What a clever little zinger! The style points are rolling in now...

Now wait just one damned minute. Deprogramming implies brainwashing, and
since there is no such thing as brainwashing (according to you) it's
rather hypocritical of you to be using this particular form of slur to
lash out at Dennis. Or are you now willing to concede that some forms of
human manipulation could coerce a person against her will?

Indeed, did Dennis coerce you into violating some private confidences,
Diane? Did he maneuver you, lie to you, trick you? Aren't you to blame
for agreeing to be maneuvered?

But since your personality hasn't been altered, no harm could have been
done. Case dismissed.

--
Michael Reuss   (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
Honorary Kid

In article <33e7bd4f.3371...@snews.zippo.com>,

Wow [tm]!  I must have really gotten to you, Diane.  Although we've been
on a.r.s an identical length of time (both started lurking in Dec '94 and
both started posting in Feb '95), AFAICR this is the first time you've ever
responded to Yours Truly, Anonymous Scum, including the 6 or 7 emails
I've sent you over that time.

Why would you post if you didn't enjoy it?  Nobody's forcing you to,
you know.

It has also become obvious to me since the beginning of the Bast
thread how much delight you take in verbally knifing others.

I'm not reading your mind, Diane.  I'm observing your public behavior.

Are you denying you felt pleasure when you posted the copyright
infringement you found in the FACTNet database?

                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How could you expect anyone to believe this, given the quote from your
original post, that you left in, above?

The fact that you would have to be informed, rather than using your
own judgement in the matter, speaks volumes.

And you yourself.

"Oooh, look what that bad old Dennis Erlich made me do!"

You did what you did out of choice.  Or are you saying Dennis Erlich
has you under some form of mind control?

The gold and diamonds are what's really valuable in life: the trust
and deep caring between people.  The tin-foil is looking "right" on
a Usenet newsgroup, or any other kind of reputation or fame.

[snip]

Pretty thin, Diane.

This is completely untrue.  If you had ever bothered to read my posts,
you would see that all the interactions I've had with Dennis in the past
3 months were my calling him on some statement or another that he made.

I'm an equal-opportunity pouncer, Diane.  I'll challenge anyone who
touts a double standard, implies a non-practice of equal rights, or
advocates hatred or intolerance.

I, like you, have chided many critics, as well as many $cientologists.
I'm surprised you don't respect this, as it's behavior you constantly
advocate yourself.

Or are you saying it's good to criticize a.r.s critics except when
it turns out to be Diane Richardson who's on the receiving end?

Your lame attempts to make Dennis responsible for your actions have
a certain LRH PR Tech ring to them.  I'm amazed you think anyone
as well-versed in this technique as a.r.s. readers are would fall
for it.

I think you're not telling us the truth here.

If you really don't like what you're doing, why don't you stop?

Haw, haw!

How have I ever presented anything as some sort of fact?  By your own
definition, anonymous scum are incapable of presenting facts, because
they are not verifiable.

But that certainly doesn't stop me from calling 'em as I see 'em.

Actually, I was referring to the obvious pleasure you got from posting
the FACTNet copyright violation (and the Bast stuff).  I think
perhaps the instant violations of confidence are more just the result
of an extremely twisted value system, as I originally stated.

But the triumphant tone in your post does bespeak a certain level of
enjoyment.

I have not commented on Dennis's behavior in this exchange.  Are you
claiming you can read my mind?

I have re-read it.  I have not changed my mind.

This statement is not rational, Diane.  It is paranoid raving.

Once again, if you had ever bothered to read my posts, you would have
seen that multiple times I have posted to this ng that I don't believe
in "evil."  I think it's a label people put on others in order to
justify doing things to them that would otherwise lie outside their
moral code.

And as for dangerous, I have never mentioned this either.  My most
severe criticisms of you lately have been when you posted private
email from Paulette Cooper without her permission, and when you
attacked Monica Pignotti personally for no other reason than your
own pleasure, weeks after she had moderately departed from the thread.

And, of course, in the post you are quoting.

But now that you mention it, Diane, I do think you're dangerous.
You don't abide by social conventions that are taken for granted
by most people.  You obviously think the trust other people place
in you has no value.  And you're willing to hurt people IRL for
perceived slights in cyberspace.

I think this qualifies for the label "dangerous."  I certainly no
longer trust you after witnessing this behavior.

What bias against you?

If anything, I have been biased in your favor all along.  You have
merely done as much as you could to continue to erode that bias.  Why
do you think I referred to the Bast thread as a "lemming march" ?
It seemed like everyone involved was hell-bent on destroying whatever
respect I had for them.  It worked, too.

And you have taken it further since that time.

Now it's down to the point where, if anything, I am no longer willing
to give you much benefit of the doubt.  I'm not saying I've lost
all respect for you, but the amount that remains is miniscule
compared to what it was up until October of 1996.

I noticed you snipped (without annotation) my comment that OSA could
be the only possible beneficiary (besides the pleasure you derive from
it) of your actions in spotlighting the FACTNet copyright violation.  
Does that mean you agree with my claim?

[between hurting people IRL and perceived slights on Usenet and IRC.]

Reductio ad absurdem Prignillium, huh?  Well, I'm sad to say that to
me you are something much more than electron patterns on a monitor.  
You are a capable and intelligent human being, one whom I used to have
a great deal of respect for.

This is a lie, but we'll let it pass.

Then I guess your destruction of my respect and esteem for you really
wasn't worth much of anything, was it?

Prignillius

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Prignillius                             prignill...@nym.alias.net |
|                                                                   |
|      The only really important things that happen in this         |
|      universe are the feelings of caring that can develop         |
|      in one human being towards another.                      
...

read more »

In article <344d6b2f.125237...@snews.zippo.com>,

Thanks, Bernie. I'll check it out on DejaNews. I've been
wondering where some of the old regulars disappeared to.

Maybe this explains their absence?

In article <344d6b2f.125237...@snews.zippo.com>, b...@arcadis.be says...

I've never posted here, so if I cover old ground, live with it :)
  Let us grant that what you say is 100% true.  The ARS anti-scienos were
mistaken about Operation Freakout actually happening.  I see this more as
"human error" than anything else, and see no cause to disbelieve the
substance of what they say because of it.
   Furthermore, the fact that this operation was PLANNED but never actually
CARRIED OUT because the cult was busted is a poor argument for minimizing  
the cult's responsibility.  The fact that it was planned at all villifies the
cult as much as the actually carrying out of the plan, and certainly, in my
eyes, lends credibility to many of the other accusations from the anti-cult
viewpoint.
   All in all, I am left with the questions: "What crimes have they never
been busted for?" and "How far are they willing to go to shut up a critic?"  
Contemplating both questions is chilling.

On 8 Aug 1997 00:25:00 GMT, Jsm...@jsmith.net (John Smith) wrote:

That was not the purpose of my pointing out the error.  Paulette
Cooper never made any effort to correct the mistaken impression that
Operation Freakout was actually carried out against her.  She had
every opportunity to correct the record but did not attempt to do so.

Perhaps even more tellingly, a.r.s. participants refused to believe
the facts of the matter, even when those facts were presented to them
directly.  Rather than accepting the accuracy of my statements that
Operation Freakout was never carried out, a.r.s. participants chose to
attack me for having the audacity to correct the record.

I was turned into a villain because I investigated the historical
records of these events and reported the facts to this newsgroup.  It
appears that some readers of a.r.s. prefer believing in a myth than in
learning the truth.

There was never a need to carry out the Operation Freakout plans.
Paulette Cooper settled with the cult for an undisclosed amount of
money before the plans could ever be put into effect.

Yes, the very fact that such plans were made, even though not carried
out, is quite damning evidence that the CoS is an unprincipled
organization willing to stoop to any level.  I have never claimed
otherwise.

Indeed it is chilling.  Stooping to their level, however, is not the
answer.  Many long-time participants on this newsgroup, however, do
not appear to agree with me on that.

Diane Richardson
refe...@bway.net

In article <341aac79.77975...@snews.zippo.com>,

Huh?  It is totally in keeping with the established practices of the
morally vacuous Church of Scientology.  These practices have been
attested to by just about every ex-$cieno who has ever posted here,
including you.

I see nothing strange in the assumption.

I try never to exclude any possibilities.  However, I have evidence that
she was chained in the basement, and no evidence that she was not.

Which do you think I'm likely to believe right now?

Fine.  AFAI'mC, you're welcome to assume whatever you like.  But this
is one assumption that flies in the face of the evidence.

Bernie, this is one of the funniest things I have read on a.r.s lately.
Thanks for the laugh.

Kind of like your paranoid "assumption" that Dennis is making the
story up, but proven liar wgert is telling the truth, even though
he presents no evidence to back up his claim?

Come on, Bernie, you can do better than that.

Ridiculous.

(And I prefer to be referred to as Prignillius.)

As may yours.  And I'm not trying to persuade you to my point of view.
Just stating it.

Do you mean, "Come on, Prig" ?

How many of wgert's posts to this ng over the past 6 months have
you read, Bernie?  This one only?  I think you're making a fool
out of yourself here.

I have seen no such statement.  The evidence for its existence is rather
shaky, the only scrap being a statement by a proven liar and spokesthetan
for the Church of $cientology.

Laughable.  Have you forgotten who you're talking to here, Bernie?

Of course there are.  They just don't post here (since Beth McCoy left,
at least ;)

To attribute such beliefs to me is way beyond misguided.  Have you ever
read any of my posts, Bernie?

However, it seems like you are also denying that it is sacramental in
$cientology to lie to the press and to lie in other public statements
about the Church.

Surely you can't be meaning this.  You were in the GO, so you must know
about TR-L.  Even if not, the PR Series is known to non-GO members,
and is obviously practiced by Co$ spokesthetans on this ng, such as
wgert.

I would say, to assume an official mouthpiece of the Co$ is telling the
truth when he talks to the public about the morally bankrupt Church of
Scientology is just plain foolish.

What if the Marquis de Lafayette had been born a woman?

Bernie, as I said in my post to wgert, one of the problems with
belonging to a Church that lies all the time is that people tend
to quit believing what it claims.

And tell me, do you honestly believe that an on-lines $cientologist
will say anything other that what they are instructed to say in a
public declaration concerning the Church?

You are either being disingenuous in these comparisons, or you have
not thought them out very well.

Prignillius

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +
| Prignillius                             prignill...@nym.alias.net |
|                                                                   |
|   As any control we exert upon the public brings about a better   |
|   society, we are entirely justified in using control.            |
|                                                - L. Ron Hubbard   |
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +

inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote in article
<33effb62.7403...@snews.zippo.com>:

Which shows how these "weeks in review" are reliable and
objective.

Evidenced by your ignorant statement that Operation Freakout of
1976 was enacted because Paulette was alleged to make a bomb
threat in 1973, it appears that you didn't follow the debate
even though you *were* on line at the time. Yet you accuse
someone who wasn't in the newsgroup at the time to be "clueless"
for not being abreast about these events. Your hypocrisy shows
up once again, Dennis.

This point was debated over and over during the thread. You are
making a fool of yourself by bringing up an argument that has
been beaten down over and over.

You obviously didn't. The noise could very easily be avoided,
for example by ignoring it and looking at the document
themselves. You obviously didn't do any of it. Yet, you are
willing to launch unfounded and general accusation at others.
You are an hypocrite, Dennis.

What is wrong in the point Diane made, Dennis? Is it OK to make
hurtful, unsubstantiated, and derogatory points against Diane
but when she brings up evidences of what she is talking about
then it all becomes "malevolent"? I see...

Bernie

inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote in article
<33eef75d.6374...@snews.zippo.com>:

Doesn't wash, Dennis. You have been making large,
unsubstantiated, and derogatory accusation against Diane. OTOH,
you constantly ask people to substantiate their claim about what
they say against you, even when it is far from important. Now
you answer this most central question of Peter with more general
and unsubstantiated accusation and ask him to check DejaNews?

You did the same with me, Dennis. You snorted at my request to
substantiated your claim about accusation you have been doing
against me, even though you asked me the same before and I
didn't snort at it. Your cronies rationalized your behavior away
when I said that you were an hypocrite. You are now again doing
the same thing, only on a much larger and blatant scale. You
really *are* an hypocrite, Dennis. It all comes out in the clear
now, although I trust your cronies to come up with excuse about
that again.

Bernie