Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Judge imposes harsh sanctions on Norcross drug treatment facility
171 views
Skip to first unread message
Davis
Nov 8, 2012, 11:38:36 PM11/8/12
to
By Christian Boone
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Nov. 8, 2012
In a rare move, a DeKalb County state judge has withdrawn a Norcross drug
treatment facility’s response to allegations in a wrongful death lawsuit
filed by a former patient’s parents.
Judge Stacey K. Hydrick said in a court order Nov. 5 that Narconon of Georgia
“intentionally, willfully and repeatedly provided false and misleading
responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests regarding issues relevant to the
resolution of this case.”
Narconon “repeatedly failed to produce, and on multiple occasions falsely
denied the existence of clearly relevant, responsive documents and
information,” Hydrick wrote.
As a result, the allegations against Narconon will essentially go unanswered,
which will be to the suing parents’ advantage.
“This judicial order is as sharply worded rebuke of a party as one is likely
to see in American courts,” said University of Georgia law professor Ron
Carlson, calling the sanctions “very uncommon.”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/cv6fx76
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/judge-imposes-harsh-sanctions-on-norcross-drug-tre/nS2fH/
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Nov. 8, 2012
In a rare move, a DeKalb County state judge has withdrawn a Norcross drug
treatment facility’s response to allegations in a wrongful death lawsuit
filed by a former patient’s parents.
Judge Stacey K. Hydrick said in a court order Nov. 5 that Narconon of Georgia
“intentionally, willfully and repeatedly provided false and misleading
responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests regarding issues relevant to the
resolution of this case.”
Narconon “repeatedly failed to produce, and on multiple occasions falsely
denied the existence of clearly relevant, responsive documents and
information,” Hydrick wrote.
As a result, the allegations against Narconon will essentially go unanswered,
which will be to the suing parents’ advantage.
“This judicial order is as sharply worded rebuke of a party as one is likely
to see in American courts,” said University of Georgia law professor Ron
Carlson, calling the sanctions “very uncommon.”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/cv6fx76
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/judge-imposes-harsh-sanctions-on-norcross-drug-tre/nS2fH/
lareverendemere
Nov 9, 2012, 2:32:27 AM11/9/12
to
This as great a news as one can get on Narconon, years after Nn was rebked
by medicine California health Dept...
r
"Davis" <da...@mailinator.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
509c88a8$0$12831$8826...@blocknews.net...
by medicine California health Dept...
r
"Davis" <da...@mailinator.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
509c88a8$0$12831$8826...@blocknews.net...
telsar
Nov 9, 2012, 11:44:23 AM11/9/12
to
On 11/8/2012 10:38 PM, Davis wrote:
> By Christian Boone
> The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> Nov. 8, 2012
>
> In a rare move, a DeKalb County state judge has withdrawn a Norcross drug
> treatment facility�s response to allegations in a wrongful death lawsuit
> By Christian Boone
> The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> Nov. 8, 2012
>
> In a rare move, a DeKalb County state judge has withdrawn a Norcross drug
> filed by a former patient�s parents.
>
> Judge Stacey K. Hydrick said in a court order Nov. 5 that Narconon of Georgia
> �intentionally, willfully and repeatedly provided false and misleading
> Judge Stacey K. Hydrick said in a court order Nov. 5 that Narconon of Georgia
> responses to plaintiff�s discovery requests regarding issues relevant to the
> resolution of this case.�
>
> Narconon �repeatedly failed to produce, and on multiple occasions falsely
> denied the existence of clearly relevant, responsive documents and
> information,� Hydrick wrote.
>
> As a result, the allegations against Narconon will essentially go unanswered,
> which will be to the suing parents� advantage.
> As a result, the allegations against Narconon will essentially go unanswered,
>
> �This judicial order is as sharply worded rebuke of a party as one is likely
> to see in American courts,� said University of Georgia law professor Ron
> Carlson, calling the sanctions �very uncommon.�
>
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/cv6fx76
>
> http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/judge-imposes-harsh-sanctions-on-norcross-drug-tre/nS2fH/
>
The wrongful death case is based on a person who took too many drugs of
his own free will and over dosed himself. So naturally his parents are
looking for someone else to blame. Their son is dead and naturally they
have a lawyer that wants to get paid the rest is bullshit.
--
Steal a little and go to jail, steal a lot and become King.
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Kat
Nov 9, 2012, 7:54:23 PM11/9/12
to
On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:44:31 AM UTC-5, telsar wrote:
> On 11/8/2012 10:38 PM, Davis wrote:
>
> > By Christian Boone
>
> > The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>
> > Nov. 8, 2012
>
> >
>
> > In a rare move, a DeKalb County state judge has withdrawn a Norcross drug
>
> > treatment facility’s response to allegations in a wrongful death lawsuit
> On 11/8/2012 10:38 PM, Davis wrote:
>
> > By Christian Boone
>
> > The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
>
> > Nov. 8, 2012
>
> >
>
> > In a rare move, a DeKalb County state judge has withdrawn a Norcross drug
>
>
> > filed by a former patient’s parents.
>
> >
>
> > Judge Stacey K. Hydrick said in a court order Nov. 5 that Narconon of Georgia
>
> > “intentionally, willfully and repeatedly provided false and misleading
> >
>
> > Judge Stacey K. Hydrick said in a court order Nov. 5 that Narconon of Georgia
>
>
> > responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests regarding issues relevant to the
>
> > resolution of this case.”
>
> >
>
> > Narconon “repeatedly failed to produce, and on multiple occasions falsely
>
> > denied the existence of clearly relevant, responsive documents and
>
> > information,” Hydrick wrote.
> > denied the existence of clearly relevant, responsive documents and
>
>
> >
>
> > As a result, the allegations against Narconon will essentially go unanswered,
>
> > which will be to the suing parents’ advantage.
> >
>
> > As a result, the allegations against Narconon will essentially go unanswered,
>
>
> >
>
> > “This judicial order is as sharply worded rebuke of a party as one is likely
>
> > to see in American courts,” said University of Georgia law professor Ron
>
> > Carlson, calling the sanctions “very uncommon.”
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://preview.tinyurl.com/cv6fx76
>
> >
>
> > http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/judge-imposes-harsh-sanctions-on-norcross-drug-tre/nS2fH/
>
> >
>
>
>
> The wrongful death case is based on a person who took too many drugs of
>
> his own free will and over dosed himself. So naturally his parents are
>
> looking for someone else to blame. Their son is dead and naturally they
>
> have a lawyer that wants to get paid the rest is bullshit.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Steal a little and go to jail, steal a lot and become King.
>
>
>
> http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
You are either a troll or an idiot and I suspect a little of both. A drug addict will try and find drugs- that's the nature of addiction. When in a facility such as that, the facility is responsible for making sure drugs don't make it INTO the facility. Failing that, they are responsible for monitoring their patients to make sure they are alive and well.
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://preview.tinyurl.com/cv6fx76
>
> >
>
> > http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/judge-imposes-harsh-sanctions-on-norcross-drug-tre/nS2fH/
>
> >
>
>
>
> The wrongful death case is based on a person who took too many drugs of
>
> his own free will and over dosed himself. So naturally his parents are
>
> looking for someone else to blame. Their son is dead and naturally they
>
> have a lawyer that wants to get paid the rest is bullshit.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Steal a little and go to jail, steal a lot and become King.
>
>
>
> http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
That being said, an organization cannot claim they provide in-patient care and advertise they provide in-patient care when they do not have a license to provide inpatient care. It's illegal to do so for a reason.
There are different standards that a facility has to meet in order to provide in-patient care, including having physicians on 24 hour call who could prevent a situation like that which claimed the young mans life.
(Yes, I know this idiot won't see the post as he filters all google posters out due to his arrogant opinions about methods of posting. I just refuse to let such an asinine and uninformed statement stand uncontested.)
Davis
Nov 10, 2012, 11:03:18 AM11/10/12
to
On 11/9/2012 5:54:23 PM, Kat wrote:
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:44:31 AM UTC-5, telsar wrote:
>>
>>
>> The wrongful death case is based on a person who took too many drugs of
>>
>> his own free will and over dosed himself. So naturally his parents are
>>
>> looking for someone else to blame. Their son is dead and naturally they
>>
>> have a lawyer that wants to get paid the rest is bullshit.
>>
>>
> On Friday, November 9, 2012 11:44:31 AM UTC-5, telsar wrote:
>>
>>
>> The wrongful death case is based on a person who took too many drugs of
>>
>> his own free will and over dosed himself. So naturally his parents are
>>
>> looking for someone else to blame. Their son is dead and naturally they
>>
>> have a lawyer that wants to get paid the rest is bullshit.
>>
>>
> You are either a troll or an idiot and I suspect a little of both. A drug
> addict will try and find drugs- that's the nature of addiction. When in a
> f acility such as that, the facility is responsible for making sure drugs
> addict will try and find drugs- that's the nature of addiction. When in a
> don 't make it INTO the facility. Failing that, they are responsible for
> monito ring their patients to make sure they are alive and well.
>
> That being said, an organization cannot claim they provide in-patient care
> and advertise they provide in-patient care when they do not have a license
> to provide inpatient care. It's illegal to do so for a reason.
>
> There are different standards that a facility has to meet in order to
> provi de in-patient care, including having physicians on 24 hour call who
> That being said, an organization cannot claim they provide in-patient care
> and advertise they provide in-patient care when they do not have a license
> to provide inpatient care. It's illegal to do so for a reason.
>
> There are different standards that a facility has to meet in order to
> could p revent a situation like that which claimed the young mans life.
>
> (Yes, I know this idiot won't see the post as he filters all google
> posters out due to his arrogant opinions about methods of posting. I just
> refuse t o let such an asinine and uninformed statement stand
> (Yes, I know this idiot won't see the post as he filters all google
> posters out due to his arrogant opinions about methods of posting. I just
> uncontested.)
>
I've noticed that Scientology trolls (aka osa-bots) seem incapable of
rational discussion. Every one of them. Regardless of the topic. (does it
never occur to any of them that they'd be much more effective debaters if
they simply read the [entheta] news article before they start blindly
slinging mud -- all the while ignoring the 800# gorilla in the room?)
It's as if we're supposed to pay no attention to any of
Scientology/Narconon's lies, fraud, evidence tampering, obstruction of
justice, money laundering, conspiracy, perjury, or the huge ongoing criminal
racketeering enterprise that makes the Mafia look like amateurs.
So it's expected that they'll always skip the subject and blame the victim.
No matter how ridiculous it makes the trolls look, It's in line with
Hubbard's directives "Never talk about us -- only them." and "Don't ever
defend. Always attack."
--Davis
telsar
Nov 10, 2012, 11:50:56 AM11/10/12
to
parents who have lost their son to drugs and were desperate to help him.
The rest is just bullshit. Just my opinion.
PS: I do get your anti and can always find something negative to say,
which is usually just a bunch of labels. Perhaps someday you will
present something I can learn from.
Kat
Nov 10, 2012, 6:12:32 PM11/10/12
to
On Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:51:06 AM UTC-5, telsar wrote:
>
> I found the entire premise lacking credibility other than the pain of
>
> parents who have lost their son to drugs and were desperate to help him.
>
> The rest is just bullshit. Just my opinion.
>
>
>
> PS: I do get your anti and can always find something negative to say,
>
> which is usually just a bunch of labels. Perhaps someday you will
>
> present something I can learn from.
>
Aaand here he blatantly ignores the data in favor of attacking Davis. What a shocker. At first I thought teslar was simply playing a large scale game of devil's advocate, now I'm certain something else is going on.
>
> I found the entire premise lacking credibility other than the pain of
>
> parents who have lost their son to drugs and were desperate to help him.
>
> The rest is just bullshit. Just my opinion.
>
>
>
> PS: I do get your anti and can always find something negative to say,
>
> which is usually just a bunch of labels. Perhaps someday you will
>
> present something I can learn from.
>
Inpatient facilities have different legal liabilities than outpatient clinics. NO doctor needs be on call in an outpatient facility. Inpatient facilities require 24 hour doctor supervision. Inpatient facilities have to make sure drugs aren't making it into the facility for the safety of ALL patients.. one smuggler can easily become a dealer that destroys everyone else's treatment. You don't see that kind of screening for outpatient as no one is staying overnight- they all go home where they have their own access to drugs (presumably).
Narcanon of Georgia is listed in multiple online directories as an inpatient facility.
For example:
http://interventionamerica.org/Inpatient_Rehab/listing.cfm?Drug_Rehab_ID=13023
While this is a consumer driven site, the inpatient had to come from somewhere. Presumably, the same "somewhere" that the state is currently investigating after a decade's worth of complaints that the facility has been running as an inpatient practice. It's right there in the article.
Then there is this- "Their suit, filed in May 2010, also accuses Narconon of Georgia of lying to Florida’s drug court, which had sentenced Desmond to six months in an in-patient residential facility. Those accusations will go uncontested during the civil trial" There would be a paper trail of this. (In fact, there MUST be a paper trail for Narconon to not even contest this fact!) To be sentenced to inpatient treatment for that degree of time, there would HAVE to be communication between the facility directly and the Florida Court system.
Translation for the thinking impaired: they told the Florida court they were inpatient. This means they are legally guilty of fraud and they are legally liable for any deaths, accidental or otherwise, that occurred at that facility as a result of that fraud. It would be like if you went to a doctor for surgery, died on the table and your family found out later that doctor wasn't a doctor at all.
Davis
Nov 10, 2012, 11:16:52 PM11/10/12
to
On 11/10/2012 4:12:34 PM, Kat wrote:
>
> Aaand here he blatantly ignores the data in favor of attacking Davis. What
> a shocker. At first I thought teslar was simply playing a large scale game
> of devil's advocate, now I'm certain something else is going on.
>
> Inpatient facilities have different legal liabilities than outpatient
> clini cs. NO doctor needs be on call in an outpatient facility. Inpatient
>
> Aaand here he blatantly ignores the data in favor of attacking Davis. What
> a shocker. At first I thought teslar was simply playing a large scale game
> of devil's advocate, now I'm certain something else is going on.
>
> Inpatient facilities have different legal liabilities than outpatient
> facilit ies require 24 hour doctor supervision. Inpatient facilities have
> to make s ure drugs aren't making it into the facility for the safety of
> ALL patients .. one smuggler can easily become a dealer that destroys
> everyone else's tr eatment. You don't see that kind of screening for
> outpatient as no one is s taying overnight- they all go home where they
> have their own access to drug s (presumably).
>
> Narcanon of Georgia is listed in multiple online directories as an
> inpatien t facility.
>
> For example:
> http://interventionamerica.org/Inpatient_Rehab/listing.cfm?Drug_Rehab_ID=3D13023
> Narcanon of Georgia is listed in multiple online directories as an
> inpatien t facility.
>
> For example:
>
> While this is a consumer driven site, the inpatient had to come from
> somewh ere. Presumably, the same "somewhere" that the state is currently
> While this is a consumer driven site, the inpatient had to come from
> investiga ting after a decade's worth of complaints that the facility has
> been runnin g as an inpatient practice. It's right there in the article.
>
> Then there is this- "Their suit, filed in May 2010, also accuses Narconon
> o f Georgia of lying to Florida’s drug court, which had sentenced Desmond
> Then there is this- "Their suit, filed in May 2010, also accuses Narconon
> t o six months in an in-patient residential facility. Those accusations
> will go uncontested during the civil trial" There would be a paper trail
> of this . (In fact, there MUST be a paper trail for Narconon to not even
> contest th is fact!) To be sentenced to inpatient treatment for that
> degree of time, t here would HAVE to be communication between the facility
> directly and the F lorida Court system.
>
> Translation for the thinking impaired: they told the Florida court they
> wer e inpatient. This means they are legally guilty of fraud and they are
> Translation for the thinking impaired: they told the Florida court they
> legal ly liable for any deaths, accidental or otherwise, that occurred at
> that fa cility as a result of that fraud. It would be like if you went to
> a doctor for surgery, died on the table and your family found out later
> that doctor wasn't a doctor at all.
>
Excellent points, Kat. For some strange reason the 'medical doctor' analogy
> that doctor wasn't a doctor at all.
>
never seems to apply to the Scientology cult.
For instance, if I falsely claimed to be a cancer surgeon and a person died
on the operating table, I'd end up in prison. There's no question about that,
and it would make absolutely no difference if I had a higher success rate
than qualified surgeons, as I could never use that fact in my defense. I also
could not claim to be saving people's lives (even if true) since I'd be
interfering with them in seeking qualified medical care.
Even if there was no fraud involved and I held myself out as an untrained
surgeon having no medical degree, I'd still get in big trouble with the law,
regardless of any release waivers patients voluntarily signed.
Yet Narconon basically does the equivalent (well, actually much worse) and
routinely gets away with it, no matter how many people die as a direct result
of their malpractice and fraud. And die they will, considering Narconon's
extreme reckless practices such as denying patients their prescription
medicines -- even medicines that treat life-threatening medical conditions.
Even if Narconon was an honest operation (which it's not) such recklessness
with people's lives should not be tolerated by the state. Narconon lies about
everything to everyone -- patients and their families, state boards, judges
-- so it's great to see these compulsive liars finally getting slapped down
by a judge.
The real tragedy here is that this should be a criminal trial -- not a civil
one -- for there to be any real justice. How much more proof does the
government need showing that this is not only dangerous quack medicine, but a
major criminal conspiracy?
--Davis
John Dorsay
Nov 11, 2012, 11:39:52 AM11/11/12
to
On 11/10/2012 6:12 PM, Kat wrote:
> Then there is this- "Their suit, filed in May 2010, also accuses
> Narconon of Georgia of lying to Florida�s drug court, which had
> sentenced Desmond to six months in an in-patient residential
> facility. Those accusations will go uncontested during the civil
> trial"
Uncontested *not* because the cult lacked opportunity to answer the
> Then there is this- "Their suit, filed in May 2010, also accuses
> Narconon of Georgia of lying to Florida�s drug court, which had
> sentenced Desmond to six months in an in-patient residential
> facility. Those accusations will go uncontested during the civil
> trial"
accusations, but because the judge determined the cult's answer was
nothing more than lies and misdirection.
I hope the judge does not have any pets.
John
telsar
Nov 11, 2012, 4:00:32 PM11/11/12
to
> On 11/10/2012 4:12:34 PM, Kat wrote:
>
>>
>> Aaand here he blatantly ignores the data in favor of attacking Davis. What
>> a shocker. At first I thought teslar was simply playing a large scale game
>> of devil's advocate, now I'm certain something else is going on.
>>
you guys do. Its not a personal attack. No games. No devil.
I just happen to believe the responsibility of an adult over-dosing on
drugs of their own free will is their own. Thats all. I believe the
whole rest of the downstream issue is pure bull poop.
You all make wonderful points which have merit in their own rite, but
its all downstream from my point, which I believe has superior
power/seniority/(more important)/(more relevant)/(is key).
Besides: We are all eternal and the fact is the person of all of this
attention, that destroyed his own body's ability to survive longer, is
not actually dead or hurt in any way. A fun fact that I always consider
when hearing all the trials and tribulations of the world.
John Dorsay
Nov 11, 2012, 5:34:09 PM11/11/12
to
On 11/11/2012 4:00 PM, telsar wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2012 4:12:34 PM, Kat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Aaand here he blatantly ignores the data in favor of attacking Davis. What
>>> a shocker. At first I thought teslar was simply playing a large scale game
>>> of devil's advocate, now I'm certain something else is going on.
>>>
>
> I ignored nothing. I read through it all. I gave my opinion, just like
> you guys do. Its not a personal attack. No games. No devil.
Oh really?
>
>> On 11/10/2012 4:12:34 PM, Kat wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Aaand here he blatantly ignores the data in favor of attacking Davis. What
>>> a shocker. At first I thought teslar was simply playing a large scale game
>>> of devil's advocate, now I'm certain something else is going on.
>>>
>
> I ignored nothing. I read through it all. I gave my opinion, just like
> you guys do. Its not a personal attack. No games. No devil.
Davis *quoted* a news report. You then opined that the news report
was bullshit.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and free to express it
as you wish. But when you lie that you are only doing so because
turnabout is fair play, don't be surprised when you get called on it.
> Besides: We are all eternal and the fact is the person of all of this
> attention, that destroyed his own body's ability to survive longer, is
> not actually dead or hurt in any way. A fun fact that I always consider
> when hearing all the trials and tribulations of the world.
John
Kat
Nov 11, 2012, 7:45:08 PM11/11/12
to
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 4:00:34 PM UTC-5, telsar wrote:
> I ignored nothing. I read through it all. I gave my opinion, just like
>
> you guys do. Its not a personal attack. No games. No devil.
Yes, yes you did ignore quite a bit of the article... and by quite a bit I mean all of the evidence against Narconon. Your response was a dismissal of the lawsuit as parents grieving for the self inflicted death of their son. You have yet to discuss Narconon's fraudulent, illegal behavior in the slightest.
> I ignored nothing. I read through it all. I gave my opinion, just like
>
> you guys do. Its not a personal attack. No games. No devil.
" The rest is just bullshit. Just my opinion.
PS: I do get your anti and can always find something negative to say,
which is usually just a bunch of labels. Perhaps someday you will
present something I can learn from"
The problem with your opinion is it ignores Narcanon's liability in his death. By sentencing him to mandatory inpatient rehabilitation, the court system is saying, without any doubt or confusion, that young man was incapable of caring for himself or making sound decisions. IT IS THE SAME STANDARD FOR WHICH INPATIENT PSYCH CARE IS MANDATED. Perhaps you did not know this, which is why I am saying it you.
By stating that they were an inpatient facility to Florida's drug court, they told the legal system that they would have round the clock physician care to monitor this unstable person's mental state. He clearly did not have such monitoring as a REAL inpatient facility would have either found the drugs or found him in time to revive him. (Inpatient facilities also have more emergency equipment on hand to stabilize a patient.)
Narconon is legally and morally liable for that young mans death. You refuse to address this fact in favor of attacking us, attacking the dead man (who shouldn't be dead) and attacking the dead man's family.
> I just happen to believe the responsibility of an adult over-dosing on
>
> drugs of their own free will is their own. Thats all. I believe the
>
> whole rest of the downstream issue is pure bull poop.
> You all make wonderful points which have merit in their own rite, but
>
> its all downstream from my point, which I believe has superior
>
> power/seniority/(more important)/(more relevant)/(is key).
> Besides: We are all eternal
> and the fact is the person of all of this
>
> attention, that destroyed his own body's ability to survive longer, is
>
> not actually dead or hurt in any way. A fun fact that I always consider
>
> when hearing all the trials and tribulations of the world.
Kat
Nov 11, 2012, 7:46:02 PM11/11/12
to restim...@gmail.com
On Sunday, November 11, 2012 5:34:08 PM UTC-5, John Dorsay wrote:
> A fun *fact*, is it? That explains a lot.
>
>
>
>
>
> John
Mhmmm. Good to know my initial gut feeling was right. lol
> A fun *fact*, is it? That explains a lot.
>
>
>
>
>
> John
Davis
Nov 12, 2012, 7:46:37 AM11/12/12
to
On 11/11/2012 9:39:53 AM, John Dorsay wrote:
>
> I hope the judge does not have any pets.
>
> John
>
I don't know about pets (or children?) but state court judges like Stacey
>
> I hope the judge does not have any pets.
>
> John
>
Hydrick do have an Achilles' heel. Since they need to be re-elected to stay
employed, a well-funded campaign against them can easily send them packing.
Judge Stacey Hydrick, originally appointed to the position last year to fill
a vacancy, ran unopposed in last week's election, as did most other judges.
It's not hard to see that many public officials can be bought off or disposed
of relatively cheaply -- a practice the Scientology cult is highly
experienced at.
And if that's not enough, there's always the cult's tried-and-true "Fair
Game" brass-knuckle tactics that has made a long list of public officials
undergo a seemingly inexplicable "change of heart" in their *public* opinion
of Scientology's organized-crime racket.
This case is far from over, so it remains to be seen how much intimidation
and abuse the Plaintiff and their attorneys --and this judge -- can take
before reaching the breaking point. Despite having the facts working against
them, the criminal cult has routinely pulled off one victory after another.
If this lawsuit ends up as another "surprise ending" -- we should not be at
all shocked.
--Davis
telsar
Nov 12, 2012, 11:29:16 AM11/12/12
to
On 11/11/2012 4:34 PM, John Dorsay wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 4:00 PM, telsar wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 4:12:34 PM, Kat wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aaand here he blatantly ignores the data in favor of attacking Davis. What
>>>> a shocker. At first I thought teslar was simply playing a large scale game
>>>> of devil's advocate, now I'm certain something else is going on.
>>>>
>>
>> I ignored nothing. I read through it all. I gave my opinion, just like
>> you guys do. Its not a personal attack. No games. No devil.
>
> Oh really?
Yes, really.
> On 11/11/2012 4:00 PM, telsar wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/10/2012 4:12:34 PM, Kat wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Aaand here he blatantly ignores the data in favor of attacking Davis. What
>>>> a shocker. At first I thought teslar was simply playing a large scale game
>>>> of devil's advocate, now I'm certain something else is going on.
>>>>
>>
>> I ignored nothing. I read through it all. I gave my opinion, just like
>> you guys do. Its not a personal attack. No games. No devil.
>
> Oh really?
>
> Davis *quoted* a news report. You then opined that the news report
> was bullshit.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and free to express it
> as you wish. But when you lie that you are only doing so because
> turnabout is fair play, don't be surprised when you get called on it.
from you? I don't know whom you are referring to with the "turnabout is
fair play" reference, not me.
>
>> Besides: We are all eternal and the fact is the person of all of this
>> attention, that destroyed his own body's ability to survive longer, is
>> not actually dead or hurt in any way. A fun fact that I always consider
>> when hearing all the trials and tribulations of the world.
>
> A fun *fact*, is it? That explains a lot.
>
>
> John
>
Facility is responsible for this person's death?
telsar
Nov 12, 2012, 1:03:23 PM11/12/12
to
On 11/9/2012 6:54 PM, Kat wrote:
>
> (Yes, I know this idiot won't see the post as he filters all google posters out due to his arrogant opinions about methods of posting. I just refuse to let such an asinine and uninformed statement stand uncontested.)
>
There are many reasons for deleting all posts from google groups that
>
> (Yes, I know this idiot won't see the post as he filters all google posters out due to his arrogant opinions about methods of posting. I just refuse to let such an asinine and uninformed statement stand uncontested.)
>
are destined for Usenet:
1. Google Groups does not format the messages properly especially when
quoting so that there are many blank lines. Between each quoted line is
a blank line. Formatting messages in proper format is really simple.
2. Most Google Group posters are trolls and their posts are trollish.
There is no way to manage the users as Google does not regulate their
users posting to usenet. Most Usenet SPAM comes from GG.
3. Most Google Group posters don't follow the Usenet Netiquette.
4. Most GG users are kooks and blabbermouths that are not smart enough
to understand what Usenet actually is.
I read through your posts this morning and really your a good example of
a typical Google Groups user. I can see why your held in such low opinion.
*Participating in the Usenet Improvement Project*
With a decent news client, participation is simple; even with a
not-so-good client it can be done with a bit more effort. Read on.
But first, please understand that this web site and the Usenet
Improvement Project are not just about the matter of improving your own
Usenet experience; they are at least as importantly about not
encouraging GG's use as a posting source in the first place.
In a manner in keeping with the workings of your proper news client,
simply install a rule that is triggered by the appearance of the string
googlegroups in the Message-ID (MID) header of articles to kill/bin/twit
those articles. If your news client doesn't have adequate filtering
capabilities (e.g., Thunderbird) you can accomplish this with a local
server like Hamster (Windows) or slrnpull or leafnode (both Linux/Mac).
With them you can do your filtering on any headers you wish, and pull
newsgroups from there with your client. For background on filtering and
filter syntax specific to various news clients (and the local servers
mentioned above), see the Filters pages.
If there are any messages from Google Groups that do not place this
string in the MID header, it has not come to our attention. If you do
see any that somehow avoid this simple rule, please report this via the
Usenet newsgroup news.software.readers. That group, by the way, is
highly recommended for news client discussion in general.
John Dorsay
Nov 12, 2012, 3:41:09 PM11/12/12
to
On 11/12/2012 11:29 AM, telsar wrote:
>>> I ignored nothing. I read through it all. I gave my opinion, just like
>>> you guys do. Its not a personal attack. No games. No devil.
>>
>> Oh really?
>
> Yes, really.
>
>>
>> Davis *quoted* a news report. You then opined that the news report
>> was bullshit.
>>
>
> It is. The entire matter and the way its being handled is.
>
>> You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and free to express it
>> as you wish. But when you lie that you are only doing so because
>> turnabout is fair play, don't be surprised when you get called on it.
>
> How can my opinion be a lie? Called on it because my opinion differs
> from you? I don't know whom you are referring to with the "turnabout is
> fair play" reference, not me.
Maybe I did not express myself clearly. I will start over.
>>> I ignored nothing. I read through it all. I gave my opinion, just like
>>> you guys do. Its not a personal attack. No games. No devil.
>>
>> Oh really?
>
> Yes, really.
>
>>
>> Davis *quoted* a news report. You then opined that the news report
>> was bullshit.
>>
>
> It is. The entire matter and the way its being handled is.
>
>> You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and free to express it
>> as you wish. But when you lie that you are only doing so because
>> turnabout is fair play, don't be surprised when you get called on it.
>
> How can my opinion be a lie? Called on it because my opinion differs
> from you? I don't know whom you are referring to with the "turnabout is
> fair play" reference, not me.
1. Davis *quoted* a news report.
1a. Davis did not express an opinion.
2. You then opined that the news report was bullshit in reply.
3. You then said "I gave my opinion"
3a. So far, no argument from me.
4. You added "just like you guys do".
4a. *Nobody* in this thread had expressed any opinion at all about
either the news article or its contents until you did so. "just like
you guys do", a turnabout is fair play claim, was a lie which you
used to justify your opinion. That was what I was talking about.
> So John, you guys honestly believe that the Norcross Drug Treatment
> Facility is responsible for this person's death?
opinion, responsibility in this case is shared. I agree with you
that the victim is responsible for his own actions. However, that
does not excuse a self-proclaimed inpatient facility from its duty
of care. Anticipating the possibility of a drug overdose at any
time, whether intentional or by misadventure, in a drug treatment
facility is reasonable and prudent. Therefore, the facility has an
*obligation* to be prepared to deal with such an event at any time.
This obligation was not met. The facility is also responsible. YMMV.
John
John Dorsay
Nov 12, 2012, 3:45:13 PM11/12/12
to
On 11/12/2012 3:41 PM, John Dorsay wrote:
> 4a. *Nobody* in this thread had expressed any opinion at all about
Correction, Roger had. I don't usually read his posts. But you were
> 4a. *Nobody* in this thread had expressed any opinion at all about
replying to Davis.
Kat
Nov 12, 2012, 6:33:40 PM11/12/12
to
On Monday, November 12, 2012 1:03:26 PM UTC-5, telsar wrote:
> There are many reasons for deleting all posts from google groups that
>
> are destined for Usenet:
>
> <snip>
> There are many reasons for deleting all posts from google groups that
>
> are destined for Usenet:
>
All of which are preconceived prejudices held by you- prejudices that you use to dismiss people via intellectual fallacy instead of addressing their points... exactly as you are doing here.
Words are words, regardless of the method of delivery. If I buy a paperback, hard cover, kindle book or download a pdf of the same novel, the words will all still be the same. They will carry the same meaning and only an arrogant fool would use the method of delivery as grounds for dismissal or personal attack.
Do you know why I don't use a news reader? It lets me weed out the moronic, small minded, insecure, intellectual fallacy driven individuals who would use method of posting as a means of dismissing a person's arguments. Morons like YOU, "sir".
> I read through your posts this morning and really your a good example of
>
> a typical Google Groups user. I can see why your held in such low opinion.
The only people who hold me in low opinion are:
1) Greg Hall, who is a verbally abusive misogynist who uses every opportunity he can to abuse the women of this (and other) groups.
(I couldn't help but notice your lack of addressing his behavior during the whole IP debate, even after you helped in "proving" his notions false. This individual intentionally used false information as a platform for personal attack, which is simply unconscionable behavior. How curious then, that you have no opinion about his bad behavior but are eager to slam any anti-scientologist on here. )
2) Scientologists who would rather attack me than my points. It should be noted that you have addressed none of my points about the legality of medical fraud, liability regarding caring for disabled individuals and the nature of drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Instead, you have attacked ME.
3) Self-important, arrogant asshat trolls trying to make themselves feel better about their miserable existence by verbally berating perceived "lesser" individuals they will never meet in person.
Which of the three are you, sunshine? Your behavior is suspect for good reason.
telsar
Nov 13, 2012, 11:04:39 AM11/13/12
to
On 11/12/2012 2:41 PM, John Dorsay wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 11:29 AM, telsar wrote:
>
>>>> I ignored nothing. I read through it all. I gave my opinion, just like
>>>> you guys do. Its not a personal attack. No games. No devil.
>>>
>>> Oh really?
>>
>> Yes, really.
>>
>>>
>>> Davis *quoted* a news report. You then opined that the news report
>>> was bullshit.
>>>
>>
>> It is. The entire matter and the way its being handled is.
>>
>>> You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and free to express it
>>> as you wish. But when you lie that you are only doing so because
>>> turnabout is fair play, don't be surprised when you get called on it.
>>
>> How can my opinion be a lie? Called on it because my opinion differs
>> from you? I don't know whom you are referring to with the "turnabout is
>> fair play" reference, not me.
>
> Maybe I did not express myself clearly. I will start over.
>
You were clear enough, but lets go on more.
> On 11/12/2012 11:29 AM, telsar wrote:
>
>>>> I ignored nothing. I read through it all. I gave my opinion, just like
>>>> you guys do. Its not a personal attack. No games. No devil.
>>>
>>> Oh really?
>>
>> Yes, really.
>>
>>>
>>> Davis *quoted* a news report. You then opined that the news report
>>> was bullshit.
>>>
>>
>> It is. The entire matter and the way its being handled is.
>>
>>> You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and free to express it
>>> as you wish. But when you lie that you are only doing so because
>>> turnabout is fair play, don't be surprised when you get called on it.
>>
>> How can my opinion be a lie? Called on it because my opinion differs
>> from you? I don't know whom you are referring to with the "turnabout is
>> fair play" reference, not me.
>
> Maybe I did not express myself clearly. I will start over.
>
> 1. Davis *quoted* a news report.
>
> 1a. Davis did not express an opinion.
>
> 2. You then opined that the news report was bullshit in reply.
>
lawsuit quoted in the story. So your misquoting me and exaggerating
what I said a bit.
> 3. You then said "I gave my opinion"
>
Then Davis and Kat gave a lot of opinion way over the top about it
calling me names and all. At this point I responded to an attack from them.
> 3a. So far, no argument from me.
>
> 4. You added "just like you guys do".
>
don't. "you guys" is rather ambiguous anyway.
> 4a. *Nobody* in this thread had expressed any opinion at all about
> either the news article or its contents until you did so. "just like
> you guys do", a turnabout is fair play claim, was a lie which you
> used to justify your opinion. That was what I was talking about.
>
free to give opinions if I want, just like the others do in Usenet. It
really was not that good of an article anyway. Reminded me of TV
journalism in print.
>> So John, you guys honestly believe that the Norcross Drug Treatment
>> Facility is responsible for this person's death?
>
> I haven't previously addressed this one way or another. But in my
> opinion, responsibility in this case is shared. I agree with you
> that the victim is responsible for his own actions. However, that
> does not excuse a self-proclaimed inpatient facility from its duty
> of care. Anticipating the possibility of a drug overdose at any
> time, whether intentional or by misadventure, in a drug treatment
> facility is reasonable and prudent. Therefore, the facility has an
> *obligation* to be prepared to deal with such an event at any time.
> This obligation was not met. The facility is also responsible. YMMV.
>
>
him in a straight jacket in a rubber room. Perhaps he would still be
alive. Since big brother didn't, go sue him and hold him liable for the
death. Its obvious its his fault by his inaction and callousness in
this matter.
> John
>
Thanks for your response. I know your a good guy.
telsar
Nov 13, 2012, 11:12:57 AM11/13/12
to
and scanned through hundreds of posts that I had previously deleted
because they were from GG. Made me realize that deleting all the GG
posts was definitely the right move as they were:
- completely negative
- spam at best
- no value added what so ever
- most were 1 or 2 line snipes with no context
- vile
Perhaps the source could use auditing/therapy/drugs and if GG would
manage their users access to Usenet, be cut off forever.
John, you seem like a balanced person. Have a good day/life/destiny and
may the Lord of the universe bless you and yours.
telsar
Nov 13, 2012, 12:36:32 PM11/13/12
to
Kat, you are a troll.
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Page semi-protected
The "trollface", first appearing in 2008,[1] is occasionally used to
indicate trolling in Internet culture.[2][not in citation given] Modern
usage of the word itself dates from the 1980s.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[3]
extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a
forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers
into an emotional response[4] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic
discussion.[5] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message
itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."
While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated
with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such
labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative
actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass
media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute
sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[6][7]
Etymology
It has been asserted that the verb to troll originates from Old French
troller, a hunting term. A verb "trôler" is found in modern
French-English dictionaries, where the main meaning given is "to lead,
or drag, somebody about". In modern English usage, the verb to troll
describes a fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook
from a moving boat.[8] A similar but distinct verb, "to trawl,"
describes the act of dragging a fishing net (not a line). Whereas
trolling with a fishing line is recreational, trawling with a net is
generally a commercial activity.
The noun troll comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological
monster.[9] The word evokes the trolls of Scandinavian folklore and
children's tales, where they are often creatures bent on mischief and
wickedness. The contemporary use of the term is alleged to have appeared
on the Internet in the late 1980s,[10] but the earliest known example is
from 1992.[11] Early non-Internet related use of trolling for actions
deliberately performed to provoke a reaction can be found in the
military; by 1972 the term trolling for MiGs was documented in use by US
Navy pilots in Vietnam.[12]
Early history
The most likely derivation of the word troll can be found in the phrase
"trolling for newbies", popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet
group, alt.folklore.urban (AFU).[13][14] Commonly, what is meant is a
relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or
topics that had been so overdone that only a new user would respond to
them earnestly. For example, a veteran of the group might make a post on
the common misconception that glass flows over time. Long-time readers
would both recognize the poster's name and know that the topic had been
discussed a lot, but new subscribers to the group would not realize, and
would thus respond. These types of trolls served as a practice to
identify group insiders. This definition of trolling, considerably
narrower than the modern understanding of the term, was considered a
positive contribution.[13][15] One of the most notorious AFU trollers,
David Mikkelson,[13] went on to create the urban folklore website
Snopes.com.
By the late 1990s, alt.folklore.urban had such heavy traffic and
participation that trolling of this sort was frowned upon. Others
expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously
misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a
regular; these were often attempts at humor rather than provocation. In
such contexts, the noun troll usually referred to an act of trolling,
rather than to the author.
In other languages
In Icelandic, þurs (a thurs) or tröll (a troll) may refer to trolls, the
verbs þursa (to troll) or þursast (to be trolling, to troll about) may
be used.
In Chinese, trolling is referred to as bái mù (Chinese: 白目; literally
"white eye"), which can be straightforwardly explained as "eyes without
pupils", in the sense that whilst the pupil of the eye is used for
vision, the white section of the eye cannot see, and trolling involves
blindly talking nonsense over the internet, having total disregard to
sensitivities or being oblivious to the situation at hand, akin to
having eyes without pupils. An alternative term is bái làn (Chinese: 白
爛; literally "white rot"), which describes a post completely
nonsensical and full of folly made to upset others, and derives from a
Taiwanese slang term for the male genitalia, where genitalia that is
pale white in colour represents that someone is young, and thus foolish.
Both terms originate from Taiwan, and are also used in Hong Kong and
mainland China. Another term, xiǎo bái (Chinese: 小白; literally "little
white") is a derogatory term that refers to both bái mù and bái làn that
is used on anonymous posting internet forums. Another common term for a
troll used in mainland China is pēn zi (Chinese: 噴子; literally
"sprayer, spurter").
In Japanese, tsuri (釣り?) means "fishing" and refers to intentionally
misleading posts whose only purpose is to get the readers to react, i.e.
get trolled. arashi (荒らし?) means "laying waste" and can also be used
to refer to simple spamming.
In Korean, nak-si (낚시) means "fishing", and is used to refer to
Internet trolling attempts, as well as purposefully misleading post
titles. A person who recognizes the troll after having responded (or, in
case of a post title nak-si, having read the actual post) would often
refer to himself as a caught fish.[citation needed]
In Portuguese, more commonly in its Brazilian variant, troll (produced
[ˈtɾɔw], in Portuguese spelling pronunciation) is the usual term to
denote internet trolls (examples of common derivate terms are trollismo
or trollagem, "trolling", and the verb trollar, "to troll", which
entered popular use), but an older expression, used by those which want
to avoid anglicisms or slangs, is complexo do pombo enxadrista to denote
trolling behavior, and pombos enxadristas (literally, "chessplayer
pigeons") or simply pombos are the terms used to name the trolls. The
terms are explained by an adage or popular saying: "Arguing with fulano
(John Doe is its nearest equivalent) is the same as playing chess with a
pigeon: the pigeon defecates on the table, drop the pieces and simply
fly, claiming victory."
In Thai, the term "krean" (เกรียน) has been adopted to address Internet
trolls. The term literally refers to a closely cropped hairstyle worn by
most school boys in Thailand, thus equating Internet trolls to school
boys. The term "tob krean" (ตบเกรียน), or "slapping a cropped head",
refers to the act of posting intellectual replies to refute and cause
the messages of Internet trolls to be perceived as
unintelligent.[citation needed]
Trolling, identity, and anonymity
Early incidents of trolling were considered to be the same as flaming,
but this has changed with modern usage by the news media to refer to the
creation of any content that targets another person. The Internet
dictionary NetLingo suggests there are four grades of trolling: playtime
trolling, tactical trolling, strategic trolling, and domination
trolling.[16] The relationship between trolling and flaming was observed
in open-access forums in California, on a series of modem-linked
computers in the 1970s, like CommuniTree which when accessed by high
school teenagers became a ground for trashing and abuse.[17] Some
psychologists have suggested that flaming would be caused by
deindividuation or decreased self-evaluation: the anonymity of online
postings would lead to disinhibition amongst individuals[18] Others have
suggested that although flaming and trolling is often unpleasant, it may
be a form of normative behavior that expresses the social identity of a
certain user group [19][20] According to Tom Postmes, a professor of
social and organisational psychology at the universities of Exeter and
Groningen, Netherlands, and the author of Individuality and the Group,
who has studied online behavior for 20 years, "Trolls aspire to
violence, to the level of trouble they can cause in an environment. They
want it to kick off. They want to promote antipathetic emotions of
disgust and outrage, which morbidly gives them a sense of pleasure."[17]
In academic literature, the practice of trolling was first documented by
Judith Donath (1999). Donath's paper outlines the ambiguity of identity
in a disembodied "virtual community" such as Usenet:
In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for
the body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity.
The norm is: one body, one identity ... The virtual world is different.
It is composed of information rather than matter.[21]
Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which
trade on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:
Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is
played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to
pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests
and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls
and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from
trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending
poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well
they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the
latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently
diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can
be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a
newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in
the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become
sensitized to trolling – where the rate of deception is high – many
honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can
be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting
is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation
is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online
reputation.[21]
Susan Herring and colleagues in "Searching for Safety Online: Managing
'Trolling' in a Feminist Forum" point out the difficulty inherent in
monitoring trolling and maintaining freedom of speech in online
communities: "harassment often arises in spaces known for their freedom,
lack of censure, and experimental nature".[22] Free speech may lead to
tolerance of trolling behavior, complicating the members' efforts to
maintain an open, yet supportive discussion area, especially for
sensitive topics such as race, gender, and sexuality.[22]
In an effort to reduce uncivil behavior by increasing accountability,
many web sites (e.g. Reuters, Facebook, and Gizmodo) now require
commenters to register their names and e-mail addresses.[23]
Concern troll
A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual
point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The
concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view
and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to
share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow
fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[24]
An example of this occurred in 2006 when Tad Furtado, a staffer for
then-Congressman Charles Bass (R-NH), was caught posing as a "concerned"
supporter of Bass' opponent, Democrat Paul Hodes, on several liberal New
Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH". "IndyNH"
expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or
money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.[25][26] Hodes eventually
won the election.
Although the term "concern troll" originated in discussions of online
behavior, it now sees increasing use to describe similar behaviors that
take place offline. For example, James Wolcott of Vanity Fair accused a
conservative New York Daily News columnist of "concern troll" behavior
in his efforts to downplay the Mark Foley scandal. Wolcott links what he
calls concern trolls to what Saul Alinsky calls "Do-Nothings", giving a
long quote from Alinsky on the Do-Nothings' method and effects:
These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals
of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and
discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their
brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means.'[27]
The Hill published an op-ed piece by Markos Moulitsas of the liberal
blog Daily Kos titled "Dems: Ignore 'Concern Trolls'". The concern
trolls in question were not Internet participants; they were Republicans
offering public advice and warnings to the Democrats. The author defines
"concern trolling" as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice
to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient".[28]
Troll sites
While many webmasters and forum administrators consider trolls a scourge
on their sites, some websites welcome them. For example, a New York
Times article discussed troll activity at 4chan and at Encyclopedia
Dramatica, which it described as "an online compendium of troll humor
and troll lore".[10] This site and others are often used as a base to
troll against sites that their members can not normally post on. These
trolls feed off the reactions of their victims because "their agenda is
to take delight in causing trouble".[29]
Media coverage and controversy
Mainstream media outlets have focused their attention on the willingness
of some Internet trolls to go to extreme lengths in their attempts at
eliciting reactions.
United States
On March 31, 2010, the Today Show ran a segment detailing the deaths of
three separate adolescent girls and trolls' subsequent reactions to
their deaths. Shortly after the suicide of high school student Alexis
Pilkington, anonymous posters began trolling for reactions across
various message boards, referring to Pilkington as a "suicidal slut",
and posting graphic images on her Facebook memorial page. The segment
also included an expose of a 2006 accident, in which an eighteen-year
old fatally crashed her father's car into a highway pylon; trolls
emailed her grieving family the leaked pictures of her mutilated
corpse.[7] In 2012, the subject of trolling was featured on the HBO
series The Newsroom.
Australia
In February 2010, the Australian government became involved after trolls
defaced the Facebook tribute pages of murdered children Trinity Bates
and Elliott Fletcher. Australian communications minister Stephen Conroy
decried the attacks, committed mainly by 4chan users, as evidence of the
need for greater Internet regulation, stating, "This argument that the
Internet is some mystical creation that no laws should apply to, that is
a recipe for anarchy and the wild west."[30] Facebook responded by
strongly urging administrators to be aware of ways to ban users and
remove inappropriate content from Facebook pages.[31] In 2012, the Daily
Telegraph started a campaign to take action against "Twitter trolls",
who abuse and threaten users. Several high-profile Australians including
Charlotte Dawson, Robbie Farah, Laura Dundovic, and Ray Hadley have been
victims of trolling.[32][33][34]
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, contributions made to the Internet are covered by
the Communications Act 2003. Sending messages which are "grossly
offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" is an
offense whether they are received by the intended recipient or not.[35]
As of September 2011, two persons have been imprisoned in the UK for
trolling.[36][36] Several high profile cases of trolling have been
reported in the United Kingdom, with there being wide disparity between
the action taken against assailants. In the case of teenager, Natasha
MacBryde, who died a tragic death, the troll of her testimonial page,
Sean Duffy, was sentenced to 18 weeks in prison and banned from using
social networking sites for five years. [37] This compared with Jamie
Counsel being sentenced to four years for trying to incite riots [38]
and those who trolled the testimonial page of Georgia Varley facing no
prosecution due to misunderstandings of the legal system in the wake of
the term trolling being popularized [39]
Usage
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may
characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post
as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial.
Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack,
suggesting a negative motivation.
Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a
particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust
dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities.
Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective
way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it[citation needed],
because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive
posts – hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".
Examples
As reported on April 8, 1999, investors became victims of trolling via
an online financial discussion regarding PairGain, a telephone equipment
company based in California. Trolls operating in the stock’s Yahoo
Finance chat room posted a fabricated Bloomberg News article stating
that an Israeli telecom company could potentially acquire PairGain. As a
result, PairGain’s stock jumped by 31%. However, the stock promptly
crashed after the reports were identified as false.[40]
So-called Gold Membership trolling originated in 2007 on 4chan boards,
users posting fake images claiming to offer upgraded 4chan account
privileges; without a "Gold" account, one could not view certain
content. This turned out to be a hoax designed to fool board members,
especially newcomers. It was copied and became an Internet meme. In some
cases, this type of troll has been used as a scam, most notably on
Facebook, where fake Facebook Gold Account upgrade ads have proliferated
in order to link users to dubious websites and other content.[41]
The case of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. resulted primarily from
trolling. Six days after the Oklahoma City bombing, anonymous users
posted advertisements for shirts celebrating the bombing on AOL message
boards, claiming that the shirts could be obtained by contacting Mr.
Kenneth Zeran. The posts listed Zeran's address and home phone number.
Zeran was subsequently harassed.[40]
Anti-Scientology protests by Anonymous, commonly known as Project
Chanology, are sometimes labeled as "trolling" by media such as
Wired,[42] and the participants sometimes explicitly self-identify as
"trolls".
Troll (Internet)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Page semi-protected
The "trollface", first appearing in 2008,[1] is occasionally used to
indicate trolling in Internet culture.[2][not in citation given] Modern
usage of the word itself dates from the 1980s.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[3]
extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a
forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers
into an emotional response[4] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic
discussion.[5] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message
itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."
While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated
with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such
labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative
actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass
media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute
sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[6][7]
Etymology
It has been asserted that the verb to troll originates from Old French
troller, a hunting term. A verb "trôler" is found in modern
French-English dictionaries, where the main meaning given is "to lead,
or drag, somebody about". In modern English usage, the verb to troll
describes a fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook
from a moving boat.[8] A similar but distinct verb, "to trawl,"
describes the act of dragging a fishing net (not a line). Whereas
trolling with a fishing line is recreational, trawling with a net is
generally a commercial activity.
The noun troll comes from the Old Norse word for a mythological
monster.[9] The word evokes the trolls of Scandinavian folklore and
children's tales, where they are often creatures bent on mischief and
wickedness. The contemporary use of the term is alleged to have appeared
on the Internet in the late 1980s,[10] but the earliest known example is
from 1992.[11] Early non-Internet related use of trolling for actions
deliberately performed to provoke a reaction can be found in the
military; by 1972 the term trolling for MiGs was documented in use by US
Navy pilots in Vietnam.[12]
Early history
The most likely derivation of the word troll can be found in the phrase
"trolling for newbies", popularized in the early 1990s in the Usenet
group, alt.folklore.urban (AFU).[13][14] Commonly, what is meant is a
relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or
topics that had been so overdone that only a new user would respond to
them earnestly. For example, a veteran of the group might make a post on
the common misconception that glass flows over time. Long-time readers
would both recognize the poster's name and know that the topic had been
discussed a lot, but new subscribers to the group would not realize, and
would thus respond. These types of trolls served as a practice to
identify group insiders. This definition of trolling, considerably
narrower than the modern understanding of the term, was considered a
positive contribution.[13][15] One of the most notorious AFU trollers,
David Mikkelson,[13] went on to create the urban folklore website
Snopes.com.
By the late 1990s, alt.folklore.urban had such heavy traffic and
participation that trolling of this sort was frowned upon. Others
expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously
misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a
regular; these were often attempts at humor rather than provocation. In
such contexts, the noun troll usually referred to an act of trolling,
rather than to the author.
In other languages
In Icelandic, þurs (a thurs) or tröll (a troll) may refer to trolls, the
verbs þursa (to troll) or þursast (to be trolling, to troll about) may
be used.
In Chinese, trolling is referred to as bái mù (Chinese: 白目; literally
"white eye"), which can be straightforwardly explained as "eyes without
pupils", in the sense that whilst the pupil of the eye is used for
vision, the white section of the eye cannot see, and trolling involves
blindly talking nonsense over the internet, having total disregard to
sensitivities or being oblivious to the situation at hand, akin to
having eyes without pupils. An alternative term is bái làn (Chinese: 白
爛; literally "white rot"), which describes a post completely
nonsensical and full of folly made to upset others, and derives from a
Taiwanese slang term for the male genitalia, where genitalia that is
pale white in colour represents that someone is young, and thus foolish.
Both terms originate from Taiwan, and are also used in Hong Kong and
mainland China. Another term, xiǎo bái (Chinese: 小白; literally "little
white") is a derogatory term that refers to both bái mù and bái làn that
is used on anonymous posting internet forums. Another common term for a
troll used in mainland China is pēn zi (Chinese: 噴子; literally
"sprayer, spurter").
In Japanese, tsuri (釣り?) means "fishing" and refers to intentionally
misleading posts whose only purpose is to get the readers to react, i.e.
get trolled. arashi (荒らし?) means "laying waste" and can also be used
to refer to simple spamming.
In Korean, nak-si (낚시) means "fishing", and is used to refer to
Internet trolling attempts, as well as purposefully misleading post
titles. A person who recognizes the troll after having responded (or, in
case of a post title nak-si, having read the actual post) would often
refer to himself as a caught fish.[citation needed]
In Portuguese, more commonly in its Brazilian variant, troll (produced
[ˈtɾɔw], in Portuguese spelling pronunciation) is the usual term to
denote internet trolls (examples of common derivate terms are trollismo
or trollagem, "trolling", and the verb trollar, "to troll", which
entered popular use), but an older expression, used by those which want
to avoid anglicisms or slangs, is complexo do pombo enxadrista to denote
trolling behavior, and pombos enxadristas (literally, "chessplayer
pigeons") or simply pombos are the terms used to name the trolls. The
terms are explained by an adage or popular saying: "Arguing with fulano
(John Doe is its nearest equivalent) is the same as playing chess with a
pigeon: the pigeon defecates on the table, drop the pieces and simply
fly, claiming victory."
In Thai, the term "krean" (เกรียน) has been adopted to address Internet
trolls. The term literally refers to a closely cropped hairstyle worn by
most school boys in Thailand, thus equating Internet trolls to school
boys. The term "tob krean" (ตบเกรียน), or "slapping a cropped head",
refers to the act of posting intellectual replies to refute and cause
the messages of Internet trolls to be perceived as
unintelligent.[citation needed]
Trolling, identity, and anonymity
Early incidents of trolling were considered to be the same as flaming,
but this has changed with modern usage by the news media to refer to the
creation of any content that targets another person. The Internet
dictionary NetLingo suggests there are four grades of trolling: playtime
trolling, tactical trolling, strategic trolling, and domination
trolling.[16] The relationship between trolling and flaming was observed
in open-access forums in California, on a series of modem-linked
computers in the 1970s, like CommuniTree which when accessed by high
school teenagers became a ground for trashing and abuse.[17] Some
psychologists have suggested that flaming would be caused by
deindividuation or decreased self-evaluation: the anonymity of online
postings would lead to disinhibition amongst individuals[18] Others have
suggested that although flaming and trolling is often unpleasant, it may
be a form of normative behavior that expresses the social identity of a
certain user group [19][20] According to Tom Postmes, a professor of
social and organisational psychology at the universities of Exeter and
Groningen, Netherlands, and the author of Individuality and the Group,
who has studied online behavior for 20 years, "Trolls aspire to
violence, to the level of trouble they can cause in an environment. They
want it to kick off. They want to promote antipathetic emotions of
disgust and outrage, which morbidly gives them a sense of pleasure."[17]
In academic literature, the practice of trolling was first documented by
Judith Donath (1999). Donath's paper outlines the ambiguity of identity
in a disembodied "virtual community" such as Usenet:
In the physical world there is an inherent unity to the self, for
the body provides a compelling and convenient definition of identity.
The norm is: one body, one identity ... The virtual world is different.
It is composed of information rather than matter.[21]
Donath provides a concise overview of identity deception games which
trade on the confusion between physical and epistemic community:
Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is
played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to
pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests
and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls
and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from
trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending
poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well
they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the
latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently
diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can
be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a
newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in
the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become
sensitized to trolling – where the rate of deception is high – many
honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can
be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting
is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation
is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online
reputation.[21]
Susan Herring and colleagues in "Searching for Safety Online: Managing
'Trolling' in a Feminist Forum" point out the difficulty inherent in
monitoring trolling and maintaining freedom of speech in online
communities: "harassment often arises in spaces known for their freedom,
lack of censure, and experimental nature".[22] Free speech may lead to
tolerance of trolling behavior, complicating the members' efforts to
maintain an open, yet supportive discussion area, especially for
sensitive topics such as race, gender, and sexuality.[22]
In an effort to reduce uncivil behavior by increasing accountability,
many web sites (e.g. Reuters, Facebook, and Gizmodo) now require
commenters to register their names and e-mail addresses.[23]
Concern troll
A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual
point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The
concern troll posts in Web forums devoted to its declared point of view
and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to
share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow
fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.[24]
An example of this occurred in 2006 when Tad Furtado, a staffer for
then-Congressman Charles Bass (R-NH), was caught posing as a "concerned"
supporter of Bass' opponent, Democrat Paul Hodes, on several liberal New
Hampshire blogs, using the pseudonyms "IndieNH" or "IndyNH". "IndyNH"
expressed concern that Democrats might just be wasting their time or
money on Hodes, because Bass was unbeatable.[25][26] Hodes eventually
won the election.
Although the term "concern troll" originated in discussions of online
behavior, it now sees increasing use to describe similar behaviors that
take place offline. For example, James Wolcott of Vanity Fair accused a
conservative New York Daily News columnist of "concern troll" behavior
in his efforts to downplay the Mark Foley scandal. Wolcott links what he
calls concern trolls to what Saul Alinsky calls "Do-Nothings", giving a
long quote from Alinsky on the Do-Nothings' method and effects:
These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals
of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and
discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their
brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means.'[27]
The Hill published an op-ed piece by Markos Moulitsas of the liberal
blog Daily Kos titled "Dems: Ignore 'Concern Trolls'". The concern
trolls in question were not Internet participants; they were Republicans
offering public advice and warnings to the Democrats. The author defines
"concern trolling" as "offering a poisoned apple in the form of advice
to political opponents that, if taken, would harm the recipient".[28]
Troll sites
While many webmasters and forum administrators consider trolls a scourge
on their sites, some websites welcome them. For example, a New York
Times article discussed troll activity at 4chan and at Encyclopedia
Dramatica, which it described as "an online compendium of troll humor
and troll lore".[10] This site and others are often used as a base to
troll against sites that their members can not normally post on. These
trolls feed off the reactions of their victims because "their agenda is
to take delight in causing trouble".[29]
Media coverage and controversy
Mainstream media outlets have focused their attention on the willingness
of some Internet trolls to go to extreme lengths in their attempts at
eliciting reactions.
United States
On March 31, 2010, the Today Show ran a segment detailing the deaths of
three separate adolescent girls and trolls' subsequent reactions to
their deaths. Shortly after the suicide of high school student Alexis
Pilkington, anonymous posters began trolling for reactions across
various message boards, referring to Pilkington as a "suicidal slut",
and posting graphic images on her Facebook memorial page. The segment
also included an expose of a 2006 accident, in which an eighteen-year
old fatally crashed her father's car into a highway pylon; trolls
emailed her grieving family the leaked pictures of her mutilated
corpse.[7] In 2012, the subject of trolling was featured on the HBO
series The Newsroom.
Australia
In February 2010, the Australian government became involved after trolls
defaced the Facebook tribute pages of murdered children Trinity Bates
and Elliott Fletcher. Australian communications minister Stephen Conroy
decried the attacks, committed mainly by 4chan users, as evidence of the
need for greater Internet regulation, stating, "This argument that the
Internet is some mystical creation that no laws should apply to, that is
a recipe for anarchy and the wild west."[30] Facebook responded by
strongly urging administrators to be aware of ways to ban users and
remove inappropriate content from Facebook pages.[31] In 2012, the Daily
Telegraph started a campaign to take action against "Twitter trolls",
who abuse and threaten users. Several high-profile Australians including
Charlotte Dawson, Robbie Farah, Laura Dundovic, and Ray Hadley have been
victims of trolling.[32][33][34]
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, contributions made to the Internet are covered by
the Communications Act 2003. Sending messages which are "grossly
offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character" is an
offense whether they are received by the intended recipient or not.[35]
As of September 2011, two persons have been imprisoned in the UK for
trolling.[36][36] Several high profile cases of trolling have been
reported in the United Kingdom, with there being wide disparity between
the action taken against assailants. In the case of teenager, Natasha
MacBryde, who died a tragic death, the troll of her testimonial page,
Sean Duffy, was sentenced to 18 weeks in prison and banned from using
social networking sites for five years. [37] This compared with Jamie
Counsel being sentenced to four years for trying to incite riots [38]
and those who trolled the testimonial page of Georgia Varley facing no
prosecution due to misunderstandings of the legal system in the wake of
the term trolling being popularized [39]
Usage
Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may
characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post
as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial.
Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack,
suggesting a negative motivation.
Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a
particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust
dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities.
Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective
way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it[citation needed],
because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive
posts – hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".
Examples
As reported on April 8, 1999, investors became victims of trolling via
an online financial discussion regarding PairGain, a telephone equipment
company based in California. Trolls operating in the stock’s Yahoo
Finance chat room posted a fabricated Bloomberg News article stating
that an Israeli telecom company could potentially acquire PairGain. As a
result, PairGain’s stock jumped by 31%. However, the stock promptly
crashed after the reports were identified as false.[40]
So-called Gold Membership trolling originated in 2007 on 4chan boards,
users posting fake images claiming to offer upgraded 4chan account
privileges; without a "Gold" account, one could not view certain
content. This turned out to be a hoax designed to fool board members,
especially newcomers. It was copied and became an Internet meme. In some
cases, this type of troll has been used as a scam, most notably on
Facebook, where fake Facebook Gold Account upgrade ads have proliferated
in order to link users to dubious websites and other content.[41]
The case of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. resulted primarily from
trolling. Six days after the Oklahoma City bombing, anonymous users
posted advertisements for shirts celebrating the bombing on AOL message
boards, claiming that the shirts could be obtained by contacting Mr.
Kenneth Zeran. The posts listed Zeran's address and home phone number.
Zeran was subsequently harassed.[40]
Anti-Scientology protests by Anonymous, commonly known as Project
Chanology, are sometimes labeled as "trolling" by media such as
Wired,[42] and the participants sometimes explicitly self-identify as
"trolls".
John Dorsay
Nov 13, 2012, 3:57:08 PM11/13/12
to
you on. "Big brother" has absolutely nothing to do with "duty of care".
John
Kat
Nov 13, 2012, 6:23:56 PM11/13/12
to
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:36:36 PM UTC-5, telsar wrote:
> Kat, you are a troll.
No, sunshine. I'm just an honest anthropologist who studies destructive trolls and liars on usenet. Liars like you, who haunt linux forums and is quite well versed in computers and the internet, yet claim to not know that GG posts your home IP. John had to walk you through something extremely basic that even *I* knew, with my limited knowledge of the internet. Funny, that.
> Kat, you are a troll.
In fact, for all your abuse of GG users, you were using it yourself not too long ago. In fact, you sang it's praises!
https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/edf616d0ea2c957c?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect
Would you look at that. Same name, same stupid lyric quote at the end and a GG header. Did you think we were too dumb to find that, sunshine? HURR DURR TEH INTERNETZ R HARD!
You have yet to answer a single point of mine about medical standards of practice, medical provider fraud or caring for the mentally disabled. Instead you dismiss me through personal attack. I can counter your points while calling you a dipshit, little man. Are you unable to do the same?
Davis
Nov 15, 2012, 9:27:52 AM11/15/12
to
On 11/13/2012 4:23:57 PM, Kat wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:36:36 PM UTC-5, telsar wrote:
>> Kat, you are a troll.
>
> No, sunshine. I'm just an honest anthropologist who studies destructive
> tro lls and liars on usenet. Liars like you, who haunt linux forums and is
> On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 12:36:36 PM UTC-5, telsar wrote:
>> Kat, you are a troll.
>
> No, sunshine. I'm just an honest anthropologist who studies destructive
> quit e well versed in computers and the internet, yet claim to not know
> that GG posts your home IP. John had to walk you through something
> extremely basic that even *I* knew, with my limited knowledge of the
> internet. Funny, that.
>
>
> In fact, for all your abuse of GG users, you were using it yourself not
> too long ago. In fact, you sang it's praises!
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/edf616d0ea2c957c?dmo
> de=source&output=gplain&noredirect
>
>
> Would you look at that. Same name, same stupid lyric quote at the end and
> a GG header. Did you think we were too dumb to find that, sunshine? HURR
> DUR R TEH INTERNETZ R HARD!
> extremely basic that even *I* knew, with my limited knowledge of the
> internet. Funny, that.
>
>
> In fact, for all your abuse of GG users, you were using it yourself not
> too long ago. In fact, you sang it's praises!
>
> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.misc/msg/edf616d0ea2c957c?dmo
> de=source&output=gplain&noredirect
>
>
> Would you look at that. Same name, same stupid lyric quote at the end and
> a GG header. Did you think we were too dumb to find that, sunshine? HURR
>
> You have yet to answer a single point of mine about medical standards of
> pr actice, medical provider fraud or caring for the mentally disabled.
> You have yet to answer a single point of mine about medical standards of
> Instead you dismiss me through personal attack. I can counter your points
> while ca lling you a dipshit, little man. Are you unable to do the same?
>
>
>
No reply yet?
I I was hoping that this 'new guy' would answer for once, and not just about
ignoring the topic of Narconon's blatant lies, but at least by explaining
why:
1. Two Eternal September accounts sharing the same originating IP address are
both posting under the name "telsar"?
2. A happy user of Google Groups would, after discovering another newsgroup
provider, turn around and become such a harsh critic of other GG users?
3. Think that no one would ever notice any of these things?
... and Kat, that's a good Swedish Chef you do :-)
http://www.thelocal.se/42886/20120829/
telsar
Nov 15, 2012, 11:00:56 AM11/15/12
to
and noone believes a troll.
> 1. Two Eternal September accounts sharing the same originating IP address are
> both posting under the name "telsar"?
>
> 2. A happy user of Google Groups would, after discovering another newsgroup
> provider, turn around and become such a harsh critic of other GG users?
tracked down some free usenet servers and subscribed. Problem with GG
is that it is despised by most of Usenet. Posts originating from GG are
routinely ignored/deleted/not accept by so much of Usenet that using it
could never serve my purpose on Usenet. Censorship is quite alive today
and is just a SPAM filter.
>
> 3. Think that no one would ever notice any of these things?
Trolls notice whatever they want to in order to troll.
> 3. Think that no one would ever notice any of these things?
>
>
>
> ... and Kat, that's a good Swedish Chef you do :-)
>
> http://www.thelocal.se/42886/20120829/
>
Davis
Kat
John Dorsey
are all different personas/nyms/userids of the same source. Too similar
of style and purpose gives you away. There is a person in another group
that uses over 12 personas at a time, so your 4 or 5 is nothing really.
You are just a troll to ruin the newsgroup and do as trolls do. I will
post a definition for your review again and *plonk* you with the other
kooks.
Kat
Nov 15, 2012, 6:17:24 PM11/15/12
to
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:01:03 AM UTC-5, telsar wrote:
> They may be blatant liars for all I know, but I really don't know that
>
> and noone believes a troll.
Sunshine, it's right in the article that Narcanon lied to the Florida probation court regarding their accreditation. Dismissing people via ad hominemn (calling me a troll) doesn't make you right- it just makes you desperate and stupid... particularly when the truth is right in front of you and you refuse to look like a petulant child.
> They may be blatant liars for all I know, but I really don't know that
>
> and noone believes a troll.
> > 1. Two Eternal September accounts sharing the same originating IP address are
>
> > both posting under the name "telsar"?
>
> >
>
>
>
> troll nonsense
>
>
>
> > 2. A happy user of Google Groups would, after discovering another newsgroup
>
> > provider, turn around and become such a harsh critic of other GG users?
>
>
>
> I was never a happy user of GG. I used it for a few days until I
>
> tracked down some free usenet servers and subscribed. Problem with GG
>
> is that it is despised by most of Usenet. Posts originating from GG are
>
> routinely ignored/deleted/not accept by so much of Usenet that using it
>
> could never serve my purpose on Usenet. Censorship is quite alive today
>
> and is just a SPAM filter.
If you experienced discrimination and filters due to your use of google groups, why then join in on the insults when you switch? It's like a bullied kid becoming a bully just to escape being tormented himself. Weak.
>
> >
>
> > 3. Think that no one would ever notice any of these things?
>
>
>
> Trolls notice whatever they want to in order to troll.
> Looks like:
>
>
>
> Davis
>
> Kat
>
> John Dorsey
>
>
>
> are all different personas/nyms/userids of the same source.
> Too similar
>
> of style and purpose gives you away.
Sunshine, we are all known entities. John Dorsay is a real person, Davis's identity is known as well (I believe) and there are pictures of my very female self (Davis and John are men, dipshit) taken at protests. In fact, I've even given my full name and life story to some of the critics on here. I've even MET members of the old guard and stood in protest along side them.
Your "theory" is bunk.... nothing more than a desperate attempt to distract from what you can't handle: 1) commentary on your behavior that is suspicious, hypocritical or downright false and 2) discussion of facts regarding ANYTHING negative said about scientology.
I have yet to notice you say anything critical of it. At all. Please feel free to link to where you have and correct me. For someone who has supposedly claimed to study the esoteric as long as you have, I find it doubtful that you formed negative opinions about even one small aspect of a faith, philosophy or religious organization.
> There is a person in another group
>
> that uses over 12 personas at a time, so your 4 or 5 is nothing really.
>
> You are just a troll to ruin the newsgroup and do as trolls do. I will
>
> post a definition for your review again and *plonk* you with the other
>
> kooks.
Moron.
Kat
Nov 15, 2012, 6:24:48 PM11/15/12
to
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:27:37 AM UTC-5, Davis wrote:
> No reply yet?
>
>
>
> I I was hoping that this 'new guy' would answer for once, and not just about
>
> ignoring the topic of Narconon's blatant lies, but at least by explaining
>
> why:
>
>
>
> 1. Two Eternal September accounts sharing the same originating IP address are
>
> both posting under the name "telsar"?
>
>
>
> 2. A happy user of Google Groups would, after discovering another newsgroup
>
> provider, turn around and become such a harsh critic of other GG users?
>
>
>
> 3. Think that no one would ever notice any of these things?
>
>
> ... and Kat, that's a good Swedish Chef you do :-)
>
>
>
> http://www.thelocal.se/42886/20120829/
lol!
> No reply yet?
>
>
>
> I I was hoping that this 'new guy' would answer for once, and not just about
>
> ignoring the topic of Narconon's blatant lies, but at least by explaining
>
> why:
>
>
>
> 1. Two Eternal September accounts sharing the same originating IP address are
>
> both posting under the name "telsar"?
>
>
>
> 2. A happy user of Google Groups would, after discovering another newsgroup
>
> provider, turn around and become such a harsh critic of other GG users?
>
>
>
> 3. Think that no one would ever notice any of these things?
>
>
> ... and Kat, that's a good Swedish Chef you do :-)
>
>
>
> http://www.thelocal.se/42886/20120829/
I smell sock puppet/ troll. Flat out. I aired my suspicions to John a while ago, but I'll say it here. This one was too eager to disagree with us calling someone else a troll, but he resorts to it here to dismiss us through intellectual fallacy.
At the least he's a lying hypocrite, at worst he is either Snot Boy, TS (this fool's home IP is in Maryland, not far from DC. Given the frequency of his posts he could easily be posting from someone else's PC as I do.) or some other scilon newsgroup disruptor.
Andrew Robertson
Nov 15, 2012, 6:54:35 PM11/15/12
to
On 16/11/2012 5:00 a.m., telsar wrote:
<snip>
> Looks like:
> Davis
> Kat
> John Dorsey
> are all different personas/nyms/userids of the same source. Too similar
> of style and purpose gives you away.
Davis, Kat and John all live in different countries, have established
unique identities and the only thing they have in common is their
critical thinking ability.
Andrew
<snip>
> Looks like:
> Davis
> Kat
> John Dorsey
> are all different personas/nyms/userids of the same source. Too similar
> of style and purpose gives you away.
unique identities and the only thing they have in common is their
critical thinking ability.
Andrew
Kat
Nov 15, 2012, 7:15:04 PM11/15/12
to
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:54:36 PM UTC-5, Andrew Robertson wrote:
> Davis, Kat and John all live in different countries, have established
>
> unique identities and the only thing they have in common is their
>
> critical thinking ability.
>
>
>
> Andrew
That was a very kind of you, Andrew <3
> Davis, Kat and John all live in different countries, have established
>
> unique identities and the only thing they have in common is their
>
> critical thinking ability.
>
>
>
> Andrew
John Dorsay
Nov 15, 2012, 9:57:16 PM11/15/12
to
On 11/15/2012 11:00 AM, telsar wrote:
<big snip>
> Looks like:
>
> Davis
> Kat
> John Dorsey
Umm, it's DorsAy. I wouldn't normally point that out, but the same
misspelling occurred in this remailer message the other day. Go figure.
> From: Steve Jacobs <Steve....@FAKE.gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> Subject: Re: Tons of Scientology Media free for Download
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:51:09 -0600
> Organization: Mixmin
> Message-ID: <k7v0uu$nck$2...@news.mixmin.net>
>
> On 11/13/2012 03:22 PM, John Dorsey wrote:
Maybe it's nothing, but I find the coincidence interesting.
> are all different personas/nyms/userids of the same source. Too similar
> of style and purpose gives you away. There is a person in another group
> that uses over 12 personas at a time, so your 4 or 5 is nothing really.
Let me offer a bit of remedial counting help.
> Davis
> Kat
> John Dorsey
constitute *3* personas, not "4 or 5". Yet another fallacious
argument from the master.
John
<big snip>
> Looks like:
>
> Davis
> Kat
> John Dorsey
misspelling occurred in this remailer message the other day. Go figure.
> From: Steve Jacobs <Steve....@FAKE.gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> Subject: Re: Tons of Scientology Media free for Download
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:51:09 -0600
> Organization: Mixmin
> Message-ID: <k7v0uu$nck$2...@news.mixmin.net>
>
> On 11/13/2012 03:22 PM, John Dorsey wrote:
Maybe it's nothing, but I find the coincidence interesting.
> are all different personas/nyms/userids of the same source. Too similar
> of style and purpose gives you away. There is a person in another group
> that uses over 12 personas at a time, so your 4 or 5 is nothing really.
> Davis
> Kat
> John Dorsey
constitute *3* personas, not "4 or 5". Yet another fallacious
argument from the master.
John
Kat
Nov 15, 2012, 11:28:20 PM11/15/12
to restim...@gmail.com
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:57:18 PM UTC-5, John Dorsay wrote:
> constitute *3* personas, not "4 or 5". Yet another fallacious
>
> argument from the master.
Don't worry John, I'm sure he will be along shortly to accuse Andrew (and anyone else who dares question/contradict him) of being part of the vicious, muti-headed troll creature. He will get up to 4 or 5 "personas" soon enough lol
> constitute *3* personas, not "4 or 5". Yet another fallacious
>
> argument from the master.
John Dorsay
Nov 15, 2012, 11:44:58 PM11/15/12
to
the grand revelation will be that you, Andrew, Davis and I are all
cult operatives. Of course, we've *never* heard that before.
Tel Sar. TS.
I wonder....
John
Kat
Nov 16, 2012, 12:59:39 AM11/16/12
to restim...@gmail.com
On Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:44:59 PM UTC-5, John Dorsay wrote:
>
> Maybe. But I think telsar is slightly more subtle than that.
*evil grin* Possibly, but so much as I am.
>
> Maybe. But I think telsar is slightly more subtle than that.
> I think
> the grand revelation will be that you, Andrew, Davis and I are all
> cult operatives. Of course, we've *never* heard that before.
>
> Tel Sar. TS.
>
> I wonder....
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·
Nov 16, 2012, 11:54:16 AM11/16/12
to
"Kat" <lady...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:08a0302a-0b61-4c48...@googlegroups.com...
I smell sock puppet/ troll. Flat out. I aired my suspicions to John a while
ago, but I'll say it here. This one was too eager to disagree with us calling
someone else a troll, but he resorts to it here to dismiss us through
intellectual fallacy.
At the least he's a lying hypocrite, at worst he is either Snot Boy, TS (this
fool's home IP is in Maryland, not far from DC. Given the frequency of his
posts he could easily be posting from someone else's PC as I do.) or some
other scilon newsgroup disruptor.
==============[reply]================
You are so paranoid, Kat. Why do you believe everybody who speaks ill of you
is "Snot Boy?"
Good grief! You just can't seem to get over your infatuation with me. You
blame every post that displeases you on me. How droll. I would say you are
thoroughly owned by me. Hey, if you want me so badly post a picture so I can
see if you have what it takes to arouse my prurient interest.
--
Sir Gregory
news:08a0302a-0b61-4c48...@googlegroups.com...
I smell sock puppet/ troll. Flat out. I aired my suspicions to John a while
ago, but I'll say it here. This one was too eager to disagree with us calling
someone else a troll, but he resorts to it here to dismiss us through
intellectual fallacy.
At the least he's a lying hypocrite, at worst he is either Snot Boy, TS (this
fool's home IP is in Maryland, not far from DC. Given the frequency of his
posts he could easily be posting from someone else's PC as I do.) or some
other scilon newsgroup disruptor.
You are so paranoid, Kat. Why do you believe everybody who speaks ill of you
is "Snot Boy?"
Good grief! You just can't seem to get over your infatuation with me. You
blame every post that displeases you on me. How droll. I would say you are
thoroughly owned by me. Hey, if you want me so badly post a picture so I can
see if you have what it takes to arouse my prurient interest.
--
Sir Gregory
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·
Nov 16, 2012, 1:01:45 PM11/16/12
to
"Andrew Robertson" <adrob...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:k83vb0$hrk$1...@dont-email.me...
> critical thinking ability.
I took the liberty of correcting your post, Andrew.
--
Sir Gregory
news:k83vb0$hrk$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 16/11/2012 5:00 a.m., telsar wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Looks like:
>> Davis
>> Kat
>> John Dorsey
>> are all different personas/nyms/userids of the same source. Too similar
>> of style and purpose gives you away.
>
>
> Davis, Kat and John all live in different countries, have established unique
> identities and the only thing they have in common is their (lack of)
> <snip>
>
>> Looks like:
>> Davis
>> Kat
>> John Dorsey
>> are all different personas/nyms/userids of the same source. Too similar
>> of style and purpose gives you away.
>
>
> Davis, Kat and John all live in different countries, have established unique
> critical thinking ability.
I took the liberty of correcting your post, Andrew.
--
Sir Gregory
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq·
Nov 16, 2012, 1:03:11 PM11/16/12
to
"Kat" <lady...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7705139e-9fe8-4875...@googlegroups.com...
> On Thursday, November 15, 2012 6:54:36 PM UTC-5, Andrew Robertson wrote:
>>
>> Davis, Kat and John all live in different countries, have established
>> unique identities and the only thing they have in common is their
>> critical thinking ability.
>
> That was a very kind of you, Andrew.
>>
>> Davis, Kat and John all live in different countries, have established
>> unique identities and the only thing they have in common is their
>> critical thinking ability.
>
LOL. More like erroneous sucking up. You and the others totally LACK critical
thinking.
--
Sir Gregory
telsar
Nov 17, 2012, 1:32:20 PM11/17/12
to
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/troll-dolls/images/1353693/title/troll-doll-photo
Are you a real Knight?
Kat
Nov 17, 2012, 6:38:23 PM11/17/12
to
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:32:28 PM UTC-5, telsar wrote:
>
> http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/troll-dolls/images/1353693/title/troll-doll-photo
>
Are you ever going to answer any fact based questions? Or are you just going to keep hiding behind ad homs and personal attacks while propping yourself up as a valid voice on ars? (just like Truthseeker, I might add)
>
> http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/troll-dolls/images/1353693/title/troll-doll-photo
>
Are you ever going to answer any fact based questions? Or are you just going to keep hiding behind ad homs and personal attacks while propping yourself up as a valid voice on ars? (just like Truthseeker, I might add)
0 new messages