>>>Whoa there, I think that the 'fascism' card has been overplayed already on >>>this group, if only by Martin Hunt alone. I've never seen Rod attack anyone >>>without serious provocation - and that includes his rounds with Diane. There >>>is a history of which you may not be aware, but Diane has certainly done her >>>share of attacking first.
>>I'm curious about this. Perhaps I may learn something from it. How do you >>decide what constitutes an "attack" against someone, kady? Since you've chosen >>a specific example, just how have I "attacked" Rod Keller?
>Oh, I can recall watching you and Rod go at it right here on this newsgroup >over, amongst other things, his comments to an IRC channel about the >Minton/Young affair. By 'attack', I suppose I mean to say that you dragged him >into a thread in which he was not a party, and put him on the defensive.
I've gone back to dejanews and found my initial post you consider an "attack." Here it is in its entirety: ________________________
Re: Moral High Ground not in evidence Author: Diane Richardson Email: refe...@bway.net Date: 1998/08/29 Forums: alt.religion.scientology Message-ID: <35e87233.15875260@enews.newsguy.com> Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 21:00:09 GMT, li...@my-dejanews.com wrote: >In article <35E7C2A8....@idt.net>, > jbw...@idt.net wrote: >> Martin Hunt wrote: >> > BTW, I'm still waiting for evidence of Bob's "lying"; if he's >> > done it and you all know about it, it should be easy to prove. >> > Or at least provide one *shred* of evidence for. Or is evidence >> > too much to ask of this kangaroo court?
>> I thought that Diane already posted the SPTimes article where he flatly >> denied he was having an affair with Stacy. Would you wish me to post >> the same article?
>It wouldn't be much good as evidence of >Bob's lying unless you also had evidence >that Bob was having a sexual affair with >Stacy at that time.
Rod Keller provided that evidence by stating on irc channel #scientology that Bob Minton and Stacy Young were having an affair at the time (or shortly before) that the SP Times article appeared. Whether the affair was 'sexual' or not is something I think only Bob Minton or Stacy Young could verify. I'm not at all sure that proof of specific sexual acts are required to prove or disprove the existence of an affair, except perhaps in divorce cases in which adultery is the cause of action. I don't believe a.r.s. serves as a surrogate divorce court.
>Was that wrong? No, you did it because you believed he owed people an >explanation of just exactly what he had said, and why he had said it.
No, I didn't believe he owed people an explanation of what he said or why he said it. I offered it as further evidence to support my statement that Bob Minton had lied to the SP Times reporter when he claimed he wasn't having an affair with Stacy Young. I'm not at all sure how you came to the conclusion you did about my motive for posting that message, kady, but it's obviously unfounded.
>Was it an attack? Yes, in the sense that he had to defend himself. >Attacks aren't always bad things, you know.
I was not demanding Rod Keller explain or defend himself. I was reporting the statement he made on irc. I knew I was not the only witness to those words and I felt no need to demand anything of Keller. I remembered what I'd read. I was sure others remembered, too.
Rod Keller's response to this post was "Kindly fuck off and die." I replied: ______________________________
Re: Bob Minton conversation August 25, 1998 Author: Diane Richardson Email: refe...@bway.net Date: 1998/08/29 Forums: alt.religion.scientology Message-ID: <35e8494a.5400...@enews.newsguy.com>
On 29 Aug 1998 13:58:49 GMT, rkel...@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:
>Diane Richardson (refe...@bway.net) wrote: >: If you want those claims substantiated, Rob, I'd suggest you talk to >: Rod Keller.
>Kindly fuck off, Diane.
I prefer not to, Rod. Most who read your response will recognize it (and your snippage of my post) as a tacit admission that what I related was the truth. You did indeed state on irc channel #scientology that Bob Minton and Stacy Young were having an affair. This statement was made at least a month ago.
I was not the only person to read this revelation and you know it. I am also sure you were not the only person aware of the Minton/Young relationship at that time.
People like Joni Webb who have expressed the feeling they were duped are correct -- they *were* duped, and not just by Bob Minton and Stacy Young. This is not the first time "insider information" was kept from the "foot soldiers" Joni talks about and it most likely won't be the last.
Keller's response to this was "You haven't posted truth on this channel [sic] for years, Diane. Kindly fuck off."
That was the gist of my exchange with Keller, kady. After digging this up, I'm still puzzled as to why you consider this an example of *my* attacking Keller.
What I've excluded, of course, is a veritable swamp of long harangues posted by Rob Clark against me. Do you think, perhaps, Rob Clark's "rhetoric" may have colored your memory of what actually occurred? That's Rob's purpose in posting such rants -- he's admitted that to me himself.
>As for other attacks, I'm quite sure I've seen you both end up in rhetorical >fisticuffs over a number of other issues, and if we really must do it, I'll go >back into Dejanews and see what I can dig up to defend that position.
>(I have also seen you attack other people, however, on IRC, including Shelley >Thomson and a number of others.)
I'm no angel either, kady, and I don't wish to portray myself as one. I can get just as hot under the collar as the next poster. Nevertheless, I fail to see why you characterize my posts as "attacks" when they're far less heated than many others'.
>>Unless Rod Keller chooses not to archive his posts to Dejanews, we can look >>over the recent episode and analyze it closely. I'd like to do this just to >>>>learn what it is I say that others consider an "attack" on them.
>Well, when you put someone on the defensive suddenly, without warning, that >could constitute an 'attack'. In the Minton thread, for instance, you brought >up the conversation on IRC out of nowhere, and began badgering Rod to explain >himself.
I brought up the irc conversation in support of a statement I had made. I didn't realize netiquette required prior approval before mentioning anything said on irc. If that's the case, there are plenty of socially inept people on a.r.s. ;-)
As for badgering Rod or demanding an explanation from him, I did nothing of the sort, as you can see for yourself. I'm not sure where you came up with that.
>Now, as I said earlier, you can make the argument that this was entirely >justified, since it had to do with 'public' information that was pertinent to >a.r.s. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was, at least in my >definition for the purposes of this thread, an attack.
Unless I've missed something, I didn't engage in the activity you use to define an "attack." I did not demand a statement from Rod Keller. I didn't badger him. I'm not quite sure how you've arrived at the conclusion I did.
>I'm not exonerating Rod, I'm not vilifying you. I just don't think that either >of you is lily white when it comes to mutual antagonization, that's all.
I think you're entirely ignoring the *real* antagonizer in this whole matter, kady. It is, of course, Rob Clark. He's been doing this for quite some time.
WOW - just when I thought I had finish with ars for today, I catch a whole bunch of follow ups on this thread. For some reasons, the thread un-watched itself, so I only caught it by chance, while scanning the remaining thread.
OK - let's get down to business. I doubt I'll have time to answer everybody today, don't even know if I will at all.
>I apologize; when I initially waded into this thread, I was under the >impression that you were accusing critics of behaviour that was worse than >that of some scientologists. (That'll teach me not to read a thread straight >through before jumping in with my opinions and pre-conceived notions, right?)
>Of course, given that you have since established that you find such "violent" >behaviour to be unacceptable coming from either side, that rather makes moot >the point that I was trying to make in this particular paragraph. Sorry about >that.
:-)
>>Well, yes. YMMV. You can kill with bullets - you can also kill with >>words. See what I mean? Some even pretend they can kill with a thought >>;-)
>No, you *can't* kill with words.
<sigh> I thought that my 'see what I mean' would have tipped you off. Now we'll have a whole rant on how you can't literally kill with words, right :-)
>You can use words in a way that may lead >others to commit actual acts of violence, but the fact remains that to take >that final step -- from reading "all psychiatrists are insane criminals who >should be removed from this plane of existence because of the harm they to do >others to actually going out and committing an act of violence *against* a >psychiatrist *solely because of what you have read* -- is more than a matter >of simply reading too many 'violent' posts on USENET.
OK - I understand how you understand my statement now. No, that's not what I mean (that propaganda leads to violence). I mean: you make a snide and hateful remark - you just kill the person figuratively (even if the person is not emotionally hurt). Psychologically, you try to kill the person, to get him out of your way, to shut him up... It's figurative, not directly or indirectly literal.
>I have always been somewhat uncomfortable with the laws against "hate speech" >per se, mainly since I believe that words are just that - words. Not actions. >While I can understand the temptation to hold the writer of hateful words - >say, an Ernst Zundel, for example - responsible for whatever acts may be >spawned by his words, I think it is a fine line to draw. Telling someone to >"go out and kill the Jews/Scientologists/psychiatrists/critics" is different >from writing posts that may, in rare and tragic cases, lead to someone doing >just that. I don't think anyone on a.r.s. would ever do the latter >consciously, but I will concur that the possibility is always there. On both >sides.
But who does it consciously? People are usually convinced that they are on the right side, and that the other is on the wrong side. Isn't that the modus operandi of every war?
>There is a difference, I think, between trying to "slaughter everything in >sight through words" and even your first comment, which is that "trying to >hurt another is a violent act." When I criticize some aspect of scientology, >I am no trying to hurt any individual scientologist. I am commenting on >something about the organization itself. I will sadly admit that in some >cases, people on a.r.s. do not make much effort to avoid "hurt[ing] another >with ... a snide remark," but I think this is more due to the cartoon-like >quality to many of the offiical OSA-bot posters to a.r.s., which do not seem >capable of being 'hurt' in the orthodox sense of the word.
>Does wgert feel bad when people tease him about his pig? I don't know. I've >never seen him reply to posts here in anything approaching a 'personal' way. >He posts whatever dead agent material or juicy court documents his superiors >have handed to him; he makes snide remarks about various critics, he outs >people. He doesn't seem to react to anything that is said to him, so I'd be >hardpressed to say that he is 'hurt' by snide remarks launched in his >direction. In fact, for wgert, this seems to be a job - nothing more, nothing >less.
>None of this, of course, is in any way meant to argue that critics ought not >concern themselves with whether their words make scientologists feel that they >have been hurt, whether justified or not. I've been through the 'clam' wars. >When I see critics behaving badly, or treating others in what I see as a >dehumanizing way, I say something. I do acknowledge that some of your points >may -- sadly -- be correct, but I think it's also possible that you have >become so discouraged by what you see as pervasive violence amongst critics >that you miss the voices of reason.
My comment is general, really. Not just for critics. We do it at every level in life - through greed, jalousy, hurt, insecurity. It's just the unfolding human drama.
>I think Dennis can be blunt, and harsh, but violent? I just don't see it. I'm >sorry. (And I've been on the receiving end of his blunt/harshness myself.) >Using your broad definition of 'violent', as in, that which causes another to >feel pain, I suppose that's true - but then, I could say the same thing about >*your* posts. And, probably, about anyone else on this group. There is nothing >one can say that won't offend somebody, somewhere. That's not violence, that's >reality.
>Do you think it's possible, though, that some posters to a.r.s. who you might >see as 'more often violent' are, in fact, channeling whatever anger and >bitterness they might have towards scientology into this medium, rather than >letting it devour them from the inside, or take it out in the real world?
> For the record, to continue using Dennis as an example, I have read posts >from him that are unquestionably angry, particularly when he discusses the >effect of scientology on his relationship with his daughters. I have never >seen him threaten violence - actual, physical violence - against anyone.
His FOAD, and "do it soon" are extremely violent, for example. His deliberate misreading in Margaret's intentions and his outing of her was violent. I could go on and on. In my eyes, he is a violent man. That doesn't necessarily make him a *bad* man. It's two different things.
>>I think that what comes out through the present kind of electronic >>forum is more the real person than what can be known through the real >>life behavior of this person. I am quite confident that I know better >>many posters around here than I know my colleagues whom I see every >>day.
>I'm not sure about that. Surely you have heard of the phenomenon of 'net >personas' -- the often-exaggerated characters that 'real people' become when >behind a keyboard. Often, these personas are far more outgoing than the person >himself - or herself - is in real life. So which is the 'real' person - the >online or offline persona?
Good question. Now I am not sure. Maybe they effectively become two different persons? Possible. But then, aren't we a different person in different IRL situations too? Of course, the fact that you don't have to put up with a face on the net maybe eases off communication? Or does it hinder and reduces it? Does it allow more of the real person to come out, or does it encourages the creation of a net personna, as you say?
I have a very definite image of each poster - at least those I have read for a long time, and even more so about those I have exchanged ideas with. I tend to think that this is the real person - but maybe that's just an illusion.
>Or are they both just facets of the complicated, >contradictory nature of a fairly typical human being?
Would read it that way from the paragraph above.
>It is, I'll agree, far easier to hurl vitriol at someone who is no more than >ASCII characters glowing on a screen than it is to do the same to someone >you meet face to face. I think that goes for both scientologists and critics. >Many of the most outrageous posters would undoubtedly be perfectly polite to a >scientologist they encountered on the street. There is a curious quality to >this medium that I don't think is unique to a.r.s. Is it a good thing or a bad >thing? Damned if I know. It just *is*.
Eh - I see we are on the same mind about that :-)
>You can read Jeff from here till eternity -- or, if you prefer, go back in >time through DejaNews - and you won't find a single violent outburst. That >doesn't mean he doesn't get angry. But he is -- of all arsians, scientologist, >critic or other -- one of the calmest, most reasonable and goodhearted people >on this group.
That has been my impression so far too - even though I disagree with him on more than one point.
>Whoa there, I think that the 'fascism' card has been overplayed already on >this group, if only by Martin Hunt alone. I've never seen Rod attack anyone >without serious provocation
And that's the principle of non-violence? I don't think so.
>- and that includes his rounds with Diane. There >is a history of which you may not be aware, but Diane has certainly done her >share of attacking first.
I only know of Diane what I read on ars - since I don't usually irc.
>From what I see from here is Rod attacking Diane because she pointed
out the fact he mentioned on irc that Minton mentioned about his relation with Stacy and therefore he lied before (confused sentence but what the heck, it's too late at night). Seems to me as yet another cultie trying to protect a sacred cow, you know, like the Cooper thing. I am doubtful about the "Diane just tries to be mean" explanation
...
In article <199810140130.DAA24...@replay.com>, Anonymous
<nob...@replay.com> wrote: > >I'm surprised by this verdict. I have never seen Efish post anything even > >approaching 'violent'. She has, however, posted impassioned attacks on what > >she sees as the monstrous policies of the CoS with regards to dead-agent > >packs, investigative techniques and the like. How is that, in itself, > >'violent'?
> I can't say. I guess it's her lack of understanding on certain issues > that makes me see her that way. That hurts too. Maybe it gives the > wrong impression that it's made on purpose while it may not be.
scuse me??
what lack of understanding and of what issues? or is this sorta an all-encompassing "she is not of an agreement of me thus she fails to understand" kinda thingie?
i admit to a certain impatience with stupidity, but that could hardly be characterized as no understanding. perhaps it's too much understanding, doncha think?
In article <700ufa$...@edrn.newsguy.com>, refe...@bway.net wrote: >In article <700428$27k_...@enews.newsguy.com>, tallu...@storm.ca says...
>[snip]
>>Whoa there, I think that the 'fascism' card has been overplayed already on >>this group, if only by Martin Hunt alone. I've never seen Rod attack anyone >>without serious provocation - and that includes his rounds with Diane. There >>is a history of which you may not be aware, but Diane has certainly done her >>share of attacking first.
>I'm curious about this. Perhaps I may learn something from it. How do you >decide what constitutes an "attack" against someone, kady? Since you've chosen >a specific example, just how have I "attacked" Rod Keller?
Oh, I can recall watching you and Rod go at it right here on this newsgroup over, amongst other things, his comments to an IRC channel about the Minton/Young affair. By 'attack', I suppose I mean to say that you dragged him into a thread in which he was not a party, and put him on the defensive.
Was that wrong? No, you did it because you believed he owed people an explanation of just exactly what he had said, and why he had said it. Was it an attack? Yes, in the sense that he had to defend himself. Attacks aren't always bad things, you know.
As for other attacks, I'm quite sure I've seen you both end up in rhetorical fisticuffs over a number of other issues, and if we really must do it, I'll go back into Dejanews and see what I can dig up to defend that position.
(I have also seen you attack other people, however, on IRC, including Shelley Thomson and a number of others.)
>Unless Rod Keller chooses not to archive his posts to Dejanews, we can look > over >the recent episode and analyze it closely. I'd like to do this just to learn >what it is I say that others consider an "attack" on them.
Well, when you put someone on the defensive suddenly, without warning, that could constitute an 'attack'. In the Minton thread, for instance, you brought up the conversation on IRC out of nowhere, and began badgering Rod to explain himself.
Now, as I said earlier, you can make the argument that this was entirely justified, since it had to do with 'public' information that was pertinent to a.r.s. However, that doesn't change the fact that it was, at least in my definition for the purposes of this thread, an attack.
I'm not exonerating Rod, I'm not vilifying you. I just don't think that either of you is lily white when it comes to mutual antagonization, that's all.
>Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote: >>x...@mindspring.com (Rob Clark) wrote: >>"so-called" non-violence? with the exception of bob minton whapping the idiot >>frank ofman with a length of balsa wood, there has not been a single act of >>violence by any critic. your cult has committed all the violence and killing. >Violence can take many forms, not just physical violence.
Do you think psychological coercion is equal to violence? How about forced captivity? How about mental indoctrination and conditioning without the informed consent of the customer? How about mental indoctrination combined with forced captivity? How about threats and subtle personal harassments? How about isolation from loved ones? Do all those things constitute violence?
This is a political debate, Anony. Try to follow along and maybe you'll actually learn something, such as how to make observations and how to discriminate based on subtle differences.
Hey, maybe you'll learn something that will give you the impetus to stop letting a large group dictate to you what you are supposed to think about us EssPees. We're actually a pretty fun group to hang out with, if you don't condemn us without first getting to know us.
>You are encouraging these through your hateful propaganda
No, we are encouraging YOU Scientologists to stop hating non-Scientologists, and to stop needlessly defining political dissent with criminal conduct, and to stop selling your group's particularly ugly form of elitist bigotry to the public as self-help or spiritual improvement. Obviously we have a ways to go yet...
>- which in itself is a form of violence.
Bzzzt. I'm sorry, that's incorrect. But thanks for playing. Jay, tell Anony Mouse about his lovely parting gifts.
>You minds are awfully violent, and therefore you >are just being hypocritical when you gloat at your "non-violence".
Ah, once again we see the vaunted oWE TeE SoOPeR poWErz in action...
Kids, newbies, lurkers, this is what Scientologists call "knowing how to know." Don't let it happen to you.
-- Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail) Honorary Kid
: I'm not exonerating Rod, I'm not vilifying you. I just don't think that either : of you is lily white when it comes to mutual antagonization, that's all.
I'll live with that.
-- Rod Keller / rkel...@voicenet.com / Irresponsible Publisher Black Hat #1 / Expert of the Toilet / CWPD Mouthpiece The Lerma Apologist / Merchant of Chaos / Vision of Destruction Killer Rod / OSA Patsy / Quasi-Scieno / Mental Bully
> >>Yes - he was pretty disgusting in his behavior with Claire Swazey, and > >>on some other occasion too. Most of the time he behaves, though.
> In article <700428$27k_...@enews.newsguy.com>, tallu...@storm.ca says...
> >As I recall, Warrior was suspicious of whether Claire was telling the truth > >about her purpose on a.r.s. Is healthy scepticism "violent"?
> I pointed out some of Claire's lies and called her a "slimy Q&A artist" > for failing to tell the whole truth and for failing to answer questions. > She called me "anal retentive" and a "closet Scientologist".
> Now some anonymous person calls me "violent" and accuses *me* of being > "pretty disgusting in [my] behavior" ?!?!
One can always rely on "Warrior" <giggle> to provide some of the more sanctimonious claptrap we read here. Which is saying something, isn't it?
In your unrelenting, baiting diatribe with Claire you were both violent and disgusting. When I took you up on this myself -- but only in passing, as I was more interested to see if you had it in you to fess up to something else -- you promptly returned to being the more "normal" Whining Warrior Wimp of a.r.s. <tm>.
As such, you refused to fess up, i.e., to answer the simple question I asked you. The answer to which question was also the answer to your violent and disgusting, but also rather stupid, hammering of Claire.
Eventually you had to concede -- but only because I forced you to it -- that you'd had no point to begin with. Of course you didn't do this honestly either. Instead you pretended you'd been making another point. Which was a lie. It was also pretty funny. LOL
During the course of your insulting responses to my posts on the above you also managed to lie about Ron Chester. When I pointed this out, you then tried covering up your lie, but succeeded only in obliging me to document it -- by quoting your own, lying words.
I'll snip the rest of your self-serving claptrap, but will include below, for anyone who may be interested, a copy of the last post I wrote with regard to this -- and to which neither you nor anyone else replied.
I see you've begun cross-posting again. I don't see why. In any event, this is going to be the only article I intentionally cross-post myself.
> In article <35E1E950.6...@hermes.it>, Enzo says...
> >My ISP's news server went on the blink about four weeks ago, and it > >became more effort than I considered it was worth to follow up an > >article I'd written concerning "Warrior" and some of his bot think on > >the subject of Scn.
> In the future I will have more important things to do than > to respond to your postings, Enzo.
Would that you had such more important things to do. And I'm not referring to any importance you might care to assign to what I write myself, but to the relative importance you might wish to give some of what you choose to write, or not write, yourself.
That noted, your statement above makes it's evident from the start that your article is also an excuse-in-advance to crap out of a discussion you're unprepared to deal with openly and honestly. No problem. Perhaps you'll be willing to so deal with it in future.
> >Now that things have returned to normal, more or less, I'd like to take > >up where I left off. Which is the same place as I began, as "Warrior" > >addressed nothing of what I wrote in the original article of 28 July.
> Where you left off was with a posting of yours which was insulting. > On July 30th you wrote: "And you peddle yourself as a Christian. What > a disgrace."
> I don't "peddle" myself. But $cientology peddles its scam as a > religion.
You're being selectively self-serving as usual. This was but one of a number of things I wrote. Nor did I consider it an insult so much as a simple, well merited, critical observation.
As for diatribe of this kind, you've obviously not the same quibble about writing it as you have in reading it, as your comment above immediately demonstrated. But then this is classic a.r.s. hypocrisy and is barely worth having noted.
> >He did, however, manage to make a false allegation about Ron Chester, > >one of the directors of TNX, the private mailing list for Sci'ts. A > >false allegation I called him on, but which he crapped out of as well.
> I said he was with OSA. According to Ron's own TNX posting he is the > TNX Administrator & liaison with OSA. Here's what Ron wrote, in part:
> >Here's the story. As TNX Administrator, it is sometimes necessary for me > >to look around ars a bit, usually in response to applications for TNX that > >have been submitted. I have also become our liaison with the person > >handling the Internet at OSA Int, and we have developed a good working > >relationship. As a result of a number of comm cycles with OSA , I learned > >that the Church does not want any Church public posting to this entheta > >forum.
Following is what you actually wrote.
[Begins] I have consistently pointed out that Scientology policy expressedly forbids Scientologists from posting here, unless it is their "hat". In addition, I have referenced excerpts from an issue written by ~OSA staff member Ron Chester~, [ed. emphasis added] which support what I have posted. So it seems to me that you are invalidating not only a _member_ of your own cult, but you are invalidating what _Hubbard_ wrote as well. [Ends]
In a subsequent post, and in reply to my having corrected you, you insisted as follows.
[Begins] Ron stated in an issue leaked to ars from the TNX that ~as part of his work at OSA~ [ed. emphasis added] he occasionally poked around the Internet to check out people who applied for inclusion on the TNX list. [Ends]
