Ed Lange's "Innocent" Nudist Moppets
rere
: A case of "damned if I do, damned if I don't" perhaps?
: If I ask to see the pictures Nikki's talking about, then I'm allegedly
: requesting kiddie porn, which makes me eligible for jail time.
: If I don't see the pictures Nikki's talking about, then I "obviously"
: don't know what I'm talking about, and am a fool for posting here.
: This is getting to the point where it's not worth my trouble.
: I know that I've seen lots of Ed Lange's photo books over the
: years, and I wouldn't call any of them pornography. They're
: just pictures of nudists (admittedly, a lot of women and children)
: going about a normal nudist lifestyle.
: Perhaps Ed's motives were to make money in book sales, or to drum
: up business for his park (Elysium), and maybe these motives weren't
: as "pure" as they could have been, but I certainly wouldn't call him
: a pornographer. This is where Nikki and I agree to disagree.
Rich, if you are in the Washington area it appears there may be a copy of
Nudist Moppets in the Library of Congress. Until you have seen that
magazine you really shouldn't say that Lange was not a pornographer. He was.
There's no question about it.
Here is a quote from Nudist Moppets:
"In the springtime of childhood sex doesn't seem very important -- to an
adult, but to a child, it is the very mystery of life. There is a faint
stirring of the libido heard in the deep uncomplicated recesses of a
child's mind. There is the tingling of flesh, the sensuous thrill of
touch, when all the senses seem to be electrified by nature."
I'll print several articles about Nudist Moppets and see if that gives
you some additional information until my homepage is up and running.
--
Re Re
Richard C Pasco
> Rich, if you are in the Washington area it appears there may be a copy of
> Nudist Moppets in the Library of Congress. Until you have seen that
> magazine you really shouldn't say that Lange was not a pornographer. He was.
> There's no question about it.
If Nudist Moppets were the kind of Kiddie Porn that Nikki claims it
is (possession of which is a crime), then what would that make the
Librarians of Congress?
> Here is a quote from Nudist Moppets
<snip>
Agreed, that doesn't sound like it's about naturism as I know it.
But we were talking about photographs, weren't we? As far as I know,
*words* are not illegal.
- Rich
Richard C Pasco
about the nudist resort, than the fact that an alcoholic also drinks
milk proves about drinking milk.
- Rich
rere
: about the nudist resort, than the fact that an alcoholic also drinks
: milk proves about drinking milk.
What's this in reference to. I never said Lange was a pedophile. What are
talking about?
--
Re Re
scr...@lmsmgr.lerc.nasa.gov
>
>In article <rereDGJ...@netcom.com>, re...@netcom.com (rere) writes:
>> ****************************
>>
>>See what this nudist camp manager and pedophile has to say about
>>Ed Lange's "Innocent" Nudist Moppets. I'd say this could be the
>>expert opinion you were looking for, Rich. More on Nudist Moppets
>>to follow.
>>
>> ****************************
>
>For those who don't want to read through 350 lines of the autobiography of a
>child molester to get to his "expert opinion" on _Nudist Moppets_, here it is:
>
>> Around 1974, when I was beginning to hang around 42nd Street porno shops
>> in New York City, I got my first exposure to commercial child pornography.
>> I got to be friends with one of the porn shop owners and one day he showed
>> me a magazine that just arrived called Nudist Moppets.
>
>That's it. Complete and unabridged. Pretty damning, eh?
>
What is the extent of Ed Lange's involvement with _Nudist Moppets_? So
far all I've seen is a claim by Nikki Craft that Chris Faubert told her
that Lange somehow collaborated with the publisher, Leja. I don't
consider Faubert a credible source after his claim to have a taped
conversation with Craft for which he made certain claims that Craft
denies but will not release the tape. Have I missed something?
Richard C Pasco
wrote:
> For those who don't want to read through 350 lines of the autobiography of a
> child molester to get to his "expert opinion" on _Nudist Moppets_, here it
> is:
>
> > Around 1974, when I was beginning to hang around 42nd Street porno shops
> > in New York City, I got my first exposure to commercial child pornography.
> > I got to be friends with one of the porn shop owners and one day he showed
> > me a magazine that just arrived called Nudist Moppets.
>
> That's it. Complete and unabridged. Pretty damning, eh?
No, not really. I don't consider the 1974 opinion of one porn shop
owner to be an "expert" on what is and is not child pornography. He's
probably just the kind of sleaze-ball who *could* get turned on by
innocent nudist pictures, and would salivate over naturist kids at play
in the playground. Besides, he'd probably leer at anything if it would
make him a sale. Frankly, I wouldn't give his opinion the time of day,
let alone save it for 26 years and post it in a usenet newsgroup!
If the same porn shop owner pulled out a copy of the New York Times,
what would that say?
- Rich
rere
: wrote:
Rich, the guy was a nudist camp manager who got children at the camp he
managed. He made friends with a guy at the porn shop who gave him Nudist
Moppets. Well, who do you think read Nudist Moppets, besides a few
nudists? Men who salivate over nudist kids. There is general information
about a pedophiles MO that is very relevant today. It's an excellent
archival writing for the Library, too.
The Naturist Pedophile Identification Library, Curator
--
Re Re
rere
: In the context of a discussion on the magazine _Nudist Moppets_, Rere posted
: a lengthy article, "My Life of Molesting Children" (the Senate committee
: testimony of Joseph Henry), saying "See what this nudist camp manager and
: pedophile has to say about Ed Lange's 'Innocent' Nudist Moppets."
: In fact, all that he has to say about _Nudist Moppets_ is contained in a
: single sentence, "I got to be friends with one of the porn shop owners and
: one day he showed me a magazine that just arrived called Nudist Moppets."
: Although she claimed to be posting this article because of what it had to
: say about _Nudist Moppets_, I gather that Rere really intended it to be read
: for other reasons, because she now says:
: > Neil, this nudist camp operator molested about twenty children and
: > was finally convicted for his part in a child prostitution and
: > pornography ring that many other nudists were a part of, including Tim
: > Wilcox. The article, for those who bothered to read it, revealed how he
: > used child pornography and nudism to get access to children and how one
: > nudist father, heavily involved with the ASA at the time, sold a little
: > girl to him for $100.00. This article has much to tell nudists about the
: > MO of a pedophile from his own mouth for those who aren't too
: > bothered, and who care enough, to take the time to read it. As to Nudist
: > Moppets I will be publishing more on that magazine very soon.
You are right about one thing. It really was not fair to use this article
to tell about NUDIST MOPPETS. I did a search on my computer and only came
up with several articles. I haven't had time to go thru those yet, but
I'm hoping they will be more descriptive or I won't post them. I hadn't
read this article in a long time and didn't realize how little it did say
about the content of NUDIST MOPPETS, but do think it is relevant in that
it is one instance of where it was in the hands of a pedophile.
: However, I'm afraid that this misrepresents the contents of the article just
: as badly as Rere's original posting.
: > The article, for those who bothered to read it, revealed how he
: > used child pornography and nudism to get access to children
: The only connection the article makes between "child pornography" and "getting
: access to children" is that he found ads in his pornographic magazines which
: enabled him to get in touch with other pedophiles.
: As for using nudism to get access to children, it mentions in passing that, as
: manager of a nudist camp, he was able to see many children nude, and that he
: molested one child (of his twenty victims) there. Absolutely no connection
: is drawn to nudism with regard to any of his later activities.
You need to know more about the child porn ring he was involved in. It
was the same one that Tim Wilcox was involved in along with a number of
other nudists. Henry's last three victims were children of nudists and
one of the children was sold to him by a man active in the ASA. Did you
read that in the article?
: > This article has much to tell nudists about
the : > MO of a pedophile from his own mouth for those who aren't too
: > bothered, and who care enough, to take the time to read it.
: Most of what it has to say about the MO of a pedophile has to do with letters
: and phone calls to establish clandestine rendevous -- not really of much
: interest to anyone other than another pedophile or a pedophile-hunter.
: The content that is specifically relevant to nudists is negligible.
: By the way, the article itself is internally inconsistent. The introduction
: states
: > In 1971 Henry was caught molesting nudist girls at the New Jersey nudist
: > camp he managed, but charges were not filed against him by the club or by
: > the girls' parents. This left Henry free to move to California where he
: Since Henry's testimony never mentions getting caught, one would have to
: presume that there is more to the story that is known to the article's
: editor and was not included in the article. However, at the conclusion
: of the article, there is the interesting question from the editor, "Anyone
: know what camp Henry managed?", which strongly suggests that the editor
: actually doesn't know any more details, and that the comment in the
: introduction is simply fabrication.
Henry's testimony didn't say it, but I got the information from a cop and
he didn't know the name of the camp. I've even attempted to track Henry
down to interview him about further details and I've tried to find out what
camp it was and can't.
: In short, this appears to be what I have come to think of as a typical
: _ICONoclast_ article (judging from the sample that Rere has published
: for us here on the net): A lot of raw fact, almost entirely irrelevant
: to nudism, along with some editorial comments, carefully composed to
: give the impression that the content is much more significant than it
: really is.
The guy was a nudist camp manager. He cites NUDIST MOPPETS as playing a
part in his molesting children, as well as his use of voyeurism at the
nudist camp. He molested at least several nudist children, one of them
at a nudist camp. I'm truly disappointed that you can't see that this is
relevant to nudism, nor significant.
root
>(2) What role did Ed Lange play in its (a) photography, (b) publication,
> and (c) distribution?
>
>I find it hard to judge (1) without seeing a copy, and if it's as "bad"
>as Nikki claims, I really don't want to buy one.
>
>The only input on (2) I have is Chris Faubert's say so, and I don't
>know him.
>
According to the Library of Congress listings for Nudist Moppets, it's
registration block is within the block owned by Lange's publishing company.
That in and of itself means nothing as far as content. I never said that Lange
shot those photos or wrote that text. However, publishing and distrobution is
another story entirely.
Don't judge Lange soley on the merits of that specific publication tho... It is
exceptionally repugnant and does not represent the "norm" for his efforts at
all. Look at his most popular titles if you can get copies. "The Wonderful
Webbers" is a classic example. It is represented as being a tribute to
"America's First Nudist Couple" (the meaning of that phrase is that the female
half of the Webber pair was crowned Mrs. Nude America or somesuch in the late
60's). It is nothing but cheesecake photography, and it features the female
webber, and her baby for the most part. No balance to it. At least it
featured adults as the primary subject. There are others. There are worse.
Lange was no Isley Boone, that's for damn sure. But he certainly had a feel
for what would be commercially successful.
The Black Wizard
tim keene
your established reputation here, I think I will be better off looking it
up for myself. Too bad we can't trust you. . . .
attilla
--
attilla the hun (Tim Keene)
Best Process server/Skip-Tracer
in known world. (408-262-7021)
att...@netcom.com
fencer
>Chris, had anyone else written this, I would freely accept it - but given
>your established reputation here, I think I will be better off looking it
>up for myself. Too bad we can't trust you. . . .
>
>attilla
>
Tim,
had any one else written this, I would have considered it an insult - but given
your combative nature and inability to resist a cheap shot I think I will be
better off looking at it as a compliment. To bad you can't keep a civil
tongue.
Chris
(The Black Wizard)
--
. The North American Centre for
`n. .rP' Nudist and Naturist Studies
`qb ,dP'
TLb. ,dMP' *************************************
TML.dMMP * A Private Online Research Library *
,nmm`XXMPX * Publically Available for Your Use.*
,#MP'~~XNXYNXTb. *************************************
,d~' dNNP `YNTb.
,~ ,NN' `YNb -=Email=-
dNP `Yb. fen...@the.nudist.org
,NN' `b. fen...@epee.privateer.org
dP ` fen...@redbox.newhackcity.net
,N' -=Library URL=-
P http://www.nudist.org/~nacns
Richard C Pasco
> Chris, had anyone else written this, I would freely accept it - but given
> your established reputation here, I think I will be better off looking it
> up for myself. Too bad we can't trust you. . . .
> In article <46cls1$2...@ultrix.FOUR.net> root <root> writes:
> >According to the Library of Congress listings for Nudist Moppets, it's
> >registration block is within the block owned by Lange's publishing company.
Tim, do your research tools allow you to check this without going to
Washington? Can anyone else suggest how to do it?
- Rich
tim keene
attilla
In article <46ej7v$7...@ultrix.FOUR.net> fencer <fen...@the.nudist.org> writes:
>att...@netcom.com (tim keene) wrote:
>>Chris, had anyone else written this, I would freely accept it - but given
>>your established reputation here, I think I will be better off looking it
>>up for myself. Too bad we can't trust you. . . .
>>
>>attilla
>>
>
>Tim,
>
>had any one else written this, I would have considered it an insult - but given
>your combative nature and inability to resist a cheap shot I think I will be
>better off looking at it as a compliment. To bad you can't keep a civil
>tongue.
>
>Chris
>(The Black Wizard)
>
>
>--
>
> . The North American Centre for
> `n. .rP' Nudist and Naturist Studies
> `qb ,dP'
> TLb. ,dMP' *************************************
> TML.dMMP * A Private Online Research Library *
> ,nmm`XXMPX * Publically Available for Your Use.*
> ,#MP'~~XNXYNXTb. *************************************
> ,d~' dNNP `YNTb.
> ,~ ,NN' `YNb -=Email=-
> dNP `Yb. fen...@the.nudist.org
> ,NN' `b. fen...@epee.privateer.org
> dP ` fen...@redbox.newhackcity.net
> ,N' -=Library URL=-
> P http://www.nudist.org/~nacns
>
Richard C Pasco
is interesting... She presents good evidence that some of Chris
Faubert's posts are so unbelievable as to cast doubt on any of his
claims. And yet, to support her past allegations that Ed Lange was
instrumental in publication of Nudist Moppets, the only evidence she
could produce was quoting past posts by Chris Faubert!
You can't have it both ways, believe him when it suits you and
disbelieve him when it doesn't.
- Rich
rere
Rich, it seems to me that it's you that wants to have it both ways. You
and Scridd ask me to substantiate everything. Why don't you now ask
Faubert to substantiate what he claims. I will then verify it.
The only time I would ever believe Faubert on anything is if I can
substantiate that it is accurate. That is not wanting to have it both
ways. Can you understand that now?
So Rich, will you join us in asking Mr. Faubert to once again put up or
shut up and substantiate his claim. It's only reasonable, don't you
think? Or do you want to have it both ways and caste doubt onto me for
Faubert's claims?
--
Re Re
The Black Wizard
>
>Faubert should substantiate his claims with all the relevant Library of
>Congress numbers, which he has never done. And until he does, nothing he
>says should be taken as the truth.
Your telling me that I should bend over backwards to help you prove a point?!
>Faubert also told me that every printing
>press in the country is required to be registered with the Library of
>Congress,
W00p! That is, dear rere, a lie. What are you tring to direct their attention
away from? Your established patern of attack and redirect is complicated, and
I can't tell what this new attack is leading into, but just for the record, you
asked me how I obtained ownership information on Jan Gay's "On Going Naked" and
I told you that the publishing company is registered with the Library of
Congress, and submits a listing of each book, and the specific informations
about authors, agents and holders.
>which is, of course, completely delusional. What kind of a
>person could honestly believe that printing presses in the US have to be
>registered with the US government? What a fwiggin' nut case! It's
>laughable that this is the best librarian the naturists can find, but it
>does figure.
You comment upon your conclusions above as if they were an established fact.
You lie so often nixi, that it's becomming hard to follow you.
As for it being laughable that I am the best librarian the naturists can find,
it is amusing that you would enclose a cheap shot like that in a broadside
designed to question my sanity. I am not the best librarian they could find.
I am the ONLY librarian that they could find who has the credentials of a
librarian and is willing to do the job. I am still waiting for you to publish
the URL to your web page, nixi. Where is it? This expose of pedo's and
enemies-a'la-Craft?
>
>That Faubert cites Baxandall and O'Brien as two of his major supporters
>for his (smirk) library castes real credibility problems on them as well.
>Why affiliate with a character like Faubert? Ohhh never mind. :-)
Bwahahahahahaha. That's a redirect folks. So the entire point of this attack
was to take yet another slam at your old lover and his organization? Grow up,
Craft. Your teeth are starting to show. (Meeeeoowwww!)
>
>While I'm at it, Faubert claimed to rec.nude readers that when I asked
>him how to get on the internet that he told me to RTFM, but that was
>another lie he told.
Bwahahahahahahahahh!!!! This is rich! W00Hoo. You know they hate you. So you
are going to try to convince them that *I* caused you to be here. What is
that? So that some of the general hate they have will rub off? Listen, ya
feminiazi, I am NOT responcible for you. And if these people here stop and
think about it, THE ONLY PERSON I have ever publically stood against here is
YOU.
For the record. I do not believe that Niki Craft is a Nudist or a Naturist. I
believe in the essential truth that Niki Craft is interested in tearing down
rec.nude, the Naturist Movement, and any other group of males that she does not
like. I believe that Nikki Craft has as an agenda the use of subterfuge and
redirection to cause people to pit against each other, satisfying her need to
destroy. I offer as evidence of that her actions here, and her own writings,
which are available at http://www.nudist.org/~nacns unedited. This woman has
never, ONCE in her ENTIRE life, done a thing for Naturism. I am not looking
for people to look up to the efforts of the NACNS and I do not crave attention.
That she has the unmitigated gall to point at what we are doing and LAUGH while
she spends her time PROFITING OFF OF CHILD PORN (that's right folks, she makes
her living and pays her bills exclusively from her "efforts" to combat child
porn)
>He actually gave me very extensive information about
>getting onto the internet, and he is one reason I am on the net today.
Uhh. I suggested you purchase "The Whole Internet" a book on the internet. I
didn't GIVE you anything.
>I believe he contacted me, such a short time after his visit with Baxandall,
>because they wanted to arrange this confrontation, and it didn't exactly
>turn out like Faubert wanted. Otherwise why in the world would he have
>given me so much information that would lead me here?
Are you seriously suggesting that the founder of The Naturist Society put me up
to (what? calling you?) creating a confrontation with you? That makes no sense
at all. Niki, people like you are best ignored. You crave attention, and you
try your points and cases in the public forums where other loose-cannons can
applaud you. I think it sucks that you attack Lee here. You know as FACT that
he doesn't come here, doesn't even know HOW to connect a newsreader let alone
read newsgroups. Is this annoying paranoia what really motivates you? Is it
guilt over breaking into his home and office and stealing the photos, letters
and files, as well as the computer, and the hundreds of dollars of postage
stamps? Because it's not too late for you to make that right. I think that
restitution from you to TNS would go a long way toward building good-will here.
A lot of us here are members of TNS and when you stoled from TNS you robbed us
too. I for one am willing to give you a second chance if you would only
contact the Naturists and make arrangements to compensate them for the goods
and hardware you spirited away in the night. I also feel that you should make
monetary restitution for the value of postage you stoled, and ALSO, RETURN THE
RECORDS AND PHOTOGRAPHS that you ILLEGALLY removed from the files at TNS.
If you do that, I will endorse your presence here with open arms.
The Black Wizard
Kent Hooker
|> Nikki Craft's <re...@netcom.com> post of Mon, 23 Oct 1995 07:11:51 GMT
|> is interesting... She presents good evidence that some of Chris
|> Faubert's posts are so unbelievable as to cast doubt on any of his
|> claims. And yet, to support her past allegations that Ed Lange was
|> instrumental in publication of Nudist Moppets, the only evidence she
|> could produce was quoting past posts by Chris Faubert!
|>
|> You can't have it both ways, believe him when it suits you and
|> disbelieve him when it doesn't.
|>
As long as we are on credibility issues, would either TNS or the AANR care
to comment on the claims Mssr. Faubert makes concerning support from
these organizations? I refer to another part of Nikki Craft's post:
>"That Faubert cites Baxandall and O'Brien as two of his major supporters
>for his (smirk) library castes real credibility problems on them as well.
>Why affiliate with a character like Faubert? Ohhh never mind. :-)
>--
>Re Re"
It is true that Mssr. Faubert claims that the TNS is actively supporting
his organization, and in another post some time back, when I was questioning
the credibility of his "Library" and its' support, claimed that TNS
issues would be available at his site. I have real trouble believing this
to be accurate.
--
Kent Hooker,
"No mask like open truth to cover lies,
As to go naked is the best disguise." William Congreve, 1670-1729
Internet: kho...@doit.wisc.edu, Bitnet: kho...@wiscmacc.bitnet
-----------------------------------------------------------------
rere
I stand by everything I said in the original post and I have never been
arrested for fraudulent checks in 1983, or in 1986, or at any time.
Furthermore, I have never have made any money off my work against child
abuse. I work to fund this work.
See how Faubert is involved in sabotagery with lies. Now let's get him to
substantiate this claim. Faubert it should be fairly easy for you to
submit any papers you have to prove that I was arrested for fraudulent
checks. Send them to Tim. Put up even tho I know you'll never shut up.
Tim I'd like your help on this, please. In fact, I'd like Tim to do a check
on this. To put a stop to this false accusation can I ask you to do a
check on me, Tim?
Why haven't you substantiated your claim about Lange printing NUDIST
MOPPETS. It should be easy enough, but now we are starting to realize
from your response that that probably was a lie as well, eh? Now let's
seeeeeee, why would you have lied about something like that? Guess I just
proved that you are involved in sabotage of my work. It appears you lied
again to thousands of people on rec.nude as well.
Can rec.nude readers imagine this guy being a nudist _librarian_? What is
nudist history going to look like? And why are Lee Baxandall and Pat O'Brien
allowing such a nut case to use their names to get credibility in the
nudist/naturist community if they are not working together in some very
unethical ways to try to discredit the work I'm doing against pedophiles.
Man, talk about the ends justifying the means.
--
Re Re
rere
: On Sun, 22 Oct 1995 19:10:05 GMT, tim keene <att...@netcom.com> wrote:
: > Chris, had anyone else written this, I would freely accept it - but given
: > your established reputation here, I think I will be better off looking it
: > up for myself. Too bad we can't trust you. . . .
: > In article <46cls1$2...@ultrix.FOUR.net> root <root> writes:
: > >According to the Library of Congress listings for Nudist Moppets, it's
: > >registration block is within the block owned by Lange's publishing company.
: Tim, do your research tools allow you to check this without going to
: Washington? Can anyone else suggest how to do it?
Faubert should substantiate his claims with all the relevant Library of
Congress numbers, which he has never done. And until he does, nothing he
says should be taken as the truth. Faubert also told me that every printing
press in the country is required to be registered with the Library of
Congress, which is, of course, completely delusional. What kind of a
person could honestly believe that printing presses in the US have to be
registered with the US government? What a fwiggin' nut case! It's
laughable that this is the best librarian the naturists can find, but it
does figure.
There is plenty of a case against Ed Lange and his pornography
connections with Teenage Nudists/Young and Naked and all his adult porn
without being dependent upon his alleged connection to Heilberg and Leja
in NUDIST MOPPETS, but it would still be an important bit of
documentation if what Faubert says with regards to this little thing
happens to be true.
That Faubert cites Baxandall and O'Brien as two of his major supporters
for his (smirk) library castes real credibility problems on them as well.
Why affiliate with a character like Faubert? Ohhh never mind. :-)
While I'm at it, Faubert claimed to rec.nude readers that when I asked
him how to get on the internet that he told me to RTFM, but that was
another lie he told. He actually gave me very extensive information about
getting onto the internet, and he is one reason I am on the net today. I
believe he contacted me, such a short time after his visit with Baxandall,
because they wanted to arrange this confrontation, and it didn't exactly
turn out like Faubert wanted. Otherwise why in the world would he have
given me so much information that would lead me here?
--
Re Re
Richard C Pasco
> Rich, it seems to me that it's you that wants to have it both ways. You
> and Scridd ask me to substantiate everything. Why don't you now ask
> Faubert to substantiate what he claims. I will then verify it.
OK, consider him asked. Chris Faubert, are you listening?
One may presume that Chris has been reading this dialog as Scridd and I
have asked Nikki to give some substantiation to her claims that Lange
published Nudist Moppets other than Chris's say-so. Not only has Nikki
not come up with any, neither has Chris.
> The only time I would ever believe Faubert on anything is if I can
> substantiate that it is accurate.
On that we agree.
> That is not wanting to have it both ways.
No, but running around yelling that "Ed Lange published Nudist Moppets"
and then, when we ask for substantiation, failing to produce any but
simply quoting Faubert, is inconsistent with your distrust of Faubert.
That is what I mean by "having it both ways."
> So Rich, will you join us in asking Mr. Faubert to once again put up or
> shut up and substantiate his claim.
Of course, but it's not just his claim, Nikki, it has been yours as
well. Are you now contradicting yourself?
> Or do you want to have it both ways and caste doubt onto me for
> Faubert's claims?
Nikki, you've posted many times over the last few months your allegation
that Ed Lange was [knowingly] involved in the production of "Nudist
Moppets," in such a way to lead readers to believe that you knew it to
be fact. Now, when we ask you for substantiation, you helplessly point
your finger at Faubert, and say that you doubt his word.
To me, that sounds like you're reneging on your earlier claims.
Responsible reporters do not claim facts until they have substantiation
of them. They do not delegate these tasks to their readers.
- Rich
The Black Wizard
>In article <147...@cup.portal.com>, pa...@cup.portal.com (Richard C Pasco) writes:
>As long as we are on credibility issues, would either TNS or the AANR care
>to comment on the claims Mssr. Faubert makes concerning support from
>these organizations? I refer to another part of Nikki Craft's post:
>
>It is true that Mssr. Faubert claims that the TNS is actively supporting
>his organization, and in another post some time back, when I was questioning
>the credibility of his "Library" and its' support, claimed that TNS
>issues would be available at his site. I have real trouble believing this
>to be accurate.
>
Kent,
Lee actively supports our efforts to index CwS and N magazine. As a matter of
fact, he encourged us. TNS supplied us with a complete run of their magazines
for that purpose. The online index will be available within the next few
weeks. My schedule has been put back by the birth of my son on 10/16 so a lot
is on hold while we get settled in with the new baby. The index will be
available. That is all. I never said that we would be reprinting those
magazines or portions thereof, just that the indexes would be available via W3.
I have not a clue where you got the impression we were reprinting the actual
magazines. That is idiotic. For one, I don't have the time to engineer such a
feet and I also question the NEED to do something like that. Nothing can
replace the magazine itself. You, like everyone else, can pay for back-issues.
Or you can come here to the library and look at our back-issues. But you can't
reproduce them, as that would violate the copyright on them.
In any event, the slow-up on the TNS index is that it was originally a
hypertext publishing project and we are having to convert from the old
hypertext format to the newer HTML format. This is time consuming.
The AANR (formerly the ASA) Bulletin is also slated for indexing although we do
NOT have a complete run of it. Naturally magazine is also slated for indexing.
We do have a complete run of it. Arrangements are being made with several of
the Canadian Magazines to supply a run so that they can become part of the
Online Indexing project, and we are also getting ready to send out a mailing to
all of the landed clubs offering to be an archive point for their newsletters.
<FLAME>
Any inaccuracy in your belief system stems from your inability to understand
what is being discussed. There is a wealth of information out there. It's
time that it was all indexed so that the serious student of naturist history
has a chance to use it properly.
</FLAME>
Some of the future plans for the NACNS include the presentation of indexes of
all non-naturist press articles regarding naturism. Some (pay attention, Kent)
SOME of these will be reproduced in their entirety. Those would be restricted
to articles and books that fall under one or more of the following conditions:
1) They are no longer copyrighted material; 2) they never were copyrighted
material; 3) They can be reproduced under the fair-use doctrine; 4) Permission
to reproduce is given (such as in the case of Crafts Newsletter); 5) They are
straight news articles, in which case they do not enjoy copyright protection.
The New york Times is indexed up to 1966, the remaining index should be
finished by Friday and we should start adding the actual articles then. What
that means is that you will, in the comfort of your own home or office, be able
to research the articles as they appeared in the actual paper. We have about a
dozen packages from various parts of the country with newspaper indexes and
copies of articles. These must be organised and then the data-entry must be
done.
As for books, we have a volunteer who is presently entering "On Going Naked" a
classic text by Jan Gay. The introduction and Chapter One are currently
available online. As more chapters are completed, they will be put online as
well. There are 21 other books that, time and volunteers forthcoming, will
become part of our online library.
Within the next week, the Video review section should go up. Several
volunteers have taken up the task of viewing the naturist films, documentaries
and info-mercials we have in the library (at last count 21 tapes) and writing
up reviews and descriptions.
Another volunteer has suggested that we reproduce the brochures from all of the
landed clubs on the net. We are looking into that as well.
The NACNS is a worthwhile project. Please remember that NO FEE is ever charged
for access to the library on the net. Access to our physical library is
possible, but requires advance permission and is only open to qualified
scholars. You demean the efforts of the 12+ volunteers and the dozens of
people from the net who have joined and support the library. To be frank with
you, sir, I fail to understand why you are attacking this project. I am
starting to think that maybe you never actually LOOKED at what we are doing, or
perhaps the level of writing we are doing is beyond your current comprehension
level. In any case, I invite you to continue to (if you have) enjoy the
comfort of our library.
Thank you for your interest. If you feel you would like to make a contribution
from the library you have publically stated you have, please feel free to
contact us.
The Black Wizard,
sworn enemy to feminazi scum.
Pat O'Brien
>That Faubert cites Baxandall and O'Brien as two of his major supporters
>for his (smirk) library castes real credibility problems on them as well.
>Why affiliate with a character like Faubert? Ohhh never mind. :-)
>
For the record, let me state that neither Lee Baxandall nor myself
have anything to do with whatever Faubert is doing, with libraries,
web pages, etc. The same goes for TNS, NAC, NEF, etc. We are not
involved.
Likewise, we ask -- and can demand, if necessary -- that Faubert and
others posting material to online publications do not violate
copyrights of any of our organizations.
I think that is fairly clear and leaves no room for debate on this
topic.
Pat O'Brien
rere
: >In article <147...@cup.portal.com>, pa...@cup.portal.com (Richard C Pasco) writes:
: >As long as we are on credibility issues, would either TNS or the AANR care
: >to comment on the claims Mssr. Faubert makes concerning support from
: >these organizations? I refer to another part of Nikki Craft's post:
: >
: >It is true that Mssr. Faubert claims that the TNS is actively supporting
: >his organization, and in another post some time back, when I was questioning
: >the credibility of his "Library" and its' support, claimed that TNS
: >issues would be available at his site. I have real trouble believing this
: >to be accurate.
: >
Rich, why do you say I wrote the above. I didn't.
--
Re Re
The Black Wizard
>
>I stand by everything I said in the original post and I have never been
>arrested for fraudulent checks in 1983, or in 1986, or at any time.
>Furthermore, I have never have made any money off my work against child
>abuse. I work to fund this work.
>
Why nikki, dear! Are you telling me that if *I* write a Subject line that is
untrue and intentionally offensive, it is upsetting? Listen, sweet girl. You
want to lie about me, you want to write offensive Subject lines, then expect
the same in kind. I see you don't care for it any more than I do.
>See how Faubert is involved in sabotagery with lies.
No, no lies. But, I will bend over backwards to make your life difficult, dear
sweet girlie. I realise that, you being the pro-active fiminazi that you are,
you are equipped to handle this, so I don't feel that I am taking unfair
advantage. Besides, you called the tune, I am just dancing to it.
>Now let's get him to
>substantiate this claim. Faubert it should be fairly easy for you to
>submit any papers you have to prove that I was arrested for fraudulent
>checks. Send them to Tim. Put up even tho I know you'll never shut up.
I spoke with Tim on the phone today. He doesn't LIKE being pushed into these
little jobs you beg off him. As far as *I* am concerned, you need to start
taking care of yourself. FIGHT YOUR OWN BATTLES. Tell your own lies and then
BACK THEM UP. I am sick of you and your Spin-Doctoring.
You are damn right I won't shut up. If even ONE of the people that oppose you
shuts up, we've lost the battle. because loud-mouth lying faminists get
stronger when they are unopposed; they see it as a sign of victory instead of
its true meaning - the general disgust with your rants.
>
>Tim I'd like your help on this, please. In fact, I'd like Tim to do a check
>on this. To put a stop to this false accusation can I ask you to do a
>check on me, Tim?
Listen, Nikki, the man does that for a LIVING. Don't ASK him to do a check on
you, PAY him to.
>Why haven't you substantiated your claim about Lange printing NUDIST
>MOPPETS.
You mean why haven't I substantiated YOUR claims that Lange printed Nudist
Moppets. *I* only remarked that they were printed at the same printing /
publisher. YOU claimed Lang was the publisher. I have since checked, and
Lange didn't OWN that company. Just because Moppets was printed there doesn't
mean Lange had any thing to do with it. Remember, it was YOU who claimed Lang
owned the company that did his publishing, not me.
>It should be easy enough, but now we are starting to realize
>from your response that that probably was a lie as well, eh? Now let's
>seeeeeee, why would you have lied about something like that? Guess I just
>proved that you are involved in sabotage of my work. It appears you lied
>again to thousands of people on rec.nude as well.
In the words of the immortal John Avery, "muhahahahahahaahhaha"
You are full of shit lady. And if this is making you uncomfortable enough to
cause you to panic and attack blindly, wait until I pull out all the stops and
start quoting your writing.
>
>Can rec.nude readers imagine this guy being a nudist _librarian_? What is
>nudist history going to look like?
More organized, dear, and more accessible.
>And why are Lee Baxandall and Pat O'Brien
>allowing such a nut case to use their names to get credibility in the
>nudist/naturist community if they are not working together in some very
>unethical ways to try to discredit the work I'm doing against pedophiles.
>Man, talk about the ends justifying the means.
When did I use their names to obtain credibility?! I believe I did just the
opposite, rere. I specifically stated that the NACNS should be judged on it's
own merits, that other people's activities within it meant nothing and the end
result was all that mattered.
As far as ethical concerns, I understand why you would think that way and draw
that conclusion but here's a news flash for you sweet thing: the rest of the
world doesn't use your MO.
The work you've done??? As far as I can tell, you have done NOTHING in the
last 4 years but sit on your fat ass and bemoan the state of affairs in the
politics of the ASA, TNS and free-beach movement. That and rehash OLD OLD
news.
Get a life. Hell, save the planet Nikki.
The Black Wizard
>
>> Rich, it seems to me that it's you that wants to have it both ways. You
>> and Scridd ask me to substantiate everything. Why don't you now ask
>> Faubert to substantiate what he claims. I will then verify it.
>
>OK, consider him asked. Chris Faubert, are you listening?
Hi Rich.
For the record, I never told Nikki Craft that Ed Lange published Nudist
Moppets, she told ME that he did. I mentioned in passing to her in a phone
convo that Langs books and Nudist Moppets were run off on the same press. She
alleged that Lang must have been the publisher because, she said, Lange owned
the press that published his books. I have since verified that this is not
true. Ed Lange never owned a printing press capeable of doing multi-colour
seperation and fine art reproduction. He used commercial printers, and not
always the same one.
>One may presume that Chris has been reading this dialog as Scridd and I
>have asked Nikki to give some substantiation to her claims that Lange
>published Nudist Moppets other than Chris's say-so. Not only has Nikki
>not come up with any, neither has Chris.
Again, i never claimed Lange published Nudist Moppets, Nikki did. And to be
blunt, I wouldn't walk across a street to piss on her if she was on fire, let
alone defend her lies to you.
>No, but running around yelling that "Ed Lange published Nudist Moppets"
>and then, when we ask for substantiation, failing to produce any but
>simply quoting Faubert, is inconsistent with your distrust of Faubert.
>
I know. That is kind of hard to believe. I think if you had given her more
time and not pressed the issue on her sources she would have come up with a
better lie.
>Of course, but it's not just his claim, Nikki, it has been yours as
>well. Are you now contradicting yourself?
Looks to me like she is, Rich.
>Responsible reporters do not claim facts until they have substantiation
>of them. They do not delegate these tasks to their readers.
Umm, Rich, she's not a reporter, she's a PR Hack who claims to be a advocate
for children. You draw your own conclusions on that.
Chris
Richard
fen...@the.nudist.org "The Black Wizard" writes:
[snip]
>
> . The North American Centre for
> `n. .rP' Nudist and Naturist Studies
> `qb ,dP'
I'm glad I'm not a North American nudist or naturist, otherwise I'd
feel obliged to dissociate myself from someone who writes such vile
attacks while claiming to be the "librarian" of some nudist and
naturist organization. You might think he would emphasize he is
writing in a personal capacity, but he is clearly associating the
organization with his views.
I think you in the USA need to dissociate yourself from this man,
otherwise you will bring discredit on naturism.
Richard Burnham---------------------------------------------------------
Home page now with pictures:
http://metro.turnpike.net/~burnham/index.html
Richard C Pasco
> Rich, why do you say I wrote the above. I didn't.
Nikki, I didn't "say" you wrote anything. The post you quoted was from
Kent Hooker, and his post, as quoted by you, apparenly attributed to me
something I didn't write.
I don't know about you, but I'm tired of trying to untangle the : and
> marks. If you just ask me point-blank my opinion on something I'll
simply state it.
- Rich
Fencer
longer interested in the Index. Please inform him that we will not be
passing that on to him. Please also note that the resources we mentioned in
our telephone conference with Lee on October 11 will not be forthcomming
either.
Thank you for discussing this issue privately with us. Your professionalism
is unmatched.
Chris
Pat O'Brien (natu...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: I think that is fairly clear and leaves no room for debate on this
: topic.
: Pat O'Brien
rere
: I will assume that this is a valid communication from TNS and that Lee is no
: longer interested in the Index. Please inform him that we will not be
: passing that on to him. Please also note that the resources we mentioned in
: our telephone conference with Lee on October 11 will not be forthcomming
: either.
: Thank you for discussing this issue privately with us. Your professionalism
: is unmatched.
Bwaaaaahahhahahahahahha Just who owes you professionalism? They don't trust
you. Why should they? Look at the lies you have said about them. Anyone
knows no librarian who does what you do, who's so unethical and
unprincipled, could _ever_ be trusted about anything, much less
historical documentation. Sheesh!
When we talked on the phone you expressed concern that the nudists were
involved in "revisionist history" but it turns out you are the one who's
into revisionist history more than _anyone_ I've seen into documentation
in this movement in all the years I've been around here. Hopefully the
AANR will know as much, but it won't be the first time they've dug their
own grave.
As to you having permission to print the ICONoclasts, well, we've been
through this before many moons ago and I don't intend to do it again.
I've more than sufficiently documented the malicious fraud you have
committed against me. You are well aware that you do _not_ have my
permission to publish my newsletters. Hehehehe. You have been notified.
But heh Faubert, you do what you need to do. Go head-on by all means.
Hehehehe.
================================================
: Pat O'Brien (natu...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: : In article <rereDGw...@netcom.com>, re...@netcom.com (rere) says:
: : >
: : >That Faubert cites Baxandall\ and O'Brien as two of his major supporters
: : >for his (smirk) library castes real credibility problems on them as well.
: : >Why affiliate with a character like Faubert? Ohhh never mind. :-)
: : >
: : For the record, let me state that neither Lee Baxandall\ nor myself
: : have anything to do with whatever Faubert is doing, with libraries,
: : web pages, etc. The same goes for TNS, NAC, NEF, etc. We are not
: : involved.
: : Likewise, we ask -- and can demand, if necessary -- that Faubert and
: : others posting material to online publications do not violate
: : copyrights of any of our organizations.
: : I think that is fairly clear and leaves no room for debate on this
: : topic.
: : Pat O'Brien
--
Re Re
Cozmo
written by Faubert. I'm hoping that this doesn't slip by many of you
that have been follwoing this thread. Lots of accusations thrown about
who said what, etc... but it appears that rere has some proof of exactly
what was originally posted. More airtight than L.A.P.D. had against
"OJ". Now what kind of jury do we have here on nude.rec? I don't think
the guilty "should walk". Hey, I certainly have had my differences with
rere, as we all know... but although she "reaches' on a lot of issues, you
can't deny the bottom line: Get the pedo creeps out of our society. This
is not only our society (nudists) she is talking about, it's every
society. I once thought she was trying to tear down a lot of what the AANR
was trying to do. Right now I am of the opinion that she just want it to
set a much higher standard when it comes to dealing with issues like
pedophelia and child abuse. I agree with her motives, not necessarily her
methods. Please read the following dialogues. Thanks.
In article <rereDGx...@netcom.com>, re...@netcom.com (rere) says:
>===============================
>On October 10, 1995 Chris Faubert wrote:
>>A side note: Lange co-published nudist moppets and that was truley a vile
>>and obscene publication. It's too bad he was never prosecuted for it. If
>>you are interested in seeing it, the Library of Congress has a copy.
>>That's where I saw it and eventually, through research there, discovered
>>Lange's connection to it. (Full post printed below.)
>===============================
>The Black Wizard (fen...@the.nudist.org) wrote:
>: re...@netcom.com (rere) wrote:
>: >Now, do you care about getting to the truth, or do you care only about
>: >wrongly casting doubt on me? If you care about getting to the
>: >truth then demand that Faubert submit information that verifies his
>: >claims. Anything else you (or Scridd) do is just more smoke and mirrors
>: >that enables another yet another scam artist to get into a position where he
>: >can screw naturism and naturists around. Why facilitate that.
>: No, what you want is me to back you up. You want ME to verify your claims.
>: Not going to happen. I never said any of that to you. I don't recall any
>: conversation where I specifically said to you that I thought that Lange was the
>: publisher of that book. What I did say is that they were printed at the same
>: publishing company and YOU said that Lange owned it. I have no way to verify
>: that Lange owns it. Only that they were indeed the same publishing company.
>: You yourself can verify that by looking at the masthead of a Lange book and the
>: other child pornography you keep.
>: The Black Wizard
===============================
>On October 10, 1995 Chris Faubert wrote:
>>A side note: Lange co-published nudist moppets and that was truley a vile
>>and obscene publication. It's too bad he was never prosecuted for it. If
>>you are interested in seeing it, the Library of Congress has a copy.
>>That's where I saw it and eventually, through research there, discovered
>>Lange's connection to it. (Full post printed below.)
>===============================
>No, I don't want you to back up any claim I'm making.
>I want you to back up _your_ claim that you found in the Library of
>Congress that Lange printed NUDIST MOPPETS. I want you to back up the
>claim you made about Lange in the post you wrote below. You said Lange
>co-published NUDIST MOPPETS. You said you connected Lange to NUDIST
>MOPPETS in LofC. Now, what are the Library of Congress numbers that
>prove _YOUR_ claim?
>=====================
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.22 (Windows; I; 16bit)
>re...@netcom.com (rere) wrote:
>>Richard Kenner (ken...@lab.ultra.nyu.edu) wrote: : In article
><rereDG4...@netcom.com> re...@netcom.com (rere) writes:
Look, like I said, I'm not talking any different about him now than I
did when he was alive. He never retracted what he did. He claimed that
the magazines he put out -- Young and Naked and the black wizard Chris
Faubert informed me that Lange also printed Nudist Moppets, which is even
worse than Young and Naked, in a joint effort with Edmond Leja -- were
the best examples of wholesome nudity that have been done to date. He's
f>Unfortunately, and I hate like hell to admit this, Nikki is correct.
f>Lange was motivated by profit. He was in the business of selling
f>magazines. More to the point, he was a publisher for profit. It doesn't
f>matter that at the time, the laws were more unfocused and that socially
f>there was a "denial" of the damage things like this caused, the point is,
f>Lange took pictures of children and sold them for the most part under the
f>guise of nudist photos. This was pure oportunism. There can be no
f>speculation about that. Lange was USING the hard-won victories of Isley
f>Boone, and the INC to peddle soft-core kiddy-porn. And being dead doesn't
f>change that. Some of his other work was obvious soft-core. Take that book
f>he put out on the Webbers for example.ff
f>As for Nikki saying she hasn't changed her tune; that's true too. She
f>badmouthed him when he was alive. There is no need nor liklihood to
f>expect her to stop just because he died.
f>A side note: Lange co-published nudist moppets and that was truley a vile
f>and obscene publication. It's too bad he was never prosecuted for it. If
f>you are interested in seeing it, the Library of Congress has a copy.
f>That's where I saw it and eventually, through research there, discovered
f>Lange's connection to it.
>The Black Wizard
>(Chris Faubert)
>
>Visit the NACNS Home Page!
>
>The library for and about nudists
>Re Re
Lotsa damning stuff here and it should put an end to the back and forth
"who said what" we've been suffering with lately.
Natch,
Coz
Peter F. DeMos
> I don't know about you, but I'm tired of trying to untangle the : and
> > marks.
I don't know about *you*, but I'm tired of a thread that contains MACS in the
'subject' line. You all *know* my opinion about *MACS*!
Oh, wait.... someone just pointed out that it says 'NACS', *not 'MACS'.
Never mind.
peterd
rere
of Congress that Ed Lange had _PRINTED_ NUDIST MOPPETS. Please post the
information that caused you to come to that conclusion. LOC Numbers, please.
Furthermore, I have NEVER said that Lange's work was prosecutable. Until
two weeks ago, when I began confronting you on this, I had never even
mentioned Lange's name in connection with NUDIST MOPPETS, except when I
confronted him in private to find out if he had anything to do with it
many years ago. He did deny it at the time.
In fact, many will note that I have always said it was not
actionable, but that Lange did sexualize children and market it for
profit and that is what I consider child pornography to be. That is what
Young & Naked is. With all the spread legged shots and sexual advertising
it's very obvious. Yes, Lange was very smart. That doesn't mean he wasn't
sleaze and that doesn't mean he deserves the AANR award. That is my point
here.
And Faubert I have _never_ in my life used the name Daine. I have no idea
why you are calling he that.
--
Re Re
rere
The lyin' Chris Faubert wrote:
>I for one am willing to give you a second chance if you would only
snip.
You _are_ kidding, aren't you?
>If you do that, I will endorse your presence here with open arms.
>The Black Wizard
Heheheh. You think I care if you endorse my presence here or anywhere else?
You're such a nut case Faubert that I'm *honored* we aren't allies.
--
Re Re
Neil Faiman
>Rich, my claim is that Faubert is claiming that Lange printed NUDIST
>MOPPETS. My past claims have been that Lange published YOUNG AND NAKED,
>TEENAGE NUDISTS and other pornography. If you would like me to post
>every one of my past posts (until the last few weeks) you will see
>that NUDIST MOPPETS was never mentioned with regards to Lange. NUDIST
>MOPPETS has only been brought up recently by me in connection to >Faubert, and there are witnesses to that here, and that is to get=
to the >bottom of whether Faubert is lying, or not.
If I am reading this correctly, ReRe is saying (my paraphrase) "I did not
say that Lange published NUDIST MOPPETS. Faubert said that, and I just
want to find out if it is true or not."
But that claim would be very difficult to reconcile with ReRe's "Joseph
Henry" article, which included the following passages:
>See what this nudist camp manager and pedophile has to say about
>Ed Lange's "Innocent" Nudist Moppets. I'd say this could be the
and
>a magazine that just arrived called Nudist Moppets [Co-published by Ed
>Lange and Ed Leja in conjunction with naturist photographer Leif
>Heilberg.].
(The bracketed comment is either by the original ICONoclast editor or a
special insertion by ReRe for this posting.)
My impression was that this article was posted before Faubert ever got
into this discussion. Certainly, there was no hint that any assertions
by Faubert were in any way relevant to the posting of that article.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
fai...@zko.dec.com
Pat O'Brien
>
>Pat,
>I would like you to state here whether you consider Faubert to be in
>any way a credible source if you would be willing to state that publicly.
>
>Pat O'Brien
>(natu...@access.digex.net) wrote:
>: In article <rereDGw...@netcom.com>, re...@netcom.com (rere) says:
>: >
>
The next three lines, beginning "That Faubert cites..." were not written
by me.
>: >That Faubert cites Baxandall and O'Brien as two of his major supporters
>: >for his (smirk) library castes real credibility problems on them as well.
>: >Why affiliate with a character like Faubert? Ohhh never mind. :-)
>: >
Here is where I began:
>: For the record, let me state that neither Lee Baxandall nor myself
>: have anything to do with whatever Faubert is doing, with libraries,
>: web pages, etc. The same goes for TNS, NAC, NEF, etc. We are not
>: involved.
>
>: Likewise, we ask -- and can demand, if necessary -- that Faubert and
>: others posting material to online publications do not violate
>: copyrights of any of our organizations.
>
>: I think that is fairly clear and leaves no room for debate on this
>: topic.
>
>: Pat O'Brien
>
Just for a reality check, I ought to say that I did not start any of
this and have exercised great restraint. My concern is that neither
TNS nor me and Lee Baxandall get sucked into this nastiness.
We are simply protecting what is ours: TNS materials and our own
reputations. I think we have pretty much done what we would say we
would do. When you think about it, that isn't half bad.
Pat O'Brien
rere
it can ya? Hehehehehe.
rere (re...@netcom.com) wrote:
: :ReRe wrote>
: >Chris Faubert lied when he wrote>
: :While I'm at it, Faubert claimed to rec.nude readers that when I asked
: :him how to get on the internet that he told me to RTFM, but that was
: :another lie he told.
: > Bwahahahahahahahahh!!!! This is rich! W00Hoo. You know they hate you.
: > So you are going to try to convince them that *I* caused you to be
: here. What
: > is that? So that some of the general hate they have will rub off?
: Listen, ya
: > feminiazi, I am NOT responcible for you. And if these people here stop and
: > think about it, THE ONLY PERSON I have ever publically stood against
: here is
: > YOU.
: :He actually gave me very extensive information about
: :getting onto the internet, and he is one reason I am on the net today.
: > Uhh. I suggested you purchase "The Whole Internet" a book on the
: internet. I didn't GIVE you anything.
: No Chris you know you offered much more than just telling me to RTFM as
: you originally stated. I said you gave me a lot of information and you
: did. You gave me in depth instructions about how to get on the internet.
: As with everything you say, some of it was true and some of it was lies,
: all artfully interwoven.
: Here's _some_ of the things you told me in the hours of discussion about
: the internet when you were advising me how to get on here. You have
: denied doing this to the readers of rec.nude that advised me about how to
: get on the internet. Why is that? I wonder.
: *You told me about irc and how neat it was.
:
: *You said the government required people to have access to the
: internet for free.
:
: *You instructed me about how to telnet and ftp when I didn't even
: know what they were.
:
: *You said it was good to have multiple accounts and that you had
: a private account in New Zealand that you used because it was not
: traceable.
:
: *You _claimed_ you were working on getting me an email address and
: free server so I could access the internet.
:
: *You explained to me about Unix accounts.
:
: *You told me how to get on cyberpunks after I asked you about them.
:
: *Said you have an account that you use from NASA. (BTW: What
: name do you use on that account? Heheheh)
: And you told me much, much more, about the internet. Perhaps most
: importantly you gave me information that made me realize how easy it was
: to access the internet. Why did you do that, Faubert? I _really_ can't
: understand that part of it. Care to explain? I'll bet others would be
: interested in your answer to this one too, eh?
: --
: Re Re
--
Re Re
Scott W. Coatsworth
>> `n. .rP' Nudist and Naturist Studies
>
>feel obliged to dissociate myself from someone who writes such vile
>attacks while claiming to be the "librarian" of some nudist and
>naturist organization.
I'm still feeling embarassed for being from *Pittsburgh* because of the
postings of a chap who joined the newsgroup last week, and now you want
me to apologize for being from North America!
>You might think he would emphasize he is
>writing in a personal capacity, but he is clearly associating the
>organization with his views.
I think "The Black Wizard" *is* The North American Centre for Nudist and
Naturist Studies. It is *his* organization, not *ours* (at least not *mine*).
Also, note the spelling of "Centre" - maybe he's a limey infiltrator sent
to discredit us. ;-)
--
Scott Coatsworth EMail: sw...@pitt.edu
Computing & Information Services WWW: http://www.pitt.edu:80/~swc
University of Pittsburgh Voice: (412) 624-6428
600 Epsilon Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15238 FAX: (412) 624-6436
rere
: re...@netcom.com (rere) wrote:
: >Rich, my claim is that Faubert is claiming that Lange printed NUDIST
: >MOPPETS. My past claims have been that Lange published YOUNG AND NAKED,
: >TEENAGE NUDISTS and other pornography. If you would like me to post
: >every one of my past posts (until the last few weeks) you will see
: >that NUDIST MOPPETS was never mentioned with regards to Lange. NUDIST
: >MOPPETS has only been brought up recently by me in connection to >Faubert, and there are witnesses to that here, and that is to get=
: to the >bottom of whether Faubert is lying, or not.
: If I am reading this correctly, ReRe is saying (my paraphrase) "I did not
snip
: My impression was that this article was posted before Faubert ever got
: into this discussion. Certainly, there was no hint that any assertions
: by Faubert were in any way relevant to the posting of that article.
Neil, your concern to get the to truth is quite admirable (;-) but if you
check the date of the post you will see when those bracketed inserts were
made and it has been since this confrontation with Faubert over his lying
about it. Tell me, Neil, is that of any concern to you? You're so good
at pulling posts. Did you pull the one where Faubert said that Lange
co-published Nudist Moppets? If I can prove that Faubert started this lie
would that be of any concern to you at all, or do you let little things
like that slide if a Nudist Naturist _Librarian_ makes a statement like
that? If they are one of your own it's easy to overlook for you guys,
isn't it? And it works the same with child pornographers and some
molestors. And this is part of the problem with nudism, folks. Take
note. You know what happened here. You saw what happened and look what
you are focusing on. You don't give a rats ass about the truth. Does it
make you feel better to pretend you do?
--
Re Re
.
>
SNIP
> Also, note the spelling of "Centre" - maybe he's a limey infiltrator sent
> to discredit us. ;-)
>
> --
> Scott Coatsworth EMail: sw...@pitt.edu
> Computing & Information Services WWW: http://www.pitt.edu:80/~swc
> University of Pittsburgh Voice: (412) 624-6428
> 600 Epsilon Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15238 FAX: (412) 624-6436
HEY Brain death, "Centre" is a French word, NOT english.
The correct English spelling is "Center"
Then again you have never spoken English in the colonies so
you wouldnt know, would you ??.
>
>
--
***************************************************************************
To...@antb.demon.co.uk | I Like a Dingo's breakfast.....
Front door key on request |
***************************************************************************
rere
: >
: >Pat,
: >I would like you to state here whether you consider Faubert to be in
: >any way a credible source if you would be willing to state that publicly.
: >
: >Pat O'Brien
: >(natu...@access.digex.net) wrote:
: >: In article <rereDGw...@netcom.com>, re...@netcom.com (rere) says:
: >: >
: >
: Let's be careful not to mix up what I wrote with that posted by others.
: The next three lines, beginning "That Faubert cites..." were not written
: by me.
: >: >That Faubert cites Baxandall and O'Brien as two of his major supporters
: >: >for his (smirk) library castes real credibility problems on them as well.
: >: >Why affiliate with a character like Faubert? Ohhh never mind. :-)
: >: >
: Here is where I began:
: >: For the record, let me state that neither Lee Baxandall nor myself
: >: have anything to do with whatever Faubert is doing, with libraries,
: >: web pages, etc. The same goes for TNS, NAC, NEF, etc. We are not
: >: involved.
: >
: >: Likewise, we ask -- and can demand, if necessary -- that Faubert and
: >: others posting material to online publications do not violate
: >: copyrights of any of our organizations.
: >
: >: I think that is fairly clear and leaves no room for debate on this
: >: topic.
: >
: >: Pat O'Brien
Pat, I don't understand what the problem is. It's quite clear that I
wrote the first paragraph from the quote marks. What's not real clear is
what you are saying.
When I first read it is seems very wishy washy. Now it seems even more
so. Let's see if this is right. You are protecting your copyright laws,
but that wouldn't have anything to do with what Faubert is doing with his
indexing. I can see you are still not prepared to say that Chris Faubert
is a less that credible librarian for the naturist movement. Perhaps
today I can convince you. I also would argue with you that you didn't
start this. I think you played much more of a hand in it than you will
admit to. I think you are interested in protecting yourself and your
reputation and all else and everyone else be damned and that, Pat
O'Brien, is the cowards way out.
And it's that way you for you that is a way that will cause more
people to be victimized in the long run. Can't a national naturist
organization show a little more courage and leadership than this?
You are enabling Chris Faubert. Is that something that you really want to
do? Silence doesn't work here Pat. You either support his library's
efforts or you don't. You either think he is a credible documentarian, or
you don't. Now which is it?
: >
: Just for a reality check, I ought to say that I did not start any of
: this and have exercised great restraint. My concern is that neither
: TNS nor me and Lee Baxandall get sucked into this nastiness.
I'm not so sure you didn't have some kind of hand in starting this. I'm
quite sure you don't want to finish it, but that's not the way things
are. So why don't you muster up some integrity and get off the fence on
this and get things out in the open and then I'll be glad to get on with
other things.
I want you to check out the thread entitled about Faubert and TNS and I
want you to tell me what of it is true. As I say in the post I will be
glad to send you a tape recording of the conversation between Faubert and
I to substantiate what is being said. From what you know I'd like you to
inform me what of this is a lie.
: We are simply protecting what is ours: TNS materials and our own
: reputations. I think we have pretty much done what we would say we
: would do. When you think about it, that isn't half bad.
: Pat O'Brien
Pat, you are privy to much information. You have a responsibility to make
a judgment about whether Faubert is a credible source for information.
TNS's materials, even if it is just an index and has nothing to do with
copyrights, since you furnished him with materials, gives credibility to
Faubert that I don't think you want him to have. Many people in your
movement are going to be turning to him for information and I believe you
have a responsibility to inform them of what you know to be the truth.
--
Re Re
Neil Faiman
"Joseph Henry" article, she replied indignantly
> about it. Tell me, Neil, is that of any concern to you? You're so good
> at pulling posts. Did you pull the one where Faubert said that Lange
> co-published Nudist Moppets? If I can prove that Faubert started this lie
> would that be of any concern to you at all, or do you let little things
> like that slide if a Nudist Naturist _Librarian_ makes a statement like
> that? If they are one of your own it's easy to overlook for you guys,
Rere,
I wrote Faubert off completely after the tapes farce last spring (and I did so
publicly, if you recall -- please do not classify me as a Faubert supporter).
I grant him no credibility whatsoever. I "overlook" him because he does not
merit consideration.
But what I still cannot understand is why *you* chose to publish, as a factual
statement, with no qualification whatsoever, information for which you have
since stated you had no evidence other than the word of a person whom you have
consistently characterized as "a pathological liar". If you are going to
promulgate Faubert's lies under your own name when they happen to accord with
your own agenda, how can we grant any greater credibility to you than we do
to Faubert?
Regards,
Neil Faiman
rere
: After I pointed out the "Ed Lange published Nudist Moppets" passage in Rere's
: Rere,
: Regards,
: Neil Faiman
I didn't promulgate his lies. I posted very clearly where that
information came from on rec.nude and I don't think one person demanded
that he should substantiate it except me. I didn't know for sure whether he
lied about the information and there was no other way to determine the
truth than to put everything out on the table. You don't want to grant me
credibility then that is your choice, but it was because of me that the truth
emerged, nothing else. Beyond that you must think whatever you please.
No, I don't think you are saluting to Faubert. Never said you were. Never
thought you did.
--
Re Re
Roland - Hanson
: After I pointed out the "Ed Lange published Nudist Moppets" passage in Rere's
: "Joseph Henry" article, she replied indignantly
: > about it. Tell me, Neil, is that of any concern to you? You're so good
: > at pulling posts. Did you pull the one where Faubert said that Lange
: > co-published Nudist Moppets? If I can prove that Faubert started this lie
: > would that be of any concern to you at all, or do you let little things
: > like that slide if a Nudist Naturist _Librarian_ makes a statement like
: > that? If they are one of your own it's easy to overlook for you guys,
: Rere,
: I wrote Faubert off completely after the tapes farce last spring (and I did so
: publicly, if you recall -- please do not classify me as a Faubert supporter).
: I grant him no credibility whatsoever. I "overlook" him because he does not
: merit consideration.
: But what I still cannot understand is why *you* chose to publish, as a factual
: statement, with no qualification whatsoever, information for which you have
: since stated you had no evidence other than the word of a person whom you have
: consistently characterized as "a pathological liar". If you are going to
: promulgate Faubert's lies under your own name when they happen to accord with
: your own agenda, how can we grant any greater credibility to you than we do
: to Faubert?
Isn't that called collusion?
Neil Faiman
article here; Rere suggested that I was being selectively critical. In my last post,
I said
: But what I still cannot understand is why *you* chose to publish, as a factual
: statement, with no qualification whatsoever, information for which you have
: since stated you had no evidence other than the word of a person whom you have
: consistently characterized as "a pathological liar".
and Rere responds:
> I didn't promulgate his lies. I posted very clearly where that
> information came from on rec.nude and I don't think one person demanded
This apparently ignores the context of my original complaint. The Joseph Henry
article was *posted by Rere* with the title "Ed Lange's 'Innocent' Nudist Moppets".
It includes the following passage, quoted from JH's senate committee testimony, with
Rere's editorial annotation:
> I got to be friends with one of the porn shop owners and one day he showed me a
> magazine that just arrived called Nudist Moppets [Co-published by Ed Lange and
> Ed Leja in conjunction with naturist photographer Leif Heilberg.]
There was no mention of Faubert in this posting. There was no suggestion that there
might be any doubt regarding the veracity of the claim. There was simply a flat assertion
*by Rere* that Nudist Moppets was "Co-published by Ed Lange".
I stand by my comment (quoted above). And I believe that Rere's response (also quoted
above) is in flat contradiction to the facts. That Rere expressed doubts about the
Ed Lange - Nudist Moppets connection in *other postings on rec.nude does not change the
fact that in *this* posting, she mae Faubert's lies her own, and promulgated them under
her own name.
Regards,
Neil Faiman