad, the Great Northern, without
receiving one cent of government money.
His railroad had to earn a profit at each stage of expansion.
Thus, Hill had to build each extension with detailed planning to
achieve maximum efficiency at minimum operating costs. Hill
personally mapped out and built along the shortest, most direct
routes. He also carefully surveyed land to find routes containing
the lowest grades of hills over which to build. And, with Hill
spending hard-earned private money, he insisted on the highest
quality workmanship and materials.
It is easy to see why people initially labelled Hill's undertaking
as folly. The three government-financed transcontinental railroads
south of Hill's Great Northern were in the heart of the country
and none of them could earn a profit. But, what actually happened
once Hill's Great Northern reached the Pacific? The opposite! All
three government-financed transcontinentals went bankrupt and
required ever more government bail-out money -- taxpayer money --
to continue running. In stark contrast, Hill's railroad flourished
from the very start. The Great Northern produced a profit, even
during recession years. Why? Because the three government-financed
transcontinental railroads had such high operating costs, poor
quality workmanship, and corrupt management that they were the
ones who could not compete with Hill's Great Northern line. It was
not the other way around, as had been predicted.
A Spiral of Inefficiencies
Because the federal government continued subsidizing the
money-losing, government-financed transcontinentals, each of those
railroads had to obtain government approval to build any new
extension. On the other hand, once the Great Northern was running,
Hill built up business with extensions called feeder lines. For
example, if coal was discovered a hundred miles to the north of
Hill's line, he built a feeder line to service that mine. If good
trees were available for lumber on a nearby mountain, Hill would
build a feeder line to that mountain so that a lumber company
could move in and use his railroad to ship its lumber to market.
If a suitable valley for cattle ranching existed a few miles to
the south, Hill would build a feeder line to service that valley.
Railroads discovered that feeder lines were crucial to their
profitability. But whenever one of the government-subsidized
railroads wanted to build a feeder line, it had to get approval
from Congress since it was providing the financing.
Well, everyone knows what happens when politicians become
involved. A simple business decision would get hung up for months,
even years, before receiving approval. Thus, the
government-subsidized railroads could not operate effectively.
They could not compete with Hill's Great Northern railroad. What
had initially been labelled "Hill's folly" by the establishment
ran circles around the government-subsidized, poorly managed
railroads.
Fraud Is Inherent in the Parasitical-Elite Class
Over time, the corruption that laced the government-financed
transcontinental railroads began unraveling. Unlike James J.
Hill's privately-financed transcontinental railroad, the
managements of the government-financed transcontinental railroads
were not operating by the disciplines of a bottom line. Thus,
those white-collar-hoax political entrepreneurs did not exert the
discipline required to closely supervise the construction of their
railroads for quality and efficiency. The survival of those
political entrepreneurs did not depend upon efficient management.
Their survival, instead, depended upon exerting political pull.
Consequently, the government-financed railroads were left wide
open to fraud. Managers often formed their own supply companies
selling substandard materials to their own railroads at inflated
prices. Payoffs and sellouts were rampant.
Over time, the fraudulent practices of the government-subsidized
transcontinental railroads increasingly surfaced. The public
became fed up with that corruption. Thus, glory-seeking
politicians in Washington once again rushed in to grab attention
and "serve the public". A new deception was woven. Congressmen now
claimed they were the defenders of the American people and would
expose the corruption in the transcontinental railroads.
Glory-seeking Congressmen began conducting investigations into the
nation's railroad business. Yet, in reality, those glory-seeking
politicians were the root cause of that corruption.
As the fraud continued between political entrepreneurs and
job-justifying politicians, consider what James J. Hill, the
market entrepreneur, was accomplishing. After completing his
profitable transcontinental railroad, Hill promoted the building
of entire new industries in the Northwest, such as lumber
companies in Oregon, apple farms in Washington, mining industries
in Montana, cattle ranches in the plains. Hill helped businesses
move to the Northwest and gave them special rates to ship their
products back East until those businesses became established. This
practice quickly built up business along Hill's railroad line.
Next, Hill began thinking about business beyond America. He began
exploring opportunities in the Orient. Hill calculated that if a
single major Chinese province substituted just one ounce of
American wheat for rice in their daily diets, he could ship
50,000,000 bushels of wheat to China from America. ...Hill, using
wide-scope integrated thinking, began moving beyond the boundaries
of a restricted, single-nation mode. He began moving into a
worldwide mode.
James J. Hill decided that he was going to promote American trade
in Asia, just as he had promoted trade in the Northwest. So, he
bought cargo ships and formed his own steamship company to ship
American goods to China and Japan. He then sent agents abroad to
promote American goods to Asians.
While the white-collar-hoax political entrepreneurs were still
trying to figure out how to get more subsidies from the federal
government, Hill was turning his attention to world business.
James J. Hill was figuring out how to deliver increasing values to
the world. He realized that the key to tapping the vast markets of
Asia was to build trade by offering to ship American products on
his railroad and steamships for free until trade could become
established. So, Hill began racing his steamships back and forth
between Japan, China, and America.
Hill was a heroic forward-essence mover. He exported to Asia wheat
from Midwest farmers and cotton from Southern farmers. He offered
a group of Japanese industrialists low-cost American cotton if
they would test the American cotton in place of the cotton that
they traditionally imported from India. If the Japanese did not
like the American cotton, Hill offered to let them keep it free of
charge. This worked. Soon Hill's boxcars were filled with cotton
bales heading to Japan. Utilizing this same technique, Hill got
both the Japanese and the Chinese to start buying American
textiles from New England.
James J. Hill Was Spearheading
An American Dominance of Asian Trade
In 1896, American exports to Japan totalled 7.7 million dollars a
year. Nine years later, James J. Hill had pushed that figure to
51.7 million dollars a year. He was spearheading an American
dominance of Asian trade. And this was occurring nearly a hundred
years ago! James J. Hill worked diligently to promote American
exports to Asia. For example, starting around 1900, Japan began a
railroad building boom. England and Belgium were the traditional
suppliers of rail. American rail-makers were still fledgling in
the Pittsburgh area. But Hill recognized the importance of the
Asian market for steel and rails. So, he personally underbid the
Europeans to capture Japanese orders for American rail-makers.
Hill diligently promoted American goods in Asia, ranging from
lumber from the Northwest to wheat from the Midwest, to copper
from Montana, to apples from Washington, to steel from Pittsburgh,
to cotton from the South, to textiles from New England. While the
white-collar-hoax political entrepreneurs of the
government-subsidized railroads were being closed in upon, Hill
was booming American business while blossoming his railroad into
an international dynamo.
So what happened next? Attention-seeking politicians began
parading the corrupt political entrepreneurs infesting
government-subsidized railroads before the public through Senate
investigation hearings. Yet, it was Congress that created that
corruption in the first place by self-righteously giving away
public money it controlled but did not earn. Instead of
identifying that Congress was the root cause of the problem,
Congress began clamoring for strict regulation of the railroad
industry. Congress then devised a strong-arm approach, proclaiming
it was protecting the American public from greedy, corrupt
railroad executives.
Congress proposed creating the Interstate Commerce Commission to
regulate and control the railroads and the Sherman Antitrust Act
designed to threaten and punish the railroad industry. Well, James
J. Hill realized what was occurring. He travelled to Washington to
testify before Congress. Hill meticulously explained what had
happened with the government-subsidized railroads versus his
privately-financed railroad and how the solution was for
government to get out of the railroad business altogether.
But Hill was ignored. Those politicians and bureaucrats could not
increase their power nor garner self-glory if they admitted that
the root of the problem was caused by Congress getting into the
railroad business in the first place -- a place in which
government never belonged.
Conscious Destruction
Congress ignored James J. Hill and went ahead to create the
Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and pass the Sherman
Antitrust laws that heavily regulated and punished the railroad
industry. The ICC and antitrust laws forbid giving any special
deals to customers. Thus, the techniques Hill had used to build up
trade in the Northwest and was now using to build American trade
to Asia became "illegal" -- illegal not through objective law but
through force-backed, political-agenda "law". As a direct result
of that legislation, James J. Hill ended his expansion into the
Asian markets. One year after Congress created the Interstate
Commerce Commission and passed the Sherman Antitrust laws, Hill
sold his steamship line. His farsighted, wide-scope methods were
stopped by corrupt government regulations.
America's trade to Japan and China dropped forty percent within
two years. ...Remember, before that point, America's trade with
Asia had been increasing geometrically. Two years after that
legislation was passed by Congress, America's trade with Asia
dropped almost in half.
What happened in Congress was not a case of ignorance. James J.
Hill actually set up residence in Washington to intensively lobby
Congress and its investigative committees. Hill made sure those
Congressmen knew what had really happened in the railroad industry
and why. He even wrote a book about the situation and published
the book himself. Still, Hill's arguments were ignored. For,
Congress's goal was not to serve the best interests of the public.
Instead, Congress could garner public support and praise by
attacking and regulating the railroad industry, not by admitting
that they had been the root cause of railroad corruption.
...Power-seeking politicians with regulating bureaucrats will
always block free enterprise and competitiveness. The intervention
of politicians and bureaucrats will always drive prices up,
service down, while spreading decay and corruption.
What Are the Implications?
What are the implications of that event that occurred nearly a
hundred years ago? Today, America's economic weakness is foreign
trade with Asia. Presidents make speeches about and create
commissions to study this problem. The media and politicians issue
grave warnings about America's trade imbalance with Asia.
But how many people today have the slightest idea what happened a
hundred years ago with James J. Hill? How many people today know
what was started by a single, integrated thinking, forward-essence
mover? How many people today know that James J. Hill was
spear-heading an American dominance of trade in Asia one-hundred
years ago!
Hill's incredible parade of value production, trade, business, and
job creation was cut off in its infancy because of a handful of
politicians. Seeking to advance their own harmful careers, with
total disregard of honesty and reality, those politicians stopped
a tremendous value producer, James J. Hill, and his push into
Asia.
Hill's master plan was destroyed by corrupt Congressmen
one-hundred years ago. And, one must not forget, those Congressmen
knew what they were doing. Hill diligently informed them of the
real situation -- what he had done with his privately-financed
railroad, whose fault it was for the corruption that occurred
within the government-financed railroads, and what his railroad
was doing for America's international trade by its freedom to
nurture new business. Yet, those elite, college-educated
Congressmen proceeded to pass their self-serving laws and
regulations in order to protect and enhance their own harmful
livelihoods.
What Really Happened a Hundred Years Ago?
Let us examine this situation even closer. ...What really happened
a hundred years ago? What really was cut off by the
parasitical-elite class in Washington using force-backed political
policies? James J. Hill was not only spearheading an American
dominance of trade in Asia a hundred years ago, he was also
spearheading an industrialization of Asia. Hill was pushing
American business into Asia, causing railroads to be built,
causing factories to be built, causing new businesses to be
created. He nurtured American business in Asia, and that business
was beginning to follow its natural course of flooding into
markets and dominating trade. That, in turn, would have led to a
rapid industrialization of Asia.
Had James J. Hill been left free to continue spearheading the
industrialization of China a hundred years ago, the world would be
different today. What kind of creative energies would have been
released if China, a country of one billion people, had
industrialized a hundred years ago? Where would civilization be
today? Would we have cures for cancer, heart disease, AIDS? Would
we be building cities in the oceans and on the moon? The
contributions that the Chinese could have made to science, to
technology, to the world economy are mind-boggling. But no. All of
that potential was smashed. A billion people were pushed down and
stagnated, 30 million Chinese were killed by communist predators.
Why? Because Congressmen a hundred years ago wanted to exercise
unearned power and feel false importance!
Thus Arose the Newly Born Parasitical Elites
A hundred years ago, one man learned how to honestly integrate
business with reality. He started moving up. He learned how
business worked; he learned how the American economy worked.
Then, he learned how the world economy worked. He began learning
how the whole up-rising of civilization worked. One man, a hundred
years ago, learned how to do integrated thinking and forward
essence movement. He then began pushing the lid up on society. If
that man had been left alone, if he had not been stopped by the
politicians, he would have swung open that lid, China would have
industrialized, all of Asia would have industrialized, the whole
world would have risen up, and America would have been sitting on
top of it all.
Instead, James J. Hill was smashed down. The newly born
parasitical-elite class consisting of politicians, bureaucrats,
political entrepreneurs, and other professional value destroyers
smashed down whatever threatened to expose their hoaxes, whatever
threatened their nonproductive livelihoods.
Thus arose the newly born parasitical-elite class in America. They
joined the worldwide parasitical elites that created an
anticivilization on planet Earth. But this irrational civilization
based on illusions and hoaxes will be replaced by the rational
Civilization of the Universe sensed by James J. Hill at the start
of the 20th century and implemented by Zon at the end of the 20th
century.
E.S., 1989
Anticivilization: The irrational planet Earth riddled with
dishonest parasitical elites like Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and the
Clintons causing endless cycles of corruption, destruction, and
death for everyone.
Civilization of the Universe: The rational universe filled with
honest value producers like J.J. Hill, Ray Kroc, and Bill Gates
providing endless happiness, wealth, and life for others and
society.
Matt Keys
Nicholas Rich (nr...@ss-n.com) wrote:
: >I'm discussing *why* one would package a philosophy which one believed to be
: >of such great value in a package that would cause it to get a chuckle from
: >all who read it. Words like 'Zonpower' do not sound like the terminology of
: >truth to me. They sound like something out of L. Ron Hubbard.
: >
: >In other words, I'm criticizing the method of presentation and asking why
: >you used it.
: Well, firstly, *I* didn't use it. The NTP folks are business people first,
: philosophers second. As such, I imagine they test everything. And so it
: would follow that the terminology has been tested and found more effective
: than more descritive but dry terminology.
: I dunno, I guess Ford could do a respectable business by calling their
: product line: Car 1, 2 , 3, and so on. But probably, tests have revealed
: that names like "Mustang," and "Taurus" do better in the marketplace.
Gasp! you mean you can use a business dynamic to market
and sell philosophy (just like selling cars)!!??? Who'da thunk it.
Matt.
--
http://www.neo-tech.com _ _
__ __ ____ __ ____ __ __ _ _ ___ ___ ___| |_ ___ __| |_ __ ___ _ __
\ V V /\ V V /\ V V /| ' \/ -_) _ \___| _/ -_) _| ' \ _/ _/ _ \ ' \
\_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_(_)_||_\___\___/ \__\___\__|_||_(_)__\___/_|_|_|
David De Gasperis
In article <4u8su3$b...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, Meredith
<mered...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> why don't you ask how well they are progressing (if at all) at spreading
> Neo-tech and Zonpower in the REAL world with some specific, explicit-neo-tech
> examples. Why don't you ask them why, if the ideas are so powerful, why, if
> they've been at this since the late 70's, why haven't these Objectivish ideas
> caught on with the general public, the working class "value-producer"?
>
> bye,
> Meredith
Less than 20 years to make objectivists out of 5 billion sheep? Where is
your patience? Unless you have read "The Neo-Tech Discovery" from
cover to cover I'm not convinced that you're able to testify to the
power of their ideas.
David
Meredith
Patience? It's hard to be patient when people around you are
dying daily, especially those you love. (And not just physically.)
Powerful ideas are one thing, powerful ideas that bring RESULTS
are another.
In all fairness, your point boils down to this: it's not that the
Neo-Tech ideas are not as powerful as those who promote them claim
to be, it's just the sheer volume of people they must reach and
then "convert" that is taking so long.
Well, this is probably as good a pro-neo-tech response as I'll get,
I suppose. Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond.
For a while the silence was eeeeeerie! :)
By the way, this type of response, "Unless you have read "The Neo-Tech
Discovery" from cover to cover I'm not convinced that you're able to
testify to the power of their ideas," is beginning to sound more and
more like a cop-out, especially due to the fact that NT claimed they
would put the "Discovery" up on the web for free then never did.
I've read the Zonpower book and it's okay. Lots of individualism.
Most people won't see past what looks like INTENTIONAL attempt to
make it look "kooky" or "cultish". It really doesn't scare me.
It would just be nice to see them really stick it out there (in the
"non-cyberspace" world) and see how the masses respond to it, if, how
and why. The world is overdue for a change. Hopefully for the better.
bye now,
Meredith
J. Hampton
Anonymous wrote:
> alt.neo-tech Frequently Asked Questions
>
> Alpha release .06
>
> Copyright (c) 1996 by King of all Heretics
>
> All Rights Reserved
>
> May be reproduced freely so long as the full text is included.
>
> TABLE OF CONTENTS:
>
> PREFACE:
>
An unemployed, ex-postal worker collecting government checks
> 0.3. Why do I use an anonymous remailer?
Because you dishonestly slander people, and are an intellectual coward?
> 0.4. Why are you so cheesed off at NT/ZP?
Because you are a non productive, parasitical drain on society and you
are envious and must attack those who are in a competitive, productive
mode. Particularly those who are successful at the enormously difficult
task of commercially marketing objectivist/free-market type ideas
Matt Keys
Meredith (mered...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: >Less than 20 years to make objectivists out of 5 billion sheep? Where is
: >your patience? Unless you have read "The Neo-Tech Discovery" from
: >cover to cover I'm not convinced that you're able to testify to the
: >power of their ideas.
: >
: >David
: Patience? It's hard to be patient when people around you are
: dying daily, especially those you love. (And not just physically.)
: Powerful ideas are one thing, powerful ideas that bring RESULTS
: are another.
: In all fairness, your point boils down to this: it's not that the
: Neo-Tech ideas are not as powerful as those who promote them claim
: to be, it's just the sheer volume of people they must reach and
: then "convert" that is taking so long.
: Well, this is probably as good a pro-neo-tech response as I'll get,
: I suppose. Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond.
: For a while the silence was eeeeeerie! :)
it if helps, I think there are over 1 million NT customers in
over 39 countries (I don't know the exact numbers).
the hundreds of IRS abuse reports that have been collected
and put on the web site for anyone to read are having n effect
: Discovery" from cover to cover I'm not convinced that you're able to
: testify to the power of their ideas," is beginning to sound more and
the NT Discovery will be online within a month or two (or maybe 3)
also see this web page for a description of a new web project coming
soon:
http://www.neo-tech.com/cyberule/part8.html
(scroll down to the bottom)
: more like a cop-out, especially due to the fact that NT claimed they
: would put the "Discovery" up on the web for free then never did.
it takes time to do these kinds of things. now, if the book
was in word 6.0 format, it would be a lot quicker. and it
is most likely not a top proirity.
Anonymous
In article <320439...@liberals.com>, "Mr. Spark Chaser"
<laug...@liberals.com> wrote:
> J. Hampton wrote:
(an aside for 'Hampton': Grow up and learn to configure your newsreader
ya moron! Your line lengths are pathetic - KOAH)
> > Mr. "King of all Heretics", grow up! Your posts read like a bratty child
> > throwing a temper tantrum. I suggest you write posts like a man, not a
> > child that didn't receive enough parental discipline...maybe
> > then you'll receive a little respect.
>
> He answers them quite well, thank you.
Thanks.
I suppose I should warn you that anyone who compliments me risks ending
up as part of a Neo-Tech template claiming that Objectivists support my
most heinous writing.
And don't think that not being an Objectivist will be any protection!
The knuckle-dragging semi-literate Neo-Droid Matt Keys never lets little
things like facts get in the way of his desperate campaign to find
someone, anyone, he can smear with the broad brush of 'Objectivist KOAH
supporter.'
'I have a list of 127 KOAH supporters at the Ayn Rand Institute!'
> It probably torques you that the
> neo-lies can be debunked as easily as they have been, but I'm sure that
> over time you'll learn to live with it.
Total insanity is a great comfort for them.
Eliminates the need to deal with that nasty real world where they are
either completely unknown or a pathetic joke.
Matt Keys
From netcom.com!mattkeys Thu Aug 8 22:23:14 1996
Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Path: netcom.com!mattkeys
From: matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys)
Subject: Re: King of all Heretics -- you got to one!
Message-ID: <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>
Followup-To: alt.neo-tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.individualism
Organization: http://www.neo-tech.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <mattkeysD...@netcom.com> <31FBFDD7.3555@the_altar.com> <mattkeysD...@netcom.com> <4togrt$2...@basement.replay.com> <320051...@chinadirect.com> <320439...@liberals.com> <4uedpi$9...@basement.replay.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 05:09:40 GMT
Lines: 347
Sender: matt...@netcom17.netcom.com
Xref: netcom.com alt.neo-tech:18573 alt.philosophy.objectivism:129484 talk.politics.libertarian:144197 alt.politics.libertarian:237735 alt.individualism:42103
Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
: > > child that didn't receive enough parental discipline...maybe
: > > then you'll receive a little respect.
: >
: > He answers them quite well, thank you.
: Thanks.
: I suppose I should warn you that anyone who compliments me risks ending
: up as part of a Neo-Tech template claiming that Objectivists support my
: most heinous writing.
: And don't think that not being an Objectivist will be any protection!
: The knuckle-dragging semi-literate Neo-Droid Matt Keys never lets little
interesting. a master's degree in computer science makes me
"semi-literate". more amazing facts from KOAH, "King of honesty and fairness".
NOT.
: things like facts get in the way of his desperate campaign to find
: someone, anyone, he can smear with the broad brush of 'Objectivist KOAH
: supporter.'
blah blah blah more lies and slanders from KOAH (like he produces much
of anything else)
desperate campaign??? man you really need some
new material there, welfare boy.
read the modified FAQ closely. it says people on a.p.o cheered you on, and
provided you with bogus material. it does not say anything about them
"supporting you". I guess since you are unemployed and cannot do anything
PRODUCTIVE with your life then the GOVERNMENT is what supports you.
In the words of J. Hampton -- get a life, or better yet - GET A JOB!
Matt.
---------
the "was KOAH a Psycopath?" FAQ version 0.001b
disclaimer: this faq claims nothing about KOAH. it just
asks questions and presents his own material that he posted
himself. decide for yourself if he is a stable person or
not.
[ material obtained from http://dejanews.com, search for King of all
Heretics, look for old articles, before Koah became "nice". ]
*** side note: as you read these articles by KOAH, keep in mind Betsy and
a few others on a.p.o were encouraging his reckless spastic attacks on
Neo-Tech the whole time. see q4) for more.
q1) does KOAH really want to nuke innocent citizens?
q2) does KOAH really want to have unearned sex with
every orifice possible?
q3) more evidence for q1 and q2
q4) do Objectivists and others really cheer on KOAH?? (read about
a.p.o "leader" Betsy Speicher's supplying KOAH with bogus info here)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
q1) does KOAH really want to nuke innocent citizens?
read his post and decide for yourself:
Subject: Re: Objectivist enemies of open debate
From: nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous)
Date: 1996/04/05
Organization: Flame International Inc.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.support.ex-Cult,alt.neo-Tech
> >> He is absolutely the worst sort of destructive nihilist. And in his own
> >> words, there are circumstances where he would personally explode a nuke in
> >> a populated city.
> >
> > There are circumstances where _you_ might do the same.
> > Nihilism cannot be determined by listing various shocking actions a
> >person might take - you must establish that the person is without ethical
> >principles and philosophical beliefs.
> > I have been quite clear that I do subscribe to a moral code.
> > It just isn't in alignment with what most social systems and
> >superstitious religions have deemed moral during recorded history.
>
> There are _no_ circumstances that would cause me to purposely end the life
> of _any_ individual who was not _directly_ and _purposely_ thretening my
> life.
>
> In your example, you stated that if you should be drafted, you would seek
> about to murder your commanding officer and everyone up the chain of
> command--apparently without regard to whether they happen to be caught in
> the same draft as you, with the same gun to their heads.
So they're just following orders, eh?
Tell it to Adolph Eichmann.
> You also stated that you would attempt to acquire a nuclear bomb and
> explode it in a populated city, if drafted into military service--aparently
> without regard to the indesputable fact that well over 99.9% of that
> poupulation of individual, living, conscious beings (including thousands of
> totally innocent children) have no _direct_, _individual_, _conscious_
> involvement in your being drafted.
Ah - but they are part of the leftist 'social contract' - they elect
demopublicans who ALL share the premise that I should be enslaved.
I refrain from any action regarding this so long as my LIFE is not
threatened. But if I am drafted ALL BETS ARE OFF. The line is crossed.
The draft is a declaration of total war on me. The only way to avoid
this is to refrain from enslaving me.
I would destroy the entire universe rather than live as a slave.
And you can quote me on that.
> Unless you dispute having said this, I think anyone would be well advised
> to consider what a whimpish, unstable, wild-eyed lunatic you are and refuse
> to deal with you in any context.
>
> >> Once I saw that, I realized for good what his psychology was all about.
> >> He can't fool anyone anymore.
> >
> > Nihilist is not a psychological term.
> > It refers to a lack of belief in anything.
> > I am not a nihilist.
> > I absolutely believe in myself.
> > - King of all Heretics
>
> It is a certain psychology which gives rise to nihilistic tendencies, and
> you display them in spades.
Ah - so I have nihilistic 'tendencies' now.
Nihilism is the belief in NOTHING.
I believe in all sorts of things very strongly.
I might be a terrifyingly immoral egoist from the point of view of
communitarian and altruist moral codes, but I'm no nihilist.
I am something MUCH, MUCH WORSE!
- King of all Heretics
--------------------------------------------------------------------
q2) does KOAH really want to have unearned sex with
every orifice possible?
koah writes:
> Oh, and if I was able to ensure that I wouldn't catch anything from sexual
> contact, and that I could protect my partners 100% from pregnancy risks,
> I would probably join KOAH on his coast-to-coast orgy of promiscuous sex.
> Because I live in reality though... One partner at a time for me.
They say to search for the words 'promiscuous sex' and my psuedonym to
find my outrageous statements, but I wouldn't use that term. In fact, I'm
pretty sure they're misinterpreting my views about sociobiology as a
blanket endorsement of orgies.
The Neo-Techers seem to think that they can alter the balance of forces
in the net war decisively in their favor by violating my privacy (which
they show their intent to do even if they reveal the wrong name). They
again show very little understanding of net culture.
They are very confused.
I am not trapped in combat with them, they are trapped in combat with me.
Remember AB!
- King of all Heretics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
q3) wait, there's more info for q1 and q2:
> > - King of all Heretics
> >P.S. By the way Bradley, you can go fuck off too. Put on your Spock ears
> >and watch some Star trek reruns like a good little boy and go away.
>
> Template for a Bloody Psychopath
> In early March, 1996, this anonymous psychopath publicly announced on
> Usenet his desires for limitless, no-value promiscuous sex.
Wahoo!
By the way, that sounds pretty good, but I don't recall stating a desire
for limitless _no-value_ promiscuous sex. :)
> Then, between blizzards of uncontrolled Tourette-like sexual profanities,
What the fuck are you talking about cocksucker?
Hee hee hee hee!
> he proclaimed across Usenet his intentions to murder innocent U.S. army
> officers and nuke an American city filled with innocent citizens and
> children.
You can't make an omelette...
> Currently, this coward is desperately trying to conceal his newly exposed
> criminalities with a torrent of smoothed-over, nice-guy posts.
I still proudly state that I would kill any army officer foolish enough
to try and command me were I drafted.
By drafting me they sign their own death warrents.
How is this 'nice'?
I'm not 'nice.'
I'm your worst nightmare.
> But, make no mistake, if an unstable person like him somehow got a nuke, he
> would incinerate a U.S. city in order to feel important enough to get
> girls.
By the way 'Barbie', are you one of Wallace Ward's mooching relatives or
one of his gullible dupes?
- King of all Heretics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
q4) do Objectivists really cheer on KOAH??
here is one sad example:
In article <4e96t5$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>Anonymous <anon-r...@utopia.hacktic.nl> wrote:
>
>> Wallace, creator of the Neo-Tech/ZonPower cult. I will be scanning this
>> group and alt.neo-tech for any information on him. If you have such
>> information, please post it with the words "ATTN: KOAH" in the header.
>
>I have a HUGE amount of information for you, but it is much too
>voluminous to post here. Can I e-mail it to you? (I tried to e-mail it,
>but it bounced.)>
> Betsy Speicher
here's another:
> >As you can see, _I've_ pulled you out of the kill file and my apologies for
> >jumping too quickly to judgement. After seeing the unbelievable rants and
> >raves of the Neo_kooks I had no choice <G>! _I_ certainly would not have
> >blocked your posts to _everyone_! (At least not _that_ way, I'm an old unix
> >junkie and would've cooked up an indetectable kill-bot or something <G>!)
> >
> >I'm _not_ one of those who think that Objectivism is a closed system. On
> >this point I agree with Kelly - much work needs to be done.
> >
> >I _still_ think your incredible profanity isn't needed, but it looks like
> >nothing less is going to stop the Neo-Kooks. More power to you - keep up
> >the good fight!
>
here's another:
>From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
>Subject: ATTN KOAH
>Date: 21 May 1996 05:46:01 -0700
>Organization: SCOA CyberNet sc...@speicher.com
>
>
>A third party with info for your FAQ is trying to reach you through me.
>
>(Has something to do with the relationship between Nick Rich and NTP and
>other matters).
>
and another (by a non-objectivist)
In article <4jsbif$i...@shiva.usa.net>, tali...@mail.usa.net (talisman) wrote:
> In article <4joc56$4...@utopia.hacktic.nl>,
> nob...@flame.alias.net (Anonymous) wrote:
> >In article <4ic24h$7...@panix2.panix.com>, tdon...@panix.com (Tony
> >Donadio) wrote:
> >>
> >> The point I am making is that your posts seemed to assume that
> >> this was a
> >> general sentiment or "party line" amongst us -- and that this was
> >> a rather
> >> hasty an erroneous generalization.
> >
> > I think I've clarified this.
> > I was a bit mad when I made the original rant.
> > Naturally those who don't approve of the blocking are not
> > deserving of
> > my wrath on this matter.
> > - King of all Heretics
>
> King,
>
> I think there are a lot more people who support you than you know.
> Besides, you're one of the only ones who can communicate in an
> entertaining manner.
Thanks.
> Most others sound like they've got a stick up
> their ...
Or as I once put it 'the most boring people on earth.'
> Those who do not post anonymously probably fear to associate
> themselves with you, even if they agree, because even with your anon
> status, you're still getting threatened and abused.
Not only that, they might end up the subject of a Neo-Tech template!
- King of all Heretics
--
Anonymous
In article <3207A7...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
<mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day long posting
> Anonymous flames to newsgroups.
No dictionary defines Neo-Tech or ZonPower because they are of no
significance whatsoever.
As for my being a loser - prove it.
Otherwise shut the fuck up.
Anonymous
In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>, matt...@netcom.com (Matt
Keys) wrote:
> Meredith (mered...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> : >Less than 20 years to make objectivists out of 5 billion sheep? Where is
> : >your patience? Unless you have read "The Neo-Tech Discovery" from
> : >cover to cover I'm not convinced that you're able to testify to the
> : >power of their ideas.
> : >
> : >David
>
> : Patience? It's hard to be patient when people around you are
> : dying daily, especially those you love. (And not just physically.)
>
> : Powerful ideas are one thing, powerful ideas that bring RESULTS
> : are another.
>
> : In all fairness, your point boils down to this: it's not that the
> : Neo-Tech ideas are not as powerful as those who promote them claim
> : to be, it's just the sheer volume of people they must reach and
> : then "convert" that is taking so long.
>
> : Well, this is probably as good a pro-neo-tech response as I'll get,
> : I suppose. Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond.
> : For a while the silence was eeeeeerie! :)
>
> it if helps, I think there are over 1 million NT customers in
> over 39 countries (I don't know the exact numbers).
How many of these people found the crude scribblings of Wallace Ward
convincing?
From the testimonials I see posted here by actual purchasers of this
silly tome there are plenty who consign it to the dustbin of history.
> the hundreds of IRS abuse reports that have been collected
> and put on the web site for anyone to read are having n effect
Yes - they induce considerable merriment in the IRS ass-kissers who
applaud the ruthlessness of thier favorite version of the Gestapo.
Also keep in mind that what you call abuse the IRS calls standard
operating procedure. And they are operating legally.
So much for the morality of law.
By the way, what makes you think the reports are having any positive impact?
> : Discovery" from cover to cover I'm not convinced that you're able to
> : testify to the power of their ideas," is beginning to sound more and
>
> the NT Discovery will be online within a month or two (or maybe 3)
...or four, or five, or twelve...
> also see this web page for a description of a new web project coming
> soon:
>
> http://www.neo-tech.com/cyberule/part8.html
>
> (scroll down to the bottom)
You mean this:
(begin kook page)
Coming Soon
to your
Computer
Pour up some Hot Java
and talk to Zon
In cyberspace, history's greatest values will soon come to everyone
for free through Neo-Tech Worldwide: The omniscient Zon will
interactively answer your every question on how to profit by
transposing yourself from the draining, irrational Anticivilization
to the prosperous, rational Civilization of the Universe. ...Don't
miss it!
(end kook page)
Matt - how can some Java app provide omniscient knowledge???
> : more like a cop-out, especially due to the fact that NT claimed they
> : would put the "Discovery" up on the web for free then never did.
>
> it takes time to do these kinds of things. now, if the book
> was in word 6.0 format, it would be a lot quicker. and it
> is most likely not a top proirity.
Your excuses might fool some people but not me. If you can export the
text from whatever word processor you wrote it on as RTF you can then
import it into Word. Heck, Word can convert a number of formats - you
might be able to import it directly.
Or was it carved on stone tablets?
Betsy Speicher
Matt Keys <matt...@netcom.com> wrote:
> *** side note: as you read these articles by KOAH, keep in mind Betsy and
> a few others on a.p.o were encouraging his reckless spastic attacks on
> Neo-Tech the whole time. see q4) for more.
For the record: I have been involved with Ayn Rand's philosophy of
Objectivism for almost 35 years. I have written for _The_Objectivist_
_Forum_ and _The_Intellectual_Activist_ and other Objectivist
publications. For eight years I was President of the 400-member Southern
California Objecivist Association.
In my opinion Neo-Tech is so fantastically irrational that any connection
between it and Objectivism is a presumptuous delusion on the part of
Neo-Tech Publishing Company and its supporters.
> q4) do Objectivists really cheer on KOAH??
> here is one sad example:
> In article <4e96t5$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher
<be...@speicher.com> wrote:
> ...
> >From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
> >Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
> >Subject: ATTN KOAH
> >Date: 21 May 1996 05:46:01 -0700
> >Organization: SCOA CyberNet sc...@speicher.com
> > ...
> >
This material -- and all my postings to UseNet -- are copyrighted. They
may not be used beyond fair use without my permission. Neo-Tech
Publishing company and its supporters have been put on notice that they do
not have my permission to use any of my writing, my name, or my likeness
in the pursuit of their goals.
There may be consequences.
Betsy Speicher
Ayn Rand's Ideas On Talk Radio -- The Leonard Peikoff Show
KIEV 870AM in Los Angeles Monday thru Friday at 2:30-3:30 PM
(Callers who disagree with Dr. Peikoff given preference)
Matt Keys
Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
: In article <3207A7...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
: <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
: - King of all Heretics
you prove it every time you post, you dumb ass dupe.
Matt Keys
Betsy Speicher (be...@speicher.com) wrote:
: For the record: I have been involved with Ayn Rand's philosophy of
: Objectivism for almost 35 years. I have written for _The_Objectivist_
: _Forum_ and _The_Intellectual_Activist_ and other Objectivist
: publications. For eight years I was President of the 400-member Southern
: California Objecivist Association.
: In my opinion Neo-Tech is so fantastically irrational that any connection
: between it and Objectivism is a presumptuous delusion on the part of
: Neo-Tech Publishing Company and its supporters.
good old Betsy. she's about as predictable as
KOAH. she should prepare to eat her words.
many of her posts will appear in the forthcoming Flame Book.
why does she hate neo-tech so much?
read below and find out:
Objectivist Heroes
Pseudo objectivists frantically trying to flame fully integrated
honesty off the Internet anxiously flatter one another as
Objectivist Heroes defending the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Thirty years ago those kind of heroes were the desperate hangers-on
in the Branden/Rand lectures of the 1960s in New York City. Back
then, they were characterized by their capes and cigarette holders.
They were the sycophantic defenders of their ego facades leached
from Ayn Rand's monumental achievement: Objectivism. Throughout the
years, such Objectivists have remained the biggest impediment to
advancing Objectivist philosophy around the world.
Today, those ersatz Objectivists are panicking. And why not? After
30 years of faking heroic Galtisms and shrugging Atlases, they are
being revealed in cyberspace as contradictions to everything
Objectivism means in living competitively, honestly, through
business-like modes. Similarly, in cyberspace, fully integrated
honesty is exposing the fakeries and dishonesties of politicians and
many government-dependent academics. ...Eventually, all such fakes
will disappear as nothing in cyberspace.
Today, as back then, those pseudo Objectivists appear as sad, boring
people. They are basically immature, kind of pitiful. Today, as back
then, perhaps not a single, self-made businessperson or really
successful entrepreneur exists among them. How many are really
excited about what they do for a living? How many are genuinely
proud of their competitiveness -- of their value-producing
competence? Most have no idea of the incredibly difficult journey
required to independently produce long-range, competitive values and
jobs for others. Ayn Rand knew. But, most of her dependent followers
never knew.
Today, on the Internet, some of the most immature, dependent
Randians seem to be on tax-paid academic edu lines, perhaps living
off some kind of public funds with abundant idle time on their
hands. They can never acknowledge the wide-scope Objectivist nature
of fully integrated honesty. For, that wide-scope, active use of
Objectivism through the competitive dynamics of Neo-Tech reveals
stimulating powers -- exciting powers possible for all conscious
beings, Objectivists or not. Such competitive dynamics become
illusion-collapsing threats to ego-dependent followers of
Objectivism -- especially those living stagnant lives that are going
nowhere.
What are those "Objectivist Heroes" harping about? What do they do
besides endlessly displaying philosophical "brilliance" while
tearing down the practical, objective values of Neo-Tech? What do
they do constructively? Have any of them ever made the excruciating
effort or borne the racking pain oft required to do anything really
important, to take big risks for big payoffs, to alone face down
dangerous armed evil in the real world, or even to build and
maintain a business that creates competitive values and jobs for
others?
Many who attack fully integrated honesty are trying to elevate their
self-perceived images by making problems where none exist. One
should always ask those who tear down values what they have done to
make themselves proud of their lives -- what they have done to
produce growing, long-term competitive values for themselves,
others, and society. Today, such people might be called wimps. Ayn
Rand had a better word: pip-squeaks.
In reality, Objectivism never needs defending. Moreover, only
commercially competitive efforts increase the permanent, long-range
value of Objectivism to civilization. And finally, Neo-Tech has
never attacked a single tenet of Objectivism. Instead, Neo-Tech
vigorously applies and commercially advances every tenet of
Objectivism throughout the world.
By contrast, those ego-seeking pontificators of Objectivism
unnecessarily waste their lives on nothing much. Most will never
discover their exciting, glorious potential in the value-producing
business dynamics throughout cyberspace. ...Yet, the helping hand of
Neo-Tech is always extended. Still, from Neo-Tech, no leader, guru,
or authority is available for anyone to follow or obey. Only fully
integrated honesty with its wide-scope integrations is available for
all to understand, use, and produce prosperity.
The contributors to Neo-Tech integrations, not the flamers of
Neo-Tech, are genuine Objectivists. Only through Neo-Tech business
modes is Objectivism pushed forward, into the competitive market
place, bringing integrated honesty and exciting Objectivism to the
general public worldwide.
Maturing into an Objectivist
Some supporters of Objectivism are like Moliére's Tartuffe with his
hypocritical piety. Or, perhaps they are more like Moliére's Alceste
in The Misanthrope who rants and rails, neither delivering much of
value to anyone nor improving much of anything. Such people
ignorantly bluster about things, situations, and people they do not
understand. Such people deliver only the narrow-scope nothingness of
an ego-tripping Alceste. ...But, many could mature into the
everythingness of a Defoe's do-everything Robinson Crusoe, or at
least the somethingness of a go-getter Moll Flanders.
Not to be an Alceste takes some brain, mouth, and keyboard
responsibility. Discipline is required to deal contextually with
reality from the widest perspectives. Indeed, learning to work
tolerantly, efficiently, profitably with problems, situations, and
people while remaining uncompromising on principles is hard work. To
produce competitive values for the world takes constant discipline,
thought, and control combined with fully integrated honesty. ...It
takes Neo-Tech.
J. Hampton
Anonymous wrote:
>
> In article <3207A7...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
> <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
>
> > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day long posting
> > Anonymous flames to newsgroups.
>
> No dictionary defines Neo-Tech or ZonPower because they are of no
> significance whatsoever.
> As for my being a loser - prove it.
> Otherwise shut the fuck up.
> - King of all Heretics
I don't have to prove that you're a loser, KOAH. Your own writings
prove it! I'm going to expose your phoney A-- J.Hampton (slayer of all
fake, intellectual underachievers)
Anonymous
In article <4udtqt$l...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, Meredith
<mered...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ans...@azstarnet.com (David De Gasperis) wrote:
> >In article <4u8su3$b...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, Meredith
> ><mered...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> why don't you ask how well they are progressing (if at all) at spreading
> >> Neo-tech and Zonpower in the REAL world with some specific,
explicit-neo-tech
> >> examples. Why don't you ask them why, if the ideas are so powerful,
why, if
> >> they've been at this since the late 70's, why haven't these
Objectivish ideas
> >> caught on with the general public, the working class "value-producer"?
> >>
> >
> >> bye,
> >> Meredith
> >
> >Less than 20 years to make objectivists out of 5 billion sheep? Where is
> >your patience? Unless you have read "The Neo-Tech Discovery" from
> >cover to cover I'm not convinced that you're able to testify to the
> >power of their ideas.
> >
> >David
>
> Patience? It's hard to be patient when people around you are
> dying daily, especially those you love. (And not just physically.)
>
> Powerful ideas are one thing, powerful ideas that bring RESULTS
> are another.
>
> In all fairness, your point boils down to this: it's not that the
> Neo-Tech ideas are not as powerful as those who promote them claim
> to be, it's just the sheer volume of people they must reach and
> then "convert" that is taking so long.
>
> Well, this is probably as good a pro-neo-tech response as I'll get,
> I suppose. Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond.
> For a while the silence was eeeeeerie! :)
Interesting how the official Neo-Droids didn't say a peep.
I wonder why that is?
Maybe Wallace Ward hasn't written a template for this yet.
> By the way, this type of response, "Unless you have read "The Neo-Tech
> Discovery" from cover to cover I'm not convinced that you're able to
> testify to the power of their ideas," is beginning to sound more and
> more like a cop-out, especially due to the fact that NT claimed they
> would put the "Discovery" up on the web for free then never did.
It's a good way to sell books.
It won't fool you but I've seen a few people fall for it.
> I've read the Zonpower book and it's okay. Lots of individualism.
> Most people won't see past what looks like INTENTIONAL attempt to
> make it look "kooky" or "cultish". It really doesn't scare me.
It isn't just the silly jargon that makes it kooky - it's the ideas.
New particles for which there is no evidence. Claims about alien
civilizations. Claims about infallible powers to predict the future.
Claims about human omnipotence.
I don't even have to mention 'thinkons', The Civilization of the
Universe, ZonPower lets you be God and Cassandra's Secret by their
neo-names for most people to see that they are patently absurd, mystical
notions.
> It would just be nice to see them really stick it out there (in the
> "non-cyberspace" world) and see how the masses respond to it, if, how
> and why. The world is overdue for a change. Hopefully for the better.
The real answer is that Neo-Tech doesn't seek to spread individualist
ideas. That's the cover story. The real point is to sell lots of books
to those few people who are gullible enough to buy Ward's bullshit.
If he sold them for a reasonable price he couldn't make nearly so much
money since he'd still have a small customer base.
It's sort of like L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology. Since he could only
rope in a small group of suckers he decided rather than going for real
mass marketing that he would take those few poor saps for everything
they've got.
Brian E. Seppanen
On Fri, 9 Aug 1996, J. Hampton wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > In article <3207A7...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
> > <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> > > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day long posting
> > > Anonymous flames to newsgroups.
> >
> > No dictionary defines Neo-Tech or ZonPower because they are of no
> > significance whatsoever.
> > As for my being a loser - prove it.
> > Otherwise shut the fuck up.
> > - King of all Heretics
>
> I don't have to prove that you're a loser, KOAH. Your own writings
> prove it! I'm going to expose your phoney A-- J.Hampton (slayer of all
> fake, intellectual underachievers)
>
>
Here he comes to save the day.....
J. Hampton
Anonymous (i.e., unemployed, ex-postal worker collecting government
checks) -- you're always so willing to sit back and dish
out criticism to others -- what have you done to contribute something
positive to society? At least the Neo-Tech organization is putting
society more just.
All you do is complain and criticize others who are putting
forth effort. By the way, where do you get so much time to constantly be
flaming NT in this newsgroup day after day? Is it true that you're an
figures. Why don't you get a life. More to the point, GET A JOB!
Anonymous wrote:
>
> In article <4u6hpo$r...@news.one.net>, a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam
> Ierymenko) wrote:
>
> > In article <4u5mrr$8...@nntp1.best.com>,
> > nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
> > >>Lets say I had the greatest ideology in the world. I would not call it
> > >>'Neo-Tech' and 'Zon' if I wanted people to take it seriously. However, if
> > >>I was like L. Ron and wanted to start a religion/cult to scam a bunch of
> > >>$$$ off of poor misguided people I might.
> > >
> > >If A is A, then how does the "greatest ideology in the world" become a
> > >religious cult scam? Or, is that simply what you belive it to be?
> > >
> >
> > I'm not discussing the validity of the philosophy, that's a whole other
> > issue. I'm discussing *why* one would package a philosophy which one
> > believed to be of such great value in a package that would cause it to get
> > a chuckle from all who read it. Words like 'Zonpower' do not sound like
> > the terminology of truth to me. They sound like something out of L. Ron
> > Hubbard.
>
> Coincidence???
>
> > In other words, I'm criticizing the method of presentation and asking why
> > you used it.
>
> Wallace Ward markets it with mystical buzzwords because that's what
> appeals to the poor lost souls on the 'opportunity seekers' mailing lists
> he uses for his mass mailings.
> If he had something truly substantive to say he would have a real
> publisher. And he can't claim this is not possible in the
> 'anticivilization' - Ayn Rand proved that such ideas can get a hearing.
> In fact she proved that they can become real bestsellers.
> Ward learned the direct mail marketing ropes selling his book on ripping
> off your buddies at poker. He then tried to translate this into success
> selling his watered down version of Rand. He failed for a long time.
> Then he hit upon the idea that if he promised instant limitless goodies he
> might get people to buy.
> He claims to have over one million customers.
> Lying seems to work pretty well for Ward.
> But it is the antithesis of Objectivism.
Anonymous
Anonymous
> a...@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
> >In article <4u5mrr$8...@nntp1.best.com>,
> > nr...@ss-n.com (Nicholas Rich) writes:
> >>>Lets say I had the greatest ideology in the world. I would not call it
> >>>'Neo-Tech' and 'Zon' if I wanted people to take it seriously. However, if
> >>>I was like L. Ron and wanted to start a religion/cult to scam a bunch of
> >>>$$$ off of poor misguided people I might.
> >>
> >>If A is A, then how does the "greatest ideology in the world" become a
> >>religious cult scam? Or, is that simply what you belive it to be?
> >>
> >
> >I'm not discussing the validity of the philosophy, that's a whole other
issue.
> >I'm discussing *why* one would package a philosophy which one believed to be
> >of such great value in a package that would cause it to get a chuckle from
> >all who read it. Words like 'Zonpower' do not sound like the terminology of
> >truth to me. They sound like something out of L. Ron Hubbard.
> >
> >In other words, I'm criticizing the method of presentation and asking why
> >you used it.
> >
>
> why don't you ask how well they are progressing (if at all) at spreading
> Neo-tech and Zonpower in the REAL world with some specific,
> explicit-neo-tech examples.
Neo-Tech Publishing representatives have consistently refused to provide
such hard data when asked. For example I asked them how many hits their
web site has been getting since they began their usenet ad campaign.
Not a peep out of them.
I've also asked what the total cumulative sales to date for 'The
Neo-Tech Discovery' - total silence from the Neo-Dupes.
Yet they claim to be 'taking over' Objectivism, and 'taking over' cyberspace.
As far as I can see they couldn't take over an outhouse.
> Why don't you ask them why, if the ideas are so powerful, why, if
> they've been at this since the late 70's, why haven't these Objectivish
> ideas caught on with the general public, the working class
> "value-producer"?
Another good question.
Zonnies? Hello Zoooooooon?
Where ever could they have got to?
> Then, see how long they take to think up an answer.
> Me, I'm still waiting...
Aren't we all.
> You might want to try calling them childish names and spouting off random
> personal insults, since they'd rather respond to these than to those
> sincerely seeking knowledge and trying EXTREMELY hard to take them serious!
You noticed that.
They can't answer any real questions.
Anonymous
In article <ansala-0708...@usr1ip43.azstarnet.com>,
ans...@azstarnet.com (David De Gasperis) wrote:
> In article <4u8su3$b...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, Meredith
> <mered...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > why don't you ask how well they are progressing (if at all) at spreading
> > Neo-tech and Zonpower in the REAL world with some specific,
> > explicit-neo-tech examples. Why don't you ask them why, if the ideas are
> > so powerful, why, if they've been at this since the late 70's, why
> > haven't these Objectivish ideas caught on with the general public, the
> > working class "value-producer"?
> > bye,
> > Meredith
>
> Less than 20 years to make objectivists out of 5 billion sheep? Where is
> your patience? Unless you have read "The Neo-Tech Discovery" from
> cover to cover I'm not convinced that you're able to testify to the
> power of their ideas.
Let me explain why I have a good idea about the impotence of Neo-Tech
ideas in terms of converting the world to Objectivism.
Around the same time Wallace Ward was farting around trying to sell the
Neo-Tech Encyclopedia, Robert Ringer was enjoying bestseller success with
his classic self help book 'Looking out for Number One.' Ringer started
out doing exactly the same thing as Ward - publishing and selling his
books himself. But unlike Ward he actually was able to get mainstream
publishers to put out the paperback versions and get on the New York Times
bestseller list. Ward's only equivalent success was when he was able to
get his poker book printed by a large publishing house (allegedly - I have
no evidence other than posts by Ward and his lackies on this.)
Ringer's books were strongly influenced by Randian ideas, and helped
bring them to a large audience. In addition Ringer didn't taint his
version of rational selfishness with stupid neologisms and absurd hype.
So Ringer's success proves that Ward is a complete failure when it comes
to bringing Rand's ideas to a broad audience.
Ringer shows that you can do it without lying, without direct mail hard
sell tactics, and without corrupting Rand's insights with filthy
psuedo-scientific blather.
Anonymous
In article <320B81...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
<mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > In article <3207A7...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
> > <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> > > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day long posting
> > > Anonymous flames to newsgroups.
> >
> > No dictionary defines Neo-Tech or ZonPower because they are of no
> > significance whatsoever.
> > As for my being a loser - prove it.
> > Otherwise shut the fuck up.
> > - King of all Heretics
>
> I don't have to prove that you're a loser, KOAH. Your own writings
> prove it!
Please provide specific evidence from my writing which proves that I am,
as you allege, a loser.
I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a response.
> I'm going to expose your phoney A- J.Hampton (slayer of all
> fake, intellectual underachievers)
When are you going to lock your sights on that phoney Wallace Ward?
J. Hampton
Anonymous -- you're always so willing to sit back and dish
out criticism to others -- what have you done to contribute something
positive to society? At least the Neo-Tech organization is putting
forth effort and attempting to change things for the better and make
society more just.
All you do is complain and criticize others who are putting
forth effort. By the way, where do you get so much time to constantly be
flaming NT in this newsgroup day after day? Is it true that you're an
unemployed, ex-postal worker collecting government checks? ...It
figures. Why don't you get a life. More to the point, GET A JOB!
Anonymous wrote:
> Let me explain why I have a good idea about the impotence of Neo-Tech
> ideas in terms of converting the world to Objectivism.
> Around the same time Wallace Ward was farting around trying to sell the
> Neo-Tech Encyclopedia, Robert Ringer was enjoying bestseller success with
> his classic self help book 'Looking out for Number One.' Ringer started
> out doing exactly the same thing as Ward - publishing and selling his
> books himself. But unlike Ward he actually was able to get mainstream
> publishers to put out the paperback versions and get on the New York Times
> bestseller list. Ward's only equivalent success was when he was able to
> get his poker book printed by a large publishing house (allegedly - I have
> no evidence other than posts by Ward and his lackies on this.)
> Ringer's books were strongly influenced by Randian ideas, and helped
> bring them to a large audience. In addition Ringer didn't taint his
> version of rational selfishness with stupid neologisms and absurd hype.
> So Ringer's success proves that Ward is a complete failure when it comes
> to bringing Rand's ideas to a broad audience.
> Ringer shows that you can do it without lying, without direct mail hard
> sell tactics, and without corrupting Rand's insights with filthy
> psuedo-scientific blather.
J. Hampton
Face it Welfare Boy, you lose!
Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day posting
Anonymous flames to newsgroups while surviving off of government checks.
Matt Keys
Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
: > > As for my being a loser - prove it.
: > > Otherwise shut the fuck up.
: >
: > I don't have to prove that you're a loser, KOAH. Your own writings
: > prove it!
: Please provide specific evidence from my writing which proves that I am,
: as you allege, a loser.
: I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a response.
: > I'm going to expose your phoney A- J.Hampton (slayer of all
: > fake, intellectual underachievers)
: When are you going to lock your sights on that phoney Wallace Ward?
typical KOAH post:
"I am a lazy welfare bum that must attack productive
neo-tech people to try and cover up my worthlessness.
My dishonest and spastic attacks on neo-tech will
continue until I become so hysterical that I
obliterate myself".
Bondo Camarilla
Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
: In article <320B81...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
: <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
: > Anonymous wrote:
: > >
: > > In article <3207A7...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
: > > <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
: > >
: > > > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
: > > > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day long posting
: > > > Anonymous flames to newsgroups.
: > >
: > > No dictionary defines Neo-Tech or ZonPower because they are of no
: > > significance whatsoever.
: > > As for my being a loser - prove it.
: > > Otherwise shut the fuck up.
: > > - King of all Heretics
: >
: > I don't have to prove that you're a loser, KOAH. Your own writings
: > prove it!
: Please provide specific evidence from my writing which proves that I am,
: as you allege, a loser.
: I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a response.
: > I'm going to expose your phoney A- J.Hampton (slayer of all
: > fake, intellectual underachievers)
: When are you going to lock your sights on that phoney Wallace Ward?
: - King of all Heretics
I visited this newsgroup several months ago and now that I am back
I am amazed to see that KOAH is still at it.
I have yet to see this buffoon (KOAH) argue any matters of Neo-Tech
philosophy. Neo-Tech Publishing is an extroardinary accomplishment in
pursuit of making this world a better place. It is the product of
laborious thought and immense creativity and inspires many to work to
save individual rights. Yet, this KOAH freak can find nothing better
to do but attack motivations of Neo-Tech publishing and certain
proponents of Neo-Tech. His trivial attacks have absolutely
no effect on the validity of the Neo-Tech philosophy for he doesn't
attack any philosophical points. Most likely, he simply cannot. So,
this King of all Losers resorts to irrelevant attacks.
KOAH: if you have any matters of philosophical importance concerning
Neo-Tech, let's hear it. Otherwise take your childish drivel
elsewhere. We are tired of seeing it. Get a life loser.
The Omnipotent Philosopher
>: > > > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
>: > > > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day long posting
>: > > > Anonymous flames to newsgroups.
Though this may be kinda funny to some of us it proably isn't if you
really were an ex-postal worker. I'm not BTW.
However, if I were to define loser in general conceptual terms I would
say: n. Someone who loses (something).
KOAH is a loser in that he is losing the precious time of his life on
something few in this group care about. I suggest you all ask
yourself including you KOAH, "Of what use is this to my life?"
KOAH's writings add nothing to my life and I intend to cease reading
them -- not that I have read many of them -- otherwise I too will be a
loser. NTP on the other hand at least attempts to offer me something.
They are the ones who introduced me to the philosophy of Ayn Rand and
the economics of laissez-faire which in itself is a tremendous value
to me.
KOAH's philosophy is based on self-sacrifice. In essence, what it
amounts to is: I will spend my time and life in an attempt to stop
NTP. I'm not quite sure what higher cause he's fighting for.
------------
T.O.P.
think999
Any and all posts that unfairly, ignorantly, or dishonestly attacked Neo-
Tech will be quoted and used at will without permission in the forthcoming
Flame book. JF
In article <4uffq1$9...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher
<be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>Matt Keys <matt...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> *** side note: as you read these articles by KOAH, keep in mind Betsy and
>> a few others on a.p.o were encouraging his reckless spastic attacks on
>> Neo-Tech the whole time. see q4) for more.
>
>For the record: I have been involved with Ayn Rand's philosophy of
>Objectivism for almost 35 years. I have written for _The_Objectivist_
>_Forum_ and _The_Intellectual_Activist_ and other Objectivist
>publications. For eight years I was President of the 400-member Southern
>California Objecivist Association.
>
>In my opinion Neo-Tech is so fantastically irrational that any connection
>between it and Objectivism is a presumptuous delusion on the part of
>Neo-Tech Publishing Company and its supporters.
>
>> q4) do Objectivists really cheer on KOAH??
>
>
>> here is one sad example:
>
>> In article <4e96t5$b...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher
><be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
>> ...
>
>> >From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
>> >Newsgroups: alt.neo-tech
>> >Subject: ATTN KOAH
>> >Date: 21 May 1996 05:46:01 -0700
>> >Organization: SCOA CyberNet sc...@speicher.com
Adam Ierymenko
In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>,
matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) writes:
>: When are you going to lock your sights on that phoney Wallace Ward?
>
>
>"I am a lazy welfare bum that must attack productive
>neo-tech people to try and cover up my worthlessness.
>My dishonest and spastic attacks on neo-tech will
>continue until I become so hysterical that I
>obliterate myself".
>
How do you know he's a welfare bum if he's posting from behind an anonymous
remailer? Oh, I forgot. The fully integrated honesty of cyberspace.
Z0np0wEr r00lez cyberspace!
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2
mQENAzGsu28AAAEH/3AV9ABDxbNMTaZE5gC/17oA+oUQPDt5umvanh4zfe4lhBDq
M7OyKUyJgXOlgT6Sn8/izdCskB81VTpQGfTYM8WHJczyOSZDjlI5+XquMl6uSbgn
KiK//6gBDH1TDkzy05E3Mz5t7LtkDIg6epkaRVt3e+14TinV215oDKmgqtWO3Mnv
9qmlItfshlURMUO8lC0ZTQ6zWHLWFbDvY1yW1yQOqUpdhMV7sLwx7ItxaAanz83e
bKqsLs2mgGlGsajz1hhSYYrdZFbwHmOiOi/hFIYHqHYieqRcxgJ+whsCbrRVwj7+
eA+fDgodqrDSUaZy6od9fCtTgbXiViHztG821u0ABRG0DkFkYW0gSWVyeW1lbmtv
=zH1V
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Adam Ierymenko
In article <ansala-0708...@usr1ip43.azstarnet.com>,
ans...@azstarnet.com (David De Gasperis) writes:
>Less than 20 years to make objectivists out of 5 billion sheep? Where is
>your patience? Unless you have read "The Neo-Tech Discovery" from
>cover to cover I'm not convinced that you're able to testify to the
>power of their ideas.
>
When you're converting 5 billion sheep you must be sure you're not a sheep
yourself.
Matt Keys
Adam Ierymenko (a...@axiom.access.one.net) wrote:
: In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>,
: matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) writes:
: >: When are you going to lock your sights on that phoney Wallace Ward?
: >
: >typical KOAH post:
: >
: >"I am a lazy welfare bum that must attack productive
: >neo-tech people to try and cover up my worthlessness.
: >My dishonest and spastic attacks on neo-tech will
: >continue until I become so hysterical that I
: >obliterate myself".
: >
: How do you know he's a welfare bum if he's posting from behind an anonymous
: remailer? Oh, I forgot. The fully integrated honesty of cyberspace.
: Z0np0wEr r00lez cyberspace!
KOAH admitted it himself a few months ago.
Betsy Speicher
think999 <thin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Any and all posts that unfairly, ignorantly, or dishonestly attacked Neo-
> Tech will be quoted and used at will without permission in the forthcoming
> Flame book. JF
I think I'll quote that -- in court.
You are aware, are you not, that anyone who infringes a _registered_
copyright must automatically pay pretty steep damages? And costs? A
statement like the above might even merit punitive damages.
think999
Line up your lawyers for a countersuit. In fact, you could be subject
to an original-action suit.
In article <4uotnv$p...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher
The Omnipotent Philosopher
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
>think999 <thin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Any and all posts that unfairly, ignorantly, or dishonestly attacked Neo-
>> Tech will be quoted and used at will without permission in the forthcoming
>> Flame book. JF
>I think I'll quote that -- in court.
>You are aware, are you not, that anyone who infringes a _registered_
>copyright must automatically pay pretty steep damages? And costs? A
>statement like the above might even merit punitive damages.
> Betsy Speicher
When you quoted and attacked NT, did you ask permission?
---------
T.O.P.
My mind is my mind and the product of it is mine as well.
Your mind is your mind and the product of it is yours.
Put a stop to intellectual parasitism. Demand that
intellectual property rights be fully protected
for their owner -- you and I.
Matt Keys
wow, I didn't think anyone could be less interesting
than KOAH, but Santa][e comes close..
Santa][e (gs...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: A Neo-Techie writes:
: >[Y]ou're always so willing to sit back and dish out criticism to
: >others[.]
: I enjoy being criticized because any imperfections that I may have
: (there are very few, if any) are brought to my attention. Then I can
: adress those imperfections as necessary. KOAH, Neo-Techies, Kellyites
: bring it on!
: >[W]hat have you done to contribute something positive to society?
: That sounds like a question that Wesley Mouch would ask a real man.
: >At least the Neo-Tech organization is putting forth effort and
: >attempting to change things for the better and...
: Lying is not changing things for the better.
: >Is it true that you're an unemployed, ex-postal worker collecting
: >government checks?
: That sounds more like a discription of someone stupid enough to try
: to get rich by 2001 using "Zonpower"
: Greg "Tanned & Rested" Weston
:
:
:
Anonymous
> Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
> : > > child that didn't receive enough parental discipline...maybe
> : > > then you'll receive a little respect.
> : >
> : > He answers them quite well, thank you.
>
> : Thanks.
> : I suppose I should warn you that anyone who compliments me risks ending
> : up as part of a Neo-Tech template claiming that Objectivists support my
> : most heinous writing.
> : And don't think that not being an Objectivist will be any protection!
> : The knuckle-dragging semi-literate Neo-Droid Matt Keys never lets
> : little
>
> interesting. a master's degree in computer science makes me
> "semi-literate".
No, your inability to compose coherent messages makes you semi-literate.
Your degree is completely irrelevant.
Though it is sad that someone can go through that many years of
education in this country and still come out a barely functional,
clueless, credulous, pathetic cultist dupe like yourself.
> more amazing facts from KOAH, "King of honesty and fairness".
> NOT.
I see your composition skills have not improved.
Didn't they have remedial courses at your college or university?
> : things like facts get in the way of his desperate campaign to find
> : someone, anyone, he can smear with the broad brush of 'Objectivist KOAH
> : supporter.'
>
> blah blah blah more lies and slanders from KOAH (like he produces much
> of anything else)
Did you or did you not include a non-Objectivist in the 'do Objectivists
really cheer on KOAH??' section? And didn't he request that this be
corrected several times without success as you reposted your clumsy,
pointless never-asked-questions template again and again?
> desperate campaign??? man you really need some
> new material there, welfare boy.
I am still waiting for one of you buffoons to present some evidence that
I am on welfare.
> read the modified FAQ closely. it says people on a.p.o cheered you on, and
> provided you with bogus material. it does not say anything about them
> "supporting you".
Very few Objectivists had anything good to say about my messages. What
little was said had to do with the fact that I was able to back you idiots
into the corner and force you to openly state your absurd beliefs.
Such as 'limited omnipotence'!
> I guess since you are unemployed and cannot do anything
> PRODUCTIVE with your life then the GOVERNMENT is what supports you.
Feel free to post the evidence that I am supported by the government.
I am still waiting...
> In the words of J. Hampton -- get a life, or better yet - GET A JOB!
But Matty, I thought I had a job - that's what Wallace Ward was claiming
just a few months back. He said that I was working for Neo-Tech
Publishing. He said that I was recruited by Drew Ellis in a clever
double-bluff advertising ploy.
Are you now saying that those statements by your cult founder are 'no
longer operative'?
- King of all Heretics
P.S. Be sure to check out the important message identifying Drew Ellis!
All new info never before seen on the net will be revealed! You won't
want to miss it.
Anonymous
> Adam Ierymenko (a...@axiom.access.one.net) wrote:
> : In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>,
> : matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) writes:
> : >: When are you going to lock your sights on that phoney Wallace Ward?
> : >
> : >typical KOAH post:
> : >
> : >"I am a lazy welfare bum that must attack productive
> : >neo-tech people to try and cover up my worthlessness.
> : >My dishonest and spastic attacks on neo-tech will
> : >continue until I become so hysterical that I
> : >obliterate myself".
>
> : How do you know he's a welfare bum if he's posting from behind an
> : anonymous remailer? Oh, I forgot. The fully integrated honesty of
> : cyberspace.
> : Z0np0wEr r00lez cyberspace!
>
> KOAH admitted it himself a few months ago.
You've really put your foot in it this time Keys.
Chapter and verse jackass, chapter and verse!
Put up or shut up - please repost the message where I supposedly
admitted that I am, as Spam-ton and you have been claiming, a welfare bum.
And make sure you include the full headers WITH THE MESSAGE 1D# so we
can check to make sure you didn't just cook it up yourself!
I'm sure the lurkers are going to be really impressed by what passes for
'honesty' among Neo-Kook dupes.
Anonymous
In article <4unj4d$b...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>, thin...@ix.netcom.com
(think999) wrote:
> In article <4uffq1$9...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Betsy Speicher
> <be...@speicher.com> wrote:
(snip)
> >This material -- and all my postings to UseNet -- are copyrighted. They
> >may not be used beyond fair use without my permission. Neo-Tech
> >Publishing company and its supporters have been put on notice that they do
> >not have my permission to use any of my writing, my name, or my likeness
> >in the pursuit of their goals.
> >
> >There may be consequences.
>
> Any and all posts that unfairly, ignorantly, or dishonestly attacked Neo-
> Tech will be quoted and used at will without permission in the forthcoming
> Flame book. JF
I'm a big supporter of fair use - after all, that's what allows me to
quote your material in my FAQ - but you should be careful not to exceed
the limits of fair use.
Simply compiling dozens of Betsy's complete posts might not qualify as
fair use. And if you do this to a whole group of people they might be
able to file a class action suit against you.
They may even be able to get a court order preventing you from selling
the 'Flame War' book until the case is settled one way or another.
Of course being anonymous I would not be able to participate in any such
action.
Count your blessings.
Anonymous
In article <4ultsq$1...@polo.iquest.com>, ca...@vespucci.iquest.com (Bondo
Camarilla) wrote:
> Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
> : In article <320B81...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
> : <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
>
> : > Anonymous wrote:
> : > >
> : > > In article <3207A7...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
> : > > <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> : > >
> : > > > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser":
> : > > > An unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day long
> : > > > posting Anonymous flames to newsgroups.
> : > >
> : > > No dictionary defines Neo-Tech or ZonPower because they are of no
> : > > significance whatsoever.
> : > > As for my being a loser - prove it.
> : > > Otherwise shut the fuck up.
> : > > - King of all Heretics
> : >
> : > I don't have to prove that you're a loser, KOAH. Your own writings
> : > prove it!
>
> : Please provide specific evidence from my writing which proves that I
> : am, as you allege, a loser.
> : I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a response.
>
> : > I'm going to expose your phoney A- J.Hampton (slayer of all
> : > fake, intellectual underachievers)
>
> : When are you going to lock your sights on that phoney Wallace Ward?
> : - King of all Heretics
>
> I visited this newsgroup several months ago and now that I am back
> I am amazed to see that KOAH is still at it.
I told NTP this was the forever war.
It seems I wasn't kidding.
> I have yet to see this buffoon (KOAH) argue any matters of Neo-Tech
> philosophy.
Perhaps that's due to the fact that you only visit here occasionally.
I have had many philosophical debates disputing various claims made in
the online Neo-Tech material.
> Neo-Tech Publishing is an extroardinary accomplishment in
> pursuit of making this world a better place.
Please elaborate.
How has Neo-Tech Publishing made the world a better place?
And I want hard evidence, not some vague stats about how many books
they've sold. Karl Marx sold a lot of books and he sure as hell didn't
improve the world.
> It is the product of laborious thought and immense creativity and inspires
> many to work to save individual rights.
Perhaps. But it also inspires many to believe in totally absurd,
mystical notions. And it is sold by deceptive methods. And it certainly
lines the pockets of the slippery weasels at NTP.
None of that can help the cause of liberty in the long run. It will be
seized upon and used by the enemies of liberty as evidence of the lack of
ethics among libertarian businesses.
Hardly a great contribution to the cause of freedom.
> Yet, this KOAH freak can find nothing better
> to do but attack motivations of Neo-Tech publishing and certain
> proponents of Neo-Tech.
I have plenty of other things to do.
And I do them.
Believe me, it isn't that difficult to deal with this rogues gallery of
kooks and cranks. Takes very little time. I just pop in, dash off a few
cutting messages, and have some good laughs.
> His trivial attacks have absolutely
> no effect on the validity of the Neo-Tech philosophy for he doesn't
> attack any philosophical points.
Yes I do.
ZonPower promises omnipotence.
Omnipotence is an incoherent concept. It is quite literally self
contradictory. I have presented the argument given by George Smith
against omnipotence in 'Atheism: The Case Against God', as well as
elaborating on it in detail. You can read these arguments in DejaNews if
you care to.
> Most likely, he simply cannot. So,
> this King of all Losers resorts to irrelevant attacks.
Check out the old threads and see whether or not I can present rational
arguments. You may be surprised.
Also, aside from a few fun insults which I admit aren't anything other
than frivolous (hey, I have to keep things entertaining otherwise I'd get
bored!), my criticisms of the honesty and ethics of NTP are quite
relevent. NTP paints itself as a virtuous organization doing battle with
the evil neocheaters. If they're lying about that they may be lying about
a lot of other things. Like this supposed IRS class action lawsuit
they've been babbling about for a year now.
> KOAH: if you have any matters of philosophical importance concerning
> Neo-Tech, let's hear it.
Neo-Tech physics contradicts the best current theories of physics. It
postulates a luminiferous ether and presents no evidence that such a thing
exists. It invents a new particle - the 'thinkon' - based on nothing but
pure sci-fi confabulation. It claims that faster than light communication
is possible.
Neo-Tech uses the flimsiest logic to claim that there is a space alien
civilization of the universe and that every rational being from the past
3,000 years who has died on earth actually lives on in the fabulous CotU!
Now are you going to seriously sit there and claim that I am outta line
to call these phonies on thier outrageous sci-fi bullshit?
> Otherwise take your childish drivel
> elsewhere. We are tired of seeing it. Get a life loser.
How can you be tired of seeing it if you don't read this newsgroup?
Oh, and who died and appointed you net cop?
Anonymous
In article <320E20...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
<mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> Face it Welfare Boy, you lose!
As soon as you present some evidence to back up your claim that I am a
'welfare boy' we can begin discussing whether or not that establishes that
I have lost. (Lost what? Who knows what Spam-ton is blathering about...)
> Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day posting
> Anonymous flames to newsgroups while surviving off of government checks.
I love the way you kooks fabricate references.
It's like the old Doonesbury comic where Zonker writes a story exposing
nepotism in the Dean's office and Doonesbury is really impressed. 'This
story is incredible - where'd you get all the names, dates,
documentation?'
'I made them up'
Anonymous
In article <320E1E...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
<mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
> > Let me explain why I have a good idea about the impotence of Neo-Tech
> > ideas in terms of converting the world to Objectivism.
> > Around the same time Wallace Ward was farting around trying to sell the
> > Neo-Tech Encyclopedia, Robert Ringer was enjoying bestseller success with
> > his classic self help book 'Looking out for Number One.' Ringer started
> > out doing exactly the same thing as Ward - publishing and selling his
> > books himself. But unlike Ward he actually was able to get mainstream
> > publishers to put out the paperback versions and get on the New York Times
> > bestseller list. Ward's only equivalent success was when he was able to
> > get his poker book printed by a large publishing house (allegedly - I have
> > no evidence other than posts by Ward and his lackies on this.)
> > Ringer's books were strongly influenced by Randian ideas, and helped
> > bring them to a large audience. In addition Ringer didn't taint his
> > version of rational selfishness with stupid neologisms and absurd hype.
> > So Ringer's success proves that Ward is a complete failure when it
> > comes to bringing Rand's ideas to a broad audience.
> > Ringer shows that you can do it without lying, without direct mail hard
> > sell tactics, and without corrupting Rand's insights with filthy
> > psuedo-scientific blather.
> > - King of all Heretics
>
> Anonymous -- you're always so willing to sit back and dish
> out criticism to others -- what have you done to contribute something
> positive to society? At least the Neo-Tech organization is putting
> forth effort and attempting to change things for the better and make
> society more just.
> All you do is complain and criticize others who are putting
> forth effort. By the way, where do you get so much time to constantly be
> flaming NT in this newsgroup day after day? Is it true that you're an
> unemployed, ex-postal worker collecting government checks? ...It
> figures. Why don't you get a life. More to the point, GET A JOB!
> - J.Hampton
I see from your non responsive 'answer' that you are at a loss for words
to deal with my analysis of Wallace Ward's utter incompetence at marketing
Objectivism. I have given a _specific_, real-life example of someone who
_is_ doing what Ward _claims_ to be doing. Robert Ringer also manages to
market Objectivist ideas _without_ using deceptive mass mailings! So he
is being _consistent_ with the Objectivist ethics, while Ward is
continuously _violating_ those same ethics with his dishonest advertising.
Remember, we're not talking the law here, we're talking ethics. The law
has lots of latitude for deceptive marketing techniques, but ethics -
particulary Rand's very strict ethics - hold you to a much higher
standard.
Promising people that they can become Gods by reading a silly book when
you know damned well that they cannot is _immoral_ by Objectivist
standards.
Writing a whole book on how to fleece your friends at poker by using
_unlimited deception_ (Wallace Ward's own description of the methods he
advocates!) is _immoral_ by Objectivist standards.
Ward is the Robert Stadler of Objectivism.
Anonymous
In article <4um82l$i...@pegasus.odyssee.net>, t...@not-here.net (The
Omnipotent Philosopher) wrote:
> >: > > > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> >: > > > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day long posting
> >: > > > Anonymous flames to newsgroups.
>
> Though this may be kinda funny to some of us it proably isn't if you
> really were an ex-postal worker. I'm not BTW.
>
> However, if I were to define loser in general conceptual terms I would
> say: n. Someone who loses (something).
>
> KOAH is a loser in that he is losing the precious time of his life on
> something few in this group care about. I suggest you all ask
> yourself including you KOAH, "Of what use is this to my life?"
It's fun.
I want to live a happy life so if something is fun I stick with it.
> KOAH's writings add nothing to my life and I intend to cease reading
> them - not that I have read many of them - otherwise I too will be a
> loser. NTP on the other hand at least attempts to offer me something.
> They are the ones who introduced me to the philosophy of Ayn Rand and
> the economics of laissez-faire which in itself is a tremendous value
> to me.
What about thinkons, Cassandra's Secret, the Civilization of the
Universe and faster than light communication?
The Neo-Tech package deal includes an awful lot of bullshit.
> KOAH's philosophy is based on self-sacrifice. In essence, what it
> amounts to is: I will spend my time and life in an attempt to stop
> NTP. I'm not quite sure what higher cause he's fighting for.
I'm having some fun.
I explained this a long time ago, but it may have been before you got
here so I'll do it again:
Net War is inherently enjoyable. But some have asked if this means that
I would attack anything just for fun. The answer is no. If I were
attacking something I considered to be good I would not be able to
sincerely argue against it. I would be helping damage something good and
that would ruin the whole thing. For Net War to be really exciting and
amusing the enemy must be real - a genuine 'value destroyer.' Truly evil.
Neo-Tech is a perfect Net War opponent.
They like to engage in Net Combat, so there is no chance of it becoming
a one sided war. They abuse the spirit of the usenet system even if they
manage to avoid being cancelled, so I act as a sort of Karmic force of net
justice. And they are extremely pompous so they provide endless amusement
as I goof on their absurd blather.
And they are truly evil. One need only read Wallace Ward's first book
'The Advanced Concepts of Poker' to see that he is a big time neocheater
and value destroyer - a human predator who feeds on the weakness of
others. In his poker games he fed on the weakness of his supposed
friends. In Neo-Tech mass mailings he preys on the human weaknesses of
the carefully targeted marks he gets from lists of 'opportunity seekers' -
gullible people looking for a way to get rich quick. He fleeces them for
every dime he can with his immense series of overpriced, badly printed,
and clumsily written tomes.
Fucking over weak people isn't admirable. It isn't 'value production.'
It is the strategy of the coward, the bully, the parasite.
But am I fucking over weak people in my Net War? No - Matt Keys is a
weak person but I am not trying to fuck him over - I am trying to wake him
up! If he'd actually think for a while about the questions NTP can't
answer he'd see that something is rotten in Vegas. Then he could stop
making a fool of himself as a Neo-Tech dog-boy and do some real value
production.
I'm also trying to prevent more people from being sucked into the
Neo-Tech semantic trap, and if preventing that means I have to play a
little rough with Keys and other unlucky Neo-Dupes so be it.
Wallace Ward is not weak - he is an intelligent, predatory, ruthless man
who doesn't mind lying to get what he wants. He is my true Net Opponent.
And I am going to expose his evil to the world.
Just for the fun of it.
J. Hampton
Hey Anonymous, when are you going to answer my question: When are you going to
get a Job! --J.Hampton
> > Anonymous wrote:
> alt.neo-tech Frequently Asked Questions
> Alpha release .06
> Copyright (c) 1996 by King of all Heretics
> All Rights Reserved
> May be reproduced freely so long as the full text is included.
> > 0.2. Who am I?
An unemployed, ex-postal worker collecting government checks
> > 0.3. Why do I use an anonymous remailer?
Because you dishonestly slander people, and are an intellectual coward?
> > 0.4. Why are you so cheesed off at NT/ZP?
Because you are a non productive, parasitical drain on society and you are envious and
must attack those who are in a competitive, productive mode. Particularly those who are
successful at the enormously difficult task of commercially marketing
objectivist/free-market type ideas
****
Anonymous -- you're always so willing to sit back and dish
out criticism to others -- what have you done to contribute something
positive to society? At least the Neo-Tech organization is putting
forth effort and attempting to change things for the better and make
society more just.
By the way, where do you get so much time to constantly be
flaming NT in this newsgroup day after day? I know you stated that you're
an unemployed, ex-postal worker collecting government checks ...It
figures. Why don't you get a life. More to the point, GET A JOB!
Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day posting
Anonymous flames to newsgroups while surviving off government checks.
Anonymous wrote:
>
> In article <320E20...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
> <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
>
> > Face it Welfare Boy, you lose!
>
> As soon as you present some evidence to back up your claim that I am a
> 'welfare boy' we can begin discussing whether or not that establishes that
> I have lost. (Lost what? Who knows what Spam-ton is blathering about...)
>
> > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day posting
> > Anonymous flames to newsgroups while surviving off of government checks.
>
> I love the way you kooks fabricate references.
> It's like the old Doonesbury comic where Zonker writes a story exposing
> nepotism in the Dean's office and Doonesbury is really impressed. 'This
> story is incredible - where'd you get all the names, dates,
> documentation?'
> 'I made them up'
J. Hampton
> > 0.2. Who am I?
Anonymous wrote:
>
> In article <320E1E...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
> <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
>
> > Anonymous wrote:
> > > Let me explain why I have a good idea about the impotence of Neo-Tech
> > > ideas in terms of converting the world to Objectivism.
> > > Around the same time Wallace Ward was farting around trying to sell the
> > > Neo-Tech Encyclopedia, Robert Ringer was enjoying bestseller success with
> > > his classic self help book 'Looking out for Number One.' Ringer started
> > > out doing exactly the same thing as Ward - publishing and selling his
> > > books himself. But unlike Ward he actually was able to get mainstream
> > > publishers to put out the paperback versions and get on the New York Times
> > > bestseller list. Ward's only equivalent success was when he was able to
> > > get his poker book printed by a large publishing house (allegedly - I have
> > > no evidence other than posts by Ward and his lackies on this.)
> > > Ringer's books were strongly influenced by Randian ideas, and helped
> > > bring them to a large audience. In addition Ringer didn't taint his
> > > version of rational selfishness with stupid neologisms and absurd hype.
> > > So Ringer's success proves that Ward is a complete failure when it
> > > comes to bringing Rand's ideas to a broad audience.
> > > Ringer shows that you can do it without lying, without direct mail hard
> > > sell tactics, and without corrupting Rand's insights with filthy
> > > psuedo-scientific blather.
> > > - King of all Heretics
> >
> > Anonymous -- you're always so willing to sit back and dish
> > out criticism to others -- what have you done to contribute something
> > positive to society? At least the Neo-Tech organization is putting
> > forth effort and attempting to change things for the better and make
> > society more just.
> > All you do is complain and criticize others who are putting
> > forth effort. By the way, where do you get so much time to constantly be
> > flaming NT in this newsgroup day after day? Is it true that you're an
> > unemployed, ex-postal worker collecting government checks? ...It
> > figures. Why don't you get a life. More to the point, GET A JOB!
> > - J.Hampton
>
> I see from your non responsive 'answer' that you are at a loss for words
> to deal with my analysis of Wallace Ward's utter incompetence at marketing
> Objectivism. I have given a _specific_, real-life example of someone who
> _is_ doing what Ward _claims_ to be doing. Robert Ringer also manages to
> market Objectivist ideas _without_ using deceptive mass mailings! So he
> is being _consistent_ with the Objectivist ethics, while Ward is
> continuously _violating_ those same ethics with his dishonest advertising.
>
> Remember, we're not talking the law here, we're talking ethics. The law
> has lots of latitude for deceptive marketing techniques, but ethics -
> particulary Rand's very strict ethics - hold you to a much higher
> standard.
> Promising people that they can become Gods by reading a silly book when
> you know damned well that they cannot is _immoral_ by Objectivist
> standards.
> Writing a whole book on how to fleece your friends at poker by using
> _unlimited deception_ (Wallace Ward's own description of the methods he
> advocates!) is _immoral_ by Objectivist standards.
> Ward is the Robert Stadler of Objectivism.
Matt Keys
hey KOAH, are you unemployed or not?
do you get goverment money each month or not?
yes or no?
if you DO have a job, what is it? telling us what
you do for a living won't compromise your real identity.
Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) wrote:
: In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>, matt...@netcom.com (Matt
: Keys) wrote:
: > Adam Ierymenko (a...@axiom.access.one.net) wrote:
: > : In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>,
: > : matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) writes:
: > : >: When are you going to lock your sights on that phoney Wallace Ward?
: > : >
: > : >typical KOAH post:
: > : >
: > : >"I am a lazy welfare bum that must attack productive
: > : >neo-tech people to try and cover up my worthlessness.
: > : >My dishonest and spastic attacks on neo-tech will
: > : >continue until I become so hysterical that I
: > : >obliterate myself".
: >
: > : How do you know he's a welfare bum if he's posting from behind an
: > : anonymous remailer? Oh, I forgot. The fully integrated honesty of
: > : cyberspace.
: > : Z0np0wEr r00lez cyberspace!
: >
: > KOAH admitted it himself a few months ago.
: You've really put your foot in it this time Keys.
: Chapter and verse jackass, chapter and verse!
: Put up or shut up - please repost the message where I supposedly
: admitted that I am, as Spam-ton and you have been claiming, a welfare bum.
: And make sure you include the full headers WITH THE MESSAGE 1D# so we
: can check to make sure you didn't just cook it up yourself!
: I'm sure the lurkers are going to be really impressed by what passes for
: 'honesty' among Neo-Kook dupes.
: - King of all Heretics
J. Hampton
> > 0.2. Who am I?
Pee Kitty
J. Hampton (mar...@chinadirect.com) spewed forth:
> Face it Welfare Boy, you lose!
> Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day posting
> Anonymous flames to newsgroups while surviving off of government checks.
Silly me...I always thought the definition of loser was an inbred moron
posting the same paragraph to a newsgroup day after day in a vain attempt
to feel important.
--
Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian
Meow!
--> You can fight the Conspiracy of Normalcy and get back your Slack!
--> Send $1 to Church of the SubGenius / PO Box 140306 / Dallas TX 75214
--> Or visit alt.slack or FTP to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty for info
"Why spend $30 or even $40 dollars for a filthy porno movie when you can
jerk off all over the Church of the SubGenius for only $30 bucks!"
- (Pope) Rev. Godfather Gillan [edit]
Pee Kitty
Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) spewed forth:
> In article <320B81...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
> <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> > Anonymous wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3207A7...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
> > > <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> > > > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day long posting
> > > > Anonymous flames to newsgroups.
> > >
> > > No dictionary defines Neo-Tech or ZonPower because they are of no
> > > significance whatsoever.
> > > As for my being a loser - prove it.
> > > Otherwise shut the fuck up.
> > > - King of all Heretics
> >
> > I don't have to prove that you're a loser, KOAH. Your own writings
> > prove it!
> Please provide specific evidence from my writing which proves that I am,
> as you allege, a loser.
> I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a response.
> > I'm going to expose your phoney A- J.Hampton (slayer of all
> > fake, intellectual underachievers)
> When are you going to lock your sights on that phoney Wallace Ward?
> - King of all Heretics
I seriously doubt he'd go after his own boss. (Look up the chinadirect web
pages at www.neo-tech.com to see what I mean...run by Frank S. Ward, or
contact kelv...@netcom.com for more information).
Pee Kitty
Matt Keys (matt...@netcom.com) spewed forth:
> Adam Ierymenko (a...@axiom.access.one.net) wrote:
> : In article <mattkeysD...@netcom.com>,
> : matt...@netcom.com (Matt Keys) writes:
> : >
> : >typical KOAH post:
> : >
> : >"I am a lazy welfare bum that must attack productive
> : >neo-tech people to try and cover up my worthlessness.
> : >My dishonest and spastic attacks on neo-tech will
> : >continue until I become so hysterical that I
> : >obliterate myself".
> : >
> : How do you know he's a welfare bum if he's posting from behind an anonymous
> : remailer? Oh, I forgot. The fully integrated honesty of cyberspace.
> : Z0np0wEr r00lez cyberspace!
> KOAH admitted it himself a few months ago.
> --
> http://www.neo-tech.com _ _
> __ __ ____ __ ____ __ __ _ _ ___ ___ ___| |_ ___ __| |_ __ ___ _ __
> \ V V /\ V V /\ V V /| ' \/ -_) _ \___| _/ -_) _| ' \ _/ _/ _ \ ' \
> \_/\_/ \_/\_/ \_/\_(_)_||_\___\___/ \__\___\__|_||_(_)__\___/_|_|_|
/*
** Preface: When you've eaten as much sugar as we had, you tend to write
** some very strange things. This is one of them.
*/
"Necco Wafers"
Written by Jason Levine and Jon Meerdink
(V.P. and Prez., respectively, of S.C.U.M.)
To the tune of "We didn't Start the Fire" (Billy Joel)
Distribute freely, just don't modify it!
Walking through the candy aisle
Turn the corner, stop and smile
My favorite candy's on display
Only thirty cents today
Wheelbarrow, load it high
Take it to the counter guy
Write a check for the amount
Clearing out my bank account
Everyone's eyes open wide
As I cart them all outside
Many people stop and stare
I don't notice, I don't care
For once you've had that sugar high
To let it go would make you cry
Those multiflavored sugar disks
Worth any cost and any risk
We love Necco wafers
Might not be nutritious
But they're so delicious
We love Necco wafers
All those different flavors
Cause our strange behaviors
Cut the package with a knife
I love these things more than my life
Chew two wafers at a time
Now I'm floating on Cloud Nine
Ecstasy, orgasmic bliss
Each new wafer's like a kiss
Better than I've ever felt
I feel my taste buds start to melt
Each new day I have this craving
Grab the cash that I've been saving
Heading to the grocery store
Gotta have it; need some more
Necco is my new lord now
Heed his callings, kneel and bow
Anything to get that taste
Brought to you by toxic waste
We love Necco wafers
Might not be nutritious
But they're so delicious
We love Necco wafers
All those different flavors
Cause our strange behaviors
All of you may wonder why
We've got that twinkling in our eye
A secret between you and me
Candy (aisle number three)
Get some money, get it fast
Short supplies, they cannot last
Try the Neccos and you'll find
A brand new world inside your mind
We love Necco wafers
Might not be nutritious
But they're so delicious
We love Necco wafers
All those different flavors
Cause our strange behaviors
We love Necco wafers
Might not be nutritious
But they're so delicious
We love Necco wafers
Going to the store
Gotta buy some more...some more...some more...
Pee Kitty
The Omnipotent Philosopher (t...@not-here.net) spewed forth:
> ego-boosting drivel snipped.
> Wow, KOAH you have no idea how much you revealed to me about your
> psychological make-up. You can only fake reality for so long before
> it starts to surface as physical signs. Don't waste anymore of my
> time or I will rip you apart and I'm saving your post on my hard drive
> in the event that should happen. And leave Matt alone because I know
> why you're attacking him. You have no idea how deep a hole you're
> digging yourself.
Heh..."ego boosting drivel"?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
China Direct
Hey Litter Box, you sure do seem to enjoy brown-nosing KOAH. I wonder
why?
Pee Kitty wrote:
>
> J. Hampton (mar...@chinadirect.com) spewed forth:
> > Face it Welfare Boy, you lose!
>
> > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day posting
> > Anonymous flames to newsgroups while surviving off of government checks.
>
> Silly me...I always thought the definition of loser was an inbred moron
> posting the same paragraph to a newsgroup day after day in a vain attempt
> to feel important.
>
J. Hampton
China Direct wrote:
> Hey Litter Box, you sure do seem to enjoy brown-nosing KOAH. I wonder
> why?
That's because Litter Box (Pee Kitty) admitted to having personally met
KOAH and is his friend. ...They probably met while standing in line to
collect their government welfare checks. Ha, ha,ha,ha.....
BTW, Litter Box, are you employed? --J.Hampton
Meredith
Pee Kitty wrote:
>
> J. Hampton (mar...@chinadirect.com) spewed forth:
> > Face it Welfare Boy, you lose!
>
> > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day posting
> > Anonymous flames to newsgroups while surviving off of government checks.
>
> Silly me...I always thought the definition of loser was an inbred moron
> posting the same paragraph to a newsgroup day after day in a vain attempt
> to feel important.
>
Considering the posts are coming from a Neo-Tech address, unless the
company
has no control over it's employees, or doesn't realize how bad this
makes
Neo-Tech publishing look (or unless there is some underlying "strategy"
or
other thoughtful purpose to these postings), it looks like it might be a
troll.
But anyway who cares.
The Omnipotent Philosopher
ego-boosting drivel snipped.
Wow, KOAH you have no idea how much you revealed to me about your
psychological make-up. You can only fake reality for so long before
it starts to surface as physical signs. Don't waste anymore of my
time or I will rip you apart and I'm saving your post on my hard drive
in the event that should happen. And leave Matt alone because I know
why you're attacking him. You have no idea how deep a hole you're
digging yourself.
----------
T.O.P.
Start a not-for-profit corporation and outcompete all
your competitors. Take over the whole sector of the
economy if you like.
Pee Kitty
> : > > As for my being a loser - prove it.
> : > > Otherwise shut the fuck up.
> : > > - King of all Heretics
> : >
> : > I don't have to prove that you're a loser, KOAH. Your own writings
> : > prove it!
> : Please provide specific evidence from my writing which proves that I am,
> : as you allege, a loser.
> : I am not going to hold my breath waiting for a response.
> : > I'm going to expose your phoney A- J.Hampton (slayer of all
> : > fake, intellectual underachievers)
> : When are you going to lock your sights on that phoney Wallace Ward?
> typical KOAH post:
> "I am a lazy welfare bum that must attack productive
> neo-tech people to try and cover up my worthlessness.
> My dishonest and spastic attacks on neo-tech will
> continue until I become so hysterical that I
> obliterate myself".
Pee Kitty
J. Hampton (mar...@chinadirect.com) spewed forth:
<standard reply snipped>
Is it just me, or do the rest of you get the feeling that in real life,
when you get into an argument with this guy, he just sticks his fingers in
his ears and starts screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA! CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA
LA LA LA LA LA LA!"?
Pee Kitty
China Direct (mar...@chinadirect.com) spewed forth:
> Hey Litter Box, you sure do seem to enjoy brown-nosing KOAH. I wonder
> why?
Oh, just to spite you, my little darling rosebud...just to spite you.
> Pee Kitty wrote:
> >
> > J. Hampton (mar...@chinadirect.com) spewed forth:
> > > Face it Welfare Boy, you lose!
> >
> > > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> > > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day posting
> > > Anonymous flames to newsgroups while surviving off of government checks.
> >
> > Silly me...I always thought the definition of loser was an inbred moron
> > posting the same paragraph to a newsgroup day after day in a vain attempt
> > to feel important.
> >
Pee Kitty
Meredith (mered...@hotmail.com) spewed forth:
> Pee Kitty wrote:
> >
> > J. Hampton (mar...@chinadirect.com) spewed forth:
> > > Face it Welfare Boy, you lose!
> >
> > > Websters New Ninth CyberAge Dictionary defines the term "Loser": An
> > > unemployed, ex-postal worker who sits around all day posting
> > > Anonymous flames to newsgroups while surviving off of government checks.
> >
> > Silly me...I always thought the definition of loser was an inbred moron
> > posting the same paragraph to a newsgroup day after day in a vain attempt
> > to feel important.
> >
> Considering the posts are coming from a Neo-Tech address, unless the
> company
> has no control over it's employees, or doesn't realize how bad this
> makes
> Neo-Tech publishing look (or unless there is some underlying "strategy"
> or
> other thoughtful purpose to these postings), it looks like it might be a
> troll.
> But anyway who cares.
But why troll one of your employees out to make your group look like it
hires immature idiots? I thought it was a troll, too, but I thought it was
an anti-Zonner. But if it was, I'm sure the NTP guys would've said so by
now. A troll from NTP would make *no sense*, though. <shrug> I dunno. This
is from the same company that STILL says KOAH worked for them, though
nobody believes it. Buncha wacky guys...
J. Hampton
Pee Kitty wrote:
> I have never met KOAH, not in person. I never claimed to have. I don't
> know him, and probably don't live anywhere near him.
Pee Kitty also wrote: I've talked to people who know
KOAH personally...that gives me the advantage of knowing FOR FACT that 90%
of the mud people are slinging at him here is bullshit. But will that stop
the slinging? Probably not.
Come on, Pee, what a load of BS. KOAH posts anonymously, so how could you "talk to
people" who know KOAH if you don't already know who he is. In other words, those
so-called people you talked to who happan to know KOAH is in reality you. ...I wasn't
born yesterday Litter Box. KOAH is your personal freind and your posts in regards to
his raging attacks on Neo-Tech are anything but objective, third-party observations.
--J.Hampton
Pee Kitty
> > Hey Litter Box, you sure do seem to enjoy brown-nosing KOAH. I wonder
> > why?
> That's because Litter Box (Pee Kitty) admitted to having personally met
> KOAH and is his friend. ...They probably met while standing in line to
> collect their government welfare checks. Ha, ha,ha,ha.....
> BTW, Litter Box, are you employed? --J.Hampton
I have never met KOAH, not in person. I never claimed to have. I don't
know him, and probably don't live anywhere near him.
Is the use of the term 'little box' intended as as insult? If so, please
try harder. If not, then that's not one of my aliases, so I don't see
why you're using it.
Anonymous
In article <32161C...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
<mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
> Pee Kitty wrote:
> > I have never met KOAH, not in person. I never claimed to have. I don't
> > know him, and probably don't live anywhere near him.
>
> Pee Kitty also wrote: I've talked to people who know
> KOAH personally...that gives me the advantage of knowing FOR FACT that 90%
> of the mud people are slinging at him here is bullshit. But will that stop
> the slinging? Probably not.
>
> Come on, Pee, what a load of BS. KOAH posts anonymously, so how could you
> "talk to people" who know KOAH if you don't already know who he is.
Maybe someone told him they know me.
Of course they might be bullshitting him.
After all, I am a very mysterious fellow and a lot of people seem to
think they know about me who obviously haven't a clue.
For example you think you know I'm a loser.
> In other words, those so-called people you talked to who happan to know
> KOAH is in reality you.
That is not the only possibility.
But feel free to waste your time bugging Pee about my 'identity' and
making wild accusations. It will make you look like an even bigger
jackass than you already do.
> ...I wasn't born yesterday Litter Box. KOAH is your
> personal freind and your posts in regards to his raging attacks on Neo-Tech
> are anything but objective, third-party observations.
Oh, this is rich!
You really make my day Spam-ton! Or should I call you Frank?
Pee Kitty
> > I have never met KOAH, not in person. I never claimed to have. I don't
> > know him, and probably don't live anywhere near him.
> Pee Kitty also wrote: I've talked to people who know
> KOAH personally...that gives me the advantage of knowing FOR FACT that 90%
> of the mud people are slinging at him here is bullshit. But will that stop
> the slinging? Probably not.
[please adjust your line lengths--the lines below are hard to read]
> Come on, Pee, what a load of BS. KOAH posts anonymously, so how could
you "talk to
> people" who know KOAH if you don't already know who he is.
Uh, gee, I dunno...maybe I talk to my online friends, and once when I
mentioned alt.neo-tech one of them told me that he had met KOAH? Of
course, I'm sure that you consider that impossible.
> In other words, those
> so-called people you talked to who happan to know KOAH is in reality
you.
Yeah! I'm with YOU, man! FUCK reality, let's just believe whatever the
fuck we FEEL like believing, and that'll make it TRUE!
> ...I wasn't
> born yesterday Litter Box.
I know. It takes a LOT longer than a day for someone to get THAT stupid.
> KOAH is your personal freind and your posts
in regards to
> his raging attacks on Neo-Tech are anything but objective, third-party
observations.
Of course. They're obviously subjective first-party observations, for I am
Neo-Tech and I am Wallace Ward and I am NTP. All hail Zon? No, ALL HAIL
ME! Whatever you say, my little rosebud.
(Did you eat a lot of soap as a child?)
Pee Kitty
Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) spewed forth:
> > Pee Kitty wrote:
> > > I have never met KOAH, not in person. I never claimed to have. I don't
> > > know him, and probably don't live anywhere near him.
> >
> > Pee Kitty also wrote: I've talked to people who know
> > KOAH personally...that gives me the advantage of knowing FOR FACT that 90%
> > of the mud people are slinging at him here is bullshit. But will that stop
> > the slinging? Probably not.
> >
> > Come on, Pee, what a load of BS. KOAH posts anonymously, so how could you
> > "talk to people" who know KOAH if you don't already know who he is.
> Maybe someone told him they know me.
> Of course they might be bullshitting him.
No, I trust the person I was talking to completely. He didn't tell me your
name or anything...I'm just bringing it up to point out (again) how silly
NTP is being about this whole thing. I don't care who you "really" are,
and I don't see why they do...online, you just judge a person by what they
write, and that's all you need.
> After all, I am a very mysterious fellow and a lot of people seem to
> think they know about me who obviously haven't a clue.
> For example you think you know I'm a loser.
He also thinks he thinks. That's been proven wrong often enough.
> > In other words, those so-called people you talked to who happan to know
> > KOAH is in reality you.
> That is not the only possibility.
> But feel free to waste your time bugging Pee about my 'identity' and
> making wild accusations. It will make you look like an even bigger
> jackass than you already do.
<nod> I've answered his accusation once, and that's the only time I plan
to waste on it unless he brings something new up. I doubt he will, though;
judging by his past performance, he'll just keep spamming the same post
over and over again until I get bored and put him in the killfile.
> > ...I wasn't born yesterday Litter Box. KOAH is your
> > personal freind and your posts in regards to his raging attacks on Neo-Tech
> > are anything but objective, third-party observations.
> Oh, this is rich!
> You really make my day Spam-ton! Or should I call you Frank?
Possibly. Last time I checked, he was posting from a Netcom Netcruiser
account, which would mean he wasn't kelvin??@netcom.com (the guy in charge
of chinadirect.com). If I get REALLY bored, I might bother tracking down
his actual userid sometime...
Anonymous
In article <4vbpgc$k...@herald.concentric.net>, Pki...@cris.com (Pee Kitty)
wrote:
> Anonymous (nob...@REPLAY.COM) spewed forth:
> > In article <32161C...@chinadirect.com>, "J. Hampton"
> > <mar...@chinadirect.com> wrote:
(snip)
> > > Come on, Pee, what a load of BS. KOAH posts anonymously, so how could
> > > you "talk to people" who know KOAH if you don't already know who he is.
(snip)
> > > In other words, those so-called people you talked to who happan to know
> > > KOAH is in reality you.
>
> > That is not the only possibility.
> > But feel free to waste your time bugging Pee about my 'identity' and
> > making wild accusations. It will make you look like an even bigger
> > jackass than you already do.
>
> <nod> I've answered his accusation once, and that's the only time I plan
> to waste on it unless he brings something new up. I doubt he will, though;
> judging by his past performance, he'll just keep spamming the same post
> over and over again until I get bored and put him in the killfile.
>
> > > ...I wasn't born yesterday Litter Box. KOAH is your
> > > personal freind and your posts in regards to his raging attacks on
> > > Neo-Tech are anything but objective, third-party observations.
>
> > Oh, this is rich!
> > You really make my day Spam-ton! Or should I call you Frank?
>
> Possibly. Last time I checked, he was posting from a Netcom Netcruiser
> account, which would mean he wasn't kelvin??@netcom.com (the guy in charge
> of chinadirect.com). If I get REALLY bored, I might bother tracking down
> his actual userid sometime...
'J. Hampton's' longer posts match the style of NT literature written by
'Eric Savage', which is the pen name of Frank S. Ward, one of Wallace
Ward's sons by his first wife Helen Savage (which explains the pen name).
His more recent and ever less substantive posts remind me of the sort of
one-line replies I usually see from thin...@netcom.com, who is of course
'Frank R. Wallace' AKA Wallace Ward himself.
By the way, he got 'Frank R. Wallace' by taking the names of his three
kids - Frank, Ruth and Wallace, and combining them.
J. Hampton
Anonymous wrote:
> See the thread 'Wallace Ward YHBT - the Ultimate Hose!' for the story on
> how Wally came to believe that he had the goods on me.
> But to make it crystal clear:
> I am not an unemployed ex-postal worker living on disability checks.
> I was just yanking Wally's chain.
> YHBT means 'You Have Been Trolled'
So KOAH, you are either a liar or you're an unemployed, ex-postal
worker. I suspect that you are both -- an unemployed, ex-postal worker
who is also a liar. PS, As Peikoff identified, once an individual has
been caught in a lie, that person must then go to extraordinary links to
establish the credibility of anything he asserts in the future. Thus,
you must now prove to me that you are employed if you expect me to
beleive that you really are. I now need to know:
1)Exactly what job it is you have
2)The name of your employer and his phone number for employment
verification purposes. --J. Hampton
Pee Kitty
J. Hampton (mar...@chinadirect.com) spewed forth:
> So KOAH, you are either a liar or you're an unemployed, ex-postal
> worker.
That'd make him a liar (just like you, Hampton). The only difference is
that the lie was in the context of a troll, while yours was just...well, a
lie.
> I suspect that you are both -- an unemployed, ex-postal worker
> who is also a liar. PS, As Peikoff identified, once an individual has
> been caught in a lie, that person must then go to extraordinary links to
> establish the credibility of anything he asserts in the future. Thus,
> you must now prove to me that you are employed if you expect me to
> beleive that you really are. I now need to know:
Uh, I seriously doubt anyone cares what you believe. Fortunately for the
real world, what YOU believe has no effect on reality. What is is,
regardless of your personal fetishes and obsessions.
Turiyan gold
"Observe that the modern relativists-- with their credo of
intellectual
tolerance, of the open mind, of the anti-absolute-- turn into howling
dogmatists to denounce anyone who claims to possess knowledge.
Observe that
they tolerate anything, except certainty-- and approve of anything,
except
values... Observe that they profess to be moved by compassion for
human
suffering-- and close their ears indignantly to any suggestion that
man does
not HAVE to suffer.
"What you see around you today, among modern intellectuals, is the
grotesque
spectacle of such attributes as militant uncertainty, crusading
cynicism,
dogmatic agnosticism, boastful self-abasement and self-righteous
depravity.
The two absolutes of today's non-absolutists are that ignorance
consists of
claiming knowledge, and that immorality consists of proclaiming moral
judgements."
-- Ayn Rand
Turiyan Gold adsc...@ix.netcom.com
http://www.netcom.com/~adscapes/new.html
This message protected by international treatys.
Authenticity can only be ensured if it is PGP
signed and authenticated messages.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
13
Tom Robertson
adsc...@ix.netcom.com (Turiyan gold) wrote:
> "Observe that the modern relativists-- with their credo of
>intellectual tolerance, of the open mind, of the anti-absolute-- turn into howling
>dogmatists to denounce anyone who claims to possess knowledge.
>Observe that they tolerate anything, except certainty-- and approve of anything,
>except values.
Such hypocrisy hardly makes mistakenly believing in the possibility of
absolute certainty a virtue. Denouncing those who claim knowledge and
denouncing those who claim absolute knowlege are of radically
different values. That approving of anything except values is a
destructive extreme hardly means that tolerance of the opinions of
others and recognizing the possibility of being wrong are vices.
> The two absolutes of today's non-absolutists are that ignorance
>consists of
> claiming knowledge, and that immorality consists of proclaiming moral
> judgements."
>
> -- Ayn Rand
This statement is full of potential for the putting up of a straw man.
There is a crucial distinction between claiming knowledge and claiming
infallible certainty, as there is between proclaiming moral judgments
and claiming that determining morality is not a subjective, fallible
process.
Tom R.