Conversation With An AOL Clam
FauxReal59
LizzyApple: What, Faux?
FauxReal59: Thought I'd send a courteous greeting and attempt some COMM
FauxReal59: Whacha doin'?
LizzyApple: reading the boards and posting.
By the way...were you a Scientologist at one time?
FauxReal59: Still am according to the Church rosters.
LizzyApple: What happened....if I may be so blunt?
FauxReal59: Found out I was being lied to, documented the lies, and wrote
and published a story about in in Spy Magazine titled, DO YOU WANT TO BUY
A BRIDGE?
LizzyApple: Oh? I see. Was there anyone in particular who lied to you
or...?
FauxReal59: Yes the lies began at the Dianetics Center on Hollywood
Boulevard. Then they continued throughout my study at the Hubbard
Dianetics Foundation, and culminated into the biggest lies at the
Celebrity Center. Started with recruiters, ended with regs.
LizzyApple: I see. Gee, I am sorry to hear that it went that way. As you
know, I've had the opposite experience. The things I post really are true
for me, Faux.
FauxReal59: I believe you.
LizzyApple: Great. I'm doing two things at once here. How's everything
else with you?
FauxReal59: My goal is not to attack you or your religion. My goals are
simply to point out injustice as it surfaces within Scientology; to point
out when the boards are being used for commercial PR purposes; to help
those who want to get out by serving as an "Exit Counselor."
FauxReal59: Everything else is fine. Thank you.
FauxReal59: My experience prepping for the "purif" was horrific...
LizzyApple: Like what?
FauxReal59: The reg at CC immediately started making a play for my credit
cards -- in fact she facilitated a credit increase....
FauxReal59: Then...
FauxReal59: She told me that radiation would be emitted from my system -
neglecting to explain that skin flushing was a result of Niacin intake....
FauxReal59: Then she remanded me to a Scientologist physician rather than
my personal doctor I requested....
FauxReal59: Then I went to the doctor....
FauxReal59: My background: I am an ex-drug addict/alcoholic who - in the
past - suffered liver and heart damage as the result of my abuse....
LizzyApple: I see. I've helped in those cases.
FauxReal59: The doctor - Anju Mather MD - actually recommended the purif
for me without cautioning me about the effects of Niacin on the liver and
sauna on the heart....
FauxReal59: Then...
FauxReal59: She insisted that - given my background - I submit to an AIDS
test because - and I quote - "you will be sweating with others in the
sauna" - as if AIDS can be transmitted that way!
FauxReal59: I should have had this "doctor" brought up on charges. She
got off easy. I merely exposed her in my story...
LizzyApple: I see. Is that where you decided not to do any more
Scientology?
FauxReal59: In my research, I met a fellowship of hundreds of
ex-Scientologists...
FauxReal59: Some of the names you will recognize...
FauxReal59: That was where I made my decision, yes.
FauxReal59: Are you waiting for me to mention names, or are you preparing
a rebuttal?
LizzyApple: I did not know if you had finished.
FauxReal59: That's about it. You know what gives me pleasure?
LizzyApple: What?
FauxReal59: Getting letters from parents who have long been disconnected
(yes, per the disconnect order/policy) from their children. Parents who
have taken my article and xeroxed it, and distributed it around college
campuses. It helps them, and no, I don't bring them up on copyright
violations.
FauxReal59: What also helps me is to see the color, the glow return to the
faces of those who I have successfully counseled out of the organization.
LizzyApple: I see. I got what you said about that. I know Scientology
derailed for you at the Purif. stage, but, it does stay on track for some
of us a long time...take me for instance...30 years on track and no bad
experiences, not a one.
LizzyApple: I see so many religions out there, they serve a good purpose.
To each his own. Do you have a religion?
FauxReal59: That's beautiful. (not being facetious) -- But you must
understand that you are not considering the fate of others. They are all
deemed SPs and Critics. With all your posts, it is clear that the
"doctrine over mind" effect has ocurred with you. You can attack
psychiatry in your postings, but you do not even address the Lisa
McPherson tragedy.
FauxReal59: I have a spiritual program that is freely given to me that
ARCRP chose to disgrace in the Scientology folder.
LizzyApple: Which is that?
FauxReal59: <snip>
LizzyApple: Gee. There's certainly nothing wrong with that organization.
I've seen some very good results with <snip>.
LizzyApple: I actually have a Scientology friend who went through the
program, and still helps with the local group on an ongoing basis.
There's nothing wrong with <snip> if it works for you.
FauxReal59: I refer you to ARCRP posting about "programs that defer to the
disease concept of alcoholism and addiction." He basically said that these
spiritually-based programs do not work, and then made a pitch for
Narconon.
FauxReal59: Also, Lizzy...
FauxReal59: I sincerely want to know why it is okay for you to post on the
"evils" of psychiatry, etc. -- even referring to NEWS articles, and then -
the way Xact7888 told me in a COMM - that you won't comment on the Lisa
McPherson tragedy because it hasn't been resolved in a court of law yet.
LizzyApple: Let me ask you, do you think ECT is really OK?
FauxReal59: Lizzy. I have seen ECT effective as a last resort, yes.
Also, my significant other's very life was saved by Prozac.
FauxReal59: Is ETC okay? I am really not qualified to make that opinion,
but One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is not where my opinions are formed.
LizzyApple: I have studied the long term effects of ECT and that type drug
for years, I understand if you think a drug handled a friend and you have
no other recourse, but, well, having seen Dianetics and Scientology
work...really work...each time, so that the person doesn't need to use
drugs...well, it kinda changes your viewpoint a lot.
FauxReal59: You believe Pyshiatrists are evil. I recognize them as
licensed professionals (MDs) bound by the Hippocratic Oath to save lives.
FauxReal59: Scientology has NO BUSINESS trying to handle clinical mental
illness.
FauxReal59: I gotta say, Lizzy. I find the fact that you have twice
deflected the Lisa McPherson issue rather troubling.
LizzyApple: I don't have any real info on the Lisa thing. Only what I've
heard from you and the others on the boards.....I can't make a statement
from that.
FauxReal59: Yes, but not in total.
FauxReal59: Why is that? Has it been declared "entheta" to read or watch
the volumes of news reports on it? Network, St. Petersburg Times,
Newsweek for god's sake? Hello????
LizzyApple: No. Just haven't seen it.
FauxReal59: Come on Lizzy. What a cop out. If you have heard that one of
your own had died at The Fort Harrison Hotel under Scientological care --
you would not choose to investigate that?
LizzyApple: No, really never did see it.
FauxReal59: Is your interest not piqued now that you have "heard" about
it?
FauxReal59: Is your interest not piqued now that you have "heard" about
it?
LizzyApple: Knowing what I personally know about Flag and the
Church..after 30 years experience.....having stayed at Flag many times
myself, I just can't believe what been said on the boards.
FauxReal59: This is not FROM the boards. This is from international news
reports as well as from a surmounting CRIMINAL wrongful death
investigation. Stop backpedaling Lizzy. It doesn't look good on you.
LizzyApple: Well, then I guess it doesn't look good on me from your
viewpoint and you certainly are entitled to that.
FauxReal59: Not my point. My point is the conspiracy of silence on the
widely known topic of Lisa McPherson's death from all who post continual
"theta" On the Scientology Boards.
FauxReal59: That is unconscionable.
FauxReal59: And ignorance is no excuse.
LizzyApple: I got what you're saying. I don't want to see any person die,
be it of AIDs, War, or old age, or anything.
LizzyApple: I like people too much to want to see that.
FauxReal59: You can do something about it. Close to home in fact. You can
broach the subject of Lisa McPherson's tragic death at your org and demand
an explanation. With 30 years in Scientology, you have the power to help
insure that another wrongful death does not occur.
LizzyApple: Well, thank you for letting me know. I was actually under the
impression that things were being handled in the courts and by law. In
Scientology we agree to obey the law of the land. This is true.
FauxReal59: That "agreement" has been broached by Scientologists so many
times I've almost lost track.
FauxReal59: Operation Snow White? Miscavige ducking subpoenas? Frivolous
litigation run amuk? Come on. Lizzy, these are not conspiracy theories
here.
LizzyApple: Once again, never in any area that I've been aware, or
around, or near.
FauxReal59: Lizzy. Where were you hiding when Mary Sue Hubbard and
Scientology officials broke into Government offices? There were
convictions.
LizzyApple: That doesn't even make sense. I never am hiding.
LizzyApple: Certainly wasn't hiding then either. Silly question.
FauxReal59: You wanna know my version of a Bridge to Freedom?
FauxReal59: When you are wrong, promptly admit it. Do not blame your
perceived "attacker."
LizzyApple: I can agree that that is a good philosophy...one I adhere to
myself.
FauxReal59: Stop making claims of "perfection." Admit where and when LRH
was wrong. Scientology can actually flourish from that standpoint.
LizzyApple: Hmmmm. I don't disagree with you.
FauxReal59: Apply a philosophy of "live and let live" in all of your
affairs... Do not attack "psychs." Be of service.
LizzyApple: Great.
FauxReal59: Then we can agree to agree and disagree on many points.
LizzyApple: Hmmm. I guess you *could* say that.
FauxReal59: I just did say that.
LizzyApple: So you did.
FauxReal59: Look. Isn't direct COMM better than you going to your org,
getting my Dead Agent packet, reading it, making up your mind, and writing
me off as an SP?
LizzyApple: I never do that anyway.
FauxReal59: LizzyApple: I never do that anyway.
FauxReal59: You have thirty years....
FauxReal59: If "raw meat" were to arrive at an org and say, "Hey. I read
the article by Mark Ebner in Spy, and I am concerned..." you know darn
well he would be routed to all the information possible acquired to
discredit me.
LizzyApple: I hope you do understand, that I believe that all people are
basically good. I believe fully, totally and completely in the Aims of
The Church of Scientology...have you seen them? Well, I adhere to them
and everyone I know does. It's a great way to live.
LizzyApple: I also believe that people can change.
LizzyApple: And because you were one way for awhile, you can decide and
then be a different way.
FauxReal59: I have seen them, yes. But they run so contrary to the exact
Hubbard orders and policies I have seen: Fair Game Doctrine, Disconnect
Order, Handling Suppressives....ad infinitum...
FauxReal59: FauxReal59: To quote an OSA rep outside a Shrine Auditorium
event when asked what the purpose of OSA was: "We beat up Suppressives."
His name was "Lazar." Not exactly a very loving approach, Lizzy.
LizzyApple: That always makes me laugh when you write something about
"Fair Game"...in 30 years I've never never seen that enacted....in 30
years I've never disconnected from anyone (it only says handle or
disconnect). Any type disconnection is looked down upon if one can handle
the situation.
LizzyApple: "Handle" is what is really done, unless all else fails.
FauxReal59: Unless all else fails... Interesting word choice. The same
could be said for ECT, doll.
LizzyApple: But, deciding not to let someone attack you is much different
than frying grey matter.
FauxReal59: Do you understand who it is you are talking to here? I was
threatened, harrassed, sued (put on notice), by Scientology. I have been
on the business end of FAIR GAME.
LizzyApple: The person ends up with no or little memory.
FauxReal59: And the person I speak of ends up with no or little life if
the ultimate goal beyond "lying, tricking, harrassing" is accomplished.
"otherwise destroy utterly" ring a bell?
FauxReal59: Again, I don't have a problem with some of the tech, and the
programs as I do with the potentially dangerous way they are presented.
LizzyApple: I understand what you are trying to say. But, again, I've
been around 30 years, I've never seen anything presented dangerously.
FauxReal59: Blinders have a way of distorting your perception I'm afraid,
Lizzy.
LizzyApple: See, this data does not jive with what I've experienced. I've
had a long time to experience it.
FauxReal59: And in a relatively short amount of time I have accumulated
data that proves the "lies of Scientology."
FauxReal59: Beyond the lies, the criminality of Scientology will be your
Waterloo in the end. Long before the "pyschs" dissappear.
Keith Henson
Zane Thomas
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 16:36:39 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>I just wish that he'd stop posting personal chats with others in a
>public newsgroup, Keith.
It's AOL for Gawd's Sake!
Obey little, resist much.
And for you automated email spammers out there,
here's the email addresses of the current board of
the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
And let's help you send some spam to the US Postal Service, too:
Diane Richardson
>On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 16:36:39 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>I just wish that he'd stop posting personal chats with others in a
>>public newsgroup, Keith.
>
>It's AOL for Gawd's Sake!
Does that mean that personal chats on AOL should not be afforded
the same rights as conversations using other media?
Or do you just feel, as does Roland, that Scientologists[tm] should
not be afforded the same rights as others?
Your comment may have been made in jest, but it says far more about
your mindset than you realize.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Zane Thomas
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 18:32:32 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>>>I just wish that he'd stop posting personal chats with others in a
>>>public newsgroup, Keith.
>>
>>It's AOL for Gawd's Sake!
>
>Does that mean that personal chats on AOL should not be afforded
>the same rights as conversations using other media?
ROFLMAO!
You really, really need to rent a sense of humor Diane. Don't you
know that AOL is a common butt of net.jabs?
Also you really, really, really need to rent a clue:
>Your comment may have been made in jest, but it says far more about
>your mindset than you realize.
Actually it says far more about _your_ mindset than you realize.
I posted that message specifically for you Diane. I knew you'd bite,
taking the opportunity to paint me as some sort of "AOL Bigot!"
<snicker> or make some other dumbass remark. Gotcha on both points.
Now you may recall that you weasled out of the "Faith & Belief" thread
saying something about not talking to me anymore. I think it's pretty
much a certainty that you've been reading my messages, just waiting
for something to pounce on with your catty little claws.
You'd best stick to fetching books for your "Nobel prize-winner"
buddies Diane, you're not ready to play with the grown-ups.
YHBT, HAND, (oh, btw, thought you knew better than to judge a book by
its cover <snicker>),
Zane Thomas
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 20:57:47 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>Of course I do, Zane. You still haven't answered my questions,
>however.
Bwaahahahaha! Just make up whatever old answer suits your purpose
Diane, it'll be easier that way.
>Not at all, Zane. You still haven't addressed the questions I've
>asked.
Sure I have, you just don't like the answer you got. Now don't go
playing cross-examiner with me here, I'll answer your stupid questions
with the sort of answer I feel they deserve.
>>Now you may recall that you weasled out of the "Faith & Belief" thread
>>saying something about not talking to me anymore.
>
>What did I say about not talking to you anymore, Zane. Care to quote
>it?
Go look it up yourself, you're the Mistress of DejaNews aren't you?
>I do not have claws, Zane.
That's a pretty damned literal reading Diane. Looks like you need to
work on your imagination some too.
>Zane, anyone who spends the amount of time you've spent trading
>insults with Garry Scarff can't possibly talk about being "grown-up"
>with a straight face.
See what I mean about judging a book by its cover? Guess not, you just
don't geddit.
>I haven't been trolled, Zane.
Sure have, I got exactly the response I was expecting out of you.
Now I admit there's room for interpretation here, specifically "Did he
_really_ troll Diane, or was it simply an extremely clever come-back"?
I believe whoever reads this thread can come to whatever conclusion
they like. I've formed a couple of hypotheses about you (see below),
but can't quite figure out how to choose one as the most likely, and
I'm not sure I really care.
You know it's kind of disappointing really. I doubt you'll believe
this but when I originally engaged you in the "Question For Diane"
thread I did so with an open mind. And when you engaged in a civil
conversation I said "hmmm", and when you admitted a Mistake ... well I
took that as an indicator that maybe you weren't as bad as some people
say. I'm still not convinced you're as bad as _some_ people say, but
I've played with you long enough to be convinced that either a) you're
intentionally dishonest or b) you need to take a break.
>You've been exposed for the fool you really are.
Ninner, ninner, your mama wears army boots.
>Why not go back to telling a PWA to have a short life?
I see you're not above adopting any old moron's pathetic whining if it
suits your purpose. That's an instance of what I mean when I say
you're being dishonest. If you applied some carefull reading and
analysis to my use of "Have a short life" you'd know it wasn't because
the dimwit has AIDS, but because I consider him beneath contempt. But
you didn't do that, you just picked up some dirt and tossed it my way
in the desperate hope that some of it would turn to mud and stick.
>You're much better at that sort of thing.
Pot-kettle-black darling.
Diane Richardson
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 19:36:12 GMT, zane@die_spammers.mabry.com (Zane
Thomas) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 18:32:32 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>>I just wish that he'd stop posting personal chats with others in a
>>>>public newsgroup, Keith.
>>>
>>>It's AOL for Gawd's Sake!
>>
>>Does that mean that personal chats on AOL should not be afforded
>>the same rights as conversations using other media?
>
>ROFLMAO!
>
>You really, really need to rent a sense of humor Diane. Don't you
>know that AOL is a common butt of net.jabs?
Of course I do, Zane. You still haven't answered my questions,
however.
>Also you really, really, really need to rent a clue:
>>Your comment may have been made in jest, but it says far more about
>>your mindset than you realize.
>
>Actually it says far more about _your_ mindset than you realize.
Not at all, Zane. You still haven't addressed the questions I've
asked.
>I posted that message specifically for you Diane. I knew you'd bite,
>taking the opportunity to paint me as some sort of "AOL Bigot!"
><snicker> or make some other dumbass remark. Gotcha on both points.
I did not make a dumbass remark, Zane. I asked if you believed AOL
posters should not be afforded the same rights as others. I also
asked if you felt that Scientologists[tm] should not be afforded the
same rights as others. Do you?
>Now you may recall that you weasled out of the "Faith & Belief" thread
>saying something about not talking to me anymore.
What did I say about not talking to you anymore, Zane. Care to quote
it?
> I think it's pretty
>much a certainty that you've been reading my messages, just waiting
>for something to pounce on with your catty little claws.
I do not have claws, Zane. That's how you'd like to see me, but it
does not represent me at all. Loaded language doesn't work too well
for you, Zane.
>You'd best stick to fetching books for your "Nobel prize-winner"
>buddies Diane, you're not ready to play with the grown-ups.
Zane, anyone who spends the amount of time you've spent trading
insults with Garry Scarff can't possibly talk about being "grown-up"
with a straight face.
I'll take my discussions with Nobel prize winners over your
"intellectual dialogues" with Scarff any day of the week.
>YHBT, HAND, (oh, btw, thought you knew better than to judge a book by
>its cover <snicker>),
I haven't been trolled, Zane. You've been exposed for the fool you
really are. Why not go back to telling a PWA to have a short life?
You're much better at that sort of thing.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Zane Thomas
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 03:24:58 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
Erlich) wrote:
>They say turnabout's fair play, Z-man.
Dunno about that (at least not in the instant case <snicker>)) but
it's sure a hoot!
SpinTheCa
>So there ought to be *some* discretion about posting logs;
>it's very much a grey area.
Goodness. A gray area! Back when I did it, I got screamed at from all
sides. The near-universal judgement was NO ONE, EVER, IS ALLOWED TO POST
LOGS.
Hmm. Mirele? Anybody else who jumped down my throat gonna jump down
Mark's? If I were really in a bad mood, I'd post those channel logs where
y'all screamed your heads off about the sanctity of logs.
I guess it's "you may never post logs of conversations with our friends,
but do as you will with logs of people we want to jeer at." Or perhaps
"you may post logs if we like you, but if we are arguing with you, it is
immoral to post logs."
Fairness must be a habit few practice enough to get good at it.
judith
"and you can change the name of this place to Benny's World of Blood!"
Peter McDermott
In article <5ts6rf$d...@netaxs.com>,
rke...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>Sister Clara (cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: This thread related to an AOL private chat. Diane raised an oft-repeated
>: question relating to the acceptability of posting chat logs to ars.
>:
>: Zane turns it into a personal attack on her and raises issues from other
>: threads to illustrate his points.
>
>My view is that you should take into account anybody who could be logging
>your conversation. Don't say anything you will regret.
I agree that this is the best approach to take. However, that doesn't
make the action of the poster any more defensible than say - posting
somebody's auditing files onto a newsgroup.
But then perhaps someone might argue that anyone who tells anything
*they* consider confidential to the loony clam cult after being
familiar with the works of ElRon deserves anything *they* get
as well?
Diane Richardson
On 25 Aug 1997 21:02:51 GMT, spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote:
>>So there ought to be *some* discretion about posting logs;
>>it's very much a grey area.
>
>Goodness. A gray area! Back when I did it, I got screamed at from all
>sides. The near-universal judgement was NO ONE, EVER, IS ALLOWED TO POST
>LOGS.
>
>Hmm. Mirele? Anybody else who jumped down my throat gonna jump down
>Mark's?
Nope. Forget it. I suspect you'll be waiting a long, long time
before you hear much outrage expressed over Mark's behavior.
Many on this newsgroup have descended to the level where they
view things only in the light of "you're either for us or agin us."
That's pretty much been the guiding principle on this newsgroup
for months now.
>If I were really in a bad mood, I'd post those channel logs where
>y'all screamed your heads off about the sanctity of logs.
>
>I guess it's "you may never post logs of conversations with our friends,
>but do as you will with logs of people we want to jeer at." Or perhaps
>"you may post logs if we like you, but if we are arguing with you, it is
>immoral to post logs."
You've got it, Judith. That's the prevailing attitude here. Watch
your step if you choose to hang around.
>Fairness must be a habit few practice enough to get good at it.
Thanks for the blast of moral outrage. I doubt if it will affect the
thoughts of many who still bother reading here. That in itself is
sad.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Neil Woods
On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 17:12:31 GMT, zane@die_spammers.mabry.com (Zane Thomas)
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 16:36:39 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>I just wish that he'd stop posting personal chats with others in a
>>public newsgroup, Keith.
>
>It's AOL for Gawd's Sake!
>
AOL, IRC, or /msg on IRC, private email....
WHAT THE FUCK DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!!!!
I use that service and if private IM conversations I've engaged in with others
started showing up on this newsgroup, or any other place for that matter, you'd
better bet your ass I'd go after the balls of the asshole who did it.
I really don't care that you may think AOL is a joke to you or anyone else for
that matter. There are many who have no other access to this wonderland,
looking down your nose at them for the service they use is pretty short sighted
on your part.
Neil Woods
"It is easy to tell when a critic has absorbed too
much of scientology, they will quit laughing at the
whole funny "battle."" Keith Henson
Judith Bradford
>spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote:
>
>>>So there ought to be *some* discretion about posting logs;
>>>it's very much a grey area.
>>Goodness. A gray area!
>
> Seems so. Differnet circumstances too.
yup. I had a reason, I thought.
>
>>Anybody else who jumped down my throat gonna jump down
>>Mark's?
>
> Anybody who reacted that way at you, must do the same at Mark? I
>don't geddit. Wherezit say that?
Well, if he and I did similar things, then a fair person sahould
respond to them in the same way. Not to do so means, in brief, that
one's moral outrage (and the outrage directed at me was moral) is
fake; one is simply using moral language to express partiality. Moral
principles aren;t supposed to change depending on who does the act.
>>If I were really in a bad mood, I'd post those channel logs where
>>y'all screamed your heads off about the sanctity of logs.
>
> Y'all who ~exactly~ do you mean?
not everyone, true enough. do you want to know, or are you just
trying to imply that no one did? The people I mean remember it
perfectly well.
>>I guess it's "you may never post logs of conversations with our friends,
>>but do as you will with logs of people we want to jeer at." Or perhaps
>>"you may post logs if we like you, but if we are arguing with you, it is
>>immoral to post logs."
>
> Who said that, 'sides you?
I am describing the situation. Those persons who believed it immoral
for me to post one should believe the same of Mark.
>>Fairness must be a habit few practice enough to get good at it.
>
> That will never make it on a fortune cookie. Maybe a BurmaShave
>sign, tho.
then I won't be changing careers to write fortune cookies.
judith
> Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * *
> <inF...@super.zippo.com>
> <inF...@primenet.com>
Judith Bradford
On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 22:45:18 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
Erlich) wrote:
>spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote:
>
>WHN:
>>>>> >I just wish that he'd stop posting personal chats with others in a
>>>>> >public newsgroup, Keith.
>
>Aspasia:
>>one might in general have scruples about that sort of thing?
>
> [note: I never new you were Spin, Asp]
I am indeed.
>
> Public chats are public, aren't they? Were 4 and the scieno the
>only one's on the channel? If so, the same rules apply as with email,
>I think. Otherwise it's public. Or did I get that rong?
This was a private message log, the equivalent of DCC on IRC.
>Zane:
>>>>> It's AOL for Gawd's Sake!
>>what on earth does this mean? if one talks on AOL, one is fair game, but
>>if one talks on IRC, communications are private?
>
> Communications on irc are private, all of a sudden? With osa
>monitoring every word? That'd be novel.
By convention, I believe, public channels are public. Message
exchanges and DCC are private, as email.
>Sis:
>>>>So?
>>indeed sis.
>
> Indeed, so? Somebody please take this opportunity to make a point.
>Any friggin point will suffice.
OK. Hope I have cleared up the confusion about what exactly was
posted.
>>> So this, Sis. It's an example of commencing a deprogramming on a
>>>scieno. That's what's so. You are witnessing the Dreaded Deprog.
>>Dennis, would it matter to you if FauxReal had lied to this scieno?
>
> Lied to her? How did that get into the privacy thing? Did he lie?
>I musta mist it on quik read. Show me where.
I do not know that he did, except that he neglected to info\rm her
that the conversation would be broadcast. He said things that jarred
with what I have heard from him in other contexts (inclusing private
ones) but I have no idea whether he was telling the truth to her... or
to me.
>
>>Does
>>it matter what you tell them, as long as it produces the desired result?
> Huh? Asp, is that really you asking ~me~ this? Or is Spin a
>troll?
No troll. I want to know if you thought this was OK!
>>I mean "lie" in the simplest sense. Is it OK to say things that aren't,
>>strictly speaking, true, in order to fix some poor dipshit's delusions?
>
> Do you really think so?
Not in the least. My trust in Mark has been damaged.
>>The clam evidently has no idea she was speaking to quite so general an
>>audience; Mark appealed for her trust, got it, and broke it.
>
> Was there no one else on the channel? In that case, shame on 4.
>Newby that he is.
It was not a channel. It was an "IM chat" which is not a channel at
all but a private message exchange.
>>> You don't find it fascinating? Don't bother reading it.
>>Does the scieno know her personal conversation with Mark has been spread
>>all over the net?
>
> I dint know a aol chatroom was considered private. I dont use or
>recommend aol.
Now you know. It was not a chatroom.
>
>>Christ Almighty... Mark got to snip out the things he
>>didn't want known. Did she get the same privilege?
>
> You mean you have the complete transcript of the chat?
I see where he snipped things. Did she get to review it before he
posted it? She claims that he snipped creatively.
>>> I really envy 4's facility with the medium. I don't type (or
>>>think) fast enough any more to pull that off.
>>He is very persuasive, indeed.
>
> Funny too.
Not to her.
>>> Beets the fun out of talk radio.
>>resembles it, too. you know, when Rush Limbaugh gets to cut other people
>>off to make them look stupid-- empowered only by the fact that he is the
>>one with the off switch.
>
> If that's the case, shame on 4. Give that boy some eddykit.
I like Mark. but I wish very much he had not done this.
Damon Chetson
Zane Thomas (zane@die_spammers.mabry.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 20:57:47 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
: wrote:
: >Of course I do, Zane. You still haven't answered my questions,
: >however.
: Bwaahahahaha! Just make up whatever old answer suits your purpose
: Diane, it'll be easier that way.
Why is it okay to post an AOL conversation and not an IRC conversation?
Don't post any.
KrishM
The thing with this whole "breach of netiquette" is that there is, first
and foremost, nothing that was harmful to the clam in the post...
I think that's the most important issue, since people are so concerned
about some freakin' clam's privacy, one that is KNOWN to disseminate
aggressively on AOL, and to post unsubstantiated "truths."
Secondly, a log, IRC or AOL-IM, is just that----a log! That's why we have
them...to be able to review what was said. And though some may say that
it's not proper netiquette to post a "private" log, let's understand that
when you chat with someone, you KNOW there's a log being made; kind of like
when the utility company or even an enemy tells you that the conversation
is being taped. So the clam LizzyApple KNEW that a log would exist, and she
still continued with the chat. That's giving permission. If she didn't want
things to be on the net, then she should not have talked to him. Period.
Especially with the guidelines that Scn. puts on talking to reporters.
Personally, I never say anything that would give a person any personal
information which they could use to find me or harass me with. I follow the
"X-Files" philosophy....trust no one, especially because any clam can be
among the non-scientology camp pretending to be a friend, gathering info.
Thirdly, even e-mail to an extent is "fair game." Wouldn't you let people
see something that someone wrote and snail-mailed you, if it would further
your cause? I would, if the letter were from an enemy. Use what they say
against them...it's been a tenet of the American justice system, people.
I'd probably keep it to myself only if it were from a friend who was
writing about personal cervical or prostate cancer, or some such thing. But
in a war such as this, where legal battles are abound, and around every
corner is suspicion and deceit?? No way, all correspondence from "the other
side" is "fair game."
I think that FAR too much has been made of posting the chat here.
Use no deceit, lies, or falsehoods....but do use what the other side
offers up.
--KrishM
Ron Newman
In article <340220cd...@snews.zippo.com>,
Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>The conversation FauxReal posted here was the equivalent of a private
>messaging session between two people, rather than the log of an open
>channel conversation.
That may be, but FauxReal also made it clear quite early on that he
is a journalist (namely, the one who wrote the Spy magazine article).
The person that the journalist was interviewing made no attempt to
put the conversation "off the record".
--
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
URL: http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
Ron Newman
In article <34027ba7....@news.pipeline.com>,
Judith Bradford <asp...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>I am describing the situation. Those persons who believed it immoral
>for me to post [a chat log] should believe the same of Mark.
Not necessarily. Mark announced himself to be a journalist
quite early on in that conversation. The person he was interviewing
never told Mark that she wanted her remarks to be off the record.
I wouldn't have done what Mark did, but I can't fault him
too much for it.
Prignillius
In article <19970825210...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote:
>
>>So there ought to be *some* discretion about posting logs;
>>it's very much a grey area.
>
>sides. The near-universal judgement was NO ONE, EVER, IS ALLOWED TO POST
>LOGS.
>
>Mark's?
Judith, I hope this demand for flames does not reflect your reason
for returning to a.r.s. I hope you didn't come back just because
you thought there wasn't enough acrimony on this ng right now.
>
>If I were really in a bad mood, I'd post those channel logs where
>y'all screamed your heads off about the sanctity of logs.
>
>I guess it's "you may never post logs of conversations with our friends,
>but do as you will with logs of people we want to jeer at." Or perhaps
>"you may post logs if we like you, but if we are arguing with you, it is
>immoral to post logs."
I will restrain my impulse to tell you to FOAD.
My time to post to a.r.s is particularly limited right now, and I try
not to waste it with flames or personal attacks. Additionally, if
I posted about everything I objected to on a.r.s, I'd top the posting
stats every week.
But I try to be tolerant of the "failings" of others, and only post
when something really gets under my skin. Also, others had already
berated Mark for posting the logs, and I didn't see that my doing so
would add much to anything.
But since you virtually demanded it, here it is:
*Any* posting of private email or *any* chat logs without the express
permission of all parties represented in said mails or logs is
morally unjustifiable in my opinion.
IOW, whoever does it is a total fucking asshole.
Happy now?
>
>Fairness must be a habit few practice enough to get good at it.
Interpreting the lack of a post by any individual on a newsgroup
is completely fallacious.
After reading your recent thoughtful post on mind control, etc., I
was going to welcome you back to the group. You have killed my
greeting before it left my keyboard with your posts to this thread.
>
>judith
>"and you can change the name of this place to Benny's World of Blood!"
Prignillius
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Prignillius prign...@nym.alias.net |
| |
| Always push power in the direction of anyone on whose powers |
| you depend. It may be more money for the power, or more ease, |
| or a snarling defense of the power to a critic, or even the |
| dull thud of one of his enemies in the dark, or the glorious |
| blaze of the whole enemy camp as a birthday surprise. |
| - L. Ron Hubbard |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
Prignillius
In article <19970827182...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
kri...@aol.com (KrishM) wrote:
>
>The thing with this whole "breach of netiquette" is that there is, first
>and foremost, nothing that was harmful to the clam in the post...
>
>I think that's the most important issue,
Not to my mind, it isn't.
>
>since people are so concerned
>about some freakin' clam's privacy, one that is KNOWN to disseminate
>aggressively on AOL, and to post unsubstantiated "truths."
Are you saying you advocate one set of right/wrong for people you
like and a different set for people you disagree with?
>
>Secondly, a log, IRC or AOL-IM, is just that----a log! That's why we have
>them...to be able to review what was said. And though some may say that
>it's not proper netiquette to post a "private" log, let's understand that
>when you chat with someone, you KNOW there's a log being made; kind of like
>when the utility company or even an enemy tells you that the conversation
>is being taped.
When I first went on IRC, I didn't even know there was such a thing
as logs. I was horrified to see my name in print when one was posted.
Do you warn everyone you talk to that you are logging them, like you
claim the utility company does?
>
>So the clam LizzyApple KNEW that a log would exist,
Prove it.
>
>and she
>still continued with the chat. That's giving permission.
Like hell it is.
>
>If she didn't want
>things to be on the net, then she should not have talked to him. Period.
Please tell me your nick on IRC so that I may refrain from ever
engaging in any sort of conversation with you.
>
>Especially with the guidelines that Scn. puts on talking to reporters.
>Personally, I never say anything that would give a person any personal
>information which they could use to find me or harass me with.
Nor do I. That's not the point. The point isn't whether what's posted
for the world to see is embarrassing or not.
The point is that it's doing something non-consensual to another
person. It's violating them.
Geddit?
>
>I follow the
>"X-Files" philosophy....trust no one, especially because any clam can be
>among the non-scientology camp pretending to be a friend, gathering info.
With your attitudes, I certainly won't trust you.
>
>Thirdly, even e-mail to an extent is "fair game." Wouldn't you let people
>see something that someone wrote and snail-mailed you, if it would further
>your cause? I would,
What an asshole.
I think you should put this in your sig, so that anyone who is tempted
to communicate with you will know the cavalier attitude you take
towards communication from others.
>
>if the letter were from an enemy.
Tell me again why I should oppose the morally vacuous Church of
Scientology and not oppose you?
>
>Use what they say
>against them...it's been a tenet of the American justice system, people.
Even the morally questionable American justice system has some rules
about search, seizure, probably cause and admissibility of evidence.
More than just, "I branded him an enemy, so anything I did to him is OK."
I do know one organization that says, "Enemies may be tricked, sued,
lied to or destroyed." Tell me why you are opposed to that organization
whose philosophy you share.
>
>I'd probably keep it to myself only if it were from a friend who was
>writing about personal cervical or prostate cancer, or some such thing.
I find your double standard appalling.
>
>But
>in a war such as this, where legal battles are abound, and around every
>corner is suspicion and deceit??
I am certainly very suspicious of you. Please warn me when you come
around.
>
>No way, all correspondence from "the other
>side" is "fair game."
>
>I think that FAR too much has been made of posting the chat here.
After reading your response, I don't think anywhere near enough has
been made of it.
>
>Use no deceit, lies, or falsehoods....but do use what the other side
>offers up.
But it's not deceiving somebody to broadcast things said to you to
the world, without permission of the person who said it?
Maybe deceit isn't quite the right word. Maybe "fucking over" is
a little closer to the mark.
>
>--KrishM
Prignillius
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Prignillius prign...@nym.alias.net |
| |
| All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men |
| to do evil in the course of opposing evil. |
Diane Richardson
On 27 Aug 1997 18:24:42 GMT, kri...@aol.com (KrishM) wrote:
>The thing with this whole "breach of netiquette" is that there is, first
>and foremost, nothing that was harmful to the clam in the post...
Note the use of the de-humanizing epithet "clam." It's much easier to
dismiss any harm done to a sub-human species, after all.
>I think that's the most important issue, since people are so concerned
>about some freakin' clam's privacy, one that is KNOWN to disseminate
>aggressively on AOL, and to post unsubstantiated "truths."
Now, the woman is not just a "clam," she is now a "freakin' clam."
Even more de-humanizing. She's not just sub-human, she's now a
disgusting sub-human.
>Secondly, a log, IRC or AOL-IM, is just that----a log! That's why we have
>them...to be able to review what was said. And though some may say that
>it's not proper netiquette to post a "private" log, let's understand that
>when you chat with someone, you KNOW there's a log being made; kind of like
>when the utility company or even an enemy tells you that the conversation
>is being taped. So the clam LizzyApple KNEW that a log would exist, and she
>still continued with the chat. That's giving permission. If she didn't want
>things to be on the net, then she should not have talked to him. Period.
Sorry, but if they were even-handed in their criticism, you would have
a host of IRC #scientology regulars disagreeing with you about that
matter. I believe the most recent excoriation occurred when Martin
Hunt chose to post the log of an *open channel* chat when Garry Scarff
made his debut appearance (and performance).
Even the bristly Martin Hunt backed away from that tongue-lashing.
I think a great deal is said by the silence of those who are generally
very outspoken when it comes to posting logged material.
>Especially with the guidelines that Scn. puts on talking to reporters.
>Personally, I never say anything that would give a person any personal
>information which they could use to find me or harass me with. I follow the
>"X-Files" philosophy....trust no one, especially because any clam can be
>among the non-scientology camp pretending to be a friend, gathering info.
>
>Thirdly, even e-mail to an extent is "fair game." Wouldn't you let people
>see something that someone wrote and snail-mailed you, if it would further
>your cause? I would, if the letter were from an enemy. Use what they say
>against them...it's been a tenet of the American justice system, people.
Really?
>I'd probably keep it to myself only if it were from a friend who was
>writing about personal cervical or prostate cancer, or some such thing. But
>in a war such as this, where legal battles are abound, and around every
>corner is suspicion and deceit?? No way, all correspondence from "the other
>side" is "fair game."
I'm sure that the wavering Scientologists[tm] who might consider
reaching out to a critic by way of a private discussion will pay great
heed to what you write here. In other words, any Scientologist[tm]
who might consider leaving -- or merely criticizing -- the CoS would
do well to keep such thoughts to himself. Comforting thought. . . .
>I think that FAR too much has been made of posting the chat here.
>
>Use no deceit, lies, or falsehoods....but do use what the other side
>offers up.
I've had many chats with Scientologists[tm], both on AOL and irc.
I've had battles with some (like Truckstop Sally) and heart-to-heart
discussions with others. I've viewed the words of some
Scientologists[tm] as nothing but smarmy sentimentalism, some as
justified anger at my pointed criticisms, and some as genuine doubts
and concerns over CoS management.
I sincerely doubt if Mark Ebner will be holding any more private chats
with any Scientologist[tm] -- unless he comes up with a new handle,
that is, to hide his identity even further.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Joe Harrington
Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> On 27 Aug 1997 18:24:42 GMT, kri...@aol.com (KrishM) wrote:
>
> >The thing with this whole "breach of netiquette" is that there is, first
> >and foremost, nothing that was harmful to the clam in the post...
>
> Note the use of the de-humanizing epithet "clam." It's much easier to
> dismiss any harm done to a sub-human species, after all.
I've not been following this thread until tonight and I thought a few
remarks might be appropiate.
"Clam" has become somewhat of a generally accepted pejorative in this
newsgroup. I too find its usage offensive and have stated so in the
past.
> >I think that's the most important issue, since people are so concerned
> >about some freakin' clam's privacy, one that is KNOWN to disseminate
> >aggressively on AOL, and to post unsubstantiated "truths."
I consider the above statement tantamount to trying to squelch her free
speech in a public forum.
> Now, the woman is not just a "clam," she is now a "freakin' clam."
> Even more de-humanizing. She's not just sub-human, she's now a
> disgusting sub-human.
>
> >Secondly, a log, IRC or AOL-IM, is just that----a log! That's why we have
> >them...to be able to review what was said. And though some may say that
> >it's not proper netiquette to post a "private" log, let's understand that
> >when you chat with someone, you KNOW there's a log being made; kind of like
> >when the utility company or even an enemy tells you that the conversation
> >is being taped. So the clam LizzyApple KNEW that a log would exist, and she
> >still continued with the chat. That's giving permission. If she didn't want
> >things to be on the net, then she should not have talked to him. Period.
>
> Sorry, but if they were even-handed in their criticism, you would have
> a host of IRC #scientology regulars disagreeing with you about that
> matter. I believe the most recent excoriation occurred when Martin
> Hunt chose to post the log of an *open channel* chat when Garry Scarff
> made his debut appearance (and performance).
At the very least, her reasonable expectancy of privacy was breached. It
might have been appropiate if any mention of her identity or nick was
stripped, and her comments summarized.
> Even the bristly Martin Hunt backed away from that tongue-lashing.
> I think a great deal is said by the silence of those who are generally
> very outspoken when it comes to posting logged material.
>
> >Especially with the guidelines that Scn. puts on talking to reporters.
> >Personally, I never say anything that would give a person any personal
> >information which they could use to find me or harass me with. I follow the
> >"X-Files" philosophy....trust no one, especially because any clam can be
> >among the non-scientology camp pretending to be a friend, gathering info.
I'm not clear that Mark was a bona-fide journalist? MY understanding is
that he submitted an article that was published in Spy Magazine?
> >Thirdly, even e-mail to an extent is "fair game." Wouldn't you let people
> >see something that someone wrote and snail-mailed you, if it would further
> >your cause? I would, if the letter were from an enemy. Use what they say
> >against them...it's been a tenet of the American justice system, people.
>
> Really?
>
> >I'd probably keep it to myself only if it were from a friend who was
> >writing about personal cervical or prostate cancer, or some such thing. But
> >in a war such as this, where legal battles are abound, and around every
> >corner is suspicion and deceit?? No way, all correspondence from "the other
> >side" is "fair game."
I for one don't subscribe to this "We vs Them", thus anything goes
mentality.
> I'm sure that the wavering Scientologists[tm] who might consider
> reaching out to a critic by way of a private discussion will pay great
> heed to what you write here. In other words, any Scientologist[tm]
> who might consider leaving -- or merely criticizing -- the CoS would
> do well to keep such thoughts to himself. Comforting thought. . . .
I agree and such kinds of actions just reinforce the falsehoods Scn
spins about anyone who criticizes the organization.
Joe
seaorg
>The thing with this whole "breach of netiquette" is that there is, first
>and foremost, nothing that was harmful to the clam in the post...
I am not sure that is for you to decide.
>I think that's the most important issue, since people are so concerned
>about some freakin' clam's privacy, one that is KNOWN to disseminate
>aggressively on AOL, and to post unsubstantiated "truths."
Instead of "freakin' clam", how about a human being? And if "disseminating
aggressively" is a crime to you, it is not one to me. It also seems that
alot of posts, in general, are "unsubstantiated truths"; so what?
>Secondly, a log, IRC or AOL-IM, is just that----a log! That's why we have
>them...to be able to review what was said. And though some may say that
>it's not proper netiquette to post a "private" log, let's understand that
>when you chat with someone, you KNOW there's a log being made; kind of like
>when the utility company or even an enemy tells you that the conversation
>is being taped.
Ok, now am I to understand, we have "enemies" and this is a war?
> So the clam LizzyApple KNEW that a log would exist, and she
>still continued with the chat. That's giving permission.
I am not so certain she knew this and knowing this is not tacit permission
to post logs.
>Thirdly, even e-mail to an extent is "fair game."
Let's see, what is it about that term "fair game" that might bother people?
> Wouldn't you let people
>see something that someone wrote and snail-mailed you, if it would further
>your cause?
No.
>I would, if the letter were from an enemy. Use what they say
>against them...it's been a tenet of the American justice system, people.
"A tenet of the American Justice system" ?? News to me.
>I'd probably keep it to myself only if it were from a friend who was
>writing about personal cervical or prostate cancer, or some such thing. But
>in a war such as this, where legal battles are abound, and around every
>corner is suspicion and deceit?? No way, all correspondence from "the other
>side" is "fair game."
There's that term again.
>I think that FAR too much has been made of posting the chat here.
>
>Use no deceit, lies, or falsehoods....but do use what the other side
>offers up.
Somehow I believe we have a fundamental difference as to what the phrase
"offers up" entails.
tall...@mail.storm.ca
In article <B029F4239...@0.0.0.0>, ne...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote:
>In article <5tvmsg$c86$1...@news.istar.ca>,
>tall...@mail.storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) wrote:
>
>>This is a good point, and it touches on something I deal with on a day-to-day
>>basis: strictly speaking, for a journalist, nothing is off the record.
>
>Strictly speaking, this is bullshit.
>
>Do you *really* believe that political correspondents don't hear
>off-the-record briefings?
>
>This is simply an excuse for those *with* power (ie, the media)
>to fuck over somebody who doesn't have any. (ie, private individuals)
Yes, some journalists do attend off the record briefings. However, there is no
actual mechanism to stop them from promptly filing a story detailing exactly
the contents of said briefing -- except the fact that they'll not be able to
return to the source, and will have made an enemy. It is strictly an
unofficial -- but in most cases, mutually respected -- courtesy that benefits
both sides of a very symbiotic relationship.
Malice isn't always the motivation for breaking the "off the record" embargo,
by the way. Sometimes it is because a reporter genuinely believes that the
"right to know" outweighs the tacit promise to keep the information private.
Of course, in just as many cases, it has more to do with exploitation and the
lure of a big scoop. I'm not claiming that journalists have some sort of
special right to blab deep dark confidences here. I'm just giving my
perspective.
>Unless he made it perfectly clear to her that he *was* working, then
>it *is* an abuse. It might be justifiable for somebody to go after
>an organization in this way. It might even be justifiable to go
>after an individual who was engaging in criminal acts that hurt
>lots of people. However, in such cases, those stories are published
>by newspapers where there is at least *some* brake on the ethics
>involved in the situation. That's a very far cry from posting a
>personal conversation with a private individual to usenet, and then
>trying to excuse it by labelling it 'journalism'.
>
>I note that even fauxskin himself doesn't have the moxie to
>make that claim for his actions.
It might interest you to know that I was not attempting to "excuse" Fauxreal's
actions. I was merely commenting on the thorny question of "off the record"
conversations, and speculating as to whether he might have seen this
conversation as "newsworthy" (which I, for one, do not).
Wearing my private individual hat, which is the only one I wear on a.r.s., I
am absolutely and unequivocally opposed to the posting of *any* logs without
the permission of those involved.
K
Diane Richardson
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 04:21:20 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
Erlich) wrote:
>Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> quotes YKH:
>
>>> In other words, any Scientologist[tm]
>>> who might consider leaving -- or merely criticizing -- the CoS would
>>> do well to keep such thoughts to himself.
>
> Ho, boy! WHN is now an expert on what it takes to help people out
>of the cult. Is there any limit to the knowledge she has accumulated
>without one bit of experience?
Dennis, it's this sort of comment that shows your meanness of spirit.
Your gratuitous pot-shots at me serve no purpose other than to exhibit
your bitterness to the world at large. Is it really worth the price
you're paying to keep after me?
>>Comforting thought. . . .
>
> For her, perhaps.
Somehow, I get the feeling that if I were to launch into a bitter
denunciation of the CoS right now, you'd post a scathing defense of
their practices. Have I become a more important enemy to you than
the CoS?
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
terrykr
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 08:00:32 GMT, hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
>wrote:
>>FauxReal59 (fauxr...@aol.com) wrote:
>>
>>This Mark Ebner dude is one heck of a writer! Keith Henson
>I just wish that he'd stop posting personal chats with others in a
>public newsgroup, Keith.
>I find it rather hypocritical that so many of the critics who lambast
>others for posting IRC channel #scientology logs make no outcry
>over FauxReal's publishing of private conversations with others.
>Hypocritical, yes, but not surprising.
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
I find it absolutely ridiculous that conversations in such "public
arenas" are seriously being held up as "private conversations."
When I am "chatting," I consider myself to be in a large crowded space
with a multitude of strangers. At all times, I keep in mind that my
words are being overheard by others, and that those words may be
subject to gossip.
If someone tells me something in a public forum, I figure they don't
mind me repeating their words in a later conversation. If it's said
privately? Well, that's another matter, but they'd better indicate
the words as such.
E-mail, is of course, private, and should remain private, unless
permission is granted by sender for distribution.
If you all believe that your words are so sacrosanct, then you'd
better start a religion.
Oops . . . that's been done, hasn't it?
-T-
--
Scatological...$cientological--So? What's the difference?
terrykr
asp...@pipeline.com (Judith Bradford) wrote:
>This was a private message log, the equivalent of DCC on IRC.
...snip...
And how do you "know" this was a private chat? 2 people talking?
Could have been edited, or an "empty" chat room.
>By convention, I believe, public channels are public. Message
>exchanges and DCC are private, as email.
Again, how do we "know" this was a private message?
...snip...
>It was not a channel. It was an "IM chat" which is not a channel at
>all but a private message exchange.
Again, how do you "know" this. Can you "verify" this?
>> I dint know a aol chatroom was considered private. I dont use or
>>recommend aol.
>Now you know. It was not a chatroom.
Again. How do you know this?
>I see where he snipped things. Did she get to review it before he
>posted it? She claims that he snipped creatively.
Ah . . . now I get it. You got the story from *her,* and therefore it
must be "truth." Hmmm. On the other hand, *she* could be lying,
couldn't she?
Oh, right. I forget. $cientologists don't lie. Right.
-T-
...snip...
Peter McDermott
In article <3404b7d2...@snews.zippo.com>,
ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>On 27 Aug 1997 18:24:42 GMT, kri...@aol.com (KrishM) wrote:
>
>>The thing with this whole "breach of netiquette" is that there is, first
>>and foremost, nothing that was harmful to the clam in the post...
>
>Note the use of the de-humanizing epithet "clam." It's much easier to
>dismiss any harm done to a sub-human species, after all.
Um, I don't have much problem with the epithet "clam". It doesn't
seem any more dehumanizing than "wogs" or "evil psyches". In
fact, my feeling is that it's an excellent name, because everyone
wants to know the reason behind it, and on learning it, they
usually can't help laughing at Hubbard's imaginative lunacy.
>>I think that's the most important issue, since people are so concerned
>>about some freakin' clam's privacy, one that is KNOWN to disseminate
>>aggressively on AOL, and to post unsubstantiated "truths."
>
>Now, the woman is not just a "clam," she is now a "freakin' clam."
>Even more de-humanizing. She's not just sub-human, she's now a
>disgusting sub-human.
Yeah, that's my real concern. She's 'one of them', and therefore
isn't deserving of the same sort of consideration that we'd expect
of each other. The clams pull dirty tricks, so why shouldn't the
critics pull dirty tricks of their own to even up the score a
little?
Sad to say, if people can't see the problem with that reasoning,
they are unlikely to ever get it no matter how often you explain
it to them. As you say, it becomes impossible to differentiate
between cultists and critics when critics adopt a similar mindset
and similar tactics.
>>Thirdly, even e-mail to an extent is "fair game." Wouldn't you let people
>>see something that someone wrote and snail-mailed you, if it would further
>>your cause? I would, if the letter were from an enemy. Use what they say
>>against them...it's been a tenet of the American justice system, people.
Uh-huh. How about using what their ex-wives say? Perhaps we should
start giving their ex-wives money to get in on the act? Maybe we
could even persuade their children to claim that they've been
molested as well?
>>I'd probably keep it to myself only if it were from a friend who was
>>writing about personal cervical or prostate cancer, or some such thing. But
>>in a war such as this, where legal battles are abound, and around every
>>corner is suspicion and deceit?? No way, all correspondence from "the other
>>side" is "fair game."
Just so long as you're happy to concede *them* the same rights. According
to *your* reasoning, it's perfectly reasonable for them to use pre-clear
files to produce DA packs on *their* enemies. The "American way", it would
seem. We've got no right at all to criticise them for it if we adopt the
same tactics, have we?
>>Use no deceit, lies, or falsehoods....but do use what the other side
>>offers up.
In their auditing sessions? Perhaps you should check with Dennis
about that one. He used to disagree with such behaviour, though it
seems as though his mileage has started to vary.
Peter McDermott
In article <5u1lk4$3ek$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>,
rne...@shell.thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>In article <34027ba7....@news.pipeline.com>,
>Judith Bradford <asp...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>>I am describing the situation. Those persons who believed it immoral
>>for me to post [a chat log] should believe the same of Mark.
>
>Not necessarily. Mark announced himself to be a journalist
>quite early on in that conversation. The person he was interviewing
>never told Mark that she wanted her remarks to be off the record.
Telling somebody what you do for a living is hardly the same
thing as telling them that you're interviewing them with a
view to publication.
Secondly, it's one thing to use the information that someone
gives you in a situation like this as the basis for further
investigation and a possible published story. It's very
different to simply post the logs of the discussion.
>I wouldn't have done what Mark did, but I can't fault him
>too much for it.
You've obviously changed a great deal from the days when you
felt you had a responsibility to censor ARS by forging a
cancel for a satirical binary that was posted here.
Zane Thomas
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:04:56 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:
>Your gratuitous pot-shots
Pot-kettle-black.
jbwebb
Diane Richardson wrote:
> Sorry, but if they were even-handed in their criticism, you would have
> a host of IRC #scientology regulars disagreeing with you about that
> matter. I believe the most recent excoriation occurred when Martin
> Hunt chose to post the log of an *open channel* chat when Garry Scarff
> made his debut appearance (and performance).
>
> Even the bristly Martin Hunt backed away from that tongue-lashing.
> I think a great deal is said by the silence of those who are generally
> very outspoken when it comes to posting logged material.
I think the "silence" is because none of them were involved in this chat.
Last time around, most who were complaining either were on the log or
visit IRC. They aren't taking this AOL chat as personally.
>
> I sincerely doubt if Mark Ebner will be holding any more private chats
> with any Scientologist[tm] -- unless he comes up with a new handle,
> that is, to hide his identity even further.
oh, I am not so sure about that. Actually she came off OK. I can see
how COS might consider that posted conversation as a win. Her denial of
Lisa, her 30 year great experience. If anyone should be careful now,
it's the critics.
Take care
Joni
Damon Chetson
In article <5u1lk4$3ek$1...@usenet76.supernews.com> you wrote:
: In article <34027ba7....@news.pipeline.com>,
: Judith Bradford <asp...@pipeline.com> wrote:
: >I am describing the situation. Those persons who believed it immoral
: >for me to post [a chat log] should believe the same of Mark.
: Not necessarily. Mark announced himself to be a journalist
: quite early on in that conversation. The person he was interviewing
: never told Mark that she wanted her remarks to be off the record.
: I wouldn't have done what Mark did, but I can't fault him
: too much for it.
So if I mention I'm a journalist in a conversation with you, Ron, then you
"can't fault" me for posting whatever you say as long as you don't declare
the "interview" off the record?
I declare to the newsgroup that I'm a journalist and that anything
you say to me, provided you don't explicitly state it's off-the-record, I
will feel free to post here.
Actually there is no law that binds journalists (or anyone) to act one way
or the other when it comes to using conversations. One of the reasons
journalists use "off-the-record" & "on-the-record" is because they'd like
to get leads that the person has to offer, but isn't willing to be quoted
on. The journalist then follows up on the lead. But journalists have no
more rights or powers than any of us and, in my opinion, should follow the
same social guidelines.
Mark Ebner was not interviewing her. If he were, he would've stated "I'm
doing a story on such and such, can I ask you a few questions." The fact
that he mentioned his profession, "journalist" (and he does use that term
loosely), doesn't mean he is freed from the social rules that the rest of
us presumably have to follow. There's an interesting article in the most
recent issue of _Liberty_ about journalists and their "codes of ethics"
SpinTheCa
terryk wrote:
.
>asp...@pipeline.com (Judith Bradford) wrote:
>
>>This was a private message log, the equivalent of DCC on IRC.
>
>...snip...
>
>And how do you "know" this was a private chat? 2 people talking?
Mark agrees it was IM.
>Could have been edited, or an "empty" chat room.
>
>>By convention, I believe, public channels are public. Message
>>exchanges and DCC are private, as email.
>
>Again, how do we "know" this was a private message?
Mark and LIzzyApple *both* say it was.
>...snip...
>
>>It was not a channel. It was an "IM chat" which is not a channel at
>>all but a private message exchange.
>
>Again, how do you "know" this. Can you "verify" this?
Yup. I have verified it to my satisfaction by speaking to both
participants. You may query them yourself. If you still doubt it, for
instance, if you think that both participants are lying and/or are not
competent to judge whether they were in a public room, you should suspend
your belief.
>>> I dint know a aol chatroom was considered private. I dont use or
>>>recommend aol.
>
>>Now you know. It was not a chatroom.
>
>Again. How do you know this?
Reports from both participants. I also knew previously that Mark commonly
engages in private chat with AOL scientologists. Also there is no
scientology public chatroom on AOL (not that they couldn't have bumped into
one another in any of the other multifarious rooms).
>>I see where he snipped things. Did she get to review it before he
>>posted it? She claims that he snipped creatively.
>
>Ah . . . now I get it. You got the story from *her,* and therefore it
>must be "truth." Hmmm. On the other hand, *she* could be lying,
>couldn't she?
Well, heck, they *both* could be for all I know. I confess my imagination
is not quite up to thinking of a hypothetical reason for them both to say a
IM log was a chat log, though. And I tend to doubt that they are in collusion.
>Oh, right. I forget. $cientologists don't lie. Right.
Neither do critics :) Mark confirmed it himself.
judith
>-T-
>
>...snip...
Diane Richardson
On 27 Aug 1997 16:18:32 GMT, rne...@shell.thecia.net (Ron Newman)
wrote:
>In article <340220cd...@snews.zippo.com>,
>Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>
>>The conversation FauxReal posted here was the equivalent of a private
>>messaging session between two people, rather than the log of an open
>>channel conversation.
>
>That may be, but FauxReal also made it clear quite early on that he
>is a journalist (namely, the one who wrote the Spy magazine article).
>The person that the journalist was interviewing made no attempt to
>put the conversation "off the record".
But did FauxReal indicate that he was "interviewing" her as part of
his "job" (which is, I guess, you consider writing a gossip column for
a.r.s.)? Or was Mark Ebner merely chatting her up as just another AOL
subscriber?
If a psychiatrist talked with you on IRC, would you feel he was
justified posting your conversation with him as a "case study" on a
psychiatry newsgroup, Ron? Or would you at least have expected him
to alter your name before posting it?
What if you engaged a CPA in a discussion on IRC over a problem you
were having with the IRS? Would you feel your privacy was violated if
you found your tax return posted to an accounting newsgroup?
Let's carry it further . . . what if you sought out an attorney/friend
on IRC and asked her about a legal problem you were having? Would
it bother you to find out that your conversation was posted to a legal
discussion group? After all, there's no attorney/client privilege
when it's just a lawyer chewing the fat with you on IRC.
This is just as much an invasion of privacy as OSA goons posting the
contents of auditing and ethics folders to a.r.s., Ron. Unless, of
course, you subscribe to the same form of personal "ethics" that L.
Ron Hubbard taught to his followers. The interview was not
newsworthy. Its only appeal was revealing a personal side of someone
that many here would view as an enemy, even though they don't know
her.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Diane Richardson
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 15:59:02 GMT, ter...@mindspring.com (terrykr)
wrote:
>ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Aug 1997 08:00:32 GMT, hkhe...@netcom.com (Keith Henson)
>>wrote:
>
>>>FauxReal59 (fauxr...@aol.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>This Mark Ebner dude is one heck of a writer! Keith Henson
>
>>I just wish that he'd stop posting personal chats with others in a
>>public newsgroup, Keith.
>
>>I find it rather hypocritical that so many of the critics who lambast
>>others for posting IRC channel #scientology logs make no outcry
>>over FauxReal's publishing of private conversations with others.
>
>>Hypocritical, yes, but not surprising.
>
>
>>Diane Richardson
>>ref...@bway.net
>
>I find it absolutely ridiculous that conversations in such "public
>arenas" are seriously being held up as "private conversations."
So do I, Terry. When the conversation takes place in a public IRC
channel, I think whatever is said is "public." Others who read
a.r.s., however, do not agree with us about that. They have made
their opinions known very loudly a number of times on this subject.
They also, in large part, appear to be remaining unusually silent over
the same issue this time.
>When I am "chatting," I consider myself to be in a large crowded space
>with a multitude of strangers. At all times, I keep in mind that my
>words are being overheard by others, and that those words may be
>subject to gossip.
Me too.
>If someone tells me something in a public forum, I figure they don't
>mind me repeating their words in a later conversation.
I agree.
>If it's said privately? Well, that's another matter, but they'd better indicate
>the words as such.
Yep.
>E-mail, is of course, private, and should remain private, unless
>permission is granted by sender for distribution.
>
>If you all believe that your words are so sacrosanct, then you'd
>better start a religion.
>
>Oops . . . that's been done, hasn't it?
Yep, but not by me.
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
terrykr
spin...@aol.com (SpinTheCa) wrote:
...snip...
>Mark agrees it was IM.
Hey, Judith...would you post that conversation with Mark? (BTW,
that's a joke.)
My apologies. I have been out of the ng-net lately, but I thought I
was reading this thread from the beginning, and nowhere did I ever see
Mark admit such a thing. Did I miss his post?
This communication where he admitted such must have been a "private"
message. Which he "didn't" post. Imagine that!
I suppose what irritated me so much about the response to this thread
was that it was indicative of this ng's tendency to immediately make
"assumptions."
That gets to me every time.
Not once did I see anyone publicly "ask" Mark: Mark did you post an
IM conversation? Was this an IM conversation? Not once did I see
actual "verification" of this act by MARK. Not once did I see him say
yes or no either way.
You people saying he did, based on past behavior may be a "logical"
assumption. However, your saying such remains hearsay. Period.
We constantly bash pro-co$ posters about verifying their information,
while we remain the worst examples of all. Sigh.
So, Mark. Did you post an IM conversation?
And if you did, are you sorry?
Wait! Don't answer that. Now, I don't even want to know.
-T-
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <3405597...@snews.zippo.com>, Diane Richardson
<ref...@bway.net> writes
>On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 04:21:20 GMT, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis
>Erlich) wrote:
>
>>Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> quotes YKH:
>>
>>>> In other words, any Scientologist[tm]
>>>> who might consider leaving -- or merely criticizing -- the CoS would
>>>> do well to keep such thoughts to himself.
>>
>> Ho, boy! WHN is now an expert on what it takes to help people out
>>of the cult. Is there any limit to the knowledge she has accumulated
>>without one bit of experience?
>
>Dennis, it's this sort of comment that shows your meanness of spirit.
No, WhatsHerName, Dennis is quite right that you are very quick to
proclaim your "expertise" in an area where you don't have that
much experience, study, or empathy. For all the boxes of paper you
have read, you seem to make basic mistakes that sometimes even I can
spot. That low level clams don't find OT3 a surprise. That Lisa must
have known about the IR. All sorts clangers that are nto hard to spot
by anyone whose been around ARS for a couple of years.
/; ;\
-- Regards, __ \\____//
XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <up...@sunyit.edu>)
_____________________________/ :--' ____________________
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ]
\___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___]
`===='
"So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS
Bernie
tall...@mail.storm.ca (tall...@storm.ca) wrote in article
<5u2gao$llp$1...@news.istar.ca>:
>Personally, I wouldn't have posted the thing. If Lizzie had, say, made a
>"newsworthy" statement -- for example. a slip revealing hard information about
>Lisa McPherson's death that had not previously come to light, I would have
>considerd posting the information itself, in my own words, as an "anonymous
>source" . But it's a fine line, and I can understand FR's confusion.
This rings true, this "anonymous source" thing, and the putting
it in your own words as well. If there are important information
heard in private, it seems to me that it is a protected (by law)
right of journalists (and others too?) to divulge it in their
own words and from an unnamed source, but I am not quite sure
about that. Particularly, I don't know if a journalist has the
right to keep the source of his information secret if required
in Court to reveal it.
Bernie
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In ar<340543...@gramercy.ios.com>, jbwebb writes:
>Diane Richardson wrote:
>>
>> >Dennis:
>> > Ho, boy! WHN is now an expert on what it takes to help people out
>> >of the cult. Is there any limit to the knowledge she has accumulated
>> >without one bit of experience?
>>
>> Dennis, it's this sort of comment that shows your meanness of spirit.
>> your bitterness to the world at large. Is it really worth the price
>> you're paying to keep after me?
>
> BTW, who ever said you needed experience to be an expert? I think most
>historians would vociferously disagree with Dennis on that point.
Experience of the subject where feasible -- obviously it's not for
historian's of ancient Egypt -- is always a plus. But I have no
experience of being in Scn; I have been on the newsgroup about
as long as WhatsHerName; yet I have a better knowledge of the subject...
she makes errors in tek, admin, history etc that I can spot.
Diane Richardson
On Sat, 30 Aug 1997 01:11:10 +0100, Sister Clara
<cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <T+vAxzAe...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>Yet another bloody new thread started by Dave Bird.
>
>Why are you doing this, Dave? Are you deliberately trying to make sure that
>the posts you quote are seen out of context?
The funniest part of it is that, for some reason, many of Dave Bird's
posts aren't being sent along by zippo.com to me. I haven't seen the
original post, only your followup, Sister Clara.
Perhaps Dave's prolific posting level is setting off zippo's spam
trap. I don't what is doing it, but it's sort of like a killfile I
didn't ask for. Can't say that I mind. :-)
Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine
In article <3407a241...@snews.zippo.com>,
>On Sat, 30 Aug 1997 01:11:10 +0100, Sister Clara
><cl...@holsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <T+vAxzAe...@xemu.demon.co.uk>
>> Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine <da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>Yet another bloody new thread started by Dave Bird.
Nope, simply a change to a more accurate title, which does not break
the thread on a reference theaded newsreader such as Turnpike which I
use (and don't you also use, as you are also with demon.co.uk?)
>
>Perhaps Dave's prolific posting level is setting off zippo's spam
>trap.
That's one excuse for not replying, WhasHerName.